Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Lego David]

5 hours ago, icm said:

So, using this very simplistic ML/DL/MU/DU sorting I count:

165 ML

127 DL

140 MU

111 DU

So that's 292 licensed vs 251 unlicensed, and 305 minifig-scale vs 238 non-minifig-scale.

That's 16% more licensed sets than unlicensed sets, which is very noticeable but isn't at the point where licensed sets drastically outnumber unlicensed sets.

Thank you so much for going out of your way to actually count the exact number of sets. That is going to be very helpful. 

Regardless, while technically speaking and strictly in terms of set count the ration seems more even out, there is still a clear noticable lack of Original Action Adventure Themes. 2025 only had Ninjago, Monkie Kid, and Dreamzzz. I don't honestly think Monkie Kid should even count here, because it only got two sets that were excluisve to China and not widely available in Europe and America. That leaves us with only Dreamzzz and Ninjago in 2025. Going forward into 2026, with Dreamzzz confirmed to be ending, that will leave us only with Ninjago. 

[Karalora]

10 hours ago, Lego David said:

Okay, fair enough. But this still doesn't address the central problem that is driving so many people to complain about the lack of original themes: The lack of diversity when it comes to original themes.

Bingo. You know what you've done here? You've made a breakthrough in the discussion. There is undoubtedly a much greater diversity--of genre, target demographics, medium of origin, etc.--in the licensed themes than the unlicensed. Now, unlicensed themes can't provide diversity in the area of medium of origin, since the medium of origin is LEGO, but there's a lot they could do to diversify in the other areas. When it comes to what you might call storytelling themes, with characters (named or not, but recognizable from set to set) portrayed in a number of scenarios, there should be more options than just "relatably flustered (but also aspirationally hip) Kids Just Like You (TM) Build Things (TM) to Defeat the Forces of Evil (TM)" and "relatably diverse Kids Just Like You And Your Friends have everyday lives, but with more cute pets" (this may be an unfair view of the Friends line, but it's what it always looks like to me when I peruse the shelves).

[MAB]

23 hours ago, Lego David said:

I am so confused by the people in this thread who are trying to deny that Licensed Themes vastly outnumber original themes. They clearly do, that is literally an undeniable fact. 

... 

No Matter how you try to spin it, Licensed Themes outnumber original themes almost 20 to 2. That is absolutely insane, and the imbalance is absolutely undeniable. 

 

And I am surprised as to why people think the ratio in the number of licensed to unlicensed themes matter. 

The problem is not the number of licensed themes, but the number of unlicensed themes. LEGO not doing small licensed themes like Wednesday, Wicked or Fortnight is not going to make any difference to the unlicensed themes they offer. Hating on themes you don't like is not going to introduce things you want. I don't understand why someone wanting an unlicensed theme that LEGO doesn't think is worth producing would be happy if someone else is excluded from enjoying something that they like in LEGO. 

[JesseNight]

I wouldn't say the ratio really matters all that much. But I have to admit when I walk into a LEGO store nowadays, there's only a tiny bit of the store that interests me. Where in the older days, it would be a lot more.

Are we lacking set releases? Definitely not. There's so many more sets releasing per year than in the old days, that even the small percentage of unlicensed sets hardly feels like "less" in absolute numbers compared to the old days. The amount of licensed sets is just overwhelming large nowadays. I just happily ignore it all.

[Lego David]

22 minutes ago, MAB said:

Hating on themes you don't like is not going to introduce things you want. I don't understand why someone wanting an unlicensed theme that LEGO doesn't think is worth producing would be happy if someone else is excluded from enjoying something that they like in LEGO. 

Those small licensed themes that literally nobody wants take up the shelf space and the budget that could go towards making more original themes. I also hardly think anyone would feel "excluded" if LEGO stopped producing such licenses as Wicked or Wednesday that literally nobody asked for. 

