Is Lego too much focused on Power Functions?

[merman]

This year only we get two big sets with PF, three if you'd include the Boss Crawler. My house is littered with M-motors and battery boxes. PF is a wonderful addition to Technic, but don't you think Lego is overdoing it?

The list since the introduction of PF:

2013: 3 out if 12 sets

2012: 2 out of 9 sets

2011: 3 out of 10 sets

2010: 2 out of 10 sets

2009: 2 out of 10 sets

2008: 2 out of 7 sets (not including the Motor Set)

2007: 1 out 6 set

So trend is that the amount of PF sets is not specifically increasing, but the focus on PF seems to increase anyway. The sets that don't have PF are slowed down gear-wise to seduce us to add PF, like 8295, 8265, 9396 and 42006.

Edited June 22, 2013 by merman

[N-4K0]

I personally don't care that much about PF, it's not a "must have" for me. Although operating such functions manually can be boring, I think it's a waste of batteries having to use 6 just to run a PF motor. I guess I'm generally not a big fan of complex models that may require PF for the functions. I'm more a fan of less complex models, I don't feel I need suspension, differentials, PF and such things.

I'm planning to get the new mobile crane if it's not too expensive, but I want such sets mostly for parts and stuff to do MOCing, not for the model itself or for PF and such things.

Besides, buying many sets, one would just end up with a bunch of motors and battery boxes one might not even need.

[PlaneCrazy]

I like the concept of the model being designed not to need them; however if you want it you can buy the motors yourself and fit using the instructions included.

Means the sets can be more complex without the added price hike of PF (example the helicopter last year).

Just my 2 cents worth.

Jamie

[Bricktrain]

I like to keep several of each PF component spare for building with, I keep my models built so dont have a whole lot of extras, usually I have to BL some more. I like PF models that have the motors integrated, rather than as add-ons like 9395 which looked out of place.

[timslegos]

I may just be a part of the new small attention span generation but I generally find most manual functions to be boring. One of the best examples would be the telehandler set. Lifting the main boom was ridiculously tedious without the motor.

tim

[Kwon]

In my opinion, Power Function is not just powerplant of Lego, That is something Like The LIFE or SOUL of Legos, Love that, Lego should keep power functions.

[Paul B Technic]

I think power functions have a place but they should not be seen as something that most sets need. In some sets they work really well, in others they feel like an add on.

[piterx]

Well power function for me is the main reason of building things... It adds challenge to the building process :)

[Anio]

PF is a wonderful addition to Technic, but don't you think Lego is overdoing it?

When I see 42008, yes, Lego over use PF on models that are not designed to be correctly PFed. :-S

The kit 8293 is generally a nice addition (set 8294 and 8265). However, 8293 can not do miracles if the model sucks (8295).

Well power function for me is the main reason of building things... It adds challenge to the building process :)

I hardly see the relationship between PF and complexity.

8264 and 8052 : M + BB, and boring

8258, 9397 and 42009 : one motor + BB, and pretty complex

9398 and 41999 : one M, one servo, 2 L, leds, BB, switch, remote control, IR receiver : not very complex.

Complexity is something different than just using PF elements.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Anio

[Bricksonwheels]

It is also a matter of investment. Developping the new PF line, and producing it is costly compared to making moulds and inject mould new bricks.

[Erik Leppen]

My problem with PF is that it adds a lot to the price of a set without adding complexity. For one motor, 100 regular parts. See 8285, which had almost 1900 parts and was cheaper than than 8043 which had only about 1150 parts.

Also it seems that almost all flagship sets have PF. I'd like to see a flagship set without PF. 8285 was again a good example. 8289, 8053, 9396 are nice too, but not flagships.

But it has to be said that sometimes adding a motor adds a level of complexity because of all the gearboxes, see 42008, 42009, 8258.

Sets with a heavy focus on PF, 8275 and 9398, are not really my thing but a nice diversion into playability and will surely attract kids. 8043 is the exception because it is genuinely complex as well.

[Anio]

8289 [...] nice too

:-S

This set is a major failure and the reason why TLG made 8292 only 2 years later.

[allanp]

I'm not too bothered by an over use of PF, in fact I like it, what I don't like is an over reliance on PF. What I mean by that is, when they rely too much on a model having PF to be a major selling point, like the crawler, the excavator and the bulldozer. With those three models the biggest selling point was that they had lots of PF. As much as I am not at all excited by 42009 they at least used PF to enhance the model rather than using it to be it's only selling point. Then there are sets like the front end loader and the telehandler. Both of these sets are boring as hell the play with without PF, so you have to use them despite an earlier front end loader from 1997 being much more fun to build and play with without the need of a motor. However you can add a motor, doing so motorises the wheels which is great, as opposed to relying on adding a motor to make it tolerable to play with.

[piterx]

When I see 42008, yes, Lego over use PF on models that are not designed to be correctly PFed. :-S

The kit 8293 is generally a nice addition (set 8294 and 8265). However, 8293 can not do miracles if the model sucks (8295).

I hardly see the relationship between PF and complexity.

8264 and 8052 : M + BB, and boring

8258, 9397 and 42009 : one motor + BB, and pretty complex

9398 and 41999 : one M, one servo, 2 L, leds, BB, switch, remote control, IR receiver : not very complex.

