Latest Cuusoo decision

[GregoryBrick]

[ . . . ]

I think you missed my point, considering I have had the same access to the CUUSOO state of affairs as you yet I don't share your interpretation. You've taken one consequence (cheap and profitable advertising, basically), and reduced the reasons for LEGO's actions to the disingenuous pursuit of that consequence. I remain unconvinced that I should share your cynical position, especially in regards to why Pete's project was approved. Thank you for your elaboration.

[Blondie-Wan]

3. Andy the Android - Lets be Frank, this thing isn't a toy or a model. It's marketing materials for a business other than TLG. There is no way that Lego would pay to license this. If anything they might expect Google to pay them to make it. So it ends up having a business and licensing case that probably cannot be well supported by CuuSoo. TLG like most businesses, is not in the habit of footing the bill for someone else's marketing and advertising, and that's what this would have been.

That could well have been the thinking behind that rejection, but Andy isn't the same as just a logo or something; it's a robot character, like robot characters they've already done from various narrative licenses. The only difference is that this one does serve as a corporate mascot-type thing, but that doesn't mean it can't be a toy or model. Obviously it is one to the builder, and to the voters. I don't see that it's fundamentally different from something like the various VW models (does VW pay TLG to make those sets? I'd guess not; why should this one be different?).

But perhaps I'm wrong; it did get rejected. I just don't think it would have to work the way you describe (or even that it could - certainly I don't see why Google would pay TLG to make a set based on their IP).

I mean, I do get what purpose Andy serves, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a robot character, and one designed to be inherently appealing. I know I'd want the set, and I don't work for or have a financial stake in Google, nor do I even use an Android phone. I'd want it just because it's a cute lime green robot.

I never said it was the only reason (as I said I like the project and I'm happy it's getting a shot) but I do think that after nearly a year of AFOLs bashing CuuSoo at LUGs and across the internet as a marketing gimmick to spread the Lego brand to a non-Lego audience rather than an honest attempt at crowd-sourcing

Er, wait - how is it not an "honest attempt at crowd-sourcing", and why can't something be both that and a "marketing gimmick"?

Nope. As mentioned:

Similarly, creator of the Female Minifig project recommended three characters first in case that TLC wouldn't manufacture more of female minifigures in this project. I think they did think about it.

In Cuusoo website, there are still some projects with single chain store buildings.They could be more polished than mini shops, but we still don't know if it can help them get passed.

Correct. Of course it's quite possible that some specific individual stores would pass while others wouldn't, and not even just because of the reasons we'd think about (TLG not wanting to associate with a particular business or brand, say). Some of those other companies might themselves not want to have third-party merchandise produced of their stores, even if we as LEGO fans think of it as some kind of honor. I kind of doubt Apple would really be on board with another company making and commercially selling toy replicas of its stores, for example, even if some here might consider it advertising for Apple.

[Dorayaki]

not even just because of the reasons we'd think about (TLG not wanting to associate with a particular business or brand, say)

Even that TLC made McDonalds many years ago doesn't guarantee to pass a Cuusoo McDonald project (after the last Happy Meal). I think at least it can be for the companies TLG are currently working with, like ToyRUs or BR.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Dorayaki

[jonwil]

Regarding McDonalds, the old McDonalds set was released way back in 1999. Since then, the "McDonalds is Evil" crowd has gotten a LOT more vocal (for example they were able to convince Disney to end its tie-in with McDonalds that resulted in every Disney kids film for 10 years having a tie-in happy meal) and having a McDonalds play-set from a company as well respected as LEGO might have fairly serious blow-back from the "McDonalds is Evil" and "think of the children" crowds.

[lightningtiger]

Legally I doubt that, it's a two-way contract. You have given them the rights to produce it but they are obliged to pay out if they ever did.

Ah, but they have a huge team of legal eagles and they would find a way that they can use something of someone else's but of course making a few changes along the way.

Remember the latest modular being released shortly by Lego.....how bits of the exterior were similar to a few other peoples MOC's ?

Though once an idea, image or whatever is on the net then someone can see it, copy it or whatever......isn't the internet wonderful ?

[dr_spock]

Ah, but they have a huge team of legal eagles and they would find a way that they can use something of someone else's but of course making a few changes along the way.

Remember the latest modular being released shortly by Lego.....how bits of the exterior were similar to a few other peoples MOC's ?

Though once an idea, image or whatever is on the net then someone can see it, copy it or whatever......isn't the internet wonderful ?

