Themes LEGO should discontinue

[MAB]

^ Fans are the people buying the new sets. And if they are buying, they are not teed off. "Loyalty" to LEGO over decades or being "real fans" doesn't count for much since kids are by far the biggest consumer group that current sets have to sell to. It may be cold hearted, but success for a company is measured by sales volumes and profit. I doubt they care that much if a group of people that played with LEGO in the 70s and 80s were happy that certain new sets look a bit like those of their childhood. LEGO want them to sell, and that is what they care about.

Model trains are quite different to LEGO. LEGO has a continuously evolving fanbase, with kids reaching about 6 years of age joining and older kids leaving.

[JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)]

Y'know, after reading the replies and some thinking, I don't think I want to dabble into this topic (hence the strikethrough of my post pages back). I feel Aanchir do make a good point on the toxicity there and it's kinda an eye opener for me (so...I guess thanks for that!). So after re-thinking, I'll take back what I mostly said on that post.

Wizarding World proved that it could provide awesome minifigures with its Hogwarts D2C and Bricktober. And Star Wars has been providing awesome minifigures regardless if some sets is mediocre. So to be honest, I am quite fine with them staying. 

While Jurrasic World is not my cup of tea and I don't find the minifigures interesting and even prefer Dino Attack and Dino 2012, I must and have to understand that there are certain people who are fans of the franchise and Lego too. Wishing that theme away might be unfair to them.

Now trying to look at realism here, there has to be a reason that certain themes got axed and I'm certain it's a business decision as TLG is a company. I'll always wish for certain themes to return but now, I don't think I'll see as something should be discontinued for it to happen. If things get discontinued, bummer to those who liked it and maybe good to those who thinks that there are benefits. It is what it is, Both side of the coin. I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm fine with whichever way thing goes.

As I said, I'll always have my preference but I'll also have to see things from a realistic and neutral point of view too. So...I'll guess I'll say we'll see what goes in the future..

Edited January 29, 2019 by JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, Mylenium said:

No offense, but isn't that typical corporate thinking - short term revenue maximization at the cost of perhaps a less sexy, but stable longterm income? I'm not going to argue that overall sales numbers aren't important, but I still think your argument fails in that LEGOs reporting really only covers what they deliver to retailers, but not what actually sells. If you allow me: It's perfectly possible that some clueless dufus at a toy store chain ordered truckloads of sets that just don't sell.

It's interesting to me that you assume the retailers, who interact more directly with consumers than LEGO generally does, can't be trusted to make good decisions about what sets consumers are most interested in. Back in the early 2000s, one of the big mistakes LEGO was making was NOT listening to feedback from retailers about what kinds of products buyers wanted or what they were actually buying. Many retailers made a purposeful decision NOT to stock large quantities of 2003 products due to massive amounts of unsold 2002 products. And even the success of Bionicle in 2003 that kept LEGO out of bankruptcy that year was somewhat sabotaged by LEGO's failure to produce adequate quantities of some of the Bionicle products that were most highly in demand in the run-up to the holiday season, even though retailers were well aware that customers wanted more of these products than LEGO was able to supply to them. LEGO putting more faith in retailers' insights into their own consumer base was one of many components of the LEGO Group's subsequent recovery process (see Brick by Brick chapter 4, page 105 under the header "First the Stores, Then the Kids" for more details).

I have no doubt that retailers might be prone to excessive hype about entirely new product lines, but when that happens they generally respond by NOT ordering as much of those products in subsequent waves, and LEGO responds by not producing as much of them in subsequent waves. The idea that LEGO keeps making huge numbers of Star Wars, Ninjago, Nexo Knights, Friends, and City products because retailers are obtuse enough to order excessive amounts of poorly-selling products OVER and OVER again doesn't really appear to hold water.

For that matter, I also think it's peculiar that you see LEGO's recent approach to themes as too volatile and risk-prone, when compared to years like 2009 that fans of classic themes often hearken back to, LEGO's current approach seems a lot more conservative and risk-averse. After all, a lot of the themes in 2009 that people have waxed nostalgic for in this and other threads (such as Pirates, Fantasy Era Castle, Space Police 3, Agents, Power Miners, Indiana Jones) were at that time either brand new or in only their second or third year, and most only had a short one to three year run before being retired/replaced. Whereas many of the things people are complaining about LEGO focusing excessively on in this very thread like Minecraft, Ninjago, Speed Champions, Star Wars, Technic vehicles, etc. are currently in anywhere from their fifth to their twentieth consecutive year.

Cancelling or reducing emphasis on these sorts of safe, proven sets because AFOLs are bored/tired of them, just to make room for themes like Pirates that haven't proven capable of maintaining reliable, year-after-year, high-volume sales in over 20 years is exactly the kind of "short term revenue maximization at the cost of perhaps a less sexy, but stable longterm income" that you are afraid of LEGO engaging in.

2 hours ago, Mylenium said:

I feel this distinction still has to be made and it's basically what's at the core of this discussion: What actually makes a "successful" product line? Massive sales? Adaptation and acceptance in the potential fan/ customer base? Both? A million other factors? We're not going to get to a definitive answer here, but personally I just feel there's more to the equation than just cold sales numbers, even more so considering that examples from the model train industry like Märklin and Roco seem to kinda disprove your point. More or less they were both saved by their loyal fanbase after their failed business expansions driving them into bankruptcy. So from where I stand, this is kinda important and LEGO are perhaps still doing something not so smart when killing off beloved themes and teeing off fans.

I'm not sure that LEGO following the example of a small, niche model company whose average customer is in their 60s and whose most recent annual report announced global revenues of €108 million is a really compelling argument, considering LEGO's own annual report from the same year reported revenues equivalent to €4.689 billion, and by most accounts they remain the world's most valuable and highest rated toy brand. Whether or not "cold sales numbers" are everything, it seems laughable to think that companies like Märklin and Roco are anywhere close to exceeding LEGO's overall success by any metric, except perhaps if you're only measuring popularity among senior citizens. Unlike Märklin, not only was LEGO able to successfully AVOID having to declare bankruptcy thanks to the strength of the Bionicle theme, but also seems to have done a far better job bouncing back from their lowest point even if you compare only how the two companies did within the nine or ten years after that point.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Aanchir

[MAB]

5 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

It's interesting to me that you assume the retailers, who interact more directly with consumers than LEGO generally does, can't be trusted to make good decisions about what sets consumers are most interested in. Back in the early 2000s, one of the big mistakes LEGO was making was NOT listening to feedback from retailers about what kinds of products buyers wanted or what they were actually buying. Many retailers made a purposeful decision NOT to stock large quantities of 2003 products due to massive amounts of unsold 2002 products. And even the success of Bionicle in 2003 that kept LEGO out of bankruptcy that year was somewhat sabotaged by LEGO's failure to produce adequate quantities of some of the Bionicle products that were most highly in demand in the run-up to the holiday season, even though retailers were well aware that customers wanted more of these products than LEGO was able to supply to them. LEGO putting more faith in retailers' insights into their own consumer base was one of many components of the LEGO Group's subsequent recovery process (see Brick by Brick chapter 4, page 105 under the header "First the Stores, Then the Kids" for more details).

