Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Doddsino]

8 minutes ago, MAB said:

Many other factors were involved too, not least the increase in incomes in the 80s. Many toys became more popular because many more families had money to spend. 

And personally,  I don't think LEGO would be where it is today if minifigures all had yellow classic smiley faces.

Minifigures certainly *did* play a huge part if you ask any older Lego collectors as it opened up an entire new direction of building. Lego tried multiple different figure concepts that never caught on. With minifigures, that changed the entire focus of the branding.

As far as your second point, and again this is opinion...but the period when they were getting away from smileys, namely the late 90's to early 2000's, Lego was putting out some of its worst product. Sure there was Star Wars, but almost everything else from this period was not very good. Bionicle really saved Lego when they were at their blandest.

I can understand not using the classic smileys on licensed franchises, but I don't think it makes a lick of difference with anything that Lego conceptionally creates themselves. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Doddsino

[Yperio_Bricks]

Why would any kid prefer a classic smilie? That's beyond me. Kids want the best and detailed minifigures too. Only some AFOLs ask for smilie faces like 40 years ago...

I was born 1983 and when i was a kid playing with LEGO i aimed for the most realistic castle or city or ship i could build with the available pieces. My parents, my brother an me often visited castles whenever there was one nearby. I still remember how impressed i was when i first saw Carcassonne or Dover Castle. We visited even some fairs or reenactments. I liked to watch movies about knights, Robin Hood, etc. I read books, listen to audio plays and liked to watch pictures and paintings about knights, castles and medieval life. I was also into seafaring and pirates.

Many AFOLs underestimate kids or they are not around kids and so they think, what was good enough 40 years ago must be good enough today. Sorry, but no.

[Doddsino]

12 minutes ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Many AFOLs underestimate kids or they are not around kids and so they think, what was good enough 40 years ago must be good enough today. Sorry, but no.

I think you missed my original point about having the obnoxious facial expressions on today's figures. There's plenty you can do with the smiley figures without giving them a permanent scowl, scream or off center smirk. That to me isn't "realistic".

 

And the argument I made about today's kids wasn't regarding how what I had was better than them, because that isn't true. What I did say was that needing to have an emoting face limits what you can do with that face. I can't see the counterargument especially when it seems that most of the anti-smiley folks are upset they're smiling. I think I'd be more upset if I bought a set and the figure was making some stupid face.

[MAB]

8 hours ago, Doddsino said:

As far as your second point, and again this is opinion...but the period when they were getting away from smileys, namely the late 90's to early 2000's, Lego was putting out some of its worst product. Sure there was Star Wars, but almost everything else from this period was not very good. Bionicle really saved Lego when they were at their blandest.

 

They were doing lots of other things wrong at the time. To link the low period to not using smileys is very bizarre. But if you think there is a correlation between going away from smileys and producing the worst product, then the time when LEGO has been most popular is post TLM to now, when there are hardly any classic smileys so there is a correlation between expressive faces and the most popular product. Of course in reality there are other things going on now that have a larger influence, just like there were when sales were bad.

[Doddsino]

7 minutes ago, MAB said:

They were doing lots of other things wrong at the time. To link the low period to not using smileys is very bizarre. But if you think there is a correlation between going away from smileys and producing the worst product, then the time when LEGO has been most popular is post TLM to now, when there are hardly any classic smileys so there is a correlation between expressive faces and the most popular product. Of course in reality there are other things going on now that have a larger influence, just like there were when sales were bad.

Again, I stated that as an opinion. The bigger point was that Lego was putting out some of its worst ideas as we both agree they were doing. This was just an addition to the bad things they were already doing.

Was it the cause of bad sales? No. But I doubt it helped. In my case at the time, it certainly was another bad blow to what I already saw as a mediocre product, and to this day I don't own any sets from that era. And again, not unanimous, but I've met other people who questioned some of these choices at the time as well. So again, it was Lego taking drastic action in many forms which in my case (and others presumably), they isolated their loyal base a little too much on multiple fronts. 

So it's less about how it hurt them at the time, and more about how it didn't help them whatsoever.

[Karalora]

I don't make fan films or anything like that, but the classic smileys don't read as characters to me. They give the minifigs a mannequin-like quality. It's the iconic LEGO minifigure face, all right, but I have little use for it.

[MAB]

On 7/15/2023 at 6:58 AM, Doddsino said:

Again, I stated that as an opinion. The bigger point was that Lego was putting out some of its worst ideas as we both agree they were doing. This was just an addition to the bad things they were already doing.

