The Classic (Unlicensed) Themes - What's the Big Deal, Anyway?

[Wolfpack]

2 minutes ago, icm said:

Was it? The proliferation of large special pieces accelerating in the 1990s into the 2000s nearly ruined the company. I'm not going to take the time to do a census of the parts, but I doubt that most of the large specialized pieces introduced in the 1990s were used over a ten-year span.

I think it was useful for more themes, yes. Show me piece from 1990 that you think it was not. 

And please do not spin it. We are talking about the year 1990, not the nineties.

[danth]

15 minutes ago, Murdoch17 said:

Last I checked, they're still making new Star Wars stuff (Mando movie coming out in May, and tv shows galore!), and the same goes for Jurassic Park / World, while HP is getting a new upcoming TV show reboot and has spin off movies as well. Also, the HP films started in 2001. (The books are a bit older, but Lego is not licensing those.)

Just saying!

The X-Wing, Tie Fighter, and Millenium Falcon are designs from 1978. Those are the ones that keep getting rehashed. Sure, they make movies still, but they suck, and are coasting on nostalgia. Mando is a Boba Fett clone (not an actual clone but I mean his design) that pilots a Naboo starfighter (a design from the 90's), his buddy is a Baby Yoda, I mean c'mon. His other ship that gets blown up is a new design, so there's that, but it's kinda lame IMO. There are some occasional new cool designs, like the U-Wing from Rogue One, but I can't think of another one. 

Yeah for HP I was talking about the book. We can say 2001 then. 25 years ago. Yikes!

Edited March 18 by danth

[Murdoch17]

28 minutes ago, Wolfpack said:

I think it was useful for more themes, yes. Show me piece from 1990 that you think it was not. 

And please do not spin it. We are talking about the year 1990, not the nineties.

Monorail was around from 1987 to 1994. LEGO lost money with every sale of this type of set (along with fiber optics and latter-day light and sound sets) according to several books on the topic of LEGO and it's near-downfall. 1997 was the year they were finally in the red, but it was in freefall long before that... Also, there were plenty of one off's being used in 1990, with this being a case in point:

This two-part light up brick is from 1989, but was still in production in 1990 through 1991, was only used in one set - 6781 - 'SP Striker' from Space Police 1.

...and it's not alone. There are PLENTY more, like this whole set (9550) of one-off parts , which were only used in four identical sets (only instructions are in a different language - parts are the same) from 1990:

You can check out the inventory here - all of it is exclusive - even the baseplate size.

Edited March 18 by Murdoch17

[MAB]

59 minutes ago, Murdoch17 said:

Last I checked, they're still making new Star Wars stuff (Mando movie coming out in May, and tv shows galore!), and the same goes for Jurassic Park / World, while HP is getting a new upcoming TV show reboot and has spin off movies as well. Also, the HP films started in 2001. (The books are a bit older, but Lego is not licensing those.)

Just saying!

Strictly, they are still making Classic(ish) Space and Castle stuff, and Pirates not long ago. There have been multiple new Classic Space figures recently, and remakes of Castle figures as well as new factions. 

Are licensed set sales to adults often driven by nostalgia? Sure.

Are unlicensed set sales to adults often driven by nostalgia? Sure.

I don't see the problem or why nostalgia is sometimes discussed as if it is a bad thing. If people are buying it in large enough volumes now, they will make it. 

Although they were pretty much shunned by adults at the time, there will soon be adult nostalgia for Chima and Nexo Knights. Before Christmas, I sold the big Nexo Fortrex set to someone. It turned out he had just turned 21 and it was his birthday present to himself now he has a job as he was not allowed to get it when he was a kid. The problem with nostalgia for older LEGO themes is which ones do they remake right now? There are so many and you can almost tell someone's age by which sub-theme they would want redone as the best stuff was often the stuff they did when you were a kid. It is the same thing for licenses. Some people may thing there are too many already, but should they do more for The A-team, or Six Million Dollar Man, or ALF, or He-Man / MOTU, or Inspector Gadget, ... 

And as to the proceeds of selling the Fortrex, I spent some of it on some parts for my 1970s Denys Fisher Android and Muton figures as I lost them when I was a kid. Out of nostalgia.

