Latest Cuusoo decision

[kinggregus]

Hi. Does anyone know if Cuusoo gave an update regarding the modular western town. As far as I know it was due to be reevaluated?

Thanks

H

[just2good]

Hi. Does anyone know if Cuusoo gave an update regarding the modular western town. As far as I know it was due to be reevaluated?

Thanks

H

Nope, but it was never due to be reevaluated. Where did you get that from?

[Faefrost]

Hi. Does anyone know if Cuusoo gave an update regarding the modular western town. As far as I know it was due to be reevaluated?

Thanks

H

The Portal 2 project was the one still in evaluation. The MWV was turned down because of a license conflict / no compete clause with the Lone Ranger licensed theme. There is nothing to re-evaluate there. It was just a matter of bad timing. The project came up just as TLG was entering into the contract with Disney. TLG doesn't have any choice in the decision.

[badbob001]

A problem I see with submitting a theme with several sets is that you don't know if people are voting for the initial set or for the whole theme. If after the initial set no further sets in the theme are produced, then the people who voted for the theme would feel that their vote didn't really count.

And the major problem with licensed creations is that you don't know if people are voting because they like the design or because they just like the source material. There is a difference between 'This is a really cool Ghostbuster set that I will buy.' and 'I would love for LEGO to license the Ghostbuster brand and see what they can do with it.'

I suppose it comes down to what you expect from Cuusoo. A way to showcase the creativity of LEGO users? Or a suggestion box of what are the hottest trending brands that will sure to sell well in a short time?

Edited October 26, 2013 by badbob001

[BrickG]

Not really interested in something generic. I'm a fanboy of franchises generally. I also don't see this selling as well as the last two cuusoo sets :P.

[meyerc13]

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?

What do you think the voters' reaction is to an outright denial? More voters would have been happy had at least one of the shops been made than are happy now. Not to mention, ultimately it doesn't matter what the voters think, it matters what LEGO's customers think. And I can tell you that millions of LEGO City fans would have bought any of these shops had they been made.

As for those who think that the Ghostbusters sets are a slam dunk, I can tell you why they'll probably never be made - because I voted for them. Every set I've voted for on Cuusoo that made 10K has been rejected (Western modular, Winchester, Firefly, Shops), and that's the problem with Cuusoo. For every 10K happy fans, there are many thousands more whose hopes are being dashed. It's like seeing a leaked retailer catalog picture, only to be told a few months laster that all of those sets have been cancelled. Couple the dashed hopes of hundreds of thousands of fans with the supply issues with Minecraft last year, and I think Cuusoo is getting LEGO more negative press than positive, at least among its core fans.

Edited October 27, 2013 by meyerc13

[Super Goblin]

The one thing or person that can hold the Ghostbusters set back is Bill Murray. He is known for wanting a lot of money to use his likeness. He may be asking for more than Lego is willing to pay.

[Robianco]

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.

Well the first thing I'll do is apologise for any offence caused. As I don't know you personally I can safely say it's nothing personal.

I think my opinion comes from how I see Cuusoo.

With regards to your Tumbler... Would I buy it if it released? Yeah... probably... as I would any really good release of Batman's Tumbler as I like the design of the vehicle. Do I think it's a good Cuusoo project? No... I don't. It could be beautifully designed and have hours, days, weeks or months of development to perfect it... as a build it may be great... but as a Cuusoo project it 'appears' a lazy one. For the simple reason that it's a pre-released item from an existing line. And I use the term 'lazy' as I have blank canvases to fill almost every day of my working life and it would be easy to rework an existing idea... it could be considered 'lazy'.

It's like if there was a superb UCS build of Slave 1... or a great Snowspeeder build (because they're 2 of my favourite ship designs from Star Wars)... would I buy them? In a heartbeat. Do I think they'd be made as a Cuusoo project? Not a chance. TLG have the licenses... they know what would sell... they've spoken to the license holders and their designers are more than capable of putting these out if they were going to happen... they simply don't need a prompt from MOC makers.... so if those particular items were going to be in the pipeline anytime over the next 2 years or so they'd already be pencilled in... And I'm going to include all the rest of the BTTF projects. We've got the Delorean and Marty and Doc. I don't actually think we need Marty's truck submitting, or Biff's Ford, or Doc's truck or the train from BTTFIII submitting as Cuusoo projects. It's not that they're not well done... it's just that the 'line' has been created... it's now down to TLG and their designers (now they have a license of some kind) what else comes out from that line.