 

It is interesting to note that in the UK, the final wave of the Hobbit sets were put on 50% off sale, and in some cases more than this by a couple of supermarkets, within just weeks of them being released. I imagine they had already agreed to take stock of them and presumably must have had poor sales of the second wave that took a long time to clear shelves. The supermarkets clearly knew what was going to block their shelves for months without selling and acted quickly. Also, most supermarkets here (ones similar to Walmart and Target, as opposed to specialist toy stores) do not really stock large sets any more. They tend to stock small ones only these days. The large sets seem to be going towards more traditional toy sellers.

 

[Digger of Bricks]

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

For what it's worth, one Classic Space project actually DID get produced via LEGO Ideas. And yet, that project (the Exo-Suit) is, aside from its minifigure and branding, bears scarcely any resemblance to actual Classic Space sets, even compared to many of the Classic Space inspired sets that LEGO has released WITHOUT outside input from AFOLs. As such, I suspect its success was driven not only by AFOL interest in themes which LEGO has supposedly been neglecting, but also mainstream interest in "mecha" sets which have maintained a ubitquitous presence among LEGO products for well over a decade, to the point that fans of classic themes have lately taken to COMPLAINING about how many there are.

I think Reid's Exo-Suit might also owe its success at LEGO Ideas to being featured as a noteworthy fan creation in DK's first edition of The LEGO Book. 

[Aanchir]

16 minutes ago, MAB said:

It is interesting to note that in the UK, the final wave of the Hobbit sets were put on 50% off sale, and in some cases more than this by a couple of supermarkets, within just weeks of them being released. I imagine they had already agreed to take stock of them and presumably must have had poor sales of the second wave that took a long time to clear shelves. The supermarkets clearly knew what was going to block their shelves for months without selling and acted quickly. Also, most supermarkets here (ones similar to Walmart and Target, as opposed to specialist toy stores) do not really stock large sets any more. They tend to stock small ones only these days. The large sets seem to be going towards more traditional toy sellers.

That doesn't entirely surprise me. Here in the United States, we usually don't think of stores like Walmart and Target as "supermarkets", though some (not all) include a supermarket/grocery department. The stores we more typically call supermarkets are ones like Kroger, Hannaford, Food Lion, and Stop & Shop that focus primarily on grocery-type products. While many of these do have a toy department, most stick primarily to a small selection of low-priced toys — if you ever see LEGO at a supermarket to begin with, it's rarely anything priced higher than $15.

Bigger sets more often tend to be sold at toy stores, department stores (e.g. Walmart, Target, Kohls, Meijer, BJ's Wholesale, Sam's Club, or Costco), book stores, or online retailers like Amazon. That last category has been gaining considerable market share recently, particularly as so many massive toy store chains (e.g. Toys "R" Us), book store chains (e.g. Borders), and department store chains (e.g. Sears and Kmart) have declared bankruptcy. Those big chains had spent decades crowding out smaller chains and independent stores, so after their collapse companies like Amazon have been picking up the pieces. I can't say I'm particularly comfortable with these sorts of changes in the retail landscape, particularly with the kind of ethically questionable business practices Amazon has engaged in to become and remain a market leader.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Aanchir

[Lego David]

1 hour ago, JJ Tong (zfogshooterz) said:

Wizarding World proved that it could provide awesome minifigures with its Hogwarts D2C and Bricktober. And Star Wars has been providing awesome minifigures regardless if some sets is mediocre. So to be honest, I am quite fine with them staying. 

The problem here is that is recent years they focused more on the quality of the minifigures more then the quality of the actual set. Most Star Wars sets which are under 30$ are just a poor build with some desirable minifigs thrown in. So, they exchange the quality of the build with the quality of the actual set, which is unacceptable in my opinion. You pay 30$ for a set and all you care about in that set is the minifigures. What a smart method for LEGO to trick you into buying the set. You get a trashy build with two or three great minifigures in it for 30$. What a great deal right? Nope, I have to disagree here. Back in the days for 30$ you actually got a significant build. What you get now is only semnificant minifigures. Minifigures are only accessories that come with the set. Buying the whole set just for the accessories doesn't seem very good to me.

[jimmynick]

1 hour ago, Aanchir said:

While many of these do have a toy department, most stick primarily to a small selection of low-priced toys — if you ever see LEGO at a supermarket to begin with, it's rarely anything priced higher than $15.

I fondly remember getting my 7101 lightsaber duel at Sainsbury's such a long time ago!

Honestly I'm tired by this profusion of threads that go "X isn't to my taste, therefore it is bad".

[icm]

18 minutes ago, Lego David said:

The problem here is that is recent years they focused more on the quality of the minifigures more then the quality of the actual set. Most Star Wars sets which are under 30$ are just a poor build with some desirable minifigs thrown in. So, they exchange the quality of the build with the quality of the actual set, which is unacceptable in my opinion. You pay 30$ for a set and all you care about in that set is the minifigures. What a smart method for LEGO to trick you into buying the set. You get a trashy build with two or three great minifigures in it for 30$. What a great deal right? Nope, I have to disagree here. Back in the days for 30$ you actually got a significant build. What you get now is only s[ig]nificant minifigures.

Two things -

1 - $30 went a lot farther in 1979 and in 1999 than in 2019 because of inflation.  I think it's actually quite remarkable how the price-per-part ratio has gotten smaller with time despite inflation, and even more so how accounting for inflation the $30 sets today are often (not always, but often) just as massive as the $30-equivalent sets from 40 years ago.  For example, compare the 924 Space Transporter from 1979 ($10 then = $30 now) and the Royal Talon Fighter Attack from 2018.  The two ships are nearly exactly the same size.

2 - Everything you've said about minifigures and builds here could have been said, and probably was said, about the original Star Wars line way back in 1999.  In that respect, things haven't changed at all in 20 years.  The individual desirability or collectability of individual minifigures in lines before the licensed era is an entirely different question.