[SpacePolice89]

1 hour ago, Murdoch17 said:

Monorail was around from 1987 to 1994. LEGO lost money with every sale of this type of set (along with fiber optics and latter-day light and sound sets) according to several books on the topic of LEGO and it's near-downfall. 1997 was the year they were finally in the red, but it was in freefall long before that... Also, there were plenty of one off's being used in 1990, with this being a case in point:

The first year in the red was 1998 not 1997. It was not a freefall, sales stagnated in the 90s but the sudden drop came after Poul Plougmann was hired and almost killed the company. And is there actually any proof that the monorails lost them money instead of not being profitable (enough)?

[Murdoch17]

19 minutes ago, SpacePolice89 said:

The first year in the red was 1998 not 1997. It was not a freefall, sales stagnated in the 90s but the sudden drop came after Poul Plougmann was hired and almost killed the company. And is there actually any proof that the monorails lost them money instead of not being profitable (enough)?

According to Wikipedia (see the area about the "Decline" and it's listed sources), sourced from an interview with Mark Stafford, 1992 was when they first started having declining profits, and i stand corrected on 97 vs 98. I believe I read the monorail bit in the book 'Brick by Brick' or the 'Secret life of LEGO Minifigures' book. Can't recall which one it was, exactly... might have been both!

Edited March 18 by Murdoch17

[Wolfpack]

The sales of monorail are basically irrelevant for this debate. At most they prove my argument. There were actual plans for ten years and different themes, but were cancelled due to sales. The monorail parts were versatile enough to be used in more themes, space, underwater (cancelled), town-airport etc.

[Devsan]

I think the specialized pieces is more its own subject that doesn't line up neatly with classic themes one way or the other. BRUPS were birthed in 92, same year as pirates! Tons of specialized pieces came from around 97 to 2005ish? During which classic themes were around, but also classic themes were around before and after that period as well.

[Murdoch17]

2 minutes ago, Devsan said:

I think the specialized pieces is more its own subject that doesn't line up neatly with classic themes one way or the other. BRUPS were birthed in 92, same year as pirates! Tons of specialized pieces came from around 97 to 2005ish? During which classic themes were around, but also classic themes were around before and after that period as well.

Pirates started in 1989.

7 minutes ago, Wolfpack said:

The sales of monorail are basically irrelevant for this debate. At most they prove my argument. There were actual plans for ten years and different themes, but were cancelled due to sales. The monorail parts were versatile enough to be used in more themes, space, underwater (cancelled), town-airport etc.

You said show you a part. I did - the whole set listed in my post is from 1990. You now say it's irrelevant.

I give up.

[Wolfpack]

Yes, you showed a part, that proves my point, thanks.

I said the sales are irrelevant for this debate.

[icm]

This specific part was introduced in 1985 and used until 1990 in 8 Space sets, but it was not used in any other theme. I suppose that 5-6 years of use aligns with the guidelines for new molds in the modern era, which is that they need to expect to use the new mold throughout five years.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=4737&in=S

Panel 4 x 4 x 6 Corner Convex Ribbed

I could probably take the time to find a similarly specialized part introduced in 1990 with limited uses, if we are strictly limited to parts introduced in 1990 for this particular back-and-forth.

Edit - looking just through the parts introduced in 1990 the most limited-use part I can find is this windscreen, which was only used in one set in each of 1990, 1995, and 1998, but it's not really a poster child for 1980s-1990s specialization when Lego continues to make specialized single-use windscreens today.

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=2826#T=S&O={"ss":"US","iconly":0}

Windscreen 5 x 8 x 3

Going through parts introduced in 1991, we see this crane leg that was used for a single Town harbor crane in 1991 and then as a support for a soccer stand in 1998. I think it's safe to say that the second use was NPU and wasn't part of any ten-year plan (or even five-year plan) for wider usage of the part.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=2641b&in=S

Support Crane Stand Single, Straight Beam at Top

This Technic helicopter rotor holder was only used in two helicopter sets in 1991 and 1995, which is comparable to the swashplate from the most recent Technic Airbus helicopter being developed specifically for that set.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=2908&in=S

 

Edited March 18 by icm

[danth]

1 hour ago, Wolfpack said:

The sales of monorail are basically irrelevant for this debate. At most they prove my argument. There were actual plans for ten years and different themes, but were cancelled due to sales. The monorail parts were versatile enough to be used in more themes, space, underwater (cancelled), town-airport etc.

