AndyC

I dunno about that, it's easy to forget as AFOLs, but 2K spent on Lego is quite a lot compared to what a typical person would spend (even those who have signed up to a loyalty scheme like VIP).

Love it. Especially the note about Special Sets - "but because these sets will build only one model it is better to start your collection with one of the Basic Sets and get a Special Set later" - how times have changed!

I doubt TLG have much control over how long a "Retiring soon" set will be available. Presumably they'll tag it like that once production has stopped and there is some expectation of stocks running out shortly. Quite how long that will be though would be entirely determined by how sales actually go. And, to be honest, I can't imagine they're all that worried about scalpers buying up the last of the stock - from their point of view that's still sales and sales that didn't have to be discounted to clear at that.

Whilst I completely agree that most of the "Chinese plastic" complaints don't really stand up to much scrutiny (what difference there is can just as easily be attributed to other factors rather than China specifically), it's entirely possible that TLG have traced failing parts back to that factory or indeed just had significant issues that were caught by internal quality control before ever seeing the light of day. If TLG really is moving away from Chinese production, there may be any number of reasons for it and it's certainly possible that quality control factors in somewhere.

Another reason for not saying yay/nay to the modular western is that doing so without being able to talk about the situation regarding the licensed models is simply that doing so would start to break down the whole concept of periodic review cycles. People will come to expect announcements to be made in something of a piecemeal fashion, which then starts to raise the question of why anyone has to wait for a review period at all, why not just assess and announce as each product hits the target? Obviously that isn't the way TLG wants it to work, otherwise they'd have done so in the first place, so instead they kind of have no choice but to hold it all off to a point they can make a clear decision. In the long run though, I think the Cuusoo team might need to restructure things to treat licensed concepts somewhat differently to others, because these kind of delays aren't really helping Cuusoo to feel successful.

If you think your idea is something likely to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams etc, then don't submit it. I suspect, however, that probably isn't true for the most part and, for some at least, getting to see their idea turned into reality is reward enough.

Are you sure about those collision errors on p57,58? It looks like you have the click-hinge bricks slightly off (only one of each pair on each engine is connected) and thus the engines are too far forward. I certainly didn't notice anything looking like an illegal build on the real thing.

The big difference here is that the variation in Star Wars predominantly comes from vehicles and, traditionally at least, TLG have found that sets containing vehicles just sell better than sets consisting of buildings/scenery only (presumably because of the swooshability factor!) That and the fact that, like it or not, Star Wars itself is simply a marketing machine - you can pretty much stick a SW logo on any old tat and it'll sell, which is probably not quite so true for most other things, even those as popular as LotR.

I suspect that if you're looking at CuuSoo with an eye to making a profit, you're going to be disappointed. 1% of a limited production run set is probably never going to amount to a huge amount. It's much more about the kudos involved in seeing a creation come to fruition and being able to say "that was my idea" than anything else (CuuSoo does mean wish, after all). That being the case, it's also obvious why most of the promotion work is going to fall on the creator, rather than the CuuSoo site itself. At the end of the day, TLG doesn't really need Cuusoo, it's more a gift to Lego fans than anything else.

Well I voted No, but not quite for the reason given. A few years back a mobile version might have made sense, but we're rapidly reaching the point at which a mobile version of any site is a bit pointless. Mobile devices are rapidly closing in on the point at which there is simply nothing to gain from it over just viewing the full version of a site.

1366*768, 8 Meg broadband and Internet Explorer 10. Anything that's also quite phone-friendly is good too, since I often browse EB on that too.

A big hurrah for getting things back up and running, ASAP!