Was it the cause of bad sales? No. But I doubt it helped. In my case at the time, it certainly was another bad blow to what I already saw as a mediocre product, and to this day I don't own any sets from that era. And again, not unanimous, but I've met other people who questioned some of these choices at the time as well. So again, it was Lego taking drastic action in many forms which in my case (and others presumably), they isolated their loyal base a little too much on multiple fronts. 

So it's less about how it hurt them at the time, and more about how it didn't help them whatsoever.

And now they are putting out some of their best ever sets and have the highest profits ever, when they are not using classic smileys. 

[The Island Chronicles]

On 7/10/2023 at 1:47 PM, MAB said:

I know everyone has different tastes and that it is OK if you don't like certain themes. I'd be very surprised if anyone loves all themes. I am just very surprised that someone can not like a single set in IDEAS, since it is not really a theme. It is an incredibly broad range of sets that have the single common factor that they were suggested and originally designed by a fan. There are licensed sets, and unlicensed. There are big sets, and small sets. There are highly detailed AFOL aimed sets, there are more child-like sets. There are play sets, there are display sets. There are minifigure scale sets and no-minifigure brick built sets. There are scale models and life-size sets.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply to your comment. I've been busy! 

But I can definately agree with you there. As a town builder, there were sets from Ideas I actually liked and wish I had the funds to acquire and the space to set them up. For example, Discos still exist in towns even if rare. The Home Along house would've been a PERFECT build as an estate for the mayor in my town. I would've had a field day building an office MOC with the minifigs and the accessories from the The Office set. For an apartment MOC, I could've used the Seinfeild, Friends and the Big Bang Theory sets. The treehouse could've been a park area type of thing. The motorized lighthouse for the seaside instead of the lame ones they give us with City and Creator. I dunno what I'd do with the A-Frame Cabin, but....I'll find something to do with it. Then there is the Medieval Blacksmith set that could be an actual business in my town, but the medieval guys in there are just roleplaying. Then I can flavor my town up a bit with some attractions for my minifigures such as the Pirate Ship In A Bottle, the Sesame Street Place, the globe, etc. The possibilities are endless. But because my budget for Lego is very tight, I can only afford to buy sets from City and fix them up to fit my town. Its fun, but I do wish I could've gotten some of the ideas sets. So I agree with you there. From town builders to action figure fans to collectors/displayers, there are lots of different sets for people who have different tastes. 

[Doddsino]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

And now they are putting out some of their best ever sets and have the highest profits ever, when they are not using classic smileys. 

I mean...yeah? They haven't done regular smileys for 25 years, I would hope that any company would rebound regardless of what direction they would take over that course of time. 

I think at the end of the day, I prefer a compromise of both eras, since there was plenty of stuff to not like about stuff from the 70's, 80's and early 90's...but the build aspect was mostly good during that time.

[LegendaryArticuno]

Dreamz is an already dead theme. 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Dreamz is an already dead theme. 

Really? From what i have seen there is quite a bit of positivity here and elsewhere about the sets.

[Peppermint_M]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

Really? From what i have seen there is quite a bit of positivity here and elsewhere about the sets.

It is not exactly the theme that LegendaryArticuno wants, so of course it is a failure 

Personally I am looking forward to getting hold of some. 

[Alexandrina]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

Really? From what i have seen there is quite a bit of positivity here and elsewhere about the sets.

It hasn't even come out yet so there's not even the argument that it's been a sales failure. It doesn't have a technological gimmick like the most recent flops (Vidiyo, Hidden Side) so I can't see how it does that bad.

[LegendaryArticuno]

7 hours ago, MAB said:

Really? From what i have seen there is quite a bit of positivity here and elsewhere about the sets.

I don't have the sales figures to substantiate, but the general sentiment/hype on Reddit and here... pretty much immediately died the day of release. It doesn't help that the value proposition is super inflated, you're not getting the Ninjago discount, but are paying upfront premiums to Lego in order for them to recoup some of the production costs of the show. 

That said, if the Gator-mobile ever goes on a deep enough discount, I'll pick it up... the other sets I could care less, the design is lacking imo.

Edited July 19, 2023 by LegendaryArticuno

[LegendaryArticuno]

Price per Piece is the best the value indicator we the consumers have. In the absence of confidential information, such as, production costs, licensing costs, mandated margins, profiteering and price gouging factors. We the consumers should continue to uphold the $0.10/piece rule of thumb, unless you want to bring a scale with you every time you want to buy a set. Yes, there will be some outliers to the $0.10 per piece ratio, i.e. art sets or dots, but those sets are easily identifiable and no reasonable person would apply the rule of thumb. On the average sets will have both large and small pieces. 