Also they're introducing new Monorail parts right now so it's not even a classic vs modern thing right?

[MAB]

On 3/14/2026 at 12:06 AM, Karalora said:

My actual question is more along the lines of: what did these classic themes do for you that their modern, usually licensed analogues don't? There are multiple fantasy themes that offer visuals similar to Castle (literal castles, sword-wielding warriors, etc.). Various sci-fi licenses and City's space program sub-theme provide spaceships, aliens, and hyper-advanced technology. Pirates-adjacent concepts are a little thinner on the ground these days, but they just gave us big fat Goonies and Pirates of the Caribbean sets for sailing ships. So...is it just that it's not the classic themes with their particulars? "It just isn't the same" is a perfectly valid explanation, but I feel like if you really want to build castles/spaceships/pirate ships, LEGO is still feeding you. Just populated with fleshies instead of yellowies.

Back to the original question. Yes, it is that new sets are not the same as the old, and also that we are not what we were. 

I don't think there was actually anything special about the classic themes. If they had done something different like a minifigure based train theme or an ancient Egyptian theme, they would be the classic sets of today. Or if they had done Space with aliens and Castle in a more fantasy way with elves and dwarves, that would be the basis of Classic Space and Castle. 

No matter what period of time we are in, I don't think most kids necessarily want a particular theme or style within that theme. If a kid is told they can choose to have some LEGO, they tend to pick from what is available at the time. They don't say I want some spaceships but that spaceship theme has aliens in it and I only want humans, or that it is aliens attacking earth in their spaceships so technically it is not set in space,  or I want a castle but that one has a dragon and it is not realistic enough. And if there is no Space theme, they pick something else that is swooshable. They aren't going to say I'll go without because sets of today don't match my interests. I doubt many kids could be put in front of shelves full of unlicensed sets and not find anything of interest but instead say that they would prefer to go without. And that theme forms their childhood memories. They don't care about themes that do not or no longer exist, that they don't know about and so cannot buy, but they do care about what they can have now. Whereas adults looking at kids' toys have memories of what they grew up with and want that.

We are also different in that now we are not the children that have grown up with different influences over the past decade compared to when we were young. As a kid I had books about Robin Hood and there was often kids shows or movies about him. Yet about five years ago I asked my son if he knew who he was, and he sort of knew he was an outlaw in Sherwood Forest but didn't really know much about the other characters. Similarly I used to watch westerns and shows like Buck Rogers, simply because that is what was frequently on TV. However my son does know about other characters that have been in popular kids books and movies that I know nothing about. Their different environment affects what they want to buy. They are attracted by things that are not necessarily attractive to us. And the play themes are aimed at them, not us.

Ninjago will be a fondly remembered classic theme in future, as will other themes of recent times. Ninjago probably more than Chima and Nexo, simply because it has existed longer and so more future adults will look back fondly on it. Just like some people prefer Space Police I, II or III or KK I or II or Fantasy Era, more than the original Classic minifigure themes.

Ask my dad what is a classic kids' movie and he will give a different answer to me. And my son will give a different answer again. Same with music, same with kids' books, same with toys.

 

TLDR yeah, nostalgia of childhood years.

[Wolfpack]

53 minutes ago, icm said:

This specific part was introduced in 1985 and used until 1990 in 8 Space sets, but it was not used in any other theme. I suppose that 5-6 years of use aligns with the guidelines for new molds in the modern era, which is that they need to expect to use the new mold throughout five years.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=4737&in=S

Panel 4 x 4 x 6 Corner Convex Ribbed

I could probably take the time to find a similarly specialized part introduced in 1990 with limited uses, if we are strictly limited to parts introduced in 1990 for this particular back-and-forth.

Edit - looking just through the parts introduced in 1990 the most limited-use part I can find is this windscreen, which was only used in one set in each of 1990, 1995, and 1998, but it's not really a poster child for 1980s-1990s specialization when Lego continues to make specialized single-use windscreens today.