[leafan]

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

The idea that there's a hunger among AFOLs for classic themes is undeniable. But then again, the same thing can be said for monorail sets, every single one of which LEGO lost money on. Demand doesn't always equate to a good business case.

I'd like to see Monorail fans get some sets too. Why can't we have that in addition to what classic fans want? It doesn't all have to be at the same time so long as there's a clear plan to fill the demand. Demand is always good for business if it exceeds the costs, and I believe it does in most classic theme cases.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Also, the AFOLs hungering for classic Castle sets are not always the same as those hungering for classic Pirates or classic Space — as such, the demand among AFOLs for each one of these product categories individually is smaller than demand for "classic products" broadly speaking.

Yeah but even so, I believe it's large enough. I also think that there's more cross-over than you might believe. I didn't really have town sets as a kid, just Space and Castle, but I still have nostalgia for it. Luckily, that's one area that *is* being served with City and Creator Expert modulars.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

And AFOLs in general already represent a fairly small fraction of the overall audience for LEGO products, and those who would prefer classic themes over current ones a fraction of that fraction, so AFOL demand for LEGO to bring back classic Castle in particular amount to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.

But yet Benny's Space Squad was sold-out almost everywhere upon release. There's clearly a good demand for it. Sure it was a cheap set, but so was Sweetest Friends and the shelves are full of those.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Then you throw in the fact that many of the people who are supposedly united in their desire for new Castle sets don't even agree on what they want to see in Castle sets! Some want 2007-2009 style fantasy factions, some want strict realism. Some want big AFOL-targeted exclusives that exceed the level of size, detail, and complexity we've seen in past Castle sets, while others want sets at a more KFOL-targeted building level that will excite Castle-loving kids in their family or community.

(+ 4 paragraphs of how fans are dividied in their desires.)

Although it's true that everybody has their own perfect vision of what they'd like to see from their favourite theme, I don't think it;s fair to look at them as totally separate and divided.

For example, I think that most classic Castle fans would be happy and excited about a new Castle line in the style of the original Crusaders, Black Falcons etc, even if their preference was say, ...Knights Kingdom.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

A lot of people have suggested that if LEGO were to release new Castle and Pirates sets they'd be a guaranteed hit. Would they? Because I seem to remember that the 2013 Castle sets and 2015 Pirates sets were pretty extensively panned by many even on this very site because they were "too simple" or "too small" or "too overpriced", or because the flags/heraldry didn't look right, or because they were too similar to stuff that had already been released, or because they were too different from the kinds of past sets somebody wanted, or because they weren't realistic enough, or because they weren't fantastical/imaginative enough, etc. I suspect they sold alright overall, but they didn't seem to make AFOLs all that happy.

I'll take your word for it as I wasn't here for that. You can never make everybody happy and the unhappiest are often the loudest, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

Nothing is a guaranteed success, but chances are it would be successful *enough*.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

For what it's worth, one Classic Space project actually DID get produced via LEGO Ideas. And yet, that project (the Exo-Suit) is, aside from its minifigure and branding, bears scarcely any resemblance to actual Classic Space sets, even compared to many of the Classic Space inspired sets that LEGO has released WITHOUT outside input from AFOLs.

I know, I own it; and I agree that it doesn't resemble Classic Space very much, but I bought it anyway! Why? Because Green Classic Space People and the set is kind of cool anyway.

It may not be my perfect Classic Space release, but I was happy to spend my money on it and have it in my collection, so maybe fans aren't very divided afterall.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Also, one of the big "classic themes" of my childhood was Aquazone, from 1995 to 1998. Back then, there was no indication to me that "underwater sci-fi" was any less of a staple of the LEGO System than Town, Space, Castle, or Pirates (after all, if Pirates could join that club around a decade after the rest, why not Aquazone six years later?). But after 1998? Well, there was Alpha Team: Mission Deep Sea in 2002, and then Aqua Raiders in 2007, and then Atlantis in 2010–2011… and in the seven years since then? *crickets* But I'm not taking that as an indication that such themes are never coming back, or that LEGO's given up on them, or that it's some kind of injustice to keep fans of such themes waiting so long

I don't think that can be compared to the love and nostalgia that the classic themes that I mentioned have, but I also wouldn't object to them bringing it back in some form. I don't see people asking for Aquazone back very frequently at all, but Castle, Classic Space and Pirates? All the time.

My complaint isn't that I don't think they will *ever* release Castle again, or any other classic theme, but rather that it's been so long now and there doesn't seem to be any plans for it in the near future.

I'm also pretty up to date on the leaks, so I can see pretty much the rest of this year, if rumours and pictures are to be believed - but maybe this isn't a good place to discuss that.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But as a child born in '91 who first started building LEGO System sets in '94 or '95, at no point in my experience as a LEGO fan were they the be-all and end-all of LEGO.

And classic themes aren't the "be all and end all of Lego" for me either, but I still want them to return. They're important.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Wishing for a theme other people like to end because you don't like it, let alone celebrating when that theme ends, is inherently spiteful and dismissive.

This may not be the best thread to use as an example, sure; but this thread does not represent the majority of discussion surrounding classic themes.

That said, there's nothing spiteful or dismissive inherant to this threads stated title - it's just seeking opinions about what people would prefer go away (perhaps to make room for their favourite theme?). Someone may have said TLM2 sets and I would disagree, but as long as it's presented in a constructive way then I can accept that. It's not "self-centered" to want classic themes back, since by very definition I am not alone in this desire and neither are others. And I also don't believe that I need to consider other people when I state what I would like to see return. That's my desire. I'm not here for some kind of Lego altruism, but I am interested in discussing *my* interests with others who share it.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I feel like these attitudes greatly weaken LEGO fans as a community, because it means we CAN'T count on each other supporting one another's interests, and only care about news that's seen as a good thing for other fans within our own bubble. It's the same kind of nonsense as when fans argue about Star Wars vs. Star Trek or Marvel vs. DC or Disney vs. DreamWorks — despite most of the things these groups enjoy being more similar than they are different, these kinds of petty rivalries result in an environment where spaces dedicated to those common interests become needlessly hostile.

As above, I'm here for my interests. I'm not here to support others interests. Frankly, I'm not interested in supporting the latest Friends line or support Friends fans because I have no interest in it and no obligation to do that. I post here to read about things that I *do* enjoy and find others with similar interests, and within that "bubble" I am happy to extend discussion and support with other fans. Luckily, my interests are varied.