Detractors of the $0.10/piece have only harmed themselves and help make Lego price gouging an acceptable practice.

[danth]

9 minutes ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Price per Piece is the best the value indicator we the consumers have. In the absence of confidential information, such as, production costs, licensing costs, mandated margins, profiteering and price gouging factors.

Anyone arguing that fans need to understand the ins and outs of Lego manufacturing is crazy. They see everything through a corporate lens, and think it's the consumer's job to research those things, instead of a business's job to keep prices down and make products that actually seem like a good deal.

Too many people see themselves as Lego corporate ambassadors, earning magical brownie points for defending Lego, and someday they will sit at the right hand of Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, and then we'll all be sorry. They despise Lego fans that actually want to build things and talk about Lego.

[The Island Chronicles]

Would it be unpopular to say that I an setting insanely low standards and/or expectations for the 2024 wave of City sets? 2022 was a bang and a half. But winter 2023 disappointed me. Summer 2023 is okay. 

Edited July 19, 2023 by The Brick Boss

[Cristoforus]

An unpopular opinion about Lego that has been occupying space in my head...

 

SOT > SNOT

[Alexandrina]

6 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

I don't have the sales figures to substantiate, but the general sentiment/hype on Reddit and here... pretty much immediately died the day of release.

The sets haven't been released yet, though.

 

6 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

It doesn't help that the value proposition is super inflated, you're not getting the Ninjago discount, but are paying upfront premiums to Lego in order for them to recoup some of the production costs of the show. 

 

4 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Price per Piece is the best the value indicator we the consumers have

If you're trying to argue that Dreamzz is overpriced and that's why it's a dead theme, I'm a little confused. There are eleven sets on Lego.com right now. Eight of them have a price/piece ratio of less than £0.10 per piece. Of the three outliers, Grimkeeper the Cage Monster is about 11.5p per piece, the Stable of Dream Creatures is pretty much exactly 11p per piece, and the Crocodile Car is about 11.5p per piece. I wouldn't say any of those are far beyond the average price (and we're also getting the Dream Village, which isn't much more than 5p per piece, so there are some very good deals among the range)

[LegendaryArticuno]

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

If you're trying to argue that Dreamzz is overpriced and that's why it's a dead theme, I'm a little confused. There are eleven sets on Lego.com right now. Eight of them have a price/piece ratio of less than £0.10 per piece. Of the three outliers, Grimkeeper the Cage Monster is about 11.5p per piece, the Stable of Dream Creatures is pretty much exactly 11p per piece, and the Crocodile Car is about 11.5p per piece. I wouldn't say any of those are far beyond the average price (and we're also getting the Dream Village, which isn't much more than 5p per piece, so there are some very good deals among the range)

Not in CAD, $0.10 used to be the norm and I presume USD and EUR would've even had better price ratio.

[MAB]

15 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Price per Piece is the best the value indicator we the consumers have. In the absence of confidential information, such as, production costs, licensing costs, mandated margins, profiteering and price gouging factors. We the consumers should continue to uphold the $0.10/piece rule of thumb, unless you want to bring a scale with you every time you want to buy a set. Yes, there will be some outliers to the $0.10 per piece ratio, i.e. art sets or dots, but those sets are easily identifiable and no reasonable person would apply the rule of thumb. On the average sets will have both large and small pieces. 

Detractors of the $0.10/piece have only harmed themselves and help make Lego price gouging an acceptable practice.

There is a much better metric. Do I think the set is worth it. If I do, I will buy it. If I don't, I won't. To me a set is more than just the price divided by the number of parts. Of course different people might score a set in a different way to me and not rate a set I do. But I really don't care what someone else buys. I prefer to pay over 10c a part and enjoy the set than spend under 10c a part and not enjoy it. There are many personal factors that build into the one important one, do I think it is worth it.

It is similar when buying sets for parts, it depends if the parts fit my building style. Brightly coloured parts are almost worthless to me, since I rarely use them and have enough already. Whereas basic parts in natural colours are more valuable.

There is no "we, the consumer". There are so many different consumers looking for such different things, and so many different types of sets, that a single metric cannot work for everyone.