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=2826#T=S&O={"ss":"US","iconly":0}

Windscreen 5 x 8 x 3

Going through parts introduced in 1991, we see this crane leg that was used for a single Town harbor crane in 1991 and then as a support for a soccer stand in 1998. I think it's safe to say that the second use was NPU and wasn't part of any ten-year plan (or even five-year plan) for wider usage of the part.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=2641b&in=S

Support Crane Stand Single, Straight Beam at Top

This Technic helicopter rotor holder was only used in two helicopter sets in 1991 and 1995, which is comparable to the swashplate from the most recent Technic Airbus helicopter being developed specifically for that set.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=2908&in=S

 

If this windshield (useful for aquanauts, model team, town, maybe space) is the most limited piece introduced in 1990, then you probably agree that parts in were pretty versatile back then?

This 1985 part is strange indeed. I do not even see the primary use for it. I would like to see what possible uses designers pitched when they proposed it. Or maybe they adopted the rule because of this piece. :) 

[icm]

I should clarify that I was going through the Bricklink lists of parts introduced in the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 and seeing which ones were used only over time spans of a few years, neglecting decorated or Duplo parts. I was not examining parts for their versatility in different applications, nor for large gaps between uses. Repeated use, in different years, of a very specialized part for exactly or nearly exactly the same application does not demonstrate versatility, only the potential existence of a multi-year usage plan for the part. For example, first we will use some segmented Space panel for a wall in one Space base. Then we will use it for a wall in another Space base. Then we will use it for a wall in an underwater base. Then we will use it for a wall in an Arctic base. It's not a versatile part with many applications, but rather a very specialized part used the exact same way in a sequence of similar builds over a timespan of several years.

The convex ribbed corner Space panel is one of the worst offenders of overly specialized old-school themed parts, in my opinion. It was seemingly introduced just to be a cool-looking big panel in Space sets, but it is such a large, complex part made of so many compound shapes and details, with so few connection points, that it doesn't work very well for its intended purpose and is very difficult to use for any other purpose. Give me a new "overly specialized" bracket (that's really just a simple, obvious expansion of the bracket family) or a new "overly specialized" curved slope (that's really just a simple, obvious expansion of the curved slope family) any day of the week. Relatively small parts that are basic, elemental units of shape families or functional families can be used anywhere for any application, while large compound shape panels have very little utility beyond their intended purpose.

I don't mean to disparage all very large, very specialized parts, though. I do think large flat panels are very useful for building castle walls quickly for play, and the variety of sailing ships that can be built using the prefab hull bases and classic Pirates mast parts is truly astonishing. Likewise, I appreciate the utility of big prefab wings and special noses and tails for large passenger airplanes built for play. I just don't think we should be kidding ourselves that old-school classic-era Lego had any less reliance on big, special parts for special uses than modern Lego does. The difference is that modern Lego also has an abundance of small, versatile pieces that classic Lego didn't, so there are many things that modern Lego can build from scratch that classic-era Lego would have no choice but to use specialized parts for.

Edited March 18 by icm

[Paul B Technic]

Maybe we are all just getting old???

At the end of the day, we will buy and build what we want, within the limits of what is available. TLG was produce and market what sells. The two might not always line up but unless everyone stops buying it, TLG won't change what they are doing and what is making them money...

[Karalora]

There's been a lot of activity in this thread since I last checked it, so rather than try to go through and address points one by one, I'm just going to add some thoughts as they occur to me.

First...thank you to everyone who has responded. The conversation has gotten testy at times, but I think we've held it together pretty well overall.

Again, the reason I tend to focus on the creativity or imagination facet because it seems to be the first and most common response given when the question arises. But many other reasons for preferring classic/unlicensed themes over modern/licensed ones have been presented, and I want to give some feedback on those.

Price. The point has been made that with an entire theme, sets of many different sizes and price points are available, whereas the classic throwback one-offs we sometimes get nowadays are almost always huge and $200+. This is an extremely valid point.

Variety. This actually came up in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread; it was pointed out that even if the number of unlicensed sets on the shelves at any one time is similar to the number of licensed ones, the unlicensed ones only occur in a small number of themes, and this means there is less diversity of genre and aesthetics in the unlicensed sets. When your only options for minifigure-based storytelling are "20 scenarios from everyday life," "20 scenarios from everyday life, but girls," "20 scenarios from kitchen sink fantasy action adventure flavor 1," and "20 scenarios kitchen sink fantasy action adventure flavor 2," you miss opportunities for someone to fall in love with something special.

Not summarizing/building on a point anyone else has made, but introducing a new one (what? is she allowed to do that?), it seems to me that one key difference between classic themes and modern ones is that the classic ones centered on archetypes and the modern ones center on unique named characters (and this goes for unlicensed as well as licensed).

