LEGO® CUUSOO 空想 - Turn your model wishes into reality

[just2good]

Road to Oz reaches 10K, but whether it made the deadline is anybody's guess.

I read somewhere that the deadline was September 3rd. Can anyone verify this?

[Another Brick In The Wall]

I read somewhere that the deadline was September 3rd. Can anyone verify this?

I read on another forum that it made the deadline with just 5 minutes to spare.

[Blondie-Wan]

I read on another forum that it made the deadline with just 5 minutes to spare.

Ok, I finally found where I'd seen the September 1st deadline (or at least one such place, anyway). It's on the LEGO CUUSOO blog:

The 2013 Fall Review Deadline is September 1st

If your project didn’t quite make it this time, you can qualify if you gain 10,000 votes by 12:00 a.m. GMT September 1st. That’s just three months away, so get to it!

That's from a post on June 3 of this year. It seems to rule the Wizard of Oz project out of this batch and into the next one - but wait! A subsequent post (June 14) says this:

Other Reviews in Progress

The earlier review batches are in progress; you can find a summary of the projects in review on our blog. The next review deadline is Monday September 2, 2013. Best of luck on your favorite projects’ journeys to 10,000!

Since this date comes from the more recent post, I presume it's more accurate. It appears the fall batch will include The Wizard of Oz, for a total of at least seven projects (that I know of):

Female Minifigure Set

ATLAS Mini Model

FTL: Faster Than Light

Ghostbusters

Ghostbusters 30th Anniversary

Poptropica: Dr. Hare's Lair

The Road to Oz

Even combining the two Ghostbusters projects, that's still the largest group for a single review period yet... and they've yet to announce the results of the preceding three review periods, already featuring a combined total of nine projects.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Hopefully this convinces them to expedite their decision-making process.

[Faefrost]

Hopefully this convinces them to expedite their decision-making process.

They have a huge backlog right now. The one that kind of shocks me is the "Winter 2012" one? It's 2 projects. Space Troopers and Purdue Pete? The only license is Purdue Pete and lets all be honest. That one ain't gonna be made as a regular commercial set. (At best they may come to some local arrangement like some of those classic promotional sets that some companies had made back in the day. Something for the Purdue Bookstore only. But otherwise they could easily simply spike that one as a matter of "brand fit" and move on). So the question is 'Will Space Troopers trigger an unwanted bit of legal nastiness from the crazy people at Games Workshop? And is that really something we want to deal with over a CuuSoo project?"

Let's look at the current backlog;

Winter 2012:

1. Purdue Pete - Hell no is this gonna happen.

2. Space Troopers - Barring a fight with GW, seems a reasonable project. Some non critical new molds in the proposal, but they could easily be ignored (I don't think the 2 headed alien is a core element). Big question is does it conflict with stuff like Galaxy Squad? And honestly its probably more complimentary than competing. Kind of surprised this one is taking so long to decide on. (once again, in no way believing that they have been spending 9 months deciding on Purdue Pete.)

One other potential thought on the delays on this review. They may be holding off on an announcement until they have selected a set to make. If both of these sets did not pass review they may withold that until they also announce the next review period. Just saying "They all failed" is not exactly good PR.

Spring 2013: A much more complex review period. Some licences. Some major questions. I can understand this one taking some time.

1. Exo Suit - A nice little non licensed set. Although this one I think will face some tough decisions in the design and the business case part of the review. This is one of the first times that we have seen an absolutely pure MOC get to 10k. Somethingthat does not tie back to other IP's and has a build and build style more akin to advanced AFOL's than to a more generalized customer base. If it is producted it will probably be really really changed as some of the connections don't seem viable for play. (The legs each are held on with 1 pneumatic T connector). Once again It's AFOL bait. I'm not sure if it has enough flash to attract the more general market.

2. Andy the Android Logo thingy - Is it in Lego's core interests to make promotional materials for another unrelated company? I can't see this as being a license that Lego would have any desire or business to be paying for. If anything they should be asking Google to subsidize it. A neat computer nerd tchotchky but I can't see the regular Lego customer base having much (any) interest in it. Especially when comparred to some of the more truly exciting stuff we have been seeing pop up lately like BttF, Curiousity, Ghostbusters, etc. This thing is like Purdue Pete on a larger scale.