That doesn't mean that I do not wish the best for Friends fans. If they're getting what they want, great, I'm pleased for them and hopefully Lego is making some decent dosh from that line. I still have zero interest in Friends and would have very little to discuss with a die-hard Friends fan.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But as long as folks approach things from the mindset that "stuff I like=good" and "stuff I dislike=bad", then not only do we lose the ability to get excited for each other's victories and milestones (both large and small), we wind up with AFOL communities being a place where news that you'd think we could all be excited about like The LEGO Movie's release in 2014, or LEGO's momentous sales in 2015, or the minifigure's 40th anniversary/the brick's 60th anniversary in 2018, or Ninjago's upcoming 100th TV episode in 2019, or pretty much every AFOL-generated LEGO Ideas set released, results in a bunch of sour grapes because LEGO isn't giving such-and-such theme enough attention, or is "selling their soul" by making sets of a particular license, or is "pandering" to *insert demographic here*, or whatever else the gripe of the day happens to be.

It's not "stuff I like=good" and "stuff I dislike=bad", it's stuff I like=good, stuff I dislike=I don't care so long as stuff that I do like is produced.

Despite all of the things you said here, I don't feel distain for any of the examples you mentioned as milestones (such as Ninjago's 100th episode) and I'm happy for those fans - but it doesn't change my feeling that Lego is neglecting classic. So why is my having this attitude weakening the Lego fan community? I'm sure a lot of others feel like I do in this regard.

17 hours ago, Aanchir said:

So what would be gained from doing something more like the LEGO Forma approach, in which AFOLs themselves had way less creative input, and decision by a dyed-in-the-wool AFOL about whether or not to pre-order would have the same weight as a decision by an opportunistic scalper with no idea about into what kinds of sets LEGO fans like, or an adult who's had no prior interest in LEGO?

Well it can be new designs from Lego, so official. And it can be targetted directly at the people I've been talking about (perhaps with a handful of sets in a given theme) rather that a pot luck chance that a fan will moc that gap in the market.

Finally, I'd like to say that I hope you don't find my responses here as a personal attack, but I am passionate about Castle, various Space themes, Pirates, Vikings and other classic themes to return in some form, and I have sometimes felt that your responses have lumped all people with that desire in the same barrel as moaners and selfish, so I felt the need to reply...passionately.

To the contrary, I appreciate your insight into all things Lego.

Now I'd love to carry on the conversation as I'm sure you have many counter points to what I've said, but please bare in mind that I may not be able to respond again because this has taken a significant portion of my night to read and thoughtfully respond to as many points as I can. I don't know how you do it, but I can't anymore (unless it requires only a small response).

Take care.

P.S. - BRING BACK CASTLE!

[icm]

@Lego David, please ignore my previous post in this thread.  I have too much spare time on my hands at work today, and I apologise for reflexively dismissing your comment.  I better get back to work now.

[Aanchir]

7 minutes ago, jamesn said:

I fondly remember getting my 7101 lightsaber duel at Sainsbury's such a long time ago!

Honestly I'm tired by this profusion of threads that go "X isn't to my taste, therefore it is bad".

Agreed, it gets a little tedious… although sometimes it's a little amusing to see how those perspectives change with time.

Like, go back around ten or eleven years and you see fans of the "classic themes" complaining about how terrible and bad and useless and childish themes like Agents, Power Miners, Atlantis, World Racers, and Ninjago are, and how they were a sign that LEGO was back on the road to ruin. Nowadays it's starting to feel like a good portion of the complaints about old stuff being better than new stuff cite years like 2008–2010 as a period when LEGO had stuff figured out way better, even to the point of name-dropping many of those themes alongside Castle/Pirates/Space as reasons that those years had been a "golden age"

Of course, I suppose it was just as surprising when I was just entering adulthood in the late aughts/early 2010s to see people complaining that new themes like Agents, Power Miners, Atlantis, Alien Conquest, Pharaoh's Quest, Ninjago, and Galaxy Squad paled in comparison to late 90s/early 2000s themes like Alpha Team, Rock Raiders, Aquazone, UFO, Adventurers, Ninja, and Insectoids. After all, AFOLs during that part of my childhood had been criticizing many of those "new" themes as symptoms of the ways LEGO was going off course. And at that time, regardless of the merits of any particular theme, AFOLs were at least right about LEGO being in a perilous situation and making a lot of bad business choices!

Needless to say, seeing the same kinds of "LEGO was better 10 years ago" complaints in 2009 and 2019, even with LEGO doing a lot better at each of those points than they had been 10 years earlier, it's hard not to get the sense that nostalgia for a lot of AFOLs at any point in time just tends to paint a picture that the LEGO Group of ten years prior had better business sense, better themes, better prices, better storytelling, more sophisticated designs, etc, regardless of matter how well or poorly those decade-old sets and themes actually compare to current ones.

59 minutes ago, Lego David said:

The problem here is that is recent years they focused more on the quality of the minifigures more then the quality of the actual set. Most Star Wars sets which are under 30$ are just a poor build with some desirable minifigs thrown in. So, they exchange the quality of the build with the quality of the actual set, which is unacceptable in my opinion. You pay 30$ for a set and all you care about in that set is the minifigures. What a smart method for LEGO to trick you into buying the set. You get a trashy build with two or three great minifigures in it for 30$. What a great deal right? Nope, I have to disagree here. Back in the days for 30$ you actually got a significant build. What you get now is only semnificant minifigures. Minifigures are only accessories that come with the set. Buying the whole set just for the accessories doesn't seem very good to me.

To be honest, I see the idea that "LEGO puts good minifigures in bad sets to trick people into buying them" quite a bit, and I don't think it really holds much water. For one thing, no LEGO set designer EVER designs a set to be undesirable. But additionally, a lot of the time these are adult, long-term collectors opinions about sets aimed at kids and new collectors.

Take for instance 76101, with a small spaceship, two good guys, and two bad guys. To a lot of AFOLs who only care about collecting and don't play with their sets, the spaceship might seem like something they're forced to pay extra for to get those characters, and will then just collect dust on a shelf, overshadowed by bigger and more interesting sets. But to a six-year-old kid who buys toys to play with and not just to put on a shelf or mark off boxes on a checklist, the spaceship is the main thing that actually makes a set this inexpensive any fun to build or play with. It turns figures that would on their own just be trinkets (or "accessories" as you put it) into a considerably more substantial building and play experience.