Thing is, they're probably entirely right to do that. What would be the point in them releasing wave after wave of obscure super hero sets that none of the kids in the target audience wanted? Sure it might appeal to a subset of comic fans, but it's hardly a sensible business strategy. At the end of the day the aim is to make sets that kids want to play with and you don't do that by ignoring all the characters they are most interested in. However, that doesn't mean that they won't at some point re-visit some of these comic-con figures and release updated versions of them. If a new Superman movie came out with Bizarro as the main enemy, do you really think TLG would ignore it just because they'd previously released an exclusive design version? Likewise, they'll probably find ways to slot some of the lesser characters into sets here and there along the way.

I wonder if it would rest on one of these? From which you could easily build a stand down.

FWIW, I bought a MISB 4483 AT-AT a couple of years back and opened it to find one of the old grey technic beams was slightly deformed. Given that it was long out of production and in a colour that had been phased out, I didn't expect much from customer support, but I gave it a go anyway and to my delight was shipped a replacement ASAP. I think that's a sign of how seriously TLG take trying to help their customers if they can. As to the quality issues, I'm sure they take measures to correct things as they arise. Which doesn't mean that change will ever be instantaneous. And, sometimes, they probably have to accept the practicalities of keeping costs under control means it may be difficult to solve every problem. We, as AFOLs, should certainly play our part in trying to ensure TLG are made aware of problems as and when they arise, but also sometimes have to accept that the level of tolerance we'd all like (and that in the old days TLG pushed for) is sometimes unachievable at the prices we (and others) would be willing to pay.

They're the right size to fit on new P/F track, but out of the box expect to get power from the old-style metal rails. Assuming you can find somewhere to hide a PF battery box and receiver it should however be possible to modify them to run using the newer tech instead (the old 9V motor is exactly the same size as the newer P/F train motor, which helps somewhat)

It's probably an even bigger deal to the licensors and if they say custom heads are a requirement, TLG wouldn't actually have much say in the matter if they wanted the license.

I doubt you'll ever find the answer anywhere outside of TLG, it's not the sort of information they're likely to make public.

Pneumatics are expensive parts to produce, so even if they make a return soon it's likely going to be in a more expensive model. 8049 isn't the most exciting model ever, but if you can get hold of it for a reasonable price then it's definitely a good way of getting some pneumatic parts.

I sort of agree, it doesn't quite have the "That's Lego!?!?!" appearance that the Emerald Night has. However the price we paid for that look was, most probably, only getting the one passenger car to go with it. In contrast, here we get a 'reasonable' length train with just one set and much better expandability by buying a secondary set, because when you do you aren't having to put a large proportion of the set contents into a 'spares' pile unlike with the EN.

It's a bit disappointing, but probably to be expected. Redesigning only the body probably avoids lots of problems for TLG when it comes to cost, reliability etc. It may not be the competition many AFOLs would like, but the prize is still something money can't buy and it might inspire some younger builders, in particular, to be more creative with Lego. And isn't that the ultimate point?

Wow! This one came as a complete surprise but a very nice one at that. The idea of a Creator "expert" line is also quite intriguing, possibly a sign we'll see some more advanced building techniques becoming a bit more mainstream.

You're mistaken. Unfortunately the hole is larger than a normal technic one and won't hold a pin. There are a few fudged methods for getting a wheel to sit there (requires modifying parts) if you dig around the forum a bit, but nothing you can easily rely on.

They're physically interchangeable (indeed when the smooth version was introduced it was hit & miss which version you'd find in the box). The only time it makes a difference is if you're using the teeth. Or to be utterly pedantic, in reality, if you tried to place 2 toothed versions facing each other instead of two smoothed ones where the teeth might "accidentally" mesh. It's not really an issue in digital versions though, because they aren't going to accidentally slide together.

Wasn't that also true of all the original old studded bricks though? (the 1x1 being a much later addition IIRC) I suspect, as Aanchir suggests, that modern molding techniques just allow them to deal with thinner walls and therefore put the hole in the "right" place. It's possible that they could do that with all the pieces, but it would probably introduce an even subtler incompatibility that would be even harder to spot (i.e. between "old" and "fixed" technic bricks)