3. Legend of Zelda - Again! Con's. It failed the first time and still needs at least 1 or 2 critical new molds. It's a video game property, so while enthusiastic the fan base is somewhat smaller than more mainstream pop culture stuff. Pro's. Zelda projects keep coming up. So there is a popularity there. Call this one a toss up. I think it will fail again, but it could go either way.

4. Landrover Discovery - This is the dark horse that might surprise us. It's a big gorgeous and obviously insanely expensive Technic set. But here's the funny thing. Technic fans tend to be older wealthier types who thrive on big expensive technic sets. Short run special edition technic sets sell out on their day of release even with $300 price tags. Just look how well 41999 is doing. So they have good market data for this sort of thing. It may surprise us.

Summer 2013: Another really dense cycle with some complex questions:

1. Mini Shops - I'm not sure on this one? It has some of the problems of Andy the Android thingy, namely Lego advertising for someone else. But it is at least in a more common Lego form with play value. The fact that so many parts of it have differing licences is also problematic. But still it's cute and very Lego'ish at heart. I can see a Lego McDonalds or a Lego Starbucks being interesting and fun collectors items. I don't think this is the strongest overall CuuSoo project. But I think it may be the strongest of this review period.

2. Batman Tumbler - It's Dead Jim! No really, it's a set based on a current and active license, of a vehicle that they have made twice before. Including one version that is still on store shelves. As we saw with teh Sandcrawler existing and in production licences have some pitfalls that are not always apparent. Plus regardless of how good the model is, basing a project proposal on the thought of "The same thing that you currently are selling, but mine's better!" Does not strike me as a winning approach to the review process. Regardless of how true it may or may not be.

3. League of Legends - Ugh! My gut says this fails in the initial "brand fit" review, as soon as someone at TLG fires up League of Legends and discovers that it is principally a team based arena style PvP game. Or heaven forbid the poor somewhat innocent seeming TLG designers accidentally encounter the LoL online community. (Does the Lego health plan cover interwebz related post traumatic stress disorders?) That will probably kick it into that same verbotten category as FPS games. If that doesn't happen then it is a neat Castle'ish sort of fantasy set with some neat figs. They could do worse. It also has the same business case issues that all video games have. Is there enough of a paying player base to allow for sufficient customer conversion?

Summer 2013: Busiest review yet, and some really tough stuff for them to work through.

1. Atlas - FOR SCIENCE! No seriously, it's a gray beer can. I understand it's educational and inspires youth to pay attention to science... but honestly, how? I mean yes it is intelligent, but the full term is "inteligent play". The thing has no play value. And as far as display model? Ummm? It looks like a gray beer can! Needless to say I am thinking this one gets politely voted down by the CuuSoo jury.

2. Female Minifigs - We discussed this one a few pages back. It could go either way, but I suspect that it will not pass review. It is more a message and less a project. It would make one or more nice little Creator type polybag sets. But not really as a standalone CuuSoo set.

3. FTL - a nice project. But it's a miniship set based on a PC game with maybe just barely 1 million copies sold. A good project, but not as strong of a business case as some of the others it will be in review with. Miniships are niche. The particular game this comes from is very niche. It will sadly fall into that same category as the Eve Grifter.

4. Poptropica - The most adorable project ever from an IP that nobody had ever heard of before they saw the pink bunny suit minifig. Pro's? It's literally weaponized cute. Con's? Niche Video game project that isn't well known in pop culture. Somewhat mitigated by Pink Bunny Suit Guy. End result? Probably will not pass review.

5. Ghostbusters 30th anniversary;

6. Ghostbusters - OK let's just treat these as the same thing. One of these is going to get made. No if's and's or but's. One of these sets will pass review. We will get an Ecto-1 and 4 figs. All that remains is how they split the baby, and how onerous the licensing is? (The one fear is that after the success of the BttF CuuSoo set the costs of some of these older movie licenses may go up. or be fought over by competitors such as Megabloks or Kre-O. )

Fall 2013 review: (and what looks to be sure fire to hit it? Anything over 9k is pretty much a given)

1. Wizard of Oz - This is assuming that the cutoff for this set placed it in the next review. Prognosis? The set gets made. Only possible complications? That new "Friends" type Disney theme might have an Oz component of some sort or in some way effect it. Like the BttF set and the Ghostbusters one, this is a near perfect execution of a classic pop culture set that crosses generational lines, good play value, and has broad male and female appeal.