After all, if they only cared about the movie characters and not about the building or play experience, there are plenty of non-LEGO toys with more detailed/posable versions of those characters that might be a lot cheaper to collect than LEGO sets… same as how a kid who cares more about non-branded stuff like trucks or pirates or dragons than about building could buy any number of cheaper non-LEGO toys with the same kinds of stuff in them at a higher level of detail.

If anything, I'd say that a lot of the sets "back in the day" had a much greater tendency to have a rather basic, mediocre build where the figure and/or accessories were the real star. Consider, for instance, 6235. Not only is $3.25 for 20 pieces that are neither unique nor exclusive pretty pitiful by today's standards even before adjusting for inflation, but only around 6 of the parts are standard building elements, everything else is figures and accessories. Whereas as recently as last year, you could get sets like 30532 (61 pieces: 6 for the minifig+sword and 55 for a little car you can zoom around) and 30547 (63 pieces: 8 for the minifig+blaster+ammo and a 55 for a dragon with 10 points of articulation) for around $4.

And weren't you and others complaining about Speed Champions in this topic earlier? Yet those sets are a pretty obvious example of modern sets where the minifigures are fairly boring accessories and the vehicles themselves are invariably the real star. Now, for you and I they might still be underwhelming, because I don't think either of us are car enthusiasts or know/care much about the little details that differentiate all those similar-sized sports cars, let alone why they matter. But there's no doubt a lot of work goes into trying to make those cars resemble the real-world ones that inspire them, often employing lots of pieces and all kinds of unconventional building techniques in order to do so.

Exclusive figs being peppered throughout the sets isn't meant to punish the people who can't get them all or to compel people to buy sets they don't actually want, but to ensure that no matter which sets a person is interested in getting or how many they get, most will have at least one "special" minifigure that doesn't feel like a repeat of one that buyer already owns. Even here on Eurobricks I've seen extensive complaints from people about getting lots of duplicates of characters like Woody and Buzz in the Toy Story sets, or Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean sets, or Anakin and Ahsoka in the Star Wars: The Clone Wars sets, or any number of ninja and baddies in Ninjago sets.

Even if people like and want a set on its own merits and don't buy it for the minifigures, that feeling of it coming with a figure you didn't actually want/need can leave a bad taste in people's mouths, aside from certain characters (licensed and non-licensed alike) that are well-suited to army building. Thus, rare and exclusive figures help people get more enjoyment out of sets they planned on buying anyhow.

Ultimately, any business model built around "tricking" people into paying more for something than the enjoyment they'll get out of it is actually worth to them isn't going to be very sustainable in the long run. The reason why LEGO is beloved enough that people like us even continue to enjoy it into adulthood is that even after we've bought it, it still feels rewarding.

57 minutes ago, leafan said:

I'd like to see Monorail fans get some sets too. Why can't we have that in addition to what classic fans want? It doesn't all have to be at the same time so long as there's a clear plan to fill the demand. Demand is always good for business if it exceeds the costs, and I believe it does in most classic theme cases.

The answer to "why can't we have that?" has been explained at length in this thread by Mark Stafford, an AFOL and LEGO set designer who has just as much nostalgia for Classic Space as anyone. No LEGO monorail set back then ever turned a profit, and LEGO hasn't yet found any reason to believe that there's more demand for them today than there was back in the 80s when society as a whole cared more about monorails to begin with.

It's one thing to say LEGO should re-introduce something like Castle or Space sets that was highly successful for many years. That kind of stuff probably WILL continue to come out, if not every year. And even then LEGO invariably does some more comprehensive kid testing and market research to figure out how best to pull it off.But there's no sense whatsoever in acting as though LEGO has no reason not to reintroduce something like monorail that was an expensive failure that few people actually bought, and that no kids LEGO has tested monorail sets with since have ever been particularly excited about compared to other, more promising possibilities. As Nabii explains, kids don't really see much difference between a monorail and any other type of trains, and LEGO already tends to release as many trains as the market has enough demand to sustain — which these days isn't a lot!

It's fairly easy in relatively tiny communities like Eurobricks (which is presently being viewed by less than 1000 people) to overestimate how much demand there is for any given product or product line. Same as how many of the Bionicle sites and groups I used to frequent could easily convey the impression that the number of people demanding more Bionicle sets, comics, movies, games, etc. was a massive force that LEGO couldn't possibly afford to ignore. As you yourself say, "the unhappiest people are usually loudest". But even so, LEGO looks into this stuff all the time. It's not as though any theme that hasn't had new sets in the past five years got to that point because the people making decisions at LEGO haven't considered the possibility, or don't realize that there's anybody who'd buy that stuff. LEGO is exploring all kinds of ideas all the time, only a fraction of which we ever get to see as sets. And stuff inspired by sets that have been successful in the past, which many of LEGO's current designers grew up with, is typically some of the first stuff designers are likely to consider when trying to come up with future product ideas.

But if "only the best is good enough", then it goes without saying that stuff appealing to Classic Space fans or Classic Castle fans might be passed over in favor of stuff that appeals to those people AND other groups. For example, I think it goes without saying that Star Wars was a major childhood experience for more adults than blue and gray Classic Space sets, both because adults who weren't born yet when either Classic Space sets or Star Wars movies were new are more likely to have experienced them as kids. Being born in 1991, I never owned an actual Classic Space set, and the closest I came to experiencing it in my childhood was through older posters, comic books, and idea books obtained via yard sales and so forth. But when my dad sat me down to watch the Star Wars original trilogy I can't have been older than five.

A lot of us passionate AFOLs who visit message boards like this daily can probably be counted on not to pass up a set that appeals to our childhood LEGO nostalgia in favor of stuff that appeals to our other forms of childhood nostalgia. But among the many 70s and 80s kids who enjoyed Classic Space more casually and haven't thought about it so much as adults, their choice between a Star Wars D2C set and a Neo Classic Space D2C set might opt for the former.

Same goes for a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings D2C versus a Black Falcons or Crusaders throwback… as a child I'm not even sure I knew that a Castle faction with a name as nondescript as "Crusaders" existed. A Neo-Crusaders set certainly wouldn't have been any more exciting to me than Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings sets that my parents and I can ALL enjoy on a nostalgic level (certainly, Harry Potter was not a part of THEIR childhoods, but neither was LEGO, and most of their interest in either came as a result of raising me and my siblings).

1 hour ago, leafan said:

This may not be the best thread to use as an example, sure; but this thread does not represent the majority of discussion surrounding classic themes.

