A complaint about the new SW sets

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

Let me start of by saying that I love LSW. I really think it's improved so much since the beginning of the license in 1999.

However, I am very disappointed by this year's summer line. I will talk about all the problems.

PRICE:

These new sets are laughably overpriced. I mean, c'mon, $80 for 500 pieces? It seems that TLG decided to make a LOT of new molds for this summer. Which brings me to my next point.

TERRIBLE NEW MOLDS:

This is more of a 50/50 good/bad situation. I love Cad, Aayla, and Bossk, but HATE Grievous, Boba, and Carbonite Han . They look way too cartoony for OT stuff, and just look overall terrible. I mean, who knew that Boba was actually 7 feet tall? Or that Han was never really frozen in carbonite, he was just holding on to a cut out.

COLOR SCHEME:

Dark red on the Slave 1=epic fail. Also, why they need to put in so many random yellow pieces, especially in the new CTT? Or the white and

SETS THAT ARE TOO SOON TO BE REMADE:

Half of the sets are remakes. A lot of them we could of gotten recently, especially the AT-AT which is still available right now. What gives? It seems that they were going for an ep V theme, but then what's wrong with Cloud City?

Overall, there seems to be sloppy remakes with new molds, and other new sets that are mediocre. Out of the ten new ones, I only consider getting 2 of them. If TLG keeps this up, I'll go on a LSW strike.

[Saber Scorpion]

Personally, I strongly disagree with you. The SW theme is my favorite license and possibly one of the best. + How does the new Han In Carbonite look cartoony? And Boba has been seven ft. tall the whole saga with an exception of 1&2.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Saber Scorpion

[Big Cam]

I wonder if This would have been better as a letter to TLG.

I agree with some points, but its no as bad as you describe it. At least in my opinion.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

Personally, I strongly disagree with you. The SW theme is my favorite license and possibly one of the best. + How does the new Han In Carbonite look cartoony? And Boba has been seven ft. tall the whole saga with an exception of 1&2.

I agree, SW is my favorite theme. It's just that I hate where it's going right now. I don't like how the carbonite has the outline of Han, including a goofy look. It's hard to describe.

And I never remember Boba being a lot taller than others.

I wonder if This would have been better as a letter to TLG.

I agree with some points, but its no as bad as you describe it. At least in my opinion.

I know, I just had to focus on the negatives.

[prateek]

Righteous, man. I agree with this, but as Big Cam said, it's not that bad, but I see where you're going with this.

Personally, I strongly disagree with you. The SW theme is my favorite license and possibly one of the best. + How does the new Han In Carbonite look cartoony? And Boba has been seven ft. tall the whole saga with an exception of 1&2.

It was Vader that was 7 ft. tall. If you see the OT movies, Boba is always the short guy in the bunch.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

It was Vader that was 7 ft. tall. If you see the OT movies, Boba is always the short guy in the bunch.

Exactly.

[The Eye]

You make some good points. LSW may be in it's 11th year, but it doesn't have to be so faulty. Still, I disagree with you about Boba or Grievous... I think they're perfect molds. Although that's just my opinion.

Edited July 2, 2010 by The Eye

[Tony Almeida]

PRICE:

These new sets are laughably overpriced. I mean, c'mon, $80 for 500 pieces? It seems that TLG decided to make a LOT of new molds for this summer. Which brings me to my next point.

Compared to the pricing we get in Australia, you have it considerably better. For example, Luke's Landspeeder is $50AUD and that's for a palty 163 pieces. Luckily I generally don't follow LSW, that pricing is beyond any reason.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

You make some good points. LSW may be in it's 11th year, but it doesn't have to be so faulty. Still, I disagree with you about Boba or Grievous... I think they're perfect molds. Although that's just my opinion.

I think opinions on them are mixed. Some people love em' and some people hate em'. I just think they are way too much.

Compared to the pricing we get in Australia, you have it considerably better. For example, Luke's Landspeeder is $50AUD and that's for a palty 163 pieces. Luckily I generally don't follow LSW, that pricing is beyond any reason.

I agree, the price here is pretty good, $25 but with 5 figs, buts that's incredulous! I should be more like $30AUD.