And why aren't we allowed to speak about how we, as fans of original LEGO themes, feel excluded and completely ignored by LEGO, but when we speak out against LEGO's clear problem with the over reliance on licenses, this somehow means that fans of licensed themes will then be excluded in return? How does that work? We aren't asking that LEGO give up beloved popular licenses like Star Wars or Harry Potter that have tons of fans; we are simply asking to be treated with the same dignity as Star Wars and Harry Potter fans, and to also receive more sets catering to what we also want. 

Edited March 17 by Lego David

[MAB]

18 hours ago, Lego David said:

Okay, fair enough. But this still doesn't address the central problem that is driving so many people to complain about the lack of original themes: The lack of diversity when it comes to original themes. There may be a lot of Ninjago or Friends sets, but most people who are into original themes don't care about those two particular themes, outside the occasional set that may have pieces that they could use in their MOCs. On the flip side, just a quick glimpse at the list I posted earlier reveals a shocking variety of licensed themes currently on offer, ranging from popular kids cartoons (Bluey) to Anime Shows (One Piece, Pokemon) to popular video games (Fortnite, Zelda), and various 18+ Icons sets based on properties from more adult oriented Shows (Stranger Things). 

The unlicensed side of LEGO don't get many themes, and so yes, there is little diversity there. But this is not the fault of licensed themes. The licensed side is actually doing things far better, with lots of themes with small numbers of sets. That is, there is good diversity in licensed themes. This is something you seem to want for unlicensed sets, but are constantly hating on licensed sets for having what you want.

18 hours ago, Lego David said:

Basically, if you are an adult pop culture fan, there is more than enough for you to choose from. The same cannot be said for fans of original LEGO themes at all. 

It doesn't work like that though. People tend to be fans of a franchise and not any franchise. Just like some LEGO fans are a fan of a particular theme not any unlicensed theme.

 

I've said it many times before, the real issue is that LEGO has merged all the unlicensed ideas into their core themes of City, Ninjago, Friends and Creator. They are making sets similar to those of the 80s and 90s, but they don't get their own theme. And this is because the market has changed. It is far easier to get sales of the unlicensed themes that have long-lasting branding and existing fans across multiple years compared to one year themes that need to start again every year.

This is where licensed and unlicensed are different. They can do a one off set or small theme for a franchise with an existing fanbase and it will probably do well for the year or two it is on the shelves, because of the existing fan base. 

LEGO knows that fans of the original minifigure themes tend to be adults, and has decided that those fans are better catered for through BDP, IDEAS and ICONS. 

 

19 minutes ago, JesseNight said:

I wouldn't say the ratio really matters all that much. But I have to admit when I walk into a LEGO store nowadays, there's only a tiny bit of the store that interests me. Where in the older days, it would be a lot more.

 

Yes, but then that is why LEGO is more popular these days. They make sets designed to appeal to other people, not just young and early teen boys. I don't see why that is a problem. In a toy store that sells lots of different toys, I am usually only interested in a small part of the store.  If LEGO stuck to just a core of original themes, there might be more of what you like in each LEGO store but there would be far fewer stores and they wouldn't be in prime locations. How many LEGO stores where there in the older days?

[MAB]

14 minutes ago, Lego David said:

Those small licensed themes that literally nobody wants take up the shelf space and the budget that could go towards making more original themes. I also hardly think anyone would feel "excluded" if LEGO stopped producing such licenses as Wicked or Wednesday that literally nobody asked for. 

 

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean nobody wants them. And if they didn't make Wednesday or Wicked sets, then fans (predominantly younger girls) interested in those themes might not buy LEGO at all. So LEGO lose selling to that part of the market. Have you seen how much shelf space Wicked and Wednesday take up compared to Ninjago? It is tiny. And yet you want to exclude those fans from buying LEGO in the belief that LEGO would make more for you to buy? LEGO has expanded to cater for others, not just fans of the classic themes. Just because you refuse to believe that people different to you should be allowed to enjoy LEGO does not mean those people do not exist. 