That said, there's nothing spiteful or dismissive inherant to this threads stated title - it's just seeking opinions about what people would prefer go away (perhaps to make room for their favourite theme?). Someone may have said TLM2 sets and I would disagree, but as long as it's presented in a constructive way then I can accept that. It's not "self-centered" to want classic themes back, since by very definition I am not alone in this desire and neither are others. And I also don't believe that I need to consider other people when I state what I would like to see return. That's my desire. I'm not here for some kind of Lego altruism, but I am interested in discussing *my* interests with others who share it.

Wishing for your favorite themes to return is fine. I think any of us who have enjoyed any currently retired theme might enjoy seeing it make some sort of a comeback. But how would you feel if the current slate of LEGO themes were exactly the same as in, say, 1989, and people started a thread to talk about which of those themes were boring or pointless or had run their course and should be gotten rid of to make room for new Bionicle or Ninjago or Legends of Chima sets? How would you feel if your absolute favorite incarnation of LEGO Castle ended with no revival or replacement in sight, and most of the responses were negative ones like many of those seen here in response to the end of LEGO Nexo Knights? This is the kind of self-centeredness and dismissiveness I'm talking about — not just having a preference for certain themes over others, but thinking of themes you don't care for strictly as an enemy or obstacle to the ones you do.

Realistically, of COURSE not all themes can possibly exist at once, but if the idea of LEGO giving up on a particular theme that you and people who share your interests loved really hurts so much, it seems downright sadistic to wish that on others, regardless of how you personally feel about the themes that are important to them?

I suspect LEGO Elves could have been a lot bigger or lasted longer if LEGO Disney weren't a thing. But I'm not here hoping for LEGO to stop making Disney sets, which I know a lot of kids and adults alike are big fans of, just so that I and people who share my interests get preferential treatment.

1 hour ago, leafan said:

It's not "stuff I like=good" and "stuff I dislike=bad", it's stuff I like=good, stuff I dislike=I don't care so long as stuff that I do like is produced.

Despite all of the things you said here, I don't feel distain for any of the examples you mentioned as milestones (such as Ninjago's 100th episode) and I'm happy for those fans - but it doesn't change my feeling that Lego is neglecting classic. So why is my having this attitude weakening the Lego fan community? I'm sure a lot of others feel like I do in this regard.

As long as it stays limited to that, it's NOT weakening the LEGO fan community. Such comments are fine, and if I see such comments on Facebook, usually my responses tend to be sincere words of encouragement. For example, reminding people that all the past castle themes in the past decade and a half have launched the same year as new Harry Potter or Hobbit sets and movies with seemingly no issue, so the current Harry Potter sets shouldn't prevent new Castle sets either. Or that with both Nexo Knights and Elves retired, a new take on castle is likely to show up pretty soon.

Sometimes I even point out that before Nexo Knights even launched, the aforementioned set designer Mark Stafford characterized it here as "a chance to rest the traditional classic castle theme for a year or two, give it a chance to breath" (sic). In other posts like this one he's brought up the fact that Nexo Knights failing would probably REDUCE the likelihood of more traditional Castle sets in the future… so if anything the fact that Nexo Knights surpassed its sales targets and lasted more than the "year or two" Mark Stafford anticipated would bode well for the future of more traditional Castle sets.

Even a lot of my comments in the historic themes forum here on this very site have consisted of enthusiastically sharing useful parts for Castle MOCs or future Castle sets from themes like Ninjago and Elves that many people in that forum haven't been paying as close attention to. Not to mention sharing perspectives on what I'd like the next Castle theme to look like, including characteristics from themes like Ninjago, Nexo Knights, Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts, and Elves that would translate well to a more traditional medieval European theme, such as:

• Detailed and livable interiors (which, if anything, should be easier to manage in traditional Castle than Ninjago or Nexo Knights, with none of the budget being eaten up by mechs and flying machines and lasers and stuff)
• Brick-built dragons and monsters with varied sizes and shapes
• Curvier walls like in some Elves and Harry Potter sets, instead of everything being made out of rectangles and octagons
• Sets with more elaborate raised foundations like 70728 or 41180, as a way of recreating that same kind of excitement as the raised baseplates of the 90s without the ludicrously inflated prices and diminished building experiences that often came with them. The 2013 Castle wave dabbled in this with 70403 (and did so in a decidedly awesome way by having the evil wizard's lair built on top of the ruins of an older castle), but the overall impact of the set was held back by the set's low price point and need to include an expensive molded dragon.
• The biggest non-D2C sets getting a price hike to $120 or $130 like many Ninjago/Legends of Chima/Nexo Knights sets, instead of peaking at $100 like they have since 2005.
• Maybe a character-driven story? That would probably impact whether I get invested in the theme on a personal level, though I can still appreciate sets and themes from afar without those traits.

But comments like I see a lot on sites like Brickset or Facebook like "Enough Star Wars crap, bring back Bionicle!" or "Bring back LEGO Castle, no more Nexo garbage!" or "Ugh, Ninjago sucks. I miss Exo-Force", along with topics like this one, tend to feel a lot more mean-spirited. And the way some people act as though a theme you like being retired is grounds to call for themes you dislike to be retired, or to celebrate when they do, feels kind of nasty, IMO. I can't really muster any sympathy for such comments. Being upset that something you like isn't still around isn't reason to take it out on stuff many other people like that is.

I don't mean to lump your comments and opinions in with such vitriol, but I also hope you understand that the frustration I feel with threads like this one and the kind of useless and divisive antipathy they tend to stir up. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see a new Castle theme of some kind to take the place of Nexo Knights. I absolutely do, whether it winds up being something I actually want to buy or not, and even before Nexo Knights ended, my feeling has been that another Castle theme taking its place is practically inevitable.

[x105Black]

On 1/28/2019 at 6:33 PM, leafan said:

Frankly, I see your posts in nearly every one of said topics and I find them to be rather "dismissive". Like a 1000 word S.A. response to anybody wanting a new Castle doesn't make you right, it's just your opinion. Like, if you made a new post saying how much you want Elves back I wouldn't dream of stepping in there any trying to deconstruct why that is unlikely and how you should be happy with whatever the closest match happens to be right now. I dunno, seems "spiteful".

Yes, and so verbose.  TL;DR...

There are a few such members here.

And yes, I know that I have been particularly nasty to Nexo Knights...