According to the Cuusoo Guidelines and House Rules, they call it an unintentional coincidence.

Edited October 25, 2013 by dr_spock

[ikba]

Translation: Unintentional Coincidence: TLG definitly did not maybe perhaps probably steal your work. Maybe.

Whatever the TLG's policy for "appropriating" designs may be, I just hope that it'l be an intentional coincidence if the exosuit still looks like the prototype by the time their finished with it.

[Robianco]

I must admit... I think Lego have it pretty much spot on with their choice.

To be honest... I find people's approach to Cuusoo a little odd... and selfish... Not that that there's anything wrong with that but it needs to be viewed for what it is. Lego could simply tell people to go and make their MOCs just like thousands of people are already doing... but they're giving people an opportunity to submit them and have them judged by their peers... then possibly go into production.

I'm actually for the idea that you can't submit licensed product. Get people creating things that aren't just a case of visualising some video game characters or creating a torso design based on a film character... Look at what has been rejected. I think it causes all kinds of issues of 'Why wasn't my design chosen as people love this game/movie... surely it would sell?'.

I originally wrote a long message going through what I thought of each rejected submission but ultimately I think each piece was either just never going to get made because of it's subject matter or licensing / production issues came in to play.

Now I'm going to bugger up my previous comment by saying I hope they produce a Ghostbusters set! Although if they don't... it won't be through laziness, lack of vision, failure to see the potential or any other the other things that can be thrown at them... it'll be down to licensing and other very practical reasons.

[badbob001]

Again, this rant, in no way, is meant to reflect badly on the Exo-Suit proposal. It's just an expression of frustration that TLG (on the whole) seems to respect Cuuson more as a brand advertising vehicle than its nominal role as an incubator for fresh, "outside" ideas.

Maybe LEGO will use the exo-suit as basically a showcase kit on how to use non-traditional building methods to create super detailed robots. Almost like a mash-up of architecture studio and technic and creator. Maybe it'll find traction with bionicle fans that want to go to the next level. And it would be rather refreshing for a cuusoo project to be popular purely for its design and technique rather than for the popularity of the third-party brand it is based on (isn't the latter like most of the stuff on cuusoo?).

[Robianco]

I don't think 'Fresh, "outside", ideas are what were rejected here. I don't think 'make figures of X character from X licensed theme' is fresh or 'outside' thinking.

That rules out several of the sets rejected.

I think the android set was, essentially, rubbish. It's a logo... that's it. It has no personality... no life. Nothing.

Pete... such a specific audience and not a particularly interesting build.

Batman Tumbler was just a lazy submission... released several times, in different sizes already and not even the best MOC out there.

[badbob001]

And regarding the complaints of LEGO changing the original design, I think LEGO still consults with the original designer during the process and tries to get at least some sort of blessing on the final design. Else we will have the designers blogging about how LEGO butchered their work and then use their 1% royalties to fund their hate campaign against Cuusoo and LEGO.

[Faefrost]

Huh?

Both games sold many million copies, both are considered to be among the best PC games ever made. It's is an extremely well-known franchise, has something of cult following, and has spawned a surprising amount of merchandise (heck, there are plush Companion Cubes...). Also, we are not in the 80ies anymore, platforms are not replaced every two years. You can buy the original Half-Life from 1998 on Steam and start playing. Lego seems to have a lot less concerns producing licensed sets for any semi-decent movie "franchise" (Prince of Persia?), so popularity should be the least concerning issue here.

I think it is in fact the other way round, Portal's huge popularity was the only thing that kept them from rejecting it right away. Based on the reasoning given for previous rejections (you know, when they still bothered to give an explanation), there is a strong sense of "not invented here" syndrome. They could not even be bothered to reject these projects in time, so the internal priority of Cuusoo seems to be really, really low.

Portal 2 is an extremely popular video game. It sold 4 million copies worldwide. Overall the estimated dedicated Zelda fanbase is around 8-10 million total across all the games. These are fantastic numbers for video games, and guarantee their producers really good profits. But these tend to be on the low end of desirable for licensing as a toy product. You want a very large customer base to be at a minimum broadly familiar with your IP, its characters and story or pop culture references. From watching TLG's licensing decisions I get the impression that the lowest they will typically go for a licensed property is somewhere slightly above 10 million, and preferably with a fan base on a clear upward trajectory. When Minecraft was licensed it was at 10 million copies sold with sales numbers and popularity still climbing and full market penetration not yet achieved. This is not the current case for either Portal 2 or Zelda. Yeah there is a niche market to be had there. But it is a riskier niche. One that TLG does not normally enter into. (Some of their competitors do play in these niches to mixed results).

