Roebuck Posted February 9 Posted February 9 7 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said: Was the set a sales failure? How do we know? We do not know, I might sell decent however if it was a bestseller it most likely would would not retire 2(?) years before it was suppose to originally 23 hours ago, JohnTPT17 said: I do think that it's possible to have low budget, premium Castle products Maybe if it's a Lego exclusive sett like LKC Not that I think LKC had a low budget with a new part, lots of prints and lots of retired parts brought back. An ideal Castle set have lots of new printed parts (like minifigs, shields, barding etc), generous amounts of minifigs and animals (recolours) and new parts like animals, weapon’s etc, which is hard to make on a low budget Quote
Cyprinus Posted February 9 Posted February 9 On 2/8/2025 at 7:46 AM, Roebuck said: I do not think the designers is much to blame, if we have gotten something close to the leaked picture most fans would probably be very happy, but the set was butchered budget-wise and we ended up with MTS in its current form. While the set certainly has plenty of flaws, I cannot help but feel the leak really hurt it - people saw what it could be and latched onto that. And in many cases expecting it would retail for the same price as the released version, which I find doubtful. 4 hours ago, Roebuck said: We do not know, I might sell decent however if it was a bestseller it most likely would would not retire 2(?) years before it was suppose to originally Retired early and with big discounts in many places. Both aren't usually a sign of a set going strong. I wonder how it would do if they skipped the modularity gimmick in favour of opening up like the LKC and improved some parts of the design accordingly... Quote
Ruthin Road Posted February 9 Posted February 9 20 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said: Was the set a sales failure? How do we know? While "sales failure" could be considered relative given Lego's current profits, the fact that it was on sale for less than 18 months, was retired 2 years early, and still discounted prior to retirement, all suggests that sales were significantly less than expected. Quote
Yperio_Bricks Posted February 9 Posted February 9 13 minutes ago, Ruthin Road said: While "sales failure" could be considered relative given Lego's current profits, the fact that it was on sale for less than 18 months, was retired 2 years early, and still discounted prior to retirement, all suggests that sales were significantly less than expected. I see, thanks! Quote
Ruthin Road Posted February 9 Posted February 9 13 hours ago, Roebuck said: On 2/8/2025 at 7:18 AM, JohnTPT17 said: I do think that it's possible to have low budget, premium Castle products Maybe if it's a Lego exclusive sett like LKC Not that I think LKC had a low budget with a new part, lots of prints and lots of retired parts brought back. An ideal Castle set have lots of new printed parts (like minifigs, shields, barding etc), generous amounts of minifigs and animals (recolours) and new parts like animals, weapon’s etc, which is hard to make on a low budget I think that the Viking Village demonstrates that you can have a "premium"-looking historic set while staying vaguely affordable, by good design and efficient use of pieces. It was on sale for £100 at one point in the UK, and could potentially be reduced further as it approaches retirement. Quote
Roebuck Posted February 10 Posted February 10 19 hours ago, Cyprinus said: I cannot help but feel the leak really hurt it - people saw what it could be and latched onto that. Definitely, however even if we did not have that leak 8 minifigures, basically 1 animal and 1 new shield is not much for a set with 3304 parts when we compare it to 10193 Medieval Market Village and 7189 Mill Village Raid. 7189 Mill Village Raid had 6 minifigures, 7 animals (most of them new or unique), 2 shields and 663 parts 10193 Medieval Market Village had 8 minifigures, 3 animals, 0 shield and 1601 parts 19 hours ago, Cyprinus said: And in many cases expecting it would retail for the same price as the released version, which I find doubtful. I agree, but as I have said it would probably be better if the set cost more and included more stuff the fans want from a set like that e.g. 50$ more would have been fine Quote
Blazej_Holen Posted February 18 Posted February 18 I finally get the set, after a long decision making, wheter I like it or not. I just started building it yesterday and I have just built the first 3 in 1 house. So far, I can say that there is a lot of wasted potential which is sacrificed due to the budget. I generally like it so far, and more so in person. But it will require massive enhancement using my own parts to finish the buildings, and make them mor cohessive. Overall, it would be better to offer the set as a series of single house units with their respective inhabitants and microbuilds and some foliage rather then compress it into one lacking set. Quote
Westbrick Posted February 18 Posted February 18 If they had it in sale in the UK, I’d consider getting another copy. I wouldn’t mind playing around with it to make the buildings feel a bit more complete, via a bricks and pieces order or two Quote
Rjbricks Posted February 21 Posted February 21 On 2/18/2025 at 10:13 PM, Westbrick said: If they had it in sale in the UK, I’d consider getting another copy. I wouldn’t mind playing around with it to make the buildings feel a bit more complete, via a bricks and pieces order or two Only ever saw it on sale in smyths for £160 once. Perhaps Black Friday. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.