[Wolfpack]

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

And why aren't we allowed to speak about how we, as fans of original LEGO themes, feel excluded and completely ignored by LEGO, but when we speak out against LEGO's clear problem with the over reliance on licenses, this somehow means that fans of licensed themes will then be excluded in return? How does that work? We aren't asking that LEGO give up beloved popular licenses like Star Wars or Harry Potter that have tons of fans; we are simply asking to be treated with the same dignity as Star Wars and Harry Potter fans, and to also receive more sets catering to what we also want. 

This! We are exluded and ignored and then we cannot even talk about it in the threads intended for the topic. And when we say we are not interested in licenced stuff, they try to present it as if we hate other fans and designers. We who get nothing from lego are instructed to forcibly like, to pretend with other themes and to rebuild licenced sets, but those who get dozens of licenced themes never get the same treatment, god forbid they would get a theme or two less, because they cannot pretend and imagine and use rebricable or whatever, no they direly need that Fortnite, Zelda, Harry Potter, Lord of the rings or whatever and if lego would not make all of them that means we hate them and they are not allowed to exist.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Wolfpack said:

This! We are exluded and ignored and then we cannot even talk about it in the threads intended for the topic. And when we say we are not interested in licenced stuff, they try to present it as if we hate other fans and designers. We who get nothing from lego are instructed to forcibly like, to pretend with other themes and to rebuild licenced sets, but those who get dozens of licenced themes never get the same treatment, god forbid they would get a theme or two less, because they cannot pretend and imagine and use rebricable or whatever, no they direly need that Fortnite, Zelda, Harry Potter, Lord of the rings or whatever and if lego would not make all of them that means we hate them and they are not allowed to exist.

Yet you are complaining about the ratio of the number of licensed to unlicensed themes, and have even said that it would be good start if the badging and hence number of license themes were reduced to reduce that ratio even if all the sets stay the same. 

If you want to complain that the number of unlicensed themes is too low, then go for it. But that is not what you are complaining about. You are complaining about the ratio of licensed to unlicensed themes and the number of licensed themes. Reducing the number of licensed themes changes that ratio but does absolutely nothing to solve your problem and increase the diversity in unlicensed themes.

The problem is not the number of licensed themes, or the number of licensed sets,  or the number of unlicensed sets. The problem is that the evergreen unlicensed themes have grown and swallowed up the themes you want.  Ninjago is a very diverse theme and it has replaced the 'action' themes of the past. You are getting diversity in unlicensed set types, just within one theme.

You seem to want diversity in unlicensed themes and an increase in the number of unlicensed themes. Yet you hate on the licensed side because they have what you want - a larger number of themes and so diversity in the themes offered.

There are two ways to increase the ratio of unlicensed to licensed themes. Increase the number of unlicensed or decrease the number of licensed. Why do you focus on the latter and not the former when that does not solve your problem? The ratio itself is not the problem. Making others worse off does not make you better off. 

The real problem you have is that children into unlicensed sets these days appear to be happy with the current core themes as those themes all sell well. They don't miss the variety in themes of decades ago, because the variety in the types of sets they want are available, just within a few modern themes. 

Edited March 17 by MAB

[Yoggington]

3 hours ago, Lego David said:

And why aren't we allowed to speak about how we, as fans of original LEGO themes, feel excluded and completely ignored by LEGO, but when we speak out against LEGO's clear problem with the over reliance on licenses, this somehow means that fans of licensed themes will then be excluded in return? 

1 hour ago, Wolfpack said:

This! We are exluded and ignored and then we cannot even talk about it in the threads intended for the topic.

We are literally talking about it right now.

[Wolfpack]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

There are two ways to increase the ratio of unlicensed to licensed themes. Increase the number of unlicensed or decrease the number of licensed. Why do you focus on the latter and not the former when that does not solve your problem? The ratio itself is not the problem. Making others worse off does not make you better off. 

I never said that is my main focus. My main focus are the nonlicenced themes and either way it should be fine. But I try to focus on a full picture and I happen to be a bit more realistic than most people here, so I very well know that (because of the limited production capacitiy, marketing, promotional restraints etc.) the situation where they would make 20 nonlicenced and 20 licenced themes is at least in the short term not possible. If they are capable to add 18 nonlicenced themes to the current portfolio, great!