And I think this is where my opinion of what Cuusoo is, or should be, about may differ from others.

You see I'm of the opinion that any release from an existing line is a lazy one. And the acceptance of those ideas into Cuusoo review will cause TLG problems. What if Cuusoo is inundated with ideas about the next Super Heroes line... every conceivable character, scenario or vehicle is submitted by tens, if not hundreds of contributors. They'd be Lego versions of scenes from books, comics or films... possibly great ones... scenes that resonate with fans of those characters.. those moments. Where do Lego go then? Surely they have ideas of releases many months in advance... the license owners will have briefed them on what they'd like to see to support their venture... be it a film, TV programme, Game.. whatever. The designers have worked on things... figure prints have been started... new mould concepts considered... But all the these scenarios have been covered by Cuusoo submissions... Brick Queen mentioned about her sewer design and certain things being taken from her designs in one of her video blogs... even in jest... who knows how far in advance that was worked on by Lego and whether it has any resemblance to what is actually released but it opens up the possibility to 'That was my idea and they ripped it... where's my 1%?'. So not matter what TLG put out someone... or several people... will call foul and claim that TLG ripped them... or they didn't have the vision to put it out when they 'should' have. They'll call TLG and their designers lazy back... lazy for just using Cuusoo as an ideas pot for them to pick from what they will and sit back laughing in a lego-made vault of cash.

Cuusoo should be more about the early Japanese releases... Nothing to do with current line... totally out of the blue... using Lego for what it was intended... to make your own creations, not just use it as a big nudge to TLG to make your favourite minifigure because they haven't got round to it yet.

MOCs are special.. all of them. From the first creations made by my 4 yr old that resemble a barely standing tower of doors, windows, flowers and pink bricks to the incredible worlds created by some.... worlds that just wouldn't work as boxed up official releases... but that doesn't mean that they should be made by TLG. People should submit their ideas to Cuusoo... even as a way of showing other Lego fans what they've done but if its not right for release then I hope people don't say Cuusoo is failing because I don't think it is. I think it's just having to choose very specifically what actually works as a Cuusoo reviewed release regardless of how quickly it gets its 10,000 votes.

A problem I see with submitting a theme with several sets is that you don't know if people are voting for the initial set or for the whole theme. If after the initial set no further sets in the theme are produced, then the people who voted for the theme would feel that their vote didn't really count.

And the major problem with licensed creations is that you don't know if people are voting because they like the design or because they just like the source material. There is a difference between 'This is a really cool Ghostbuster set that I will buy.' and 'I would love for LEGO to license the Ghostbuster brand and see what they can do with it.'

I suppose it comes down to what you expect from Cuusoo. A way to showcase the creativity of LEGO users? Or a suggestion box of what are the hottest trending brands that will sure to sell well in a short time?

Damn it!... I started my reply to an earlier comment this morning then went out for the day before finishing it. Your post sums up rather well exactly how I feel about Cuusoo also.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Robianco

[Faefrost]

What do you think the voters' reaction is to an outright denial? More voters would have been happy had at least one of the shops been made than are happy now. Not to mention, ultimately it doesn't matter what the voters think, it matters what LEGO's customers think. And I can tell you that millions of LEGO City fans would have bought any of these shops had they been made.

As for those who think that the Ghostbusters sets are a slam dunk, I can tell you why they'll probably never be made - because I voted for them. Every set I've voted for on Cuusoo that made 10K has been rejected (Western modular, Winchester, Firefly, Shops), and that's the problem with Cuusoo. For every 10K happy fans, there are many thousands more whose hopes are being dashed. It's like seeing a leaked retailer catalog picture, only to be told a few months laster that all of those sets have been cancelled. Couple the dashed hopes of hundreds of thousands of fans with the supply issues with Minecraft last year, and I think Cuusoo is getting LEGO more negative press than positive, at least among its core fans.