• Classic Castle--medieval knights and kings, Robin Hood like figures (Forestmen), storybook witches and wizards. Majisto had a name, but he wasn't distinct from the most basic pop-culture understanding of Merlin.
• Space--astronauts, hotshot pilots, pulpy Buck Rogers-style heroes and villains.
• Pirates--Age of Sail pirates, sailors, and tropical island natives (that last one is a bit problematic by current standards but undeniably recognizable)
• Western--cowboys and Indians and US Cavalry
• Adventurers--Johnny Thunder was transparently an Indiana Jones expy, but both characters are rooted in the "globetrotting two-fisted action hero" of pulp adventure novels from the 1920s-1940s, and the entire theme aped that genre.

In every case, the object was to present something instantly recognizable to anyone who existed in the overall culture. The premises didn't need to be explained, because they were based on concepts that the vast majority of kids were already familiar with. But for a few decades now, the most prized quality of an entertainment venture has been originality. Nobody wants their work to look or feel like something that has been seen before. Expectations must be subverted and plots must be twisty. So even LEGO's in-house themes have to be more off-the-wall and specific than they were in the past.

I have one more important thing I want to say, but I'm going to let it wait a bit.

[icm]

13 hours ago, Karalora said:

There's been a lot of activity in this thread since I last checked it, so rather than try to go through and address points one by one, I'm just going to add some thoughts as they occur to me.

Again, the reason I tend to focus on the creativity or imagination facet because it seems to be the first and most common response given when the question arises. But many other reasons for preferring classic/unlicensed themes over modern/licensed ones have been presented, and I want to give some feedback on those.

Not summarizing/building on a point anyone else has made, but introducing a new one (what? is she allowed to do that?), it seems to me that one key difference between classic themes and modern ones is that the classic ones centered on archetypes and the modern ones center on unique named characters (and this goes for unlicensed as well as licensed).

• Classic Castle--medieval knights and kings, Robin Hood like figures (Forestmen), storybook witches and wizards. Majisto had a name, but he wasn't distinct from the most basic pop-culture understanding of Merlin.
• Space--astronauts, hotshot pilots, pulpy Buck Rogers-style heroes and villains.
• Pirates--Age of Sail pirates, sailors, and tropical island natives (that last one is a bit problematic by current standards but undeniably recognizable)
• Western--cowboys and Indians and US Cavalry
• Adventurers--Johnny Thunder was transparently an Indiana Jones expy, but both characters are rooted in the "globetrotting two-fisted action hero" of pulp adventure novels from the 1920s-1940s, and the entire theme aped that genre.

In every case, the object was to present something instantly recognizable to anyone who existed in the overall culture. The premises didn't need to be explained, because they were based on concepts that the vast majority of kids were already familiar with. But for a few decades now, the most prized quality of an entertainment venture has been originality. Nobody wants their work to look or feel like something that has been seen before. Expectations must be subverted and plots must be twisty. So even LEGO's in-house themes have to be more off-the-wall and specific than they were in the past.

I have one more important thing I want to say, but I'm going to let it wait a bit.

I think that's been said before in previous conversations about this topic, and it is pretty much what several people in this thread have been trying (somewhat elliptically) to get at, but thank you for stating it so clearly.

Originality yada yada, franchises yada yada ... I know what you mean; it's easier to point to a giant blue bunny on roller skates and say that's something brand new and eligible for some sort of legal protection (I am not a lawyer) than to point to a traditional pirate ship or castle or trail town and say the same. But it would be nice if it was generally acknowledged that there can be plenty of creativity in the playthemed exploration of a historical culture (from the Wild West to ancient Rome or Chinese mythology), as well as in the juxtaposition of various things inspired by the newest trends in young-adult culture and marketing.

Looking forward to the next important thing you want to say, I'm sure it'll be good.

[JesseNight]

On 3/19/2026 at 3:14 AM, Karalora said:

I have one more important thing I want to say, but I'm going to let it wait a bit.

That sure got us all quiet 

[Karalora]

I guess I'll say it now.