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Wolfpack said:

I never said that is my main focus. My main focus are the nonlicenced themes and either way it should be fine. But I try to focus on a full picture and I happen to be a bit more realistic than most people here, so I very well know that (because of the limited production capacitiy, marketing, promotional restraints etc.) the situation where they would make 20 nonlicenced and 20 licenced themes is at least in the short term not possible. If they are capable to add 18 nonlicenced themes to the current portfolio, great!

So why do you keep going on about how many licensed themes there are? It is a complete irrelevance to the unlicensed side. LEGO's output is about 50:50 when it comes to sets (not themes).  20 licensed themes works OK because small themes of one or just a few sets are sustainable and even sensible because they can easily advertise those few sets to existing fans of that franchise by using the franchise name. Such small themes aren't really even themes, it is just a badge on the box to highlight the set to fans of that franchise.

Whereas marketing for unlicensed themes is different. There are no existing fans for a new theme until that theme is created. And so it makes no sense to have small unlicensed themes of just a couple of sets as they don't seem to fit into any bigger plan and it makes it look like they are incompatible with other sets if they are from a different theme. And that is the strength of combining unlicensed themes together, so if a kid likes a set in Ninjago, then they get to choose from 50 or so other sets with a lot of variety in styles between those sets. Whereas if one set was in a theme called Ancient Architecture and another is in a theme called Future Tech, it appears that they are not designed to go together and there is less for the kid to choose from. I imagine that is why LEGO consolidated their themes.

So rather than counting and complaining that there are too many licensed themes, you should be complaining that there are not enough unlicensed themes. Although it is simply not realistic to expect the number of licensed and unlicensed themes to be the same due to the way they are marketed. For the number of sets required for a theme to "work", you can sort of look at recent past data. Monkey Kid has had just over 50 sets in 5 years, and ran at 13-12-11-10 then 9 sets per year (then 2). Dreamzzz has been at similar numbers per year for 3 years (excluding small bag sets). So LEGO seems to think that an unlicensed play theme needs to have at least 10 sets per year over at least three years to be worth doing. So to do a new theme, LEGO has got to be confident that they can sustain probably 30-50 sets over 3-5 years. That is very different to a licensed property where they can do just one or a couple of sets and then leave it at that.

[Wolfpack]

13 minutes ago, MAB said:

So rather than counting and complaining that there are too many licensed themes, you should be complaining that there are not enough unlicensed themes.

My main complaint has always been exactly that! I want more than two or three nonlicenced themes. They can have only two or three sets for what I care.

I am just comparing it to licenced themes to show that it is possible. Yes, it requires more work and it is bit more risky in the market sense, but it is certainly possible.

16 minutes ago, MAB said:

Whereas marketing for unlicensed themes is different. There are no existing fans for a new theme until that theme is created.

That is exactly my argument. Lego should focus more on the lego brand and fans of general lego, that would buy different original themes each year, not on fans of other brands. I want them to make us fans of Raven Knights or Rome or Ancient Architecture or Future Tech or whatever.

[MAB]

4 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

I am just comparing it to licenced themes to show that it is possible. Yes, it requires more work and it is bit more risky in the market sense, but it is certainly possible.

Licensed and unlicensed are very different in the way they can be marketed though meaning it is not possible. It would be an absolute mess if LEGO had 20 unlicensed minifigure themes each with just a few sets in each running concurrently. 

4 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

That is exactly my argument. Lego should focus more on the lego brand and fans of general lego, that would buy different original themes each year, not on fans of other brands. I want them to make us fans of Raven Knights or Rome or Ancient Architecture or Future Tech or whatever.

Every LEGO set has the LEGO logo on and every set promotes the LEGO brand and, more importantly, makes money for LEGO. If LEGO only sold unlicensed sets, they'd lose a significant portion of their customers. Being a Fan of LEGO Lord of the Rings or LEGO Star Wars is not any different to being a Fan of LEGO City or LEGO Modulars. They are all customers that buy LEGO sets. And LEGO makes money from them all. They need tgem all. If LEGO cut Star Wars and all the Disney properties, fans of LEGO Star Wars won't become fans of LEGO Raven Knights, they will become fans of Mega Star Wars or whoever partners with Disney to make brick building sets of their properties. And LEGO will soon lose market share as consumers see that Mega produce all the licences now and that would probably hit their budgets for unlicensed sets too.

