790 replies to this topic

[Meatman]

I said it before and I'll say it again, Cuusoo needs to eliminate the pictures of the top 6 projects on the home page. Those are the projects that are receiving the most supports every week. This isn't fair to everyone else who has a project that is buried. And what is the point of another Zelda project?

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Aanchir, on 20 November 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

The Purdue Pete project got its supporters fair and square[...]

You really believe that?

My cousin is a Purdue grad. In her almuni newsletter there was an article asking their alumni to vote for it.

You can bet there was a "on-campus" campaign too.

How many other CUUSOO projects benefit from this sort of advertising?

Linking votes to facebook or twitter is CUUSOO's biggest flaw. If somebody feels that compelled to vote for a project, they will take the time to register with CUUSOO or LEGO.

Meatman, on 20 November 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

And what is the point of another Zelda project?

There's also another Delorean set which has 3K-something votes which is arguably sleeker than to one that got 10K.

But I still can't figure out why CUUSOO is allowing users to list multiple sets under the each project, in effect creating themes rather than models. The Zelda projects do this (with no physical builds!) the BTTF Delorean project does this.

Wasn't CUUSOO suppose to be about one-off models? And while I appreciate that Western Modular Town may end-up a theme if it is accepted, this would be for marketing reasons and at least there's a physical build, as opposed to the promise of a "Hill Valley Clock Tower" set without even a CG model to back it up.

Edited by Another Brick In The Wall, 22 November 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[just2good]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 22 November 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

There's also another Delorean set which has 3K-something votes which is arguably sleeker than to one that got 10K.

Yea, but it isn't minifigure scale, and I think the other is more sleeker. I think they could release both, but there is one problem that everyone is looking over: TLG will only release one Cuusoo set per quarter.

[Aanchir]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 22 November 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

You really believe that?

My cousin is a Purdue grad. In her almuni newsletter there was an article asking their alumni to vote for it.

You can bet there was a "on-campus" campaign too.

How many other CUUSOO projects benefit from this sort of advertising?

Linking votes to facebook or twitter is CUUSOO's biggest flaw. If somebody feels that compelled to vote for a project, they will take the time to register with CUUSOO or LEGO.



There's also another Delorean set which has 3K-something votes which is arguably sleeker than to one that got 10K.

But I still can't figure out why CUUSOO is allowing users to list multiple sets under the each project, in effect creating themes rather than models. The Zelda projects do this (with no physical builds!) the BTTF Delorean project does this.

Wasn't CUUSOO suppose to be about one-off models? And while I appreciate that Western Modular Town may end-up a theme if it is accepted, this would be for marketing reasons and at least there's a physical build, as opposed to the promise of a "Hill Valley Clock Tower" set without even a CG model to back it up.

Honestly, yes, I see no reason why promoting a model this way is any less valid than any online method. The Cuusoo system requires that when you vote, you list the number of sets you'd buy and the price you pay, so it is a system set up with the honesty of supporters in mind. And if that can't be trusted, there isn't a solution in the world that could save LEGO Cuusoo. Because it's not as though non-AFOLs are inherently more deceptive than the people who actually like LEGO for LEGO's sake.

You do make a good point about supporting with a social network account, though. That probably makes it a lot easier for people to cheat if they vote with multiple accounts. At least if people have to vote with Cuusoo accounts, the Cuusoo staff can easily be on the lookout for suspicious account details.

As for listing multiple builds under one proposal, it is a place where Cuusoo needs to clarify its rules. In some cases of course it's justifiable as the project is just showing alternative ways a project could be realized (even the Minecraft project had multiple models shown representing the concept of LEGO Minecraft), but in others it's clear that none of the model ideas is solid enough to stand on its own without the support of the other models.