2. Macross Valkyrie - as we have said. Great Project. Horrible License. If they can't make and sell it into North America, they will not make it. Not with things like Ghostbusters and Oz available to fill production time.

And some likely to hit 10k for this one;

- Japanese Old Style Buildings - We may get a set out of that one. Probably the Hot Springs. I don't think they would make the Shrine. Yeah, it's a little niche. But it's also the sort of thing they have a lot of data on from various Creator Expert type sets.

- Legend of Zelda Iron Knuckle encounter - Yet another Zelda set. Same root problems. Actually this one is worse. It is a much more niche set. If you don't know the game you would not know this set or scene. Only Link. It has no Princess Zelda, and lacks much of the series elements of pop culture familiarity.

- Lego Birds - I think if or when this one hits 10k, we will probably get a small set of a bird or two. I have long had the feeling that the Lego designers really like this one. It is so different, yet so amazing. If or when it hits we will see a small set to build Grandma a Parakeet that just won't die on her.

Plus we may be surprised by a sudden surge of rising newcomers. Or the Adventure Time or Jurassic Park projects. (Hey! This Jurassic Park project didn't get deleted! Surprise!)

Just my typically long winded 2c.

[CMP]

Don't forget they didn't fail Portal yet, I don't think.

[pogie]

Great summation Faefrost. I don't follow Cuusso(sp?) that closely but what you've written makes sense.

Of the projects mentioned, I'm rooting for Lego Shops and the birds project. Hard to pick a few models with the birds as they are all great.

[Bobskink]

...

1. Purdue Pete - Hell no is this gonna happen...

I still don't understand how this ever hapened. Really, I don't know who voted or why.

[Blondie-Wan]

I still don't understand how this ever hapened. Really, I don't know who voted or why.

Well, it's a pretty well-known university with lots of students, faculty, boosters, etc. As I understand it, there was a concerted effort at the university to garner votes; kiosks were set up with iPads on which Purdue people could register and cast their votes for the project:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q4/purdue-pete-model-seeks-boiler-fans-backing-in-lego-competition.html

http://www.purdueexponent.org/features/article_0d1516cb-7f71-5f1e-82d7-62811700277b.html

http://www.brickset.com/news/article/?ID=4555

Seems simple enough to me. And I must say, I don't know why it would be so cut-and-dried that it would never happen. Obviously there are a ton of Purdue fans, and I suspect TLG would have absolutely no trouble selling 10,000 Purdue Pete sets to them, even if the overwhelming majority of them would otherwise have no particular interest in buying LEGO sets for themselves. Judging from the fact the campaign was held across the campus and got covered in the university's paper, I suspect the university is enthusiastic about the project, meaning the licensing shouldn't be an obstacle. Brand fit? The mascot doesn't represent anything offensive or objectionable. Perhaps TLG might not want to tie itself to a real-world sports team, but they've done so in the past, multiple times.

Honestly, I could see this one happening. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that it has indeed taken them so long to review just two sets, which as Faefrost notes may suggest they're waiting until they have some more positive news, suggesting that neither of the Winter '12 projects got approved but one or more of the Spring '13 ones has. But who knows?

(And personally, even though my interest in football and Purdue university is pretty much zero, I think Purdue Pete is a fine project and I wouldn't mind seeing it get approved. It would mean LEGO sales to people who don't normally buy LEGO, and that's a good thing. I also think it would be a nice reward for a LEGO fan who happened to have a particular good idea before anyone else.)

[Another Brick In The Wall]

4. Landrover Discovery - This is the dark horse that might surprise us. It's a big gorgeous and obviously insanely expensive Technic set. But here's the funny thing. Technic fans tend to be older wealthier types who thrive on big expensive technic sets. Short run special edition technic sets sell out on their day of release even with $300 price tags. Just look how well 41999 is doing. So they have good market data for this sort of thing. It may surprise us.