Go to a LEGO show and look at the popular MOCs on display. There will be lots of unlicensed builds and there will be lots of licensed builds. There is plenty of space for both to coexist. And LEGO know that for their sales too. LEGO concentrate on making sets that will make them most money from as many customers as possible, not on trying to make people fans of their unlicensed themes. 

[icm]

28 minutes ago, MAB said:

Licensed and unlicensed are very different in the way they can be marketed though meaning it is not possible. It would be an absolute mess if LEGO had 20 unlicensed minifigure themes each with just a few sets in each running concurrently. 

Well, not impossible. Just takes a reduction in profit margins for this fabulously profitable private company to spin up some more production and marketing of slightly less viable themes. I wonder how many classic-revival or new-idea in-house themes could be financed by the R&D budget for the Smart Bricks if every in-house theme besides City didn't need to be a Big Bang with a TV show and a bunch of highly bespoke minifig molds?

[Wolfpack]

7 hours ago, MAB said:

...LEGO concentrate on making sets that will make them most money from as many [primarily other brands fans] customers as possible, not on trying to make people fans of their unlicensed themes. 

My argument exactly! The only difference is that I believe this is bad, while you think it is good. This is why I am talking about the ratio etc.

7 hours ago, icm said:

Well, not impossible. Just takes a reduction in profit margins for this fabulously profitable private company to spin up some more production and marketing of slightly less viable themes. I wonder how many classic-revival or new-idea in-house themes could be financed by the R&D budget for the Smart Bricks if every in-house theme besides City didn't need to be a Big Bang with a TV show and a bunch of highly bespoke minifig molds?

Yup, certainly not impossible. The classic themes are popular enough (just look at the sales of LKC, the BDP sets etc) that they certainly would not be generating a loss. But as I said, it would require more work, original ideas, creativity etc.

[MAB]

2 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

Yup, certainly not impossible. The classic themes are popular enough (just look at the sales of LKC, the BDP sets etc) that they certainly would not be generating a loss. But as I said, it would require more work, original ideas, creativity etc.

Yes, LKC and BDP has shown that Castle in particular is very popular with adults, and that is why LEGO is concentrating on making such sets at price points for adults and their sales data no doubt shows this works. And they are supplemented by one off sets in other themes like Creator, CMF and PAB for army builders. If they do a regular retail theme using the same ideas in cheaper sets, they start to cannibalise their expensive set sales.

10 hours ago, icm said:

Well, not impossible. Just takes a reduction in profit margins for this fabulously profitable private company to spin up some more production and marketing of slightly less viable themes. I wonder how many classic-revival or new-idea in-house themes could be financed by the R&D budget for the Smart Bricks if every in-house theme besides City didn't need to be a Big Bang with a TV show and a bunch of highly bespoke minifig molds?

Well yes, they could have loads of small themes instead of large ones. But where there is no existing fanbase it causes confusion as to what can be played with what. And as I noted on the other thread just now, LEGO is looking to license its properties to other companies (or co-producers). I imagine that it is far easier to license a few very popular IPs to companies producing clothes and homewares or movies and TV series, rather than trying to many properties each with a smaller number of fans.

[JesseNight]

23 hours ago, MAB said:

Yes, but then that is why LEGO is more popular these days. They make sets designed to appeal to other people, not just young and early teen boys. I don't see why that is a problem. In a toy store that sells lots of different toys, I am usually only interested in a small part of the store.  If LEGO stuck to just a core of original themes, there might be more of what you like in each LEGO store but there would be far fewer stores and they wouldn't be in prime locations. How many LEGO stores where there in the older days?