I don't appreciate the bias against non-physical builds I see in your post, btw. It's perfectly possible to make thoughtful digital projects, sometimes even more easily than with physical bricks if the project creator doesn't have a sufficient collection of parts currently in production. I've seen a number of clever digital proposals that could become sets even more easily than the most popular physical proposals, though what I support still hinges on what ideas I like or could envision rather than on what medium the proposals use or how refined the proposal itself is. I've seen a gorgeous digital classic Mario vignette that I didn't support largely because I have no interest in buying such a set.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Aanchir, on 22 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Honestly, yes, I see no reason why promoting a model this way is any less valid than any online method.

It's less valid, because it's not targeting Lego consumers. Let's say somebody asked you to vote for the production of a fashion label based on your family name or crest.  You would probably vote for it because it would appease some of your family members, even though you may not purchase any of the clothes. Same logic applies here.

Aanchir, on 22 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

I don't appreciate the bias against non-physical builds I see in your post, btw.

My bias against non-physical builds is derived from my belief:
(1) Projects based on physical builds should be rewarded more than projects without because they (a) involve more effort and(b) give me a better idea of what I'm voting for.
(2) Projects based on a physical builds have a more realistic chance of being developed and marketed because they implicitly factor-in cost (to some degree). Although cost apparently didn't factor into the owner Mirage project's thinking!

Edited by Another Brick In The Wall, 23 November 2012 - 07:56 AM.

[Lyichir]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 23 November 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

It's less valid, because it's not targeting Lego consumers. Let's say somebody asked you to vote for the production of a fashion label based on your family name or crest.  You would probably vote for it because it would appease some of your family members, even though you may not purchase any of the clothes. Same logic applies here.

But one of the main goals of Lego Cuusoo is to turn non-consumers into consumers. While it's always possible that someone will vote for a proposal more because they support the idea of it existing than because they personally want it, there are also plenty of people who are in the midst of a Dark Age who might be drawn out of it by a proposal that embodies exactly what they want out of Lego. In fact, I'd reckon they'd be even more likely to buy such a set if they had the personal investment in it that a Cuusoo support represents.

[IAmWillGibson]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 23 November 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

My bias against non-physical builds is derived from my belief:
(1) Projects based on physical builds should be rewarded more than projects without because they (a) involve more effort and(b) give me a better idea of what I'm voting for.
(2) Projects based on a physical builds have a more realistic chance of being developed and marketed because they implicitly factor-in cost (to some degree). Although cost apparently didn't factor into the owner Mirage project's thinking!

Physical builds give you no better idea than a virtual build, because whatever you see in the pictures of a propsal are not in any way definitively indicitive of what the end result will be. LEGO will still tear down and rebuild any winning proposal and produce a set they want to produce. The UCS Sandcrawler, for example, would in no way be anywhere near as huge and complicated as the one presented. Same with Perdue Pete. Were it to get produced, I could easily see it as a very small desk set.

The pictures on these things are eye-candy, sure, but at the end of the day, LEGO basically takes the title of a winning proposal and does what they want with it. Ergo, it's meaningless to be married to a lovely physical build. CUUSOO would almost be better off being text-only.

[Lyichir]

IAmWillGibson, on 23 November 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Physical builds give you no better idea than a virtual build, because whatever you see in the pictures of a propsal are not in any way definitively indicitive of what the end result will be. LEGO will still tear down and rebuild any winning proposal and produce a set they want to produce. The UCS Sandcrawler, for example, would in no way be anywhere near as huge and complicated as the one presented. Same with Perdue Pete. Were it to get produced, I could easily see it as a very small desk set.

The pictures on these things are eye-candy, sure, but at the end of the day, LEGO basically takes the title of a winning proposal and does what they want with it. Ergo, it's meaningless to be married to a lovely physical build. CUUSOO would almost be better off being text-only.