[RichardGoring]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

There is a much better metric. Do I think the set is worth it. If I do, I will buy it. If I don't, I won't. To me a set is more than just the price divided by the number of parts. Of course different people might score a set in a different way to me and not rate a set I do. But I really don't care what someone else buys. I prefer to pay over 10c a part and enjoy the set than spend under 10c a part and not enjoy it. There are many personal factors that build into the one important one, do I think it is worth it.

It is similar when buying sets for parts, it depends if the parts fit my building style. Brightly coloured parts are almost worthless to me, since I rarely use them and have enough already. Whereas basic parts in natural colours are more valuable.

There is no "we, the consumer". There are so many different consumers looking for such different things, and so many different types of sets, that a single metric cannot work for everyone.

Completely agree.

For example, the Black Panther bust is currently for sale from Walmart, on their website (so easily accessible by all) for $150. That's 58% off RRP. The price per piece is staggeringly low. But I won't buy it because the build doesn't interest me and the parts aren't things that I would use.

On the other hand, I bought a 4+ City set which has a terrible price per piece, because I did it with my daughter and we had a fabulous time together. She couldn't have done anything more complex than that, and anything larger would take too long to keep her interested.

[danth]

7 hours ago, MAB said:

There is a much better metric. Do I think the set is worth it. If I do, I will buy it. If I don't, I won't.

That's not a metric. That's like saying "a better metric than Inches is how long I think something is."

Maybe you're just not getting your idea across very well? What do you actually mean here?

I'm guessing you mean that your metric is purely subjective, it's "how much do I like/want the set?"

7 hours ago, MAB said:

There is no "we, the consumer". There are so many different consumers looking for such different things, and so many different types of sets, that a single metric cannot work for everyone.

This reads as strangely nihilistic to me. Price per part doesn't change based on who you are. That's what makes it a metric.

I think you're confusing "how much do I like something?" and "what is this particular objective measurement?".

[MAB]

1 hour ago, danth said:

That's not a metric. That's like saying "a better metric than Inches is how long I think something is."

It is a metric, just a subjective one. A metric is just a measurement of something. It doesn't have to be objective or the same for everyone. How valuable something is to me is a metric, just like 3 stars out of 5 from a movie critic or for an amazon product is a metric. 

Even though it is subjective, it is essentially a combination of multiple objective metrics, but weighted towards what *I* want from a set and that is where the subjectivity comes in. PPP is not a very big deal for me. I weight the number of natural coloured parts much higher than brightly coloured parts, I weight the number of minifigure parts higher than the number of common bricks, I weight the number of regular bricks higher than the number of modified bricks and wedges. I weight the number of licensed figures higher than the number of non-licensed figures, I weight the license or in-house theme depending on whether I like it.  All of those things are objective in that I can count what the set contains. I can then measure the value of the set to me by weighting those objective metrics to form a subjective metric.

If you or anyone else have different weightings for what is important to you and come up with a different score, I don't care as it doesn't affect what I want out of a set. We would both have a metric, even if the result is different. I have a metric telling me what the value is to me, and you have one telling you what the value is to you. For me, the PPP is really quite a minor consideration, as I don't want parts: I want specific parts. Just because PPP is an objective metric doesn't mean it is the right metric. Just like the length of something in inches is a useless metric if the problem being posed is would I wear those clothes. Even if they fit, if they are green and orange stripes with a unicorn on, then I'm not wearing them. The length in that case is a useless metric even if it is an objective one. It is better to find a subjective metric that fits the problem than use a bad but objective metric.

1 hour ago, danth said:

This reads as strangely nihilistic to me. Price per part doesn't change based on who you are. That's what makes it a metric.

I think you're confusing "how much do I like something?" and "what is this particular objective measurement?".

No, I'm not confusing it at all. I can understand that there is more to whether a set is good value or not (especially to an individual) than a single objective measurement. The length of something is determinate, it requires only one objective measurement. The value of something is not, it is indeterminate. There is no single objective measure of value as differnt people will value different aspects. You seem to be confusing determine with indeterminate and trying to apply the idea that because a single measure works for one it should also apply to the other, when it doesn't.

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by MAB

[danth]

I think "how much do I like/want something" is a good question, but "what is a fair price for a new Lego set" is a different question. I think you probably agree.

What you might be missing is that anyone talking about price per piece is talking about the second question.

Price per piece doesn't answer the first question at all. But it does help to answer the second question. It's generally the only hard piece of data we have to answer the second question.

43 minutes ago, MAB said:

There is no single objective measure of value

I think "value" is a confusing word here. A "value" can be purely quantitative (a number value) or purely qualitative (intrinsic value).

Price per piece is an objective measure of a number value.