Obviously this isn't a problem at all, just an observation. And you're right about LEGO targeting a much broader audience than in the old days, and that is great.
How many LEGO stores were there in the old days? I wouldn't know tbh, bc I've never seen one. Have to admit I've always lived in a low population area where there's never been a lot of specialized stores of anything at all. Even today there's only 2 LEGO stores in my country. Ok it's a small country, still have to drive 100+ km to get to the nearest.
 

23 hours ago, MAB said:

It is far easier to get sales of the unlicensed themes that have long-lasting branding and existing fans across multiple years compared to one year themes that need to start again every year.

There's 2 sides to that.
For example, I'm a Space fan. Recently we had a City Space sub theme that was quite good. I found out about it very late because I'm not following City releases closely. Had I heard about a new Space theme, I would have been on top of it. And let's not forget that LEGO Space was a long-lasting branding once. Still remembered by many, and pretty self-explanatory to everyone else.
 

16 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

That is exactly my argument. Lego should focus more on the lego brand and fans of general lego, that would buy different original themes each year, not on fans of other brands. I want them to make us fans of Raven Knights or Rome or Ancient Architecture or Future Tech or whatever.

LEGO is a business and will make what is in demand. If today's youth wants more licensed stuff, we can hardly blame LEGO for supplying that demand.
Most AFOL probably have strong nostalgic feelings towards what we grew up with. Didn't our parents have that too towards what they knew from their childhood? Or our grandparents even? I remember them not liking my "modern stuff" in the 80s-90s 
 

11 hours ago, MAB said:

Licensed and unlicensed are very different in the way they can be marketed though meaning it is not possible. It would be an absolute mess if LEGO had 20 unlicensed minifigure themes each with just a few sets in each running concurrently. 

I think licensed is often the "safe bet" when going for a franchise that already has a name and popularity for itself. Higher cost (licenses) but guaranteed profit.
In-house themes are a much higher risk. There's development cost and no guarantees it will be a hit. That's probably why it's often a smaller percentage.

Edited March 18 by JesseNight

[JesseNight]

3 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

Yup, certainly not impossible. The classic themes are popular enough (just look at the sales of LKC, the BDP sets etc) that they certainly would not be generating a loss. But as I said, it would require more work, original ideas, creativity etc.

Not so sure about that.
For example, a hardcore Star Wars collector might not be a LEGO fan but still buy LEGO Star Wars... because it is Star Wars. They definitely attract a broader audience with licensed sets.

[Lion King]

I’m so confsued why BDP is noticed as a theme when it’s not really an official theme by Lego? Sure, Lego produces those BDP sets but they are VERY VERY VERY short-lived / limited.  BDP is not like Icon or Ideas so I won’t count them as “radical” theme. 

[MAB]

35 minutes ago, Lion King said:

I’m so confsued why BDP is noticed as a theme when it’s not really an official theme by Lego? Sure, Lego produces those BDP sets but they are VERY VERY VERY short-lived / limited.  BDP is not like Icon or Ideas so I won’t count them as “radical” theme. 

It doesn't matter if it is a theme or not. Some Castle collectors spend $1000+ a year on BDP sets, probably more than they would if they bought one of each set and a few extra battle packs from a regular retail Castle theme if it existed. So it is good for LEGO and those adult buyers are fairly satisifed with what they can buy when they want Castle products, even though they don't have the Castle badge on them.

[Wolfpack]

46 minutes ago, MAB said:

It doesn't matter if it is a theme or not. Some Castle collectors spend $1000+ a year on BDP sets, probably more than they would if they bought one of each set and a few extra battle packs from a regular retail Castle theme if it existed. So it is good for LEGO and those adult buyers are fairly satisifed with what they can buy when they want Castle products, even though they don't have the Castle badge on them.

Not really. I do not know every Castle fan in the world, but all of those I know that buy BDP sets would prefer actual original lego Castle sets to BDP. Original sets are cheaper on average (compare Blacksmith and Alchemist shop, which is also the only reason why someone would spend more on BDP than regular sets, because of the price), have new Castle moulds, new parts or at least new prints (BDP has no prints, only stickers), instructions and are available whenever you want them for two or three years. They grudgingly buy BDP MOCs exactly because there are no actual sets. I am pretty sure that if you asked Castle fans if they wanted the same set to be released under Ideas or under BDP like 99% of them would choose Ideas, let alone if there was choice between proper Castle theme set and BDP. But there are zero Castle sets in 2026, there were zero in 2025, one in 2024 and zero in 2023. Of course people buy BDP.