I respectfully disagree in your assessment of this on the following grounds:

1. Potential "expert level"build already limits market.

2. I don't think we'll ever see a CuuSoo project of this magnitude because it involves significant risk (as implied by the UCS Sandcrawler decision). 10K anonymous votes is not sufficient due diligence for a project this size.

3. Given the added shipping weight (>3.1kg unboxed) it will be at least $400. (It's twice as big as 41999 and also contains RC functionality).

4. If you're going to reject the UCS Tumbler on the basis of an existing license, then you have to reject this as well. I don't agree that this is a reason for rejection because Land Rover (or DC's) views on using their licence are likely to be drastically different from Star Wars (especially when you consider what Disney paid for it).

Edited September 2, 2013 by Another Brick In The Wall

[just2good]

How much copies of Minecraft were sold when it passed the review?

[Faefrost]

Well, it's a pretty well-known university with lots of students, faculty, boosters, etc. As I understand it, there was a concerted effort at the university to garner votes; kiosks were set up with iPads on which Purdue people could register and cast their votes for the project:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q4/purdue-pete-model-seeks-boiler-fans-backing-in-lego-competition.html

http://www.purdueexponent.org/features/article_0d1516cb-7f71-5f1e-82d7-62811700277b.html

http://www.brickset.com/news/article/?ID=4555

Seems simple enough to me. And I must say, I don't know why it would be so cut-and-dried that it would never happen. Obviously there are a ton of Purdue fans, and I suspect TLG would have absolutely no trouble selling 10,000 Purdue Pete sets to them, even if the overwhelming majority of them would otherwise have no particular interest in buying LEGO sets for themselves. Judging from the fact the campaign was held across the campus and got covered in the university's paper, I suspect the university is enthusiastic about the project, meaning the licensing shouldn't be an obstacle. Brand fit? The mascot doesn't represent anything offensive or objectionable. Perhaps TLG might not want to tie itself to a real-world sports team, but they've done so in the past, multiple times.

Honestly, I could see this one happening. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that it has indeed taken them so long to review just two sets, which as Faefrost notes may suggest they're waiting until they have some more positive news, suggesting that neither of the Winter '12 projects got approved but one or more of the Spring '13 ones has. But who knows?

(And personally, even though my interest in football and Purdue university is pretty much zero, I think Purdue Pete is a fine project and I wouldn't mind seeing it get approved. It would mean LEGO sales to people who don't normally buy LEGO, and that's a good thing. I also think it would be a nice reward for a LEGO fan who happened to have a particular good idea before anyone else.)

The problem with Purdue Pete is how specifically geographically limited the set is. It has one place it can be sold. Purdue. And maybe parts of Indiana. Anyplace else it just takes up retail space. I mean heck, imagine if hey put it on the shelf in Amsterdam or Munich? And more than anything else it is that geographic exclusivity that will make it fail the business case. If CuuSoo only has 4 production slots per year, why would they waste one of them on something that will really only sell in a single college bookstore? (Which in turn is only open for 8-9 months of the year?) is it possible? Sure. But is it good business to enter into this market this way?

Edited September 2, 2013 by Faefrost

[Faefrost]

I respectfully disagree in your assessment of this on the following grounds:

1. Potential "expert level"build already limits market.

2. I don't think we'll ever see a CuuSoo project of this magnitude because it involves significant risk (as implied by the UCS Sandcrawler decision). 10K anonymous votes is not sufficient due diligence for a project this size.

3. Given the added shipping weight (>3.1kg unboxed) it will be at least $400. (It's twice as big as 41999 and also contains RC functionality).

4. If you're going to reject the UCS Tumbler on the basis of an existing license, then you have to reject this as well. I don't agree that this is a reason for rejection because Land Rover (or DC's) views on using their licence are likely to be drastically different from Star Wars (especially when you consider what Disney paid for it).

I'm not saying that the Landrover will be made. I just think it has a better chance than most of us give credit for. Your points 1 and 3 assume that the project will remain at the size proposed. Chances are the Lego designers will shrink it a bit. Probably to something with a $300 threshold. As far risk. Yeah it is risky. But they assess risk based on data and past performance. They really have very little data on making a beyond huge Star Wars set with all the bells whistles and power functions. But they have decades of that sort of data on Technic vehicles. They have experience with short run limited edition high priced technic sets and know exactly what the market is for them. So they have a much clearer analysis of risk here. The 10k votes isn't the due diligence in this case. They actually have hard data generated in house from similar products. Which makes for a much cleaner review. Pass or Fail this project will probably have the best data backing it of any CuuSoo review. And I suspect that if or when TLG does decide to make a huge and expensive CuuSoo set for the first time, it will probably be a Technic set. Just because it is such a known and predictable niche.