[sok117]

I think you are forgeting that Lego is in fact... a toy. Designed for Kids, who unlike us, play with their lego and don't care about the little details such as, Whys Boba taller then vader? or why does Han Solo look funny in carbonite? As for the price, I personally think that TLC might just be testing the buyers of the Star Wars sets, if they can still sell as well with a raise in price, then they will look into extending the license, but if the fans stop buying the sets due to riddiculous prices, the SW line won't be around much longer, I know it does sound rather far-fetched, but it is plausible. I do agree with some of the colours, but I don't mind to much, If sets would remain strickly to only one colour, if I took all my SW sets apart, I'd have three big piles of grey, dark grey, bley, dark bley, white, and republic red. With a few mismatched pieces here and there, so I'm okay with changes in colour as long as they arn't visible on the final model. As for Boba's slave 1, If you look at some of the pictures, it is indeed dark red, however it is a bit overwhelming to see the shiny dark red, on a ship that is supposed to look scratched and beaten up, that is why the brown looked better to us. Personally I love SW, I would not be an avid fan of lego if it weren't for Star Wars, sure I like Harry Potter and other space sets, But I usually try to get every Star Wars set in my budget no matter the cost for me.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

I think you are forgeting that Lego is in fact... a toy. Designed for Kids, who unlike us, play with their lego and don't care about the little details such as, Whys Boba taller then vader? or why does Han Solo look funny in carbonite? As for the price, I personally think that TLC might just be testing the buyers of the Star Wars sets, if they can still sell as well with a raise in price, then they will look into extending the license, but if the fans stop buying the sets due to riddiculous prices, the SW line won't be around much longer, I know it does sound rather far-fetched, but it is plausible. I do agree with some of the colours, but I don't mind to much, If sets would remain strickly to only one colour, if I took all my SW sets apart, I'd have three big piles of grey, dark grey, bley, dark bley, white, and republic red. With a few mismatched pieces here and there, so I'm okay with changes in colour as long as they arn't visible on the final model. As for Boba's slave 1, If you look at some of the pictures, it is indeed dark red, however it is a bit overwhelming to see the shiny dark red, on a ship that is supposed to look scratched and beaten up, that is why the brown looked better to us. Personally I love SW, I would not be an avid fan of lego if it weren't for Star Wars, sure I like Harry Potter and other space sets, But I usually try to get every Star Wars set in my budget no matter the cost for me.

But still, who wants to buy a toy for your kid that's so expensive? In the CCT, the main interior is practically all yellow, which looks really dumb. I know that this is in fact a children's toy, but obviously there are other hard-core fans who are more critical. If that wasn't true, than this site wouldn't exist. It's true that in some pics the Slave 1 looks dark red, but if you look at the official die-cast and shots from OT, it is totally reddish-brown.

I'm not saying that there are NO improvements in the new sets, just that the average quality of them is lower than recently.

[sok117]

But still, who wants to buy a toy for your kid that's so expensive? In the CCT, the main interior is practically all yellow, which looks really dumb. I know that this is in fact a children's toy, but obviously there are other hard-core fans who are more critical. If that wasn't true, than this site wouldn't exist. It's true that in some pics the Slave 1 looks dark red, but if you look at the official die-cast and shots from OT, it is totally reddish-brown.

I'm not saying that there are NO improvements in the new sets, just that the average quality of them is lower than recently.

True, but we as a community posses a quality that most kids, without AFOL's in the family, do not have, I'm speaking of course of the ability to mod, moc, and create improvements to the set as we so choose, If you take a look at an official Lego set, then perhaps a MOC from an experienced builder, you can see that the two are very different. A MOC will pay way more attention to detail rather then putting in functions to maximize the playability, this is when Lego comes to a fork in the road, they can either satisfy the demands of the younger generation of builders by making the lego sets do such things as store other ships and vehicles, or shoot lousy flick fires, or they can make the detailed models, as we see once a year with the UCS, and now with the MIDI- Scale, which are much more accurate representations, but now we don't get the minifigures (which I think TLC is changing with the recent UCS sets being somewhat to scale with Figs) and the lack of any interior. This is why I like the idea of system scale sets, for the kids who can't mod, they've got a cool set that they can live with and play with, but to the AFOL it is all but to easy to take out the parts of a set you don't like such as the colours or the functions and replace them as you see fit with bricks from your collection, or with a quick order from brickforge.

[davee123]

The sets are expensive because they are. I wish they were MORE expensive, because then maybe LEGO wouldn't have had to cut so much on quality.

It's been noted that many of the Star Wars sets have gone up in cost recently, and AFAIK, LEGO hasn't said why. The speculation on the fan side is that this has to do with one or more of:

1) Lucasfilm's royalties increasing

2) Increased molding requirements

3) Change in profit margin for LEGO

4) Increase in oil costs for plastics (or other internal costs)

5) Change in retailer relationships (different wholesale costs)

As stated, I'm often ashamed to be among hordes of Americans who apparently want to pay nothing for everything-- forcing jobs out of the US (and Denmark!) and into 3rd-world nations that treat their employees like crap, all so we get crappy quality stuff for nothing. Sorry for a tangent, but the expectation that prices "should" be lower gets me rather annoyed.