So which set would they have been happy with? The Starbuck's? The McDonalds? Oneof the others? Voters for a project like that are not a heterogenous grouping. And that is the problem. Once the project is sold to the voters as a Theme or even worse a "Series" it makes it much harder for the reviewers to prune something out for development into a single project. Not impossible, but it does greatly increase the odds of rejection. If you say voters would have been satisfied with just one small building with some accessories, well OK, then what differentiated the project from set 7848? (other than the lack of a truck?).

The minishops is an almost perfect example of something that can look great as a fan desirable, but still be an absolutely lousy business proposal. They are great simple little builds. Easily done within Lego. (So easily done within Lego that Lego has in fact done these types of sets and builds numerous times, just not with these specific businesses. See TRU, Batman Bank, etc). But the project was doomed for a combined number of reasons. In part because it was proposed as a series, not simply a one off. And then it required not just one, but multiple separate licences. While CuuSoo has never explicitly said this, I am willing to bet that any project that requires two or more individual licences, dealing with entirely separate rights holders will almost certainly fail the business case review. (Yeah, that will probably be bad news for fans of the Macross / Robotech Valkyrie ) . Further compound that with each of these licences would have once again TLG creating something to promote another business, rather than the built in play value of the licensed IP itself. (There is a bit of a difference between making products full of McDonalds logo's and recreating a scene and characters from Star Wars. It can seem subtle at times.) While no single one of these issues would have doomed the Minishops. The combined weight of them makes for a truly horrid business case.

Look at the negatives this way;

- The project was proposed as a multiple release "Series"

- Each piece of the series requires a separate licence

- The separate licences are not characters or mass media scenes, or for models of actual real life products that another company produces, but are in fact exclusively corporate logo's.

- If the project is reduced to 2 minishops it still requires multiple licences.

- If the project is reduced to one minishop it has a high number of similar characteristics to already released Lego sets. Some of which are still on store shelves. And one of which is directly tied to a core TLG business partner.

- The only thing specific or distinctive about this project is those licensed corporate logo's. Without them the same results could easily be accomplished under the existing City or Friends themes using generic places of business. Mary's Coffee Shop? O'Reilly's Burgers? etc.

I'm not saying any one of these would cause a failure. Some of them TLG has and will work around in order to produce products. But the aggregate weight of the questions quickly builds up to the point where you can easily see where it might clearly hit issues at review.

[Aanchir]

The other thing about the Mini Shops series is that any one of the individual shops MIGHT have sold well. But by grouping them all together under one project, it obfuscates which building appealed most to each supporter. If there were four shops and only 25% of the voters were interested in any one shop, then no single shop REALLY had 10,000 supporters. But you can't break things down that way because it's impossible to know just which of the shops made the project appeal to which supporters. Any predictive value the Cuusoo platform might have had is suddenly down the toilet.

[Dorayaki]

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.

Purdue Pete is the one cloest to this statement I think. Yes, technically many projects in Cuusoo don't look like real product concepts (perhaps no marketing abilities or more like a theme), and some do actually have repetitive concepts (e.g. ToyRUs mini shop). But I think there are still some potential and creativity in the rejected projects.

Some projects that show desire to get licenses don't have really good product concept, honestly. So far the two Zelda projects don't look suitable to Lego. So hope that TLC do really focus on products when they review more Zelda projects.

The other thing about the Mini Shops series is that any one of the individual shops MIGHT have sold well. But by grouping them all together under one project.

If they are individual projects, they should be more polished and different as buildings, not generic shop sizes. I think the project focus on chain store size more than licenses.

But it is indeed a problem in marketing when voters or potential consumers only buy one shop. The solution could be that selecting three different brands sold together (but more license payment).

So, does it mean that other projects with individual license and building concepts (for example, the Apple Store in top 10) have better chances to succeed than mini shops? We're not sure.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Dorayaki

[RunnersDad]

The exo-suit is a nice choice. I would, however, love to see a series of Zelda sets released. Although I am sure that negotiating for the rights would be difficult and rather expensive given the popularity of the games.

[Faefrost]

The exo-suit is a nice choice. I would, however, love to see a series of Zelda sets released. Although I am sure that negotiating for the rights would be difficult and rather expensive given the popularity of the games.

