| |
In lugnet.general, David Zorn writes:
>
> Dave, I'm glad you raised this, but the clone brand experience cuts both ways.
>
> SETS AND PARTS
>
> It is only in the last year or 2 that one can say that the quality of the
> clone sets and parts has improved. Anyone familiar with the older MegaBlock
> sets (Western, Castle, Viking, Space Alien, Creature Seeker) would have to
> say that they were the *ultimate* in POOPs, BURPs, SPUDs, and every other
> kind of molded part one could think of. Buildings and vessels were one or
> two enormous POOP/SPUDs tacked together.
I must disagree with you here... though I don't use clone brands currently,
the highest quality clones I've seen date back to the 80s...
I received a bucket of Tyco Superblocks as a birthday present when I was a
kid. The quality of those pieces were (and still are) as high as Lego.
After I came out of my dark ages I sorted out all of the non-Lego bricks I
had in my collection, which were very few. Of the ones I pulled out the
Tyco ones had held up the best. Some of the colors were identical to their
Lego counterparts (specifially black and yellow.) Other colors were
different that their Lego counterparts, but actually blend in with some of
the older, faded Lego bricks that I have. The Tyco bricks also grip as well
as Lego bricks and were so similar that to this day I still find some mixed
in with my Legos.
To the best of my knowledge there is no discernable change in the color,
shape, or functionality of the Tyco bricks, and though seperated from my
Lego collection I still have most of them. I hold them as a shining example
that it is possible for a company to produce bricks of the same calibur as Lego.
<snip>
>
> LEGO has been expanding its range of offerings in terms of sets. There are
> more 2000 and 2001 lines than before, they are varied, and I think they are
> more realistic. IMO the Star Wars sets are a big improvement in terms of
> juniorization and realism over the past few years of space sets (Insectiod,
> UFO, and Roboforce). And even some of those late 90s silly space sets were
> unfairly maligned. Certainly some of them were great for parts packs. Also,
> look at the UCS, Model Team, Technic, Robotic, Statue of Liberty-type sets.
> Those compete well with the MB offerings in terms of set design, realism,
> playability and attractiveness.
I agree, the SW sets are the best that TLG has produced in almost a decade.
I personally think this is a great time to be an AFOL... Some of the
current Lego offerings may be a bit juniorized, but they are made for kids
after all. Lego is starting to cater to AFOLs, and the sets that are
targetted toward AFOLs show no sign of juniorization. The UCS sets are
marvelous, and though there are some specialty pieces it cannot be said that
they are spotted with contrasting colored parts or padded with SPUDs. The
sculptures certainly don't have any SPUDs or contrasting colors either. In
fact it seems that the only sets that TLG is spotting or padding are the
ones that are specifically made with children in mind, which IMO proves they
are being honest when stating why they put SPUDs and contrasting colors into
their sets.
<snip>
> PRICE
>
> Let's face it, this is where LEGO takes the biggest beating. But I really
> believe that if LEGO could deliver their product at a lower price they
> would. This is not a stupid company. They know that their competitors have a
> huge price advantage.
>
> But, let's also face this, some silly books from the late 70s to the
> contrary, *quality is **not** free*. If you need/want quality for your sets
> or MOCs, you bite the bullet and buy LEGO. So when I want cheap bricks, I
> buy LEGO on discount, not MB. Where you are filling in spaces, etc. you can
> afford to use clone bricks as long as you use a sturdy LEGO frame to hold it
> all together. But I very seriously doubt that clone brands will ever provide
> the same quality at a significantly lower price than LEGO. Certainly they
> have not done so thus far.
It's true that the cost of Lego is quite high... but in terms of quality,
customer service, set selection, and piece selection Lego has the
competition beat hands down. IMO (and the "O" of many others apparently)
the extra cost of buying Lego is justifiable in light of the added benefits.
It has been shown time and time again that people are willing to pay more
for a higher quality product, more responsive and positive customer service,
and more variety in their selection... so until one of the clone brands can
provide the benefits of Lego at a lower price, TLG will maintain the
significantly higher share of the market.
> LEGO is reversing trends in terms of set design. Maybe not as fast as we'd
> like and maybe not in all of the themes we'd like. But it is happening.
> Thankfully, they are not significantly reducing part quality and that is
> going to keep prices higher than the clones.
>
> Thanks for reading this far.
>
> David Zorn
The best trend I see from Lego is targeting AFOLs. The bulk offerings, the
sculptures, and the high quality models such as UCS and model team. After
all, AFOLs have a whole lot more money to spend than KFOLS (kid fans of Lego?)
However, it is important to remember that TLC is first and foremost a toy
company, and they will always view children as their main consumer... I
think Lego would lose it's appeal if they didn't.
-Bryan
hobartrus@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/hobartrus/index.html
http://brickshelf.com/gallery/hobartrus
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