9 hours ago, Lego David said:

The problem here is that is recent years they focused more on the quality of the minifigures more then the quality of the actual set. Most Star Wars sets which are under 30$ are just a poor build with some desirable minifigs thrown in. So, they exchange the quality of the build with the quality of the actual set, which is unacceptable in my opinion. You pay 30$ for a set and all you care about in that set is the minifigures. What a smart method for LEGO to trick you into buying the set. You get a trashy build with two or three great minifigures in it for 30$. What a great deal right? Nope, I have to disagree here. Back in the days for 30$ you actually got a significant build. What you get now is only semnificant minifigures. Minifigures are only accessories that come with the set. Buying the whole set just for the accessories doesn't seem very good to me.

I disagree.  The minifigures are as much a part of the set as the bricks, and often are more appealing (even if the set is great).  I often buy a set that has multiple useful minifigures and a crap build, but it's usually because the crap build is at least giving me good bricks in colors that will be useful to me.

[MAB]

14 hours ago, Lego David said:

The problem here is that is recent years they focused more on the quality of the minifigures more then the quality of the actual set. Most Star Wars sets which are under 30$ are just a poor build with some desirable minifigs thrown in. So, they exchange the quality of the build with the quality of the actual set, which is unacceptable in my opinion. You pay 30$ for a set and all you care about in that set is the minifigures. What a smart method for LEGO to trick you into buying the set. You get a trashy build with two or three great minifigures in it for 30$. What a great deal right? Nope, I have to disagree here. Back in the days for 30$ you actually got a significant build. What you get now is only semnificant minifigures. Minifigures are only accessories that come with the set. Buying the whole set just for the accessories doesn't seem very good to me.

My son got these two sets for Christmas and birthday. What makes you think that they were bought for the minifigures without quality in the build? He has spent ages playing with both.

 

[Lego David]

Just now, MAB said:

My son got these two sets for Christmas and birthday. What makes you think that they were bought for the minifigures without quality in the build? He has spent ages playing with both.

Your son may have played with those sets, but I think you were the actual Person that payed for those sets, not him. I personally wouldn't pay 30$ for a trashy build with some cool characters in it. Yoda's Hut is an OK set, but that Luke and Leia one definitely has a bad build that doesn't deserve it's 30$ price tag.

[x105Black]

31 minutes ago, Lego David said:

Your son may have played with those sets, but I think you were the actual Person that payed for those sets, not him. I personally wouldn't pay 30$ for a trashy build with some cool characters in it. Yoda's Hut is an OK set, but that Luke and Leia one definitely has a bad build that doesn't deserve it's 30$ price tag.

Yoda's Hut is a nice set.  I really like it.  And the fact that it came with such nice minifigures helped.  Licenses bring a bit of an extra cost, that's true, but it's still an overall nice set within that price range in the Star Wars theme.  I'd prefer a set like this to have another minifigure in place of the droid, but it's still good.  I wouldn't call it trashy.

[MAB]

29 minutes ago, Lego David said:

Your son may have played with those sets, but I think you were the actual Person that payed for those sets, not him. I personally wouldn't pay 30$ for a trashy build with some cool characters in it. Yoda's Hut is an OK set, but that Luke and Leia one definitely has a bad build that doesn't deserve it's 30$ price tag.

It wasn't me but another adult. So where is the value in a set?

 

These sets all cost $30:

192 parts, 3 minifigures:

358 parts, 2 minifigures plus the scarecow:

329 parts, 3 minifigures:

What has the best value? Is it the one flying around a helicopter and drone. Driving the tractor onto the back of a truck then driving the truck. Is it Luke and Leia fighting against the stormtrooper to swing over the void.

It depends on the child. You may think the scenery of an iconic scene in Star Wars is trashy and a bad build. Others that enjoy Star Wars will enjoy both building and playing with it. But what makes an equivalent price City set spectacularly better? Pretending to fly around a helicopter and drone or driving a tractor about aren't that exciting if you are not into them. There are literally hundreds of vehicle sets too. Plus non-LEGO versions of things like that can be bought very cheaply, so amount of unique play value per dollar is quite low there compared to other toys once the build experience is complete.

 

[Lego David]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

You may think the scenery of an iconic scene in Star Wars is trashy and a bad build

Just because it's based of a iconic Star Wars scene doesn't make it a good set. 

[TeriXeri]

Can't really compare the Sky Police helicopter set to the others as it's one of those sets with weird region price differences, it's €20 here.

Also goes the other way around by the way :

2019 Death Star Escape is €35 here.

2018 Hoth Medical Chamber (Star Wars), 255 pieces luke and leia, 2 droids, $30 in US, but a whopping €50 in my country and still €40 in other european countries.

2018 Grindelwald Escape (Harry Potter) , 155 pieces is €30 here, and $20 in US so also a bad value in europe.

Edited January 30, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Lego David]

10 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

Can't really compare the Sky Police helicopter set to the others as it's one of those sets with weird region price differences, it's €20 here.

Also goes the other way around by the way :

2019 Death Star Escape is €35 here.

2018 Hoth Medical Chamber (Star Wars), 255 pieces luke and leia, 2 droids, $30 in US, but a whopping €50 in my country and still €40 in other european countries.

2018 Grindelwald Escape (Harry Potter) , 155 pieces is €30 here, and $20 in US so also a bad value in europe.

You make an excelent point. The prices are as high in my country as in your.

[JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)]

21 hours ago, Lego David said:

The problem here is that is recent years they focused more on the quality of the minifigures more then the quality of the actual set. Most Star Wars sets which are under 30$ are just a poor build with some desirable minifigs thrown in. So, they exchange the quality of the build with the quality of the actual set, which is unacceptable in my opinion. You pay 30$ for a set and all you care about in that set is the minifigures. What a smart method for LEGO to trick you into buying the set. You get a trashy build with two or three great minifigures in it for 30$. What a great deal right? Nope, I have to disagree here. Back in the days for 30$ you actually got a significant build. What you get now is only semnificant minifigures. Minifigures are only accessories that come with the set. Buying the whole set just for the accessories doesn't seem very good to me.

While yes, the minifigures are accessories to the sets, but you also have to see that another factor for the sets other than just "trashy builds" - It's not like other toys where you're stuck with that build. You can still be creative and build something different with it thus having different experience and with star wars sets for example, it's fans could experience it too. Although Original themes do give a unique LEGO feeling, ultimately it's still the bricks that makes LEGO, y'know...LEGO.

In my younger days, when me and my brother were kids a few years back. There's no way the big sets could be afforded so we normally get the smaller ones be it licensed or not. And for years we got quite creative with what we have and we have quite the fun there. So there's no way we can be limited to what build a set provides unless we choose to.