In the CCT, the main interior is practically all yellow, which looks really dumb. I know that this is in fact a children's toy, but obviously there are other hard-core fans who are more critical. If that wasn't true, than this site wouldn't exist. It's true that in some pics the Slave 1 looks dark red, but if you look at the official die-cast and shots from OT, it is totally reddish-brown.

These are all tradeoffs. The set you're asking for might cost, say, $130, and wouldn't be all that much different for most customers.

LEGO can't just decide to make pieces in brown today and dark red tomorrow and dark brown the next day. They have to optimize the colors and elements that are released. If there are 2 sets that want reddish-brown 1x6's, and 4 sets that want dark-red 1x6's, then they can save money by making them ALL be dark-red rather than reddish-brown. By contrast, they could keep their distinct colors, but now you'll need to arrange a separate production run for the reddish-brown, and then those reddish-brown 1x6's cost much more.

The yellow interior? That could be the same deal (IE it's cheaper if they go with yellow), but it probably also has to do with how easy the set is to build for kids. Bricks that aren't seen from the exterior are often made in other colors to provide a larger contrast to make them easier to build.

Anyway, yes, you can make a set that's amazing, but will cost tons. Or you can make a cheap set that's satisfy nobody. LEGO has to make a call on where the balance point is. Maybe you can think about it in these terms:

Cost vs. Customer Satisfaction

...

$40 vs. 20%

$50 vs. 30%

$60 vs. 40%

$70 vs. 60%

$80 vs. 75%

$90 vs. 80%

$100 vs. 85%

$120 vs. 90%

$140 vs. 95%

$160 vs. 97%

...

So, where's the sweet spot? Where will LEGO make the most money? The higher priced sets won't sell because they're too expensive, and the lower priced sets won't sell because the customers aren't satisfied with the product. So you get a compromise in the middle somewhere.

DaveE

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

These are all tradeoffs. The set you're asking for might cost, say, $130, and wouldn't be all that much different for most customers.

1. LEGO can't just decide to make pieces in brown today and dark red tomorrow and dark brown the next day. They have to optimize the colors and elements that are released. If there are 2 sets that want reddish-brown 1x6's, and 4 sets that want dark-red 1x6's, then they can save money by making them ALL be dark-red rather than reddish-brown. By contrast, they could keep their distinct colors, but now you'll need to arrange a separate production run for the reddish-brown, and then those reddish-brown 1x6's cost much more.

2. The yellow interior? That could be the same deal (IE it's cheaper if they go with yellow), but it probably also has to do with how easy the set is to build for kids. Bricks that aren't seen from the exterior are often made in other colors to provide a larger contrast to make them easier to build.

Anyway, yes, you can make a set that's amazing, but will cost tons. Or you can make a cheap set that's satisfy nobody. LEGO has to make a call on where the balance point is. Maybe you can think about it in these terms:

3.Cost vs. Customer Satisfaction

...

$40 vs. 20%

$50 vs. 30%

$60 vs. 40%

$70 vs. 60%

$80 vs. 75%

$90 vs. 80%

$100 vs. 85%

$120 vs. 90%

$140 vs. 95%

$160 vs. 97%

...

So, where's the sweet spot? Where will LEGO make the most money? The higher priced sets won't sell because they're too expensive, and the lower priced sets won't sell because the customers aren't satisfied with the product. So you get a compromise in the middle somewhere.

DaveE

1. I don't think you understand. The 41766 slope parts are only in the Slave 1 this year. Plus, they were already in reddish brown, so they are actually spending MORE by extending the color line of that part to dark red.

2. The previous CTT didn't have too much yellow in the interior...

3. Where did you get those stats? I can't imagine them being correct... Plus, statistically speaking, cheaper sets sell more because low prices are more appealing. So I think you're wrong there, too...

[davee123]

1. I don't think you understand. The 41766 slope parts are only in the Slave 1 this year. Plus, they were already in reddish brown, so they are actually spending MORE by extending the color line of that part to dark red.

Actually, I think it looks better in dark red, now that I try to imagine it with reddish-brown. But that's besides the point. Either way, I hardly think it's worthy of an "epic fail" comment. So, yeah, maybe that's part of the reason that it's more expensive! You may have just answered your own question!