I'm not sure how a comparison to the Tumbler comes in here. The Tumbler will fail for the same reason the Sandcrawler failed. It is a license and design that Lego already has and already has specific matching product related to. The license has certain expectations of the licensee, and these supersede CuuSoo or a third party getting involved. In the case of the Tumbler, Lego already has a Tumbler on store shelves. They have the rights to the design and derivatives. They do not need a third party proposing something that they already have, nor do the terms of their license really allow that third party involvement. Whereas they would just be seeking a one time license use for Landcrawlers Logo and likeness in the case of the Discovery. Nowhere near the same animal.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Faefrost

[Another Brick In The Wall]

I'm not sure how a comparison to the Tumbler comes in here. The Tumbler will fail for the same reason the Sandcrawler failed. It is a license and design that Lego already has and already has specific matching product related to. The license has certain expectations of the licensee, and these supersede CuuSoo or a third party getting involved. In the case of the Tumbler, Lego already has a Tumbler on store shelves. They have the rights to the design and derivatives. They do not need a third party proposing something that they already have, nor do the terms of their license really allow that third party involvement. Whereas they would just be seeking a one time license use for Landcrawlers Logo and likeness in the case of the Discovery. Nowhere near the same animal.

Licenses are not granted for each model. TLG already has a licence to produce Land Rover vehicles, just like they have a license to produce Star Wars and DC vehicles.

In case of the Sandcrawler, Disney did not permit a third party (marshall_banana) to benefit from use of the Star Wars license.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Another Brick In The Wall

[Bobskink]

The problem with Purdue Pete is how specifically geographically limited the set is. It has one place it can be sold. Purdue. And maybe parts of Indiana. Anyplace else it just takes up retail space. I mean heck, imagine if hey put it on the shelf in Amsterdam or Munich? And more than anything else it is that geographic exclusivity that will make it fail the business case. If CuuSoo only has 4 production slots per year, why would they waste one of them on something that will really only sell in a single college bookstore? (Which in turn is only open for 8-9 months of the year?) is it possible? Sure. But is it good business to enter into this market this way?

Thanks for all the info guys.

Good points, but I see Lego making an exeption and maybe try to sell it at that universitie alone, not as a Cuusoo set. I don't know after how many sales a set becomes profitable.

Anyway, I think there are really a hundred creations on Lego Cuusoo which are much better, but don't get a tenth of the support that Purdue Pete has gotten. Very sad for all those great MOC'ers who don't have that many connections.

[Blondie-Wan]

The problem with Purdue Pete is how specifically geographically limited the set is. It has one place it can be sold. Purdue. And maybe parts of Indiana. Anyplace else it just takes up retail space. I mean heck, imagine if hey put it on the shelf in Amsterdam or Munich? And more than anything else it is that geographic exclusivity that will make it fail the business case. If CuuSoo only has 4 production slots per year, why would they waste one of them on something that will really only sell in a single college bookstore? (Which in turn is only open for 8-9 months of the year?) is it possible? Sure. But is it good business to enter into this market this way?

I don't know, but I think that as long as they're sure they can sell 10k or more units, where they can sell them doesn't matter entirely. They've certainly done limited runs for specific regions (and for that matter, specific LEGO Store openings) before. Even within the CUUSOO theme, the first set was (and remains) Japan-exclusive, and the second was initially released that way and only made available internationally after a while. If they did a run of 10,000 Petes they could send about, oh... let's say 9000 of them to the university and/or the region generally, while holding the remaining 1000 to be sold through Shop at Home (and I wouldn't ever suggest they'd bother sending any to Amsterdam or Munich). I think that would work well for them.