Think of it this way. typically the absolute best video game (that isn't Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto or Mario) will top out somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-12 million units sold. Or thinking on it another way 10-12 million eyeballs on the IP. The worst movie licences will typically hit 100 million eyeballs, with the best of them hitting 2 billion +. Which market do you think carries less risk and is easier to sell into? That's the problem with related product licensing that video games face. And that's why most of the video game based toys that do get made end up in clearance bins inside of a very short sales window. Yes we all love video games and want representations of our favorite characters. But these are the harsh business realities with the properties as they exist today. Minecraft may have opened some eyes to the possibilities that may exist in the properties. But it is not an order to ignore the math and open the floodgates to video game IP. Each case will be extremely carefully looked at I am sure.

Nope. As mentioned:

Similarly, creator of the Female Minifig project recommended three characters first in case that TLC wouldn't manufacture more of female minifigures in this project. I think they did think about it.

In Cuusoo website, there are still some projects with single chain store buildings.They could be more polished than mini shops, but we still don't know if it can help them get passed.

Yes the creators said they wouldn't mind if the projects got trimmed back to single sets. But in both cases the proposed and voted on projects were are very much based on the concept of "series" and not simply a single set. The Minishops project while a delightful little group of buildings visually presented well as some nice builds, was an absolute horror of a business or project presentation. To achieve what was put forth in the top vote attracting picture would require not simply multiple sets but multiple independent licences. limiting it to one build in a small set might have been viable, but what would voter reaction have been? It so dilutes the project that how recognizable would it have been to what was voted on? Yeah the project was sorta all right. But their were better, easier and cleaner to produce projects up for review. I think the Female Minifigs is going to run into some similar problems and analysis. No matter how you slice it it is really meant as a series and not a stand alone.

[Faefrost]

Now I'm going to bugger up my previous comment by saying I hope they produce a Ghostbusters set! Although if they don't... it won't be through laziness, lack of vision, failure to see the potential or any other the other things that can be thrown at them... it'll be down to licensing and other very practical reasons.

Bravo! Some rational thinking around here. TLG doesn't typically simply reject any CuuSoo review project for callous reasons. The one exception to this is "brand fit" which they have always been very up front about. Where the set or the sets source materials are felt to be outside of the age appropriate range for their Primary target audience go 6-12 year old children. We may grumble about that when heavily loved MOCs like the Winchester and Serenity get rejected. But I think we can all understand the reasoning. It sucks for us sometimes, but it's a toy company. We wouldn't like them if they didn't try and behave like a proper toy company.

[dr_spock]

Here's Lego Cuusoo documented guidelines on what's acceptable:

Acceptable Project Content

While there's a wide range of awesome ideas that would make great LEGO products, there are some things that you are not allowed to include in your project. Here is the list of what we allow:

1. Keep it appropriate. Remember that the LEGO Group is a toy company, so we're careful to only produce products we deem appropriate for children. Projects related to the below topics will not be approved. We will decide how a project fits these standards at our discretion.
   
   • Politics and political symbols
     
   • Religious references including symbols, buildings, or people
     
   • Sex, drugs, or smoking
     
   • Alcohol in any present day situation
     
   • Swearing
     
   • Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture
     
   • First-person shooter video games
     
   • Warfare or war vehicles in any modern or present-day situation
     
   • Racism, bullying, or cruelty to real life animals
     

Licensed ideas are OK, but note the following. You may submit models that require licenses, but be aware that we can't guarantee the production of your model if it is linked to a competitive licensor – this is where all the legal stuff becomes complicated. Note that we do not check all new project submissions for license conflicts as there are too many potential conflicts.

I wonder if you can pitch your product concept to MegaBloks if Lego rejects your idea. They seem to be more opened to FPS video game building sets.

[snefroe]

well i'm surprised that the exo suit won, but in my view, it's the best of them all. I just hope they don't change too many things...

[Aanchir]

I often read comments about how LEGO Cuusoo has failed as a crowdsourcing initiative, and it baffles me, considering how high-quality the previous LEGO Cuusoo models have all been and how much they stand out from previous LEGO sets. The two science-based sets that came out of LEGO Cuusoo while it was still Japan-exclusive were both very nice sculptures that are pretty much unlike anything the LEGO Group had released since the Discovery Kids line in 2003. The Minecraft set broke from the typical licensed theme formula in that the models were designed primarily as modular display pieces with non-traditional figures, not to mention the fact that the product was based on a video game rather than a cartoon or Hollywood blockbuster.