I disagree that it would be better off text-only. Even if the pictures only give a vague idea of what the finalized set would look like, that's still a huge advantage. A strong presentation can help draw support from people who might otherwise be unable to visualize the concept presented. And from past proposals, the winning design hasn't been completely discarded, but rather just reworked. If the BttF DeLorean passes, the picture has given Lego's designers a clearer idea of what fans want, in terms of presentation, scale, etc. Conversely, an imageless proposal would give them no idea of what each individual supporter wanted out of the project, and they'd be left with only a vague concept.

[Faefrost]

IAmWillGibson, on 23 November 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Physical builds give you no better idea than a virtual build, because whatever you see in the pictures of a propsal are not in any way definitively indicitive of what the end result will be. LEGO will still tear down and rebuild any winning proposal and produce a set they want to produce. The UCS Sandcrawler, for example, would in no way be anywhere near as huge and complicated as the one presented. Same with Perdue Pete. Were it to get produced, I could easily see it as a very small desk set.

The pictures on these things are eye-candy, sure, but at the end of the day, LEGO basically takes the title of a winning proposal and does what they want with it. Ergo, it's meaningless to be married to a lovely physical build. CUUSOO would almost be better off being text-only.

While I don't think Lego should in any way weight the system for or against physical vs virtual builds, at the end of the day the projects creator has to sell the project to everyone else. Not simply TLG. Presentation counts. And in most cases actual physical builds do a much better job of presenting the work than a poorly framed LDD project with the hideous default backgrounds. You are trying to sell something specific, not simply a nebulous idea. This isn't to say that a well presented digital project cannot be worthwhile. Just look at Nick Royers Space Marines. It's all ultimately a matter of presentation, and what grabs the individual voters attention.

[Luke_likes_Lego]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 22 November 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

But I still can't figure out why CUUSOO is allowing users to list multiple sets under the each project, in effect creating themes rather than models. The Zelda projects do this (with no physical builds!) the BTTF Delorean project does this.

Wasn't CUUSOO suppose to be about one-off models? And while I appreciate that Western Modular Town may end-up a theme if it is accepted, this would be for marketing reasons and at least there's a physical build, as opposed to the promise of a "Hill Valley Clock Tower" set without even a CG model to back it up.

Cuusoo guidelines (http://lego.cuusoo.com/guidelines#L2) Acceptable Project Content (iii) says:

"Projects should be product concepts. Your project should be positioned as a new product concept. LEGO CUUSOO is not a gallery to display your creations"

Not sure where the idea that it's about one-off models came from

Cheers,

LLL

P.S.   everything Faefrost said

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Luke_likes_Lego, on 28 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Not sure where the idea that it's about one-off models came from

P.S.   everything Faefrost said

Faefrost mostly...

Faefrost, on 17 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

CuuSoo is not designed to support multi set or multiple release projects. They have been very upfront about that. They are looking for single release stand alone sets. There has been some minor discussion about whether to split something such as the Western town, but the general rule seems to be they are looking for single sets only. Not themes. Not multiples.

That said, the commercial reality of acquiring a licence may dictate a theme . License/royalty arrangements are typically lump sum-payments for a specified period of time. So for TLG to acquire high-value licenses, it may need to produce a range of sets for it be viable.

On a completely unrelated note, does anybody know how to contact project owners on CUUSOO. I want to create this project which will never reach 10K, not even in a 10K years (unfortunately). Alternatively, if the project owner is a Eurobricker or an acquaintance of one, please let me know. Thank you

Edited by Another Brick In The Wall, 29 November 2012 - 02:44 AM.

[IAmWillGibson]

The other part of me feels that any model that's physically built it obviously physically buildable. I think this was brought up by GlenBricker once, but it would be nice if there was some sort of lower threshold, where a project that IS physically buildable that gets some amount of support less than the impossible 10K, which has attracted their attention and general approval of LEGO, could at least get recognized and have its instructions printed. There needn't be a marketed set for smaller builds made of real, available parts.

Like the Reddit Alien. The Birds project. Stuff like that anyone who wanted to could make. But I guess the goal is to sell LEGO to people who don't already have it.