As you suggest, the question / issue of limited production slots is probably a potential sticking point, but note that this particular model is actually made of basic bricks that TLG probably keeps on hand anyway; it could well be that one or more limited production runs of this set really wouldn't tax their production capacities. This is a set with no printing, no stickers, no funky colors... just basic, ordinary bricks and plates. It's possible they could produce this set with a minimal impact on the rest of their production capacity - possibly this set could be made alongside some other CUUSOO project, when others couldn't.

Furthermore, this set could serve as a "test market" set for a whole untapped market area, specialty sets for colleges and universities. If it's as successful as I suspect it has the potential to be, TLG could then launch a whole theme of similar collegiate mascot sets for other universities that express interest. At least for the biggest schools, there's probably more than ample market potential for sets based on mascots, and if Pete were successful TLG might then be emboldened to try selling sets for, say, a dozen or so of the major school mascots, in much the same way the initial Minecraft set demonstrated a hitherto unknown and untapped market for a sort of specialty theme. Seen this way, TLG might see this set as even more worthy of a trial than many / most of the other projects on CUUSOO.

[Bobskink]

... Seen this way, TLG might see this set as even more worthy of a trial than many / most of the other projects on CUUSOO.

I agree, there is not mush to loose on a "test" like this anyway.

[Faefrost]

Licenses are not granted for each model. TLG already has a licence to produce Land Rover vehicles, just like they have a license to produce Star Wars and DC vehicles.

In case of the Sandcrawler, Disney did not permit a third party (marshall_banana) to benefit from use of the Star Wars license.

Has Lego ever produced a Landrover or Rangerover branded set or model? I know they have licences with Ferrari, VW and Mercedes? But I didn't think they had ever done an actual Landrover? There are a few city trucks that look vaguely similar but nothing carrying the brand or markings. I could be wrong on this? But regardless, no licences are not simply a blanket to produce any and all. What can and cannot be produced is specific to each license. Lego can have a license with one licensor to simply produce a specific set or vehicle (Say the BttF DeLorean) and have an entirely different license with another vendor to produce everything in their catalog or a specific range of their catalog. (ie Star Wars.) Licences are simply contracts. How broad or narrow they are is a factor of cost and negotiations.

And there are some wildly broad differences between the license holders. Landrover will probably be fairly open with regard to licensing. Most vehicle manufacturers view sub licensing as a form of free advertising. It is not their core product or revenue stream. This is changing a little bit as they become aware that money is available. But still for the most part these licences are cheap and easy to get. As I said free advertising for the core product lines. Whereas in the case of something like Star Wars, the licensing IS the core product line and revenue stream. (No really it's not the movies. Since Empire the movies are just the commercials to pimp the licensing and merchandising revenues. ) So they will be much more protective and much more specific regarding any use of those licences. As you say they would not allow Marshall to benefit from this license. (It's probably a bit more legally complicated than that and in truth it is less of a "Megabloks" move on their part. They have to take certain steps to protect their IP and provent outside claims against it. Marshall's project fails as a result.)

My point still remains. When Marshall's Sandcrawler was shown to the Lucasfilms / Disney people the lawyers would have said "Hell No. Not possible under the contract. You've already made that. And we expect you to make it again with no 3rd party." Whereas chances are if or when they show the truck to the Landrover people the reaction from everyone including the lawyers will be "Cool! Yep it looks like one of ours. When can we buy one my grandkids would love it?" Landrover sells actual trucks. A tiny look alike truck does not really cause any consternation in their business. No ones gonna drive a CuuSoo set to work. Whereas for Star Wars or Warner Brothers, the IP design such as the Sandcrawler or Tumbler IS the core product. So where, how and by who it gets made is important.

I don't know, but I think that as long as they're sure they can sell 10k or more units, where they can sell them doesn't matter entirely. They've certainly done limited runs for specific regions (and for that matter, specific LEGO Store openings) before. Even within the CUUSOO theme, the first set was (and remains) Japan-exclusive, and the second was initially released that way and only made available internationally after a while. If they did a run of 10,000 Petes they could send about, oh... let's say 9000 of them to the university and/or the region generally, while holding the remaining 1000 to be sold through Shop at Home (and I wouldn't ever suggest they'd bother sending any to Amsterdam or Munich). I think that would work well for them.