It ,might not be as difficult as you might believe. Zelda is a video game property. It is a big fish in a very small tank. It is extremely popular amongst Nintendo fans. But really the best Zelda game sold just under 8 million. It's estimated that the total crossover Zelda fans number somewhere around 10 million or so. Those numbers do not equate to "expensive given the popularity of the games". Zelda would be a cheap and easy license if it wasn't for Nintendo. You end up paying a large license price to Nintendo for what should be an inexpensive license with limited market reach and penetration, Zelda.

[Brickmasta]

I am so excited and looking forward to this set, hopefully they stay true to this design with all the cool parts... and do not simplify it!

And lets hope that GHOSTBUSTERS will be next

[Lyichir]

It ,might not be as difficult as you might believe. Zelda is a video game property. It is a big fish in a very small tank. It is extremely popular amongst Nintendo fans. But really the best Zelda game sold just under 8 million. It's estimated that the total crossover Zelda fans number somewhere around 10 million or so. Those numbers do not equate to "expensive given the popularity of the games". Zelda would be a cheap and easy license if it wasn't for Nintendo. You end up paying a large license price to Nintendo for what should be an inexpensive license with limited market reach and penetration, Zelda.

You keep raising the issue of a small fanbase, but do keep in mind that the cumulative fanbase of The Legend of Zelda is likely more than the people who just got the last released game, just like the fanbase of Back to the Future includes people who might not have actually watched the movie in years. I think an ideal Zelda set would capture key elements of the series as a whole, and thus appeal not just to fans who still buy the latest Nintendo system and play the latest Zelda games, but also to adults who loved the older games in the series in their childhoods.

I've noticed lately that Lego's competitors (Mega Bloks, K'nex, Kre-O, etc.) have been acquiring video game licenses left and right. Obviously they see some sales potential in brands like Mario and Halo. I fail to see how video game proposals are too niche for Lego to produce, especially if they work with the limited budget and low initial production volume Cuusoo allows for.

[Herky]

Just an aside on Purdue Pete, it reached 10K due to a campaign to Purdue students and alumni who signed up...while kind of cool as a college mascot done in Lego, I really can't see TLG ever making a line like this...good job to it's builder, but I really doubt it was ever meant to be taken seriously as a definitive product that TLG would market.

I have been on the lookout to buy the first Cuusoo project, the Shinkai...I do think we forget that Cuusoo is Japanese word and it was all started due to the desire of this set to be made. It has morphed from there certainly, but that set is a cool looking set. I have to think TLG saw this and thought Aaah, this might be a cool way to get some feedback on product to market and if it fits the molds and folks buy it, why not? That 1st set only sold in Japan as well...it's interesting to see how this has grown and I think TLG really has something on their hands they did not anticipate now. Just my opinion anyway.

[Brickmasta]

Just an aside on Purdue Pete, it reached 10K due to a campaign to Purdue students and alumni who signed up...while kind of cool as a college mascot done in Lego, I really can't see TLG ever making a line like this...good job to it's builder, but I really doubt it was ever meant to be taken seriously as a definitive product that TLG would market.

I have been on the lookout to buy the first Cuusoo project, the Shinkai...I do think we forget that Cuusoo is Japanese word and it was all started due to the desire of this set to be made. It has morphed from there certainly, but that set is a cool looking set. I have to think TLG saw this and thought Aaah, this might be a cool way to get some feedback on product to market and if it fits the molds and folks buy it, why not? That 1st set only sold in Japan as well...it's interesting to see how this has grown and I think TLG really has something on their hands they did not anticipate now. Just my opinion anyway.

Great background info, did not know that... thx!

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Regarding the Mini-Shops:

Lego could have just made the mini Lego Store. No licensing fees there, and it might even be an impulse buy for a lot of people. ("Hey, I can buy the store that I'm in.") I'm perplexed on that one, particularly since CUUSOO told him that the final product might have to focus on one store.

[Faefrost]

You keep raising the issue of a small fanbase, but do keep in mind that the cumulative fanbase of The Legend of Zelda is likely more than the people who just got the last released game, just like the fanbase of Back to the Future includes people who might not have actually watched the movie in years. I think an ideal Zelda set would capture key elements of the series as a whole, and thus appeal not just to fans who still buy the latest Nintendo system and play the latest Zelda games, but also to adults who loved the older games in the series in their childhoods.