And I want to be clear, the BDP designs are great, most of the winning designers are really talented, but the project is not and cannot be a replacement for actual sets.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Wolfpack said:

Not really. I do not know every Castle fan in the world, but all of those I know that buy BDP sets would prefer actual original lego Castle sets to BDP. Original sets are cheaper on average (compare Blacksmith and Alchemist shop, which is also the only reason why someone would spend more on BDP than regular sets, because of the price), have new Castle moulds, new parts or at least new prints (BDP has no prints, only stickers), instructions and are available whenever you want them for two or three years. They grudgingly buy BDP MOCs exactly because there are no actual sets. I am pretty sure that if you asked Castle fans if they wanted the same set to be released under Ideas or under BDP like 99% of them would choose Ideas, let alone if there was choice between proper Castle theme set and BDP. But there are zero Castle sets in 2026, there were zero in 2025, one in 2024 and zero in 2023. Of course people buy BDP.

And I want to be clear, the BDP designs are great, most of the winning designers are really talented, but the project is not and cannot be a replacement for actual sets.

OK, but I'm not sure what you think the comparison shows.

Blacksmith 2164 parts (4 figs) £160. Released 2021. Price adjusted after inflation - now, £200.

Alchemist 2319 parts (9 figs) £180. Pre-order closed but not yet released.

 

But yes, if LEGO did retail Castle sets then they would probably kill off their big ticket sets sold though BDP. Why would they want that? It is working fine for sales to adults. And their current in-house themes sell well to kids. Why change something that is working well?

They can be a replacement for regular sets because that is exactly what they are. LEGO has grown the market by having the adult market separate to the kid market.

Edited March 18 by MAB

[Wolfpack]

17 minutes ago, MAB said:

OK, but I'm not sure what you think the comparison shows.

Blacksmith 2164 parts (4 figs) £160. Released 2021. Price adjusted after inflation - now, £200.

Alchemist 2319 parts (9 figs) £180. Pre-order closed but not yet released.

 

But yes, if LEGO did retail Castle sets then they would probably kill off their big ticket sets sold though BDP. Why would they want that? It is working fine for sales to adults. And their current in-house themes sell well to kids. Why change something that is working well?

They can be a replacement for regular sets because that is exactly what they are. LEGO has grown the market by having the adult market separate to the kid market.

Blacksmith (available until the end of 2023) was ofered for 150 euros in Europe and you can still buy it for that or even less on BL. Alchemist (200 euros, no new parts, no instructions) was available for one week on BL for that price and will be only more expensive when it becomes available.

My point is that fans have to pay more on average and lego has bigger profits on average with BDP sets. It is done because of lower costs and bigger profits, not because fans would prefer it.

[MAB]

19 minutes ago, Wolfpack said:

Blacksmith (available until the end of 2023) was ofered for 150 euros in Europe and you can still buy it for that or even less on BL. Alchemist (200 euros, no new parts, no instructions) was available for one week on BL for that price and will be only more expensive when it becomes available.

So that shows that the Blacksmith wasn't that popular despite the already reasonable price per part and if it is still available for less than that now then people don't value it very highly. So why would LEGO want to do a similar regular retail theme if people are not buying a Castle(ish) set with a PPP of 7.5c when they can use the BDP way of selling 50000 units of a $200-400 Castle set 3 or 4 times a year to AFOLs, with no new parts necessary, no designer salaries or associated costs (aside from the designer fee), and produce just enough copies. Clearly it is better to get a fixed number of sets ordered by people that want them,  then produce the right number without needing to advertise or block shelf space for years while they don't sell particularly well to the general public. And then they can concentrate on producing what does sell to the general public for their retail sets.