As you suggest, the question / issue of limited production slots is probably a potential sticking point, but note that this particular model is actually made of basic bricks that TLG probably keeps on hand anyway; it could well be that one or more limited production runs of this set really wouldn't tax their production capacities. This is a set with no printing, no stickers, no funky colors... just basic, ordinary bricks and plates. It's possible they could produce this set with a minimal impact on the rest of their production capacity - possibly this set could be made alongside some other CUUSOO project, when others couldn't.

Furthermore, this set could serve as a "test market" set for a whole untapped market area, specialty sets for colleges and universities. If it's as successful as I suspect it has the potential to be, TLG could then launch a whole theme of similar collegiate mascot sets for other universities that express interest. At least for the biggest schools, there's probably more than ample market potential for sets based on mascots, and if Pete were successful TLG might then be emboldened to try selling sets for, say, a dozen or so of the major school mascots, in much the same way the initial Minecraft set demonstrated a hitherto unknown and untapped market for a sort of specialty theme. Seen this way, TLG might see this set as even more worthy of a trial than many / most of the other projects on CUUSOO.

College mascots probably does have some potential to be a profitable market. But is it a worthwhile one for a company the size and scale of TLG to meander into? Remember TLG is the big dog in the room with huge global markets. Their production cycles are their most valuable commodity, and their overall choke point. Can they make a profit from Purdue Pete? Probably. At a minimum probably enough to pay costs of a short run. But is that or a continuing run of college or team mascots a worthwhile niche for a company of their scale and reach? Does it give good enough return on design and factory time? Honestly I think that will depend heavily on the size of the company making the product. For TLG it might not be. Just not a high enough return on factory production. Whereas a smaller outfit like Megabloks of Oxford may see a decent niche return for something like that.

Granted CuuSoo is designed to be sort of a loss leader. An experimental project that does not return the most efficient use of production resources (which is why it is limited to only 4 cycles per year). And instead drives things like word of mouth. Opens new avenues, and just keeps fans involved (or foaming at the mouth in some cases. See: Jurassic Park, insanity). I just think that even in CuuSoo the same return on production time calculations go on in a smaller scale. And I think the consensus will be that 25% of their factory / production time would be better served on a product that has appeal outside of a small portion of Indiana, and maybe includes some play value.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Faefrost

[AndyC]

Don't forget they didn't fail Portal yet, I don't think.

I suspect Portal is actually the reason we haven't seen the outcome of the oldest review. I would be unsurprised if trying to work something out on that is really what is holding things up.

In case of the Sandcrawler, Disney did not permit a third party (marshall_banana) to benefit from use of the Star Wars license.

I'm not sure that actually makes any sense at all, marshall_banana taking a cut would be no different to TLG paying an employee to design a model. And you can bet that any cut wouldn't affect in any way shape or form what LucasArts/Disney would get.

More likely the Sandcrawler, and indeed any Episode IV sets, didn't fit the current brand focus for Star Wars. It's really, really not a coincidence that the models being pushed by Hasbro are similar to those being pushed by TLG in the same time frames. What is going to be produced and how that fits into the wider branding will be decided long in advance of it coming to the shelves and is geared around common marketing themes to maximise sales and cross-product tie ins. It's not like TLG just randomly pick a bunch of ships and think "Hey, let's make these ones this year!"

And I'd be stunned if similar rules weren't in place around the DC/Marvel stuff too.

[CMP]

I suspect Portal is actually the reason we haven't seen the outcome of the oldest review. I would be unsurprised if trying to work something out on that is really what is holding things up.

Exactly. I really hope so, too.

[Faefrost]

I suspect Portal is actually the reason we haven't seen the outcome of the oldest review. I would be unsurprised if trying to work something out on that is really what is holding things up.