I've noticed lately that Lego's competitors (Mega Bloks, K'nex, Kre-O, etc.) have been acquiring video game licenses left and right. Obviously they see some sales potential in brands like Mario and Halo. I fail to see how video game proposals are too niche for Lego to produce, especially if they work with the limited budget and low initial production volume Cuusoo allows for.

I am keeping it in mind. That is why the estimated TOTAL Zelda fan base is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million. Peak sales + 20% is a reasonably safe (if conservative) estimate for such things. Without some other outside markers there is not going to be a huge pool of "cumulative fanbase" that differs wildly from the peak. The Zelda fan numbers trend very very stable from game to game. Without a lot of high peaks or valleys, (outside of that 1 game hitting 8 million.) nor a steady predictable upwards trend. Particularly noteworthy is that the peak game is not the most recent or current one. The peak game was 2006's Twighlight Princess. The next bast sellers were the original 1987 Legend of Zelda at 6.5 million and 1996's Occarina of Time at 7.6 million . Beyond that pretty much every other title, including all of those released since 2006, typically sit somewhere in the rough neighborhood of 4 million. (say mid 3's to mid 4's).

You nailed the problem with many video games on the head with this; "and thus appeal not just to fans who still buy the latest Nintendo system and play the latest Zelda games". Video game properties tend to be hardware gated or limited in their potential fan bases. Nintendo ones even more so. Mario has managed to get past this becoming a cultural icon. Zelda games, not as much as we might think. They are part of a niche. a reasonably large niche mind you. But still a fairly fixed one.

You point out that some of TLG's competitors are diving into video game properties with some gusto. This is true. But requires a bit of understanding. Those competitors are for the most part seeking " Blue Water Markets". Untapped niches in which they can compete. Places where the big dogs in the room are choosing not to play. So they are going after lower cost but higher risk properties in the hopes of finding a hidden treasure. Megablocks is going after Call of Duty because Lego is the big dog in the room. They have had some success doing this. (well okay, pretty much just Halo.) and a lot of at best meh results (World of Warcraft for example. May have turned a small profit, but certainly no huge hit for the costs.) Whereas Lego has no reason to play in the riskier marketspaces. They can get the A list long term wide audience properties and they dominate the Red Water Markets. At their level going after riskier smaller niche properties is typically a wasteful use of their most precious resource, production and factory time. So they will apply a much more stringent and harsher business case analysis to video game properties than some of their competitors. It's worth noting that to my knowledge the only video game properties that TLG's largest competitor Kre-O (Hasbro) has licensed and produced are their recent Cityville sets. Which like TLG's Minecraft releases are based on mobile platform games which are believed to reach a broader audience than traditional video games.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Faefrost

[AndyC]

Lego could have just made the mini Lego Store. No licensing fees there, and it might even be an impulse buy for a lot of people. ("Hey, I can buy the store that I'm in.") I'm perplexed on that one, particularly since CUUSOO told him that the final product might have to focus on one store.

Sure, they could have. But then 9998 of the voters might have really only voted because they wanted an official Starbucks set. It's difficult to say for sure what the effects of massively changing the focus of a project like that would have had, especially since we aren't privy to the comments people included with their supporting vote.

[The Real Indiana Jones]

The other thing about the Mini Shops series is that any one of the individual shops MIGHT have sold well. But by grouping them all together under one project, it obfuscates which building appealed most to each supporter. If there were four shops and only 25% of the voters were interested in any one shop, then no single shop REALLY had 10,000 supporters. But you can't break things down that way because it's impossible to know just which of the shops made the project appeal to which supporters. Any predictive value the Cuusoo platform might have had is suddenly down the toilet.

Yes, I definitely remember reading one or two official-sounding statements about that several months ago, before I started designing.

I'm sure I remember them saying very directly that putting multiple sets on one voting page is illegal, and for the exact same reasons you cite. When the project reaches 10,000, Lego does not have any clear way of knowing which project people were really voting for.

Hmm, but now that they've rearranged their Knowledge Base and categorized FAQ into a more blog-style format, I can not find exactly where they said it. It may be that they are purposefully letting this question be vague, at least for now. Do you have any data on this?