Maybe I'm just touchy about the digital build thing because my stuff isn't buildable in real life. But I have made the effort to go beyond simple LDD image capturing when possible. POVRay is a good tool, man. If only it were faster.

[Faefrost]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 28 November 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Faefrost

Actually the answers to most of the questions we have been discussing can be found in the May 30, 2012 CuuSoo blog post "cheat sheet, how to pass the Lego review with flying colors". Original source: http://legocuusoo.po...ous.com/?page=2

6. Think in terms of individual sets, since playthemes are planned well in advance. Many of the playtheme projects on LEGO CUUSOO are very well done, however LEGO CUUSOO is oriented toward producing and selling individual products (or SKUs). On the upside, the conceptual and story work that goes into developing a playtheme helps build a project with depth and character that can compel people to support. We allow projects to propose playthemes as they help communicate a concept, but remember that our team makes the final decision on what will be produced, and we are set up to produce individual LEGO sets.

And

1.
A good LEGO model helps, but it’s not required. A good model helps you get supporters and also helps us in the model design process. If you submit concept art or photos, we have to design the model from scratch ourselves. The evolution of an idea to final product can take many twists and turns. The more precisely you describe your concept with LEGO bricks, the closer the end result will be to your original concept. If your project reaches production, the final product will be designed by a LEGO model designer, so know that the product won't be your exact design.

These Seem to address the set vs theme, and the brick built vs concept debates rather nicely. All are allowed, but it is easy to see which are far more likely to pass review.

[Erik Leppen]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 22 November 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

There's also another Delorean set which has 3K-something votes which is arguably sleeker than to one that got 10K.

That's not an argument.

Cuusoo is about ideas. There's no use in having two projects represent the same idea. Two such projects would be competing, where one would expect cooperation to work better.

[Aanchir]

Luke_likes_Lego, on 28 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Cuusoo guidelines (http://lego.cuusoo.com/guidelines#L2) Acceptable Project Content (iii) says:

"Projects should be product concepts. Your project should be positioned as a new product concept. LEGO CUUSOO is not a gallery to display your creations"

Not sure where the idea that it's about one-off models came from

Cheers,

LLL

P.S.   everything Faefrost said

There's nothing about the quote you just listed that implies Cuusoo is designed for full themes like are often proposed. It clearly says "product concepts". There's a difference between a product and a product line.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Erik Leppen, on 28 November 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

That's not an argument.

Cuusoo is about ideas. There's no use in having two projects represent the same idea. Two such projects would be competing, where one would expect cooperation to work better.

I definitely wasnt citing it as an argument. More as a criticism of the process and how CUUSOO is oblivious to such flaws in the system  and prolonging the whole process. I mean, they canned the Dark Bucket project before it reached 10K votes,  thus the competing Zelda and BTTF projects should be canned too.

Edited by Another Brick In The Wall, 29 November 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[Faefrost]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 29 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I definitely wasnt citing it as an argument. More as a criticism of the process and how CUUSOO is oblivious to such flaws in the system  and prolonging the whole process. I mean, they canned the Dark Bucket project before it reached 10K votes,  thus the competing Zelda and BTTF projects should be canned too.

The Dark Bucket was canned because it would never ever be possible under the terms of TLGs SW license. But I thought it did hit 10k before they canned it. As far as the others? I'm sure a lot depends on whether the projects currently under review pass or fail.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

License conflict was raised when it reached 5K but CUUSOO failed to address the issue until  it reached 10K and it never reached the review stage.

Edited by Another Brick In The Wall, 29 November 2012 - 04:31 AM.

[Aanchir]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 29 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I definitely wasnt citing it as an argument. More as a criticism of the process and how CUUSOO is oblivious to such flaws in the system  and prolonging the whole process. I mean, they canned the Dark Bucket project before it reached 10K votes,  thus the competing Zelda and BTTF projects should be canned too.