2. The previous CTT didn't have too much yellow in the interior...

Should I point out the various sets that DO have multi-color bricks on the interior? Would that solve anything? I'm telling you that's one of the reasons WHY they do it. So, unless you have some insider information regarding how the set was received when test-built with kids, or have some other fact that LEGO isn't aware of (like independent studies done on model building), then I don't see the usefulness in arguing the point. You said you don't like it, I explained the reasons that LEGO has told us why it's done. Unless you have some more light to shed on the topic?

3. Where did you get those stats? I can't imagine them being correct... Plus, statistically speaking, cheaper sets sell more because low prices are more appealing. So I think you're wrong there, too...

Those "stats" are things I made up to illustrate the point of a tradeoff curve. The numbers aren't important. And moreover, I pulled them out of thin air. It's the idea that's important. That's what I'm trying to get across. I fully admit that instead of writing numbers down, I should have drawn you a pretty picture with no numbers, but that's more effort, so I didn't. The point was to illustrate the concept, not give specific numbers.

DaveE

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

1. Actually, I think it looks better in dark red, now that I try to imagine it with reddish-brown. But that's besides the point. Either way, I hardly think it's worthy of an "epic fail" comment. So, yeah, maybe that's part of the reason that it's more expensive! You may have just answered your own question!

2. Should I point out the various sets that DO have multi-color bricks on the interior? Would that solve anything? I'm telling you that's one of the reasons WHY they do it. So, unless you have some insider information regarding how the set was received when test-built with kids, or have some other fact that LEGO isn't aware of (like independent studies done on model building), then I don't see the usefulness in arguing the point. You said you don't like it, I explained the reasons that LEGO has told us why it's done. Unless you have some more light to shed on the topic?

3. Those "stats" are things I made up to illustrate the point of a tradeoff curve. The numbers aren't important. And moreover, I pulled them out of thin air. It's the idea that's important. That's what I'm trying to get across. I fully admit that instead of writing numbers down, I should have drawn you a pretty picture with no numbers, but that's more effort, so I didn't. The point was to illustrate the concept, not give specific numbers.

DaveE

1. It may look better in dark red, but it's still inaccurate. You don't have to imagine what it looks like in red-brown:

It's expensiveness way be partly justified, but I think the reasons are unnecessary.

2. I know that TLG has always made the interior with seemingly random colors. It's just that this is so overwhelming and too much of just one color, especially yellow.

3. It seems that you're saying that cheaper sets are terrible when they're not really. The previous Slave 1 was $50, and IMO it is one of the best SW sets ever. There's a whole slew of "cheap" sets that are on my favorites list. On this point, I think you're completely wrong.

[davee123]

It seems that you're saying that cheaper sets are terrible when they're not really. The previous Slave 1 was $50, and IMO it is one of the best SW sets ever. There's a whole slew of "cheap" sets that are on my favorites list. On this point, I think you're completely wrong.

Effectively, each model builder is given a budget for a particular set and a palette of bricks that are "available". The better the selection of bricks is, and the bigger your budget is, the better set you can design. With a $3.00 budget, you'd wind up with a pretty crappy minifig-scale Slave I! Did you ever build the one they put out for $20 back in 2000? The 2006 version puts it to shame, but it's $50! And if given a budget of $250, I imagine they could've churned out a REALLY AMAZING one!

Now, in my opinion, the level of improvement between a $100 budget and a $130 budget probably isn't very noticeable. But a difference between a $20 set and a $50 set (while still being $30) is VERY noticeable. Essentially, the "quality" curve is probably logarithmic in nature, at least in the higher range.

And of course the other thing is the palette of bricks that you have access to. If you've got a great palette, you can make a great set, and can probably come in under budget. And if you've got a poor palette, you can't make as great of a set.

Anyway, there are so many factors that I don't think you can claim that they could've made a great remake for $50. Just because they did it in 2006 doesn't mean they can do it again in 2010. A lot has changed since then!

DaveE

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

Effectively, each model builder is given a budget for a particular set and a palette of bricks that are "available". The better the selection of bricks is, and the bigger your budget is, the better set you can design. With a $3.00 budget, you'd wind up with a pretty crappy minifig-scale Slave I! Did you ever build the one they put out for $20 back in 2000? The 2006 version puts it to shame, but it's $50! And if given a budget of $250, I imagine they could've churned out a REALLY AMAZING one!

Now, in my opinion, the level of improvement between a $100 budget and a $130 budget probably isn't very noticeable. But a difference between a $20 set and a $50 set (while still being $30) is VERY noticeable. Essentially, the "quality" curve is probably logarithmic in nature, at least in the higher range.

