Subject:
|
Re: Article On Playmobil
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:02:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1371 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, James Stacey wrote:
> > Are they saying precicely what we'd like LEGO to be saying ??
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2ksug
>
>
> For me, anyway: Just about. Licensing has brought us a lot of new parts and some
> neat sets but it's not clear that was the only way to get those.
>
> The question is, is LEGO different enough from Playmobil that the same strategy
> wouldn't work for LEGO? I'm not sure but am tending to think not that different.
Licensing or not, they are very different products. Playmobil is not a building
toy. Lego has been wishing to bypass the fact that it is a building toy!
Quick-build and action playset and all that.
Playmobil has even tried to become a building toy: X-10 System. But it is very
limited and there is almost zero demand for it. Once built, Playmobil structures
are about impossible to take apart, like a puzzle.
-Erik
playmobil user since 1976
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Article On Playmobil
|
| (...) neat sets but it's not clear that was the only way to get those. The question is, is LEGO different enough from Playmobil that the same strategy wouldn't work for LEGO? I'm not sure but am tending to think not that different. (21 years ago, 26-Dec-03, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