Edited October 31, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[Aanchir]

Yes, I definitely remember reading one or two official-sounding statements about that several months ago, before I started designing.

I'm sure I remember them saying very directly that putting multiple sets on one voting page is illegal, and for the exact same reasons you cite. When the project reaches 10,000, Lego does not have any clear way of knowing which project people were really voting for.

Hmm, but now that they've rearranged their Knowledge Base and categorized FAQ into a more blog-style format, I can not find exactly where they said it. It may be that they are purposefully letting this question be vague, at least for now. Do you have any data on this?

I don't think there's an explicit rule against having multiple set concepts, but it was definitely in their guidelines for helping a project pass review.

The issue with a lot of projects is that if they begin as "theme projects", then even if they're subsequently narrowed down to a single building, any support it got before that change is called into question. And this applies for ANY major change in a project well after it is proposed. While the LEGO Cuusoo staff do encourage users to modify their projects if they have clear issues that will hurt them in review, major changes of that sort can sometimes be "too little, too late".

[ShaydDeGrai]

Yes, I definitely remember reading one or two official-sounding statements about that several months ago, before I started designing.

I'm sure I remember them saying very directly that putting multiple sets on one voting page is illegal, and for the exact same reasons you cite. When the project reaches 10,000, Lego does not have any clear way of knowing which project people were really voting for.

Hmm, but now that they've rearranged their Knowledge Base and categorized FAQ into a more blog-style format, I can not find exactly where they said it. It may be that they are purposefully letting this question be vague, at least for now. Do you have any data on this?

The story official story has evolved over time. In the very early days of CuuSoo it was quite open-ended, very much a "what would _you_ WISH for" sort of thing. They entertained ideas for new parts, new sets, new themes and non-brick tie-in products. Some proposals had no photos at all, other only had a hand-drawn sketch or two. Other than "brand fit" there weren't a lot of restrictions. People proposed entire themes with multiple buildings (Modular western town was the first to hit big), sets that required new IP licensing, sets that required new molds, or all of the above (a new licensed theme that required new molds).

Over time, between answers in the knowledge-base, official comments on projects that reached the 1K boundary and comment made in interviews and at conventions, the story changed. "Theme" proposals, while not forbidden, were discouraged. The "preferred" approach became to propose a set that might grow into a theme, not to propose a theme and then pick a pilot set. Personally, upon hearing this, I broke up my own proposal for a Lord of the Rings Architecture line into four separate proposals. Previously, my builds for bookshelf versions of Minas Tirith, Helm's Deep, Orthanc, and the Black Gate were all built to be illustrations of the theme proposal, today each is a separate set project and while the text reference the goal of an Architecture "theme", what people are actually voting on is a discrete set.

Likewise the story of new parts/molds has changed from a par-for-the-course attitude to "a requirement for new molds drastically reduce the likelihood a set will pass review" While part proposals were (and still are, I believe) a valid topic for CuuSoo, they were a separate (marginalized) beast that should proposed as stand-alone items aimed specifically at selling the part itself. Without coupling it to a specific build or IP it became almost impossible for a lowly mold proposal (of interest mostly to AFOL MOC'ers) to compete for attention amid the sea of sexy Star Wars, Batman, video-game and other pop-culture driven set proposals. Last time I checked, the most popular new mold proposal in the history of CuuSoo has less than 1500 supporters and the top 10 new element proposals _combined_ don't add up to 10K supports.

For anyone who cares (bit of a tangent)...

Going over my notebook (yes, I used to keep a CuuSoo notebook back when I followed the experiment more closely; TLG shares so few insights that, early on, I felt compelled to write down what little trickled out) of key points from postings, interviews and talks from the CuuSoo team, _I_ arrived at the following "implied" rules of thumb:

* Proposals should focus on one part _or_ one stand-alone set. It's fine to show how a part might be used or how a set might fit into a theme, but it should be clear to the viewer that they are supporting one item

* Proposed set should rely upon elements currently in production. The proposed model will _never_ be identical to the finished one (should it make it that far) but if a new mold or a part that hasn't been produced in twenty years is vital to do justice to the model that users supported, it will become a detriment to the proposal come review time.