And of course the other thing is the palette of bricks that you have access to. If you've got a great palette, you can make a great set, and can probably come in under budget. And if you've got a poor palette, you can't make as great of a set.

Anyway, there are so many factors that I don't think you can claim that they could've made a great remake for $50. Just because they did it in 2006 doesn't mean they can do it again in 2010. A lot has changed since then!

DaveE

Well, it's also a matter of the size of said vehicle. The Jedi Interceptor is a small ship, but IMO it's so awesome. To the shuttle, the "budget" is $260, but even the creator admitted that 35% of it was from looking at other MOCs. So obviously, just because they make a set larger, it's not going to be better all the time.

I agree, the prices should be a bit higher with the new sets, but not as high as they are.

[Swiss Army Droid]

I actually like most of the new molds. Some might look a little cartoony but that is because they are based off of characters from the Clone Wars. Also I like the new color schemes. If you look at the real Slave 1 it has a reddish brown which looks a lot like dark red TLG used. Besides, it gives us builders a chance to get some pieces in rare colors. I do have to agree with you about the prices and the remakes. I think that there are sets that should be remade but now Lego almost has more remakes than new sets! I understand that soon TLG will run out of ships from the 6 Star Wars movies but there are new ships appearing in the Clone Wars that they can use. Also, who says they just have to make only models of ships? They can make sets of locations, like the Senate building where Yoda and Palpatine duel, the place where Darth Maul and Qui-Gon fight, or even the Emperor's throne room.

[I Scream Clone]

A very interesting topic to read. First of all we are consumers buying a product. In some respect we have a minimal say in shaping what TLC releases, but its really up to Lucas and TLC as to what they feel will sell and for what price they need to charge to make a profit and pay royalties. They may indeed be testing the waters with higher prices, or it may be a simple fact of rising costs to produce etc raising the bottom line.

As for new molds, I am all for it, yes occasionally the quality of the total set suffers due to budget restraints from making new molds, but the figs are a major selling point (and what fetches the most money on Bricklink ) The new characters may appear more cartoony, and perhaps for OT characters this isn't realistic, but that is the direction TLC has taken to best sell their toys to a predominately kid orientated marketplace. I for one love the new Slave 1, even though I have 6209, and am seriously considering getting it just for Boosk

I can see how the yellow technic bricks are ugly, but the contrasting colours will help people build (it is after all quite difficult to tell the difference between black and dark bley on instructions). I actually find this set dissapointing, it really is a big lump of plates and ugly wheels, basically a good new figure set which I will pass on. If anyone else dislikes this set or other SW sets, vote with your wallet and move on to something else.

As for all the remakes, we have been dining on a steady set of remakes ever since CW came out. This is a good and bad situation. For new kids coming on the scene of Lego, it is an ideal situation, they see the cool vehicles on the CW series and want to own the sets. For adults, this is of course all been done before (or in my case I missed all the originals, so I was very grateful for rereleases) and it is a chance to get new figures, new colours or newer parts. To compare the past pricing with today isn't a viable arguement due to inflation etc, and if you don't choose to buy the remakes that is your decision. You have to look at it from a marketing standpoint, TLC will make the more recognisable sets that kids recognise first and foremost, otherwise they wont sell any sets.

It is a little hard to get my thoughts together in a logical order with two kids running around, so I may yet repost in this thread.

Vote with your wallet people, if you don't like a set, don't buy it.

Cheers

ISC.

[General Armendariz]

I do agree with some bits in there. Especially the new Boba, it doesent even look like LEGO

[BrickClick]

I agree with the General.

Some of the stuff you said is true but some of it is exaggerated.

I don't like the Slave I in red at all it looks ugly and inaccurate.

I don't really like the new figs either, Boba Fett, Aayla Secura, and General grievous all look awful IMO.

[-JD-]

I feel the same about prices and remakes. In this current market LEGO can't afford to raise their prices, thus scaring fans and potential fans away. I don't care if they are Limited Edition (speaking of which, are the most common sets) or have a big box, they aren't worth the money! The packaging really upsets me. All those trees going to waste so TLG can make the sets look ten times larger than they are. Most of the time only 1/4 of it is needed!

And about Boba, he is 1.83 meters tall. He is a clone, and therefore the same size, remember?

[-JD-]

( Double Post )

The lack of figures is another issue.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Jammiedodger714

[AndyC]

I do agree with some bits in there. Especially the new Boba, it doesent even look like LEGO

Not sure i understand all the Boba hating. Aside from a more detailed print on his helmet it doesn't actually look all that different from the old minifig.