I've experienced this same debate, more or less, about a completely different entertainment phenomenon. Faction #1 trends older/more established in the fan base and prefers the "classic" standard for developing ideas, which they praise as original, being more creative in concept and execution and consequently encouraging more imagination in the customers, as well as the previous standard of behavior for the company in question, which was much less greedy and more committed to quality. Faction #2 trends younger or more recent and never experienced a time when the company wasn't producing new material mainly based on film IPs and also wasn't raising prices constantly. (Both factions lament the price increases, but the younger side sees it as more of an unfortunate fact of life while the older side sees it as a travesty.) Faction #1 will, reluctantly, admit that some of the "licensed" products are top-notch, but despises how they have come to dominate the offerings, in many cases displacing the older original concepts that the factioners grew up with and were attached to. Faction #2, when they get to experience the classics, agree that they were perhaps more creative in their conception and execution, but also think they look dated--the relevant technology has advanced a lot in the past few decades, to say nothing of cultural obsolescence. I could go on--suffice to say, in nearly every salient point of the debate, if you replaced all the names with code words, it could be about either entertainment phenomenon.

The turning point was even the same in both cases--the introduction of Star Wars where it had never been before.

The second thing is Disneyland/Disney theme parks.

I find this significant not just because bias toward what someone grew up with is pretty universal, but because on at least one occasion here, at EB, I have been the person trying to explain that Disney theme parks are not 100% keyed to Disney movies, and that "Cinderella Castle" at Walt Disney World is its own unique entity, not a recreation of the castle seen in the movie Cinderella. I don't remember, at this point, where the person I was trying to explain it to was in Faction #1 or Faction #2 wrt LEGO themes, but it sure would be ironic if they were in Faction #1, wouldn't it?

[danth]

On 3/18/2026 at 7:14 PM, Karalora said:

Not summarizing/building on a point anyone else has made, but introducing a new one (what? is she allowed to do that?), it seems to me that one key difference between classic themes and modern ones is that the classic ones centered on archetypes and the modern ones center on unique named characters (and this goes for unlicensed as well as licensed).

• Classic Castle--medieval knights and kings, Robin Hood like figures (Forestmen), storybook witches and wizards. Majisto had a name, but he wasn't distinct from the most basic pop-culture understanding of Merlin.
• Space--astronauts, hotshot pilots, pulpy Buck Rogers-style heroes and villains.
• Pirates--Age of Sail pirates, sailors, and tropical island natives (that last one is a bit problematic by current standards but undeniably recognizable)
• Western--cowboys and Indians and US Cavalry
• Adventurers--Johnny Thunder was transparently an Indiana Jones expy, but both characters are rooted in the "globetrotting two-fisted action hero" of pulp adventure novels from the 1920s-1940s, and the entire theme aped that genre.

Yep. But that's what I thought we all understood classic themes to be.

You've described them, but I thought the point of the thread was to ask why people like these kind of themes. 

[MAB]

5 hours ago, Karalora said:

(Both factions lament the price increases, but the younger side sees it as more of an unfortunate fact of life while the older side sees it as a travesty.)

The pricing issue is interesting, as it might be that kids now will start to experience LEGO more like it was in the 70s and 80s (and probably before).

When I was a kid in the late 70s, toys were expensive compared to household budgets and we didn't have all that much LEGO.  And that meant the LEGO we had got heavily played with. It was built and played with and taken apart, repeated daily. We knew every part since they got used so much. We didn't really display anything as displaying meant removing that LEGO from circulation and not playing with it. I got new toys for birthdays and Christmas,  whereas these days kids often seem to get a new toy to keep them quiet or for treats throughout the year.

I didn't play with LEGO all that much in mid to late 80s to the early 2000s but at some stage, LEGO become relatively cheap compared to household budgets. Most kids these days seem to have more LEGO than I had as a kid (and way more toys in general) and kids that are really into LEGO have way way more. I don't think kids have to play with their LEGO in the same was as 40 years ago. They have so much that they can build and leave built while they play with the next thing. Obviously it is not as simple as that as the whole play environment is different. If kids in the near future get less new LEGO because it becomes too expensive it may be that they play in a different way although there is so much second hand LEGO about and so many competing play experiences (cheap toys and tablets) that may never happen.

And when we think back to those sets leading to creative play, I don’t think it was necessarily that they were more creative than now but it was just that kids had to be creative if they wanted to build something new as they had a limited amount of toys. I also don't think it was necessarily because they were unlicensed, it just happens to be that LEGO didn't do licenses then so by default they were unlicensed. If they had sold licensed sets then, they would have been played with in the same way. I fondly remember using LEGO in a creative way alongside licensed Kenner SW figures or alongside Hornby trains because that is what I had and what I played with every day. 