Complexity is something different than just using PF elements.

oh i see! i didn't get the point of the topic till now XD

yeah probably i agree with allanp but i almost never buy sets so it doesn't bother me that much :P

[Anio]

a major selling point, like the crawler, the excavator and the bulldozer. With those three models the biggest selling point was that they had lots of PF.

The awesome playability ?

Edited June 23, 2013 by Anio

[Rijkvv]

@allanp: The 8275 Motorized Bulldozer is my only set of the studless era, but reading the reviews I think you are absolutely right. Most of today's sets either use PF, or need them as add-on to stay playable.

I think the PF system is overused. Some of the mid-sized sets would be more fun with either gears (a rack-and-pinion tipper like the tipper function of 8479 would be great) or pneumatics. The 8070 is a perfect example of a set that could me much better, if a proper manual gearbox was installed. Instead, a switchbox is used to control functions that I doubt are motorized in real life at all, let alone with a switchbox between the seats. The true supercars 8880 and 8448 prove that awesome sets can be made without the need of motors.

But I guess that's what kids like these days: no need for realism, as long as everything is motorized. I see the same with MOCs: I think there are few new MOCs without motors.

[legomuppet9]

Well power function for me is the main reason of building things... It adds challenge to the building process :)

I hardly see the relationship between PF and complexity.

8264 and 8052 : M + BB, and boring

8258, 9397 and 42009 : one motor + BB, and pretty complex

9398 and 41999 : one M, one servo, 2 L, leds, BB, switch, remote control, IR receiver : not very complex.

Complexity is something different than just using PF elements.

Piterx means complexity such as Sheepo's MOC's, not like how Lego incorporates it.

I personally feel that if used in the correct way, Power Functions can add a new level of complexity to a model.

However I do think that when Lego try and get you to motorise a model in a way like the 9395 pick up truck, it becomes silly and unnecessary. So there's a balance

[DLuders]

After some initial development of proposed sets, The Lego Group "tests" their proposed models with groups of kids. They see what they like to play with, and what they "gravitate" to. Today's toy market is very competitive. There are inexpensive RC cars that can run circles around anything produced by Lego, yet parents buy Power Functions-enabled sets for their kids because of the VERSATILITY of Lego (to be taken apart, and made into something else). Most kids nowadays are not satisfied with just rolling an inanimate vehicle across the floor, turning some knobs, etc. -- they want ACTION. Only 5% of Lego sets are bought by AFOLs.

Edited June 23, 2013 by DLuders

[Lipko]

I think there are few new MOCs without motors.

I agree. Especially for car MOCs. For me, motorizing drive actually reduces playability, I can "feel" the model much more if I push it around by hand than operating it with a remote controller. Manual functions for a car are not tedious at all, so motorizing isn't essential, as with some construction models.

I finished manualizing my latest small rally car. I could push it around it form hours while I hardly ever played with the remote controlled version. The model is much lighter, I more feel like taking it up and admire the end result a bit.

Building PF models is not really more complex according to my limited experience. The more PF can actually reduce complexity as you don't need many gearboxes and you may not have to route drive trains to distant places.

I worked for a few days with the RC version of the small rally car. Manualizing it took weeks. Making the small fake engine at the correct place, making both the steering wheel and HOG steering work, the structure was no longer stiffened by a battery box, etc. (okay, making the end result look like the RC version also added complexity).

EDIT: except for off road cars. You can't manually push a car over obstacles, so a trial truck is obviously pointless without remote control.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Lipko

[Lakop]

I see the point that a set should not require power functions to make it playable. That's something that put me off other toys as a child. I like something that is playable straight away. With lego technic we get the best of both worlds I think. But I agree also with the suggestions of big models that will not require PF to be playable. I'm a fan of remote control but it can make it expensive (I could never afford them as a child) and therefore difficult for the younger lego fans.

H

[dr_spock]

Based on merman's numbers, Lego seems to have kept PF under 1/3 of Technic sets annually.

2013 25.00%

2012 22.22%

2011 30.00%

2010 20.00%

2009 20.00%

2008 28.57%

2007 16.67%

I think kids today like motorized and remote control devices. Our LUG did a display at a family picnic. I noticed some kids hung around my GBC much longer than the static models. The parents had to pull the kids away to look at the other stuff. They then sneaked back without the parents. Those kids will probably want PF when they're old enough.

Edited June 24, 2013 by dr_spock

[Lakop]

Just looking at the Crawler Loader added to the forum. A good example of a set/model with minimal PF. There is an M motor but the model could easily be built without it.

H

Based on merman's numbers, Lego seems to have kept PF under 1/3 of Technic sets annually.

2013 25.00%

2012 22.22%

2011 30.00%

2010 20.00%

2009 20.00%

2008 28.57%

2007 16.67%

I think kids today like motorized and remote control devices. Our LUG did a display at a family picnic. I noticed some kids hung around my GBC much longer than the static models. The parents had to pull the kids away to look at the other stuff. They then sneaked back without the parents. Those kids will probably want PF when they're old enough.

You are correct. As people get older remote control etc becomes the next step. For smaller children though PF and IR is a bit too much so there is the need for a mix of both PF and non PF technic models. Our future robotic and remote control engineers are sure to learn from the PF crawlers etc and move onto greater things.

h

Edited June 24, 2013 by Horace T