* "Revival" projects for kits that have already been done for the same audience should be avoided (i.e. Yet another minifigure scale SW snowspeeder)

* "Obvious" projects closely tied to existing themes should be avoided (i.e. Batman v. (baddie who hasn't been made yet) it's probably in the pipeline and no, you can't claim they stole your idea when it eventually comes out.)

* For IP sets, the number of non-minifigure related parts (bricks, plates, wheels, tiles, etc.) should always outnumber the number of mini-fig ones. As popular as mini-figures are, TLG usually only holds the construction toy license, not the action figure one and selling "bulk" licensed figures can become a legal nightmare.

* Contested IPs (history of legal problems) and crossover IP (too many stakeholders to deal with, i.e. Alien v. Predator, Dr. Who visits Star Trek, etc.) should be avoided. Securing one IP for a small set is enough of an issue without requiring multiples and/or making TLG an additional party to an ongoing or future lawsuit.

* There is no part-count limit, but MSRP will be taken into account during review. A set that can be sold for 35 USD will likely be viewed more favorably than one that would demand a triple digit price tag. User comments in the support dialog are taken into account when reviewing the scale of the kit, but only if the values entered are realistic (one dollar and "millions - money is no object" are not realistic)

* You can't tell people what they should say they are willing to pay, but 10 cents a part, $3.50 per minifigure, $5 for lighting and $20 for motors is a good way to ballpark how "economically realistic" your proposal is. Proposing an unrealistic kit _AT_ an unrealistic price is right out (i.e. A bucket of 150 Stormtroopers for $100)

* Proposals for IPs currently _licensed by_ other companies are acceptable but IP _originated by_ rival toy companies are not (i.e. My Little Pony, Cabbage Patch Kids, Masters of the Universe, etc.)

Again, these are just things that I inferred based on what I was reading or hearing from any official source I could find (so feel free to entirely disregard them). There is nothing "official" about them, but using them as a yardstick (combined with the official rules) I really haven't been surprised by any of the review results thus far; I thought the Exo-suit was on shaky ground (older parts, fragility, Exo-force revivial aspect, similarity (in theme) to Creator mechs and robots etc.) but I'm happy it got through. I just hope whatever revisions they make stay true to the original character of the design.

[The Real Indiana Jones]

I don't think there's an explicit rule against having multiple set concepts, but it was definitely in their guidelines for helping a project pass review.

The issue with a lot of projects is that if they begin as "theme projects", then even if they're subsequently narrowed down to a single building, any support it got before that change is called into question. And this applies for ANY major change in a project well after it is proposed. While the LEGO Cuusoo staff do encourage users to modify their projects if they have clear issues that will hurt them in review, major changes of that sort can sometimes be "too little, too late".

Over time, between answers in the knowledge-base, official comments on projects that reached the 1K boundary and comment made in interviews and at conventions, the story changed. "Theme" proposals, while not forbidden, were discouraged. The "preferred" approach became to propose a set that might grow into a theme, not to propose a theme and then pick a pilot set. Personally, upon hearing this, I broke up my own proposal for a Lord of the Rings Architecture line into four separate proposals. Previously, my builds for bookshelf versions of Minas Tirith, Helm's Deep, Orthanc, and the Black Gate were all built to be illustrations of the theme proposal, today each is a separate set project and while the text reference the goal of an Architecture "theme", what people are actually voting on is a discrete set.

Hmm, yes, overall it seems like they are willing to let builders propose a wider theme, as long as each individual set is posted on its own individual page, so all voting is separate, and each one rises or falls by its own merits, and so they know which ones people really want.

I think that they may be a bit more forgiving with projects like "Japanese Old-Style Architecture", where the three proposed sets are very similar in size and concept, so if people are voted for one of them, then they would probably gladly buy any of them in the end.

And I want to ask about "The Glory of Rome" as an example. He has three images. One is a $13 gladiator battle pack. Another is a $30 set with a chariot and a campsite. The third is a $150++ warship that would need to include a minimum of 12 figs.

So is "The Glory of Rome" doomed? I think it should be. Add to that:

1) I think they have already said no to gladiators and blood-sport, specifically when they rejected The Hunger Games.