Currently, it has to be understood that LEGO Cuusoo is operating on a very small scale relative to the LEGO Group's overall operations, which makes sense. It'd be tremendously risky to put a platform like LEGO Cuusoo on the same level of importance as the more traditional sorts of market research used to plan new themes. So instead, we get one or two LEGO Cuusoo projects each year at best (remember, assigning designers to create LEGO Cuusoo products often means taking them away from other more traditional projects). Compare that with the rate at which LEGO Cuusoo projects are getting to review, and you'll quickly realize that the LEGO Group not only can, but MUST be choosy about which projects carry the greatest potential with the lowest risks. Rejected projects aren't by any means a sign that the platform is failing — rather, they're a sign that it's working to its current peak potential. If the LEGO Cuusoo products continue to sell well, perhaps LEGO Cuusoo will get a more significant operating budget and will be able to accept more projects per review cycle.

[Robianco]

I often read comments about how LEGO Cuusoo has failed as a crowdsourcing initiative, and it baffles me, considering how high-quality the previous LEGO Cuusoo models have all been and how much they stand out from previous LEGO sets. The two science-based sets that came out of LEGO Cuusoo while it was still Japan-exclusive were both very nice sculptures that are pretty much unlike anything the LEGO Group had released since the Discovery Kids line in 2003. The Minecraft set broke from the typical licensed theme formula in that the models were designed primarily as modular display pieces with non-traditional figures, not to mention the fact that the product was based on a video game rather than a cartoon or Hollywood blockbuster.

Currently, it has to be understood that LEGO Cuusoo is operating on a very small scale relative to the LEGO Group's overall operations, which makes sense. It'd be tremendously risky to put a platform like LEGO Cuusoo on the same level of importance as the more traditional sorts of market research used to plan new themes. So instead, we get one or two LEGO Cuusoo projects each year at best (remember, assigning designers to create LEGO Cuusoo products often means taking them away from other more traditional projects). Compare that with the rate at which LEGO Cuusoo projects are getting to review, and you'll quickly realize that the LEGO Group not only can, but MUST be choosy about which projects carry the greatest potential with the lowest risks. Rejected projects aren't by any means a sign that the platform is failing — rather, they're a sign that it's working to its current peak potential. If the LEGO Cuusoo products continue to sell well, perhaps LEGO Cuusoo will get a more significant operating budget and will be able to accept more projects per review cycle.

Perfectly put!

[Infernum]

Well put Aanchir! Very sound logic in that post! We can only hope that over time CUUSOO gains more funding as it proves its worth!

[jonwil]

I dont see anything in Ghostbusters that would cause it to fail on "brand fit" (the movie was rated PG in the US and in Australia and the "Real Ghostbusters" cartoon was even tamer).

If Ghostbusters gets rejected it would likely be for one of 4 reasons:

1.Cant get a license from Sony

2.Requires a new mold (e.g. if they want/need to include Slimer or another ghost and the Monster Fighters GITD ghost piece isn't good enough)

3.Requires too many new printings/part-color combos (print wise though it needs one new torso, 4 heads for the guys if they dont have suitable heads already plus printing or stickers for the GB logos on the car)

or 4.Is deemed not to be marketable enough (e.g. due to BTTF existing)

[Faefrost]

I dont see anything in Ghostbusters that would cause it to fail on "brand fit" (the movie was rated PG in the US and in Australia and the "Real Ghostbusters" cartoon was even tamer).

If Ghostbusters gets rejected it would likely be for one of 4 reasons:

1.Cant get a license from Sony

2.Requires a new mold (e.g. if they want/need to include Slimer or another ghost and the Monster Fighters GITD ghost piece isn't good enough)

3.Requires too many new printings/part-color combos (print wise though it needs one new torso, 4 heads for the guys if they dont have suitable heads already plus printing or stickers for the GB logos on the car)

or 4.Is deemed not to be marketable enough (e.g. due to BTTF existing)

I think a Ghostbusters Ecto One with 4 figs is about as close as we will get to a sure thing, (well other than the Mars Rover) outside of potential licensing issues, there aren't really any potential flaws in the idea. It's well sized, appropriate subject matter and has broad familiarity and appeal. We probably will not get the building however. Heck they could probably reuse the Rotta the Hutt mold in GitD as Slimer if they were so inclined.