I'm not sure that actually makes any sense at all, marshall_banana taking a cut would be no different to TLG paying an employee to design a model. And you can bet that any cut wouldn't affect in any way shape or form what LucasArts/Disney would get.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Remember for CuuSoo you are gaining support for your project. Your designs. This becomes an issue with things like Star Wars. Marshall's Sandcrawler is actually Marshall's interpretation of a ILM / Lucasfilms design. CuuSoo is an of itself sort of a form of licensing a third parties designs. The CuuSoo designers get royalties from their designs. This is not the same as a in house work for hire or contract arrangement. And this is something that Lucasfilms would most likely not permit under the terms of their license contracts with TLG. They would not want any outside party with any claims on a Sandcrawler design. No matter how trivial or seemingly innocuous. While this may not be an issue with any and all Star Wars projects, I kinda suspect that it will hold true for any of the ILM designs that were seen on screen in any of the 6 movies. Something that is just described in an EU novel is probably fine. Something based on a thrid party drawing which is in turn based on a novel, comic etc might work. A video game subject maybe, depending on who produced it. But the actual ILM stuff is probably Verbotten under the license.

And regarding Portal? I don't think it is licensing. At pretty much the same time they announced those results they also said that anything involving licenses would be held and announced together in order to avoid impacting other licence discussions. (A not uncommon business practice). I think the Portal project has been delayed because of that new part design. It wasn't a Portal specific piece. It was a kind of unusual structural element. I'm wondering if the review team didn't like the part or at least have enough curiosity about it to kick it over to the part design department for further review. And they long ago said that any new part evaluations would take a really long time. That may have prompted them to break the Portal project free from the normal review cycle.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Faefrost

[AndyC]

But he wouldn't have any claim over "the design of a Sandcrawler" or at least no more than any TLG designer who happened to design one normally would. In fact, he'd have less as, just as with every Cuusoo model, it'd be redesigned by TLG designers anyway. If that were even remotely an issue, dmac wouldn't have received any payment over his UCS Imperial Shuttle design. It just doesn't hold up to much scrutiny whereas the marketing concerns are an extremely common occurrence.

As to Portal, it may not be licensing holding it up, but it's entirely possible it's seen as a better prospect than Purdue Pete (niche) or the Space Troopers (too similar to existing product) and so there may be an effort to figure out its feasibility in terms of part production so that something can appear to "pass" that review, rather than simply fail both projects and have nothing to present.

[Faefrost]

But he wouldn't have any claim over "the design of a Sandcrawler" or at least no more than any TLG designer who happened to design one normally would. In fact, he'd have less as, just as with every Cuusoo model, it'd be redesigned by TLG designers anyway. If that were even remotely an issue, dmac wouldn't have received any payment over his UCS Imperial Shuttle design. It just doesn't hold up to much scrutiny whereas the marketing concerns are an extremely common occurrence.

I suspect that it is not simply a matter of "payment". As you note Lego can pay third parties for design work. I think the very nature of the CuuSoo contract causes some problems. Lucasfilm's problem is most likely more an issue involving that CuuSoo royalty. TLG can probably pay a contract designer on a work for hire basis, or outright purchase someone's designs. But I can't see Lucasfilm's licensing lawyers being thrilled with the idea of the licensee assigning royalties to a third party, involving what they would view as one of their core ILM IP designs. And in this case it doesn't really matter if the lawyers would be right. If they had even the slightest fear that there may be some sort of perceived legal exposure of their IP in a CuuSoo project, they will (and probably did) veto it.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

The licensing agreement between Lucasfilm (Disney) and Lego is a long-term deal negotiated at arm's length. These are rare in the business world. One of the reasons they are rare is because the licensor fear the licensee will degrade the value of the intellectual property over the period of the license. Consequently such license agreements are restrictive on the people that may use the license. (i.e. independent contractors are often explicitly excluded).

TLG designers are agents of the licensee. They do not directly profit from using the license. Their design remains the property of the licensee. By giving marshall_banana a royalty associated with the CuuSoo project, he is acknowledged to be the part economic owner of this particular model, contrary to the terms of pre-existing license agreement.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Another Brick In The Wall

[Faefrost]

The licensing agreement between Lucasfilm (Disney) and Lego is a long-term deal negotiated at arm's length. These are rare in the business world. One of the reasons they are rare is because licensors fear licensee will degrade the value of the intellectual property over the period of the license. Consequently such license agreements are restrictive on the people that may use the license.

TLG designers are agents of the licensee. They do not directly profit from using the license. Their design remains the property of the licensee. By giving marshall_banana a royalty associated with the CuuSoo project, he is deemed to be the part economic owner of this particular model, contrary to the terms of pre-existing license agreement.

Thank you. Much better said than I was able to.