2) He still has several new molds shown on his page, so thousands of his votes were gained in direct violation of the rules.

3) He gave up in a huff over a year ago, actually writing veiled accusations of fraud against TLG right there on his Cuusoo page!

I might really like to see them make that giant war-ship as a UCS set, but overall I'd say he's doomed himself!

Edited October 31, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[Faefrost]

For anyone who cares (bit of a tangent)...

Going over my notebook (yes, I used to keep a CuuSoo notebook back when I followed the experiment more closely; TLG shares so few insights that, early on, I felt compelled to write down what little trickled out) of key points from postings, interviews and talks from the CuuSoo team, _I_ arrived at the following "implied" rules of thumb:

* Proposals should focus on one part _or_ one stand-alone set. It's fine to show how a part might be used or how a set might fit into a theme, but it should be clear to the viewer that they are supporting one item

* Proposed set should rely upon elements currently in production. The proposed model will _never_ be identical to the finished one (should it make it that far) but if a new mold or a part that hasn't been produced in twenty years is vital to do justice to the model that users supported, it will become a detriment to the proposal come review time.

* "Revival" projects for kits that have already been done for the same audience should be avoided (i.e. Yet another minifigure scale SW snowspeeder)

* "Obvious" projects closely tied to existing themes should be avoided (i.e. Batman v. (baddie who hasn't been made yet) it's probably in the pipeline and no, you can't claim they stole your idea when it eventually comes out.)

* For IP sets, the number of non-minifigure related parts (bricks, plates, wheels, tiles, etc.) should always outnumber the number of mini-fig ones. As popular as mini-figures are, TLG usually only holds the construction toy license, not the action figure one and selling "bulk" licensed figures can become a legal nightmare.

* Contested IPs (history of legal problems) and crossover IP (too many stakeholders to deal with, i.e. Alien v. Predator, Dr. Who visits Star Trek, etc.) should be avoided. Securing one IP for a small set is enough of an issue without requiring multiples and/or making TLG an additional party to an ongoing or future lawsuit.

* There is no part-count limit, but MSRP will be taken into account during review. A set that can be sold for 35 USD will likely be viewed more favorably than one that would demand a triple digit price tag. User comments in the support dialog are taken into account when reviewing the scale of the kit, but only if the values entered are realistic (one dollar and "millions - money is no object" are not realistic)

* You can't tell people what they should say they are willing to pay, but 10 cents a part, $3.50 per minifigure, $5 for lighting and $20 for motors is a good way to ballpark how "economically realistic" your proposal is. Proposing an unrealistic kit _AT_ an unrealistic price is right out (i.e. A bucket of 150 Stormtroopers for $100)

* Proposals for IPs currently _licensed by_ other companies are acceptable but IP _originated by_ rival toy companies are not (i.e. My Little Pony, Cabbage Patch Kids, Masters of the Universe, etc.)

Again, these are just things that I inferred based on what I was reading or hearing from any official source I could find (so feel free to entirely disregard them). There is nothing "official" about them, but using them as a yardstick (combined with the official rules) I really haven't been surprised by any of the review results thus far; I thought the Exo-suit was on shaky ground (older parts, fragility, Exo-force revivial aspect, similarity (in theme) to Creator mechs and robots etc.) but I'm happy it got through. I just hope whatever revisions they make stay true to the original character of the design.

That is a great and very concise list ShayDeGrai. Here are two possible updates for it based on newer data.

* CuuSoo does not have the ability to entertain making unique new molds exclusive to a project or set.Things like unique character heads or hairpieces. Projects that require such things to achieve their desired results will probably not pass review. (See Legend of Zelda)

And this one

" Proposals for IPs currently _licensed by_ other companies are acceptable but IP _originated by_ rival toy companies are not (i.e. My Little Pony, Cabbage Patch Kids, Masters of the Universe, etc.)"

Should be updated to modify the first statement. IP currently licensed and in active use by other companies is also not acceptable. And such projects will get archived at a certain level of support (1000 votes?). This applies to Dr. Who, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, Halo, etc.

And finally

* projects that directly compete with an existing in production licenced theme, while not disallowed, have a strong chance of failure at review. (Ie A Classic Pirates project while the PotC licence is in effect, etc.)