The Oz set is the other highly likely one out of this review. Just too classic. The only real pitfalls would be license, and maybe figuring out a better way for the Tin Mans hat?

[jonwil]

I doubt they can use the Rotta mold as Slimer because A.Its probably not an active mold, possibly even retired (it was last used in 2008) and B.Its a licensed piece that looks exactly like a character from Star Wars. Therefore, its not something they can use outside of SW. (that and it doesn't even look much like Slimer)

[Infernum]

Ghostbusters is a pretty safe investment. The Ecto 1 would make a great, fair priced set. Oz would be tougher. I don't see TLG going with the purposed concept of linkable sections. Tin man's hat is also an issue.

[WetWired]

Disagree. It's contradictory because they just decided to make two more Minecraft sets but no BTTF theme plan. I can understand some inevitable license issues, but why can't we submit a theme plan if that could bring much profit to Lego? Or they could mention it in the guideline (theme ideas are OK, but note the following).

To be fair I'd say the continuation of the minecraft theme was mainly due to the sales success of the original set. The Delorean set has been out, what? 3 months now. The first Minecraft set had been out over a year before they announced the new versions. Sales success of the Delorean may entice them to expand the theme, though personally I don't think there's really any other sets that would have the appeal of the Delorean itself, it's an iconic movie car, the train or clocktower isn't in my opinion.

I don't think 'Fresh, "outside", ideas are what were rejected here. I don't think 'make figures of X character from X licensed theme' is fresh or 'outside' thinking.

That rules out several of the sets rejected.

I think the android set was, essentially, rubbish. It's a logo... that's it. It has no personality... no life. Nothing.

Pete... such a specific audience and not a particularly interesting build.

Batman Tumbler was just a lazy submission... released several times, in different sizes already and not even the best MOC out there.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why exactly my submission was lazy? The Tumbler was the first thing I made coming out of my dark ages and since I first posted pictures of it I've had contiguous offers of people wanting to purchase one, I sold a few but it wasn't something I was interested in doing forever, I just wanted to keep building stuff. so I put out instructions for free due to demand, something which took a lot of time for me to do, learning MLCAD, making the instructions and hosting them online. There was still a demand from people wanting to buy them so I thought the next best solution was to submit it to CUUSOO, with the potential for it to become a real set it could help people who didn't have the know-how to find the parts on bricklink and more selfishly, fulfil a dream of designing a lego set and see it sitting on a shelf for the world to see. I spent a considerable amount of time making a

and pimping it at every opportunity so you'll have to excuse me if I come off as slightly offended when it's called a lazy submission.

[Vindicare]

To be fair I'd say the continuation of the minecraft theme was mainly due to the sales success of the original set. The Delorean set has been out, what? 3 months now. The first Minecraft set had been out over a year before they announced the new versions. Sales success of the Delorean may entice them to expand the theme, though personally I don't think there's really any other sets that would have the appeal of the Delorean itself, it's an iconic movie car, the train or clocktower isn't in my opinion.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why exactly my submission was lazy? The Tumbler was the first thing I made coming out of my dark ages and since I first posted pictures of it I've had contiguous offers of people wanting to purchase one, I sold a few but it wasn't something I was interested in doing forever, I just wanted to keep building stuff. so I put out instructions for free due to demand, something which took a lot of time for me to do, learning MLCAD, making the instructions and hosting them online. There was still a demand from people wanting to buy them so I thought the next best solution was to submit it to CUUSOO, with the potential for it to become a real set it could help people who didn't have the know-how to find the parts on bricklink and more selfishly, fulfil a dream of designing a lego set and see it sitting on a shelf for the world to see. I spent a considerable amount of time making a

and pimping it at every opportunity so you'll have to excuse me if I come off as slightly offended when it's called a lazy submission.

Just a guess here, but I'm assuming he's referring to the fact that it's 'basically' a copy of something already in existence in LEGO, as opposed to a fresh and/or original design. Not that you didn't put forth the time and effort. I haven't had a real good look at your Tumbler, but having built the previous one, I'm sure it's a considerable improvement.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Legocrazy81

[4everLego]

I like it and will buy it if the production pieces are close to its looks and I'm not really even a space or a as Sci-Fi fan but I love the looks of it. It has the right proportion and is appealing to the eye.