[JesseNight]

7 hours ago, Karalora said:

I guess I'll say it now.

I've experienced this same debate, more or less, about a completely different entertainment phenomenon. Faction #1 trends older/more established in the fan base and prefers the "classic" standard for developing ideas, which they praise as original, being more creative in concept and execution and consequently encouraging more imagination in the customers, as well as the previous standard of behavior for the company in question, which was much less greedy and more committed to quality. Faction #2 trends younger or more recent and never experienced a time when the company wasn't producing new material mainly based on film IPs and also wasn't raising prices constantly. (Both factions lament the price increases, but the younger side sees it as more of an unfortunate fact of life while the older side sees it as a travesty.) Faction #1 will, reluctantly, admit that some of the "licensed" products are top-notch, but despises how they have come to dominate the offerings, in many cases displacing the older original concepts that the factioners grew up with and were attached to. Faction #2, when they get to experience the classics, agree that they were perhaps more creative in their conception and execution, but also think they look dated--the relevant technology has advanced a lot in the past few decades, to say nothing of cultural obsolescence. I could go on--suffice to say, in nearly every salient point of the debate, if you replaced all the names with code words, it could be about either entertainment phenomenon.

The turning point was even the same in both cases--the introduction of Star Wars where it had never been before.

The second thing is Disneyland/Disney theme parks.

I find this significant not just because bias toward what someone grew up with is pretty universal, but because on at least one occasion here, at EB, I have been the person trying to explain that Disney theme parks are not 100% keyed to Disney movies, and that "Cinderella Castle" at Walt Disney World is its own unique entity, not a recreation of the castle seen in the movie Cinderella. I don't remember, at this point, where the person I was trying to explain it to was in Faction #1 or Faction #2 wrt LEGO themes, but it sure would be ironic if they were in Faction #1, wouldn't it?

You're right that the same debate happens in more (many) situations. I find myself quite consistently being a faction #1 member.
Your description of both factions' views on the opposite faction is very recognizable. And a bias towards what someone grew up with is indeed pretty universal for majority. With LEGO it shows clearly because of it spanning multiple generations, where most toys have a much shorter lifespan.

As for pricing, I don't even think it has gone too crazy. If we take inflation into account, I think the price per piece has actually become a lot better nowadays. The biggest sets in my childhood were well under 1000 parts with a few Technic exceptions around 1300.
Today we have much bigger sets with crazy part counts. And in a way that justifies the higher price.
What did go crazy however is the amount of such insanely large and expensive sets are being offered aiming at AFOLs, and how the amount of smaller sets for kids may be a lot fewer in comparison. An understandable business decision considering LEGO found out the AFOL market is a much better source of income than small affordable toys for kids.

TL:DR; prices "appear" higher because they're offering much larger sets with insane part counts that have in fact a lower price per part today.

[Paul B Technic]

12 hours ago, MAB said:

When I was a kid in the late 70s, toys were expensive compared to household budgets and we didn't have all that much LEGO.  And that meant the LEGO we had got heavily played with. It was built and played with and taken apart, repeated daily. We knew every part since they got used so much. We didn't really display anything as displaying meant removing that LEGO from circulation and not playing with it. I got new toys for birthdays and Christmas,  whereas these days kids often seem to get a new toy to keep them quiet or for treats throughout the year.

This is a really good point and something I have been thinking about. As a 80's LEGO kid, we played with it daily and it was "my thing". My kids easily have 2 - 3x the amount of LEGO I did but it is not something they use all the time. Maybe a lot of why we feel so strongly about it is because we "valued" it more than kids do today? I also only got LEGO for Birthdays and Christmas. I can think of twice when I got it outside those times.

[SpacePolice89]

9 hours ago, Paul B Technic said:

I can think of twice when I got it outside those times.

I also mostly played with Lego indoors as a kid. Sometimes me and my best friend who lived next door took our Blacktron Invaders and ran around the block with them playing but most of the time we played with Lego indoors because we were afraid of losing pieces. When I was a little older my parents let us play with the Spyrius robots on the roof! I think that would be frowned upon today with all the helicopter parents . 

Edited March 22 by SpacePolice89