| |
In lugnet.general, Justin Husman writes:
> In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Justin,
> >
> > Just wanted to give you a heads up to follow ups to this to
> >
> > http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/clone-brands/
> >
> > Scott S.
>
> Oh. Sorry. Did I do something wrong?
Nothing dreadful, but Clone brands are anathema to most people around here
and so are relegated to their own Exclusive Posting Group!
As for your critiqute, I agree in general with your concerns about Block-Men
pricing, but only because it’s a Clone; not because of the bad piece:price
ratio.
For comparison, you might take a look at the following Lego sets that offer
similarly poor ratios:
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=6486-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=6566-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=6565-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=6327-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=7121-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=7128-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=4940-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=4959-1
I grant you, the off-balancing pricing of some Lego sets doesn’t justify the
similar skewing of other companies, but those other companies can hardly be
faulted without acknowledging the same practice of Lego.
While we’re at it, though, has anyone else noticed that the $20-range Star
Wars sets have diminished in number of pieces? The Snowspeeder had 212, the
Naboo Fighter had 174, and Slave-1 has 165. What gives? Especially
considering that the MegaBloks Combat Tank has around 300 pieces for $9.99!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