You might have a point with the BttF DeLorean project, but the competing Zelda project has very different product proposals than the one currently in review. And while it may be true that the final product could end up looking very different from the project's suggestions, as in the case of the Minecraft proposal, in general just because the two projects are based on the same IP doesn't mean that they are suggesting the same hypothetical product.

Going a bit further, search "Minecraft" on LEGO Cuusoo and a bunch of ideas will come up. Some are clearly meant as expansions to the existing Minecraft set. And these projects are just as valid as the original Minecraft proposal-- perhaps moreso, as TLG and Mojang have already clearly demonstrated their ability to cooperate on such a product. The same will hold true if the Zelda project turns out to be successful. The "competing" Zelda project will still be perfectly valid, since chances are the eventual product from such an agreement wouldn't be in conflict with the product ideas on the second Zelda proposal.

The DeLorean is a more complicated case, but I don't think it needs to be shut down. After all, a person could (theoretically) build an X-Wing Starfighter at the same scale as past X-Wing Starfighter models and propose it on Cuusoo. As long as it was not calling for an identical remake of an existing set, then there's really no reason it would be against any Cuusoo policies. The same holds true here. Of course, in that case and this one, the project likely wouldn't see too much support, since X-Wing and DeLorean products would already be either available or forthcoming, and a lot of potential supporters wouldn't see any need for a new one.

[Luke_likes_Lego]

Luke_likes_Lego, on 28 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

P.S.   everything Faefrost said

I probably should have said "P.S.   everything Faefrost said in the last part of his/her 28 Nov 2012 post "

I confess I didn't go back to earlier posts...oops

LLL

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Just for fun, here are my CUUSOO predictions --

Eve Online Drifter- yes, without knowing anything about Eve Online
The Legend of Zelda - no based on a feeling. I could be wrong.
DeLorean/BTTF -- yes. But it will just the DeLorean and nothing else.  
Western Modular Town -- my heart says yes, and i'll be devastated with any other outcome

UCS Sandcrawler -- yes, but modified to a 3K piece model (with most of its innards and lighting removed)
Portal - I'm a huge Portal but I do not feel compelled to buy this product. Also Valve is pretty tight with licensing their IP in circumstances they're totally not in control. So no to this.
Mars Science Curiosity Laboratory Explorer -- 100% sure this will be yes.

Space Marines -- No because of potential conflict with Galaxy Squad. Some of the ideas may be incorporated in to that theme, though.  
Purdue Pete -- No. Because.

Edited by Another Brick In The Wall, 01 December 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[hjmediastudios]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 01 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Portal - I'm a huge Portal but I do not feel compelled to buy this product.

Amazing! How do you avoid being captured for study?

[Luke_likes_Lego]

hjmediastudios, on 01 December 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Amazing! How do you avoid being captured for study?

I suspect all attempts to capture would result in the 'would be' capturer ending up somewhere different.....and feeling disorientated

[Another Brick In The Wall]

hjmediastudios, on 01 December 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Amazing! How do you avoid being captured for study?

Honestly, the Portal project is 100% fan service.  If you take away the humor and puzzles from Portal what do you have left?

[Algernon]

Another Brick In The Wall, on 01 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Space Marines -- No because of potential conflict with Galaxy Squad. Some of the ideas may be incorporated in to that theme, though.

I've been thinking about this. LEGO seems to have taken some suggestions from the project, what with the CMF marine (almost a complete rip-off) and now GS. Just because it might not turn into a theme this year, doesn't mean LEGO won't take the idea and run with it in the future. Remember that designing a LEGO theme often takes several years. I have no idea how LEGO would approach this, but it would be silly for them to dismiss it completely since there is a lot of synergy with their marketing model right now (collectability, appeal of Space Marines to kids, fun LEGO-like vibe, etc). There's a lot of potential with the idea.

Edited by Algernon, 04 December 2012 - 05:35 PM.