Edited January 30, 2019 by JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)

[MAB]

2 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

Can't really compare the Sky Police helicopter set to the others as it's one of those sets with weird region price differences, it's €20 here.

Also goes the other way around by the way :

2019 Death Star Escape is €35 here.

2018 Hoth Medical Chamber (Star Wars), 255 pieces luke and leia, 2 droids, $30 in US, but a whopping €50 in my country and still €40 in other european countries.

2018 Grindelwald Escape (Harry Potter) , 155 pieces is €30 here, and $20 in US so also a bad value in europe.

OK, there is different pricing in different regions, but I can compare by asking which one has most play value. I chose them as they have the same USD value, but pricing is irrelevant really.  They are mid range sets. They could all be improved by having more parts (and being more expensive). Which has the most play value? The answer is that it depends on who is doing the playing.  The Death Star escape set is a nice little vignette set that captures a scene in a movie and it meets a price point. They could have vastly improved the build of the section of the Death Star and made it much more substantial, included 10 stormtroopers and charged $200. But it wouldn't sell. It probably wouldn't increase play value. Plus they have other sets at that price point.

 

You regularly see sets like this in City:

 

Is this a good build? Clearly, the answer is no. However, it is a great little set for a kid wanting a couple of minifigures. Has anyone bought it for the build? I reckon the answer is no. They are buying it for the minifigures and the bike, not the build. Do people complain about the quality of the build in these cheap sets made to sell minfiigures? Discontinue City now, as the cheap sets are insubstantial and are sold just to sell minfiigures.

Or this (back up to $35) from Creator ($35, 374 parts, 2 minifigures)

An insubstantial build for a house (but made to fit a price point) but one that has play value. It is longer and thinner than the SW one, but footprint is similar.

Or Friends:

Again a fairly insubstantial build nothing like a real store, but made to hit the $30 price point, 2 minifigures with 294 pieces. Again a similar footprint to the SW one.

 

There is this type of set in every range, made for a particular price point. A couple of figures, a small amount of scenery in which to act out stories. There is still play value even though a real house or store should be bigger. Should Creator and Friends be discontinued because they contain sets at about $30 that contain 300ish parts that create a small part of scenery and contain a couple of minifigures?

Edited January 30, 2019 by MAB

[TeriXeri]

I actually personally prefer buildings to vehicles so I actually liked the open back 3-in-1 creator buildings for 2017-2018, because hingled buildings tend to be deeper then 8 studs when fully closed.

I think the Friends sets are fine as they are as well, open backs and seperate buildups for "dollhouse" play isn't as bad concept, they aren't meant to be static display models in the middle of a room.

Even the Star Wars set has a place for it's fans, it's just a matter of personal taste.

But for my country, Star Wars sets especially tend to come at a worse price point, also playing a role for me, and I don't tend to like the skin colored figures as much either (multiple themes).

 

For me, Architecture and Brickheadz mean less to me then a Friends set would, as they seem like pure display models to me.

Even while I currently don't have any Minidoll sets, they sets themselves would integrate fine with other City/Creator theme sets, just mostly the stickers, animals and minidolls have different styles.

I think I rather get Friends sets then Licensed sets at this point of time if I had to choose a new theme to collect sets from.

Right now since 2016 I mostly own Nexo Knights, Creator 3-in-1, and some City sets (mostly minifig packs, starter packs), and loose parts via Xtra, Classic and 60th year anniversary.

 

 

Also, surpisingly the biggest revenue set of 2018 were actually 3 technic sets, 1 being the off-road RC racer, and the UCS milenium falcon.

Personally I hope an expansion on the RC-car concept and I wouldn't mind a compact "Racers" RC car with a studded base.

Maybe the 2017/2018 Creator 3-in-1 modular system didn't sell as well as I have seen them on sale for a long time, and the system didn't continue in Summer 2018, or 2019.

 

https://zusammengebaut.com/die-erfolgreichsten-lego-sets-des-jahres-2018-64656/
 

translated from link : 

"Yesterday, during the LEGO GmbH press conference, it was not just about the product innovations of the second half of the year , but also about the most successful products of the last year. In the top 10 toy products, which achieved the highest sales in Germany in 2018, there are four LEGO sets:

»LEGO Technic Remote Controlled Tracked Racer 42065 
»LEGO Technic 4x4 crane truck 42082 
»LEGO Technic Mack Anthem 42078 
»LEGO Star Wars UCS Millennium Falcon 75192"

 

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Lego David]

16 hours ago, JJ Tong (zfogshooterz) said:

While yes, the minifigures are accessories to the sets, but you also have to see that another factor for the sets other than just "trashy builds" - It's not like other toys where you're stuck with that build. You can still be creative and build something different with it thus having different experience and with star wars sets for example, it's fans could experience it too. Although Original themes do give a unique LEGO feeling, ultimately it's still the bricks that makes LEGO, y'know...LEGO.

The problem is that most people would just build the set that is intended to be built and not be creative. They would just put it on display, but the problem is those 30$  Star Wars sets don't really look that great on display (At least that Luke and Leia one) So once again, minifigures make the difference. Let's be honest here. If those sets had no minifigures at all, would you still buy that set?

[MAB]

9 minutes ago, Lego David said:

The problem is that most people would just build the set that is intended to be built and not be creative. They would just put it on display, but the problem is those 30$  Star Wars sets don't really look that great on display (At least that Luke and Leia one) So once again, minifigures make the difference. Let's be honest here. If those sets had no minifigures at all, would you still buy that set?

2

No, because having figures is essential for play for that type of set.  But then, that is not limited to Star Wars. Would people buy any set where the action is focussed on the characters if the characters were not there. So the ski set, or the cafe above. Would people play with that type of set if there were no minifigures or dolls? I used to play with LEGO in the 1970s (pre-minifigures) and guess what we did when we built a house or a room. We used other, non-LEGO figures to be creative and act out our stories. For other builds such as vehicles, the character is almost incidental. You can still push the vehicle around to play with it. Whether or not it has a driver, the play is almost the same - which is why many toy (LEGO and non-LEGO) cars don't have drivers. They aren't strictly necessary for play. But have a cafe without people and what else do you do with it? It is no different to the scenery type sets in Star Wars. Of course, other Star Wars sets that are vehicles are more similar to the truck. It doesn't really matter if you have a pilot for an X-wing. You can play with it by flying it around. It is nice to have a pilot, but not essential.