42100 - Still a toy?

[Didumos69]

Interesting topic ?.

To me LEGO is a toy and 42100 is not. Toys should be playable and over the last few years LEGO is releasing less playable Technic models with less and less reluctance. 42056 and 42083 are signs on that wall and I can't imagine 42100 to be really playable.

In my believe, Technic parts - pins, beams, gears, connectors, pf - are not suited for this scale models. Making a stable structure at this scale will make it so heavy that Technic gears and pf are too weak to make it function pleasingly

I don't have problems with LEGO walking this path. If it sells, who am I to say they shouldn't. If LEGO is good and perseveres, I'm good. But it's not a toy.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Didumos69

[keymaker]

There is no one definitive answer for all. Each of us should at the beginning define: what I consider as a toy, and then compare 42100 to this description. There is so many factors involved that answers will vary, this discussion proves that.

 

For me, it is expensive, even exclusive, desired, but still a toy.

Edited February 1, 2019 by keymaker

[Cumulonimbus]

16 minutes ago, Didumos69 said:

... Toys should be playable and over the last few years LEGO is releasing less playable Technic models ...

But there are different types of play: social play, rule based play, fantasy play and construction play. Building a model from parts is in itself already a form of play (construction play), if you weren't attracted to that part, you would have bought a die-cast model for example. The playability you are referring to is the fantasy play of acting like the operator of your vehicle and imitating the function of the real machine. Speaking for myself, the fantasy part is becoming less important the older I become and most play value (for me) is in the construction play. Some of the big Technic sets of recent years were awful when you look at the fantasy play value, because they were hard to operate or not intuitive enough, but awesome when regarding the construction play.

So my point still is that the upcoming 42100 will always be a toy, because you must construct it first and therefore you will take part in construction play, no matter what you do after you have built it.

[Yevhen]

If you're going to play a model like children usually do, then it's a toy.

If you admire design, idea, functions etc without playing it for hours, then it's just a model, a piece of art or something like that, but not a toy.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Yevhen

[nerdsforprez]

4 hours ago, BusterHaus said:

The question of whether or not it's a toy only being asked because of the sticker shock.  Let me illustrate this:

Tesla's first mass produced/adapted car, the Model S, is expensive (please ignore any TOC or NPV calculation).  It's a full-fledged luxury vehicle, and a flagship for the brand.  When Tesla came out with the Model 3, the price was much less of an issue, despite still being high, because it was cheap compared to the Model S.

In contrast, Hyundai started with cheap, crappy and inexpensive little cars which over time improved in quality and design.  Roughly 10 years ago, Hyundai decided to enter the luxury market, but knew it would have a difficult time selling a $50k car under its brand name.  So it created a luxury brand called Genesis, which can have flagship models with flagship prices without being burdened by Hyundai's history of cheap, crappy cars.

Lego is taking the Hyundai path, mostly due to historical reasons.  Sets are growing in size from year to year, there seems to be a demand for them despite the increasing set prices ($ per part is not being discussed here), and Lego even created a UCS line for these higher-end sets, indicating that they are a luxury item.

If Lego were a new company in 2019 and launched the Technic line with the 42100, the Bugatti and the Porsche GT3 would have looked like bargains in comparison.

The 42100 is a toy, an expensive toy, but still a toy.  It's all a matter of being used to certain prices.

Lot of great opinions, and like I mentioned in the original post, there really are no right or wrong answers because of the subjective nature of the question.  Indeed, most of the ambiguity of the question has nothing to do really with whether 42100 was a toy or not, but rather, what is the definition of a toy in the first place.  Obviously, a rough division that I won't go into further would be Childs Toy vs. Adult Toy. 

But now I want to focus on the comment made by @BusterHaus.  The example above is very applicable. Lego is certainly taking a new path, at least IMO and targeting the adult population more with sets like 42100.   If this is the case, would it be beneficial to perhaps create different divisions of the Technic line?  One for child/teens and one for adults? This avoids the tedious task of needing to define toys by price, because as mentioned above, price is irrelevant.  But it is only irrelevant insofar as we are talking about a children's toy versus toys for adults. Because price IS relevant if we are only talking about a child's toy. $500 is a hard defining point for a child's toy.  Of course there are the rich folks that can afford it, but they are at the tail ends of the distribution and have little to do with mass, public and aggregated opinion.  And before you argue against this consider the following: 

I went back through the Porsche, Bugatti and 42100 threads and some iteration of the same comment popped up over and over and over.  "too much for a toy" was the common chorus and built into our collective unconscious decision processes for Lego.  But when I present the question in this thread a lot of tough guys (me included ) wanna say something like "price is irrelevant here".  So there is a disparity.  There is a disparity because as far as Lego goes we are grouping small $20 dollar at barely 100 piece sets with behemoths like 42100.  Does this make sense?  Like the Hyundai example above, because their history had given them a name (cheap, affordable but crappy cars) they saw it difficult to cleave themselves from this name and reputation but still desired to go into a new realm.  Luxury cars.  In order to do that they saw the need to create a new division - essentially trying to tell buyers they can be both cheap but crappy car manufacturers AND expensive, performance-focused car manufacturers.  

Does the Technic line need to follow suite?  I don't think that UCS line is trying to do this, I don't see it as the same thing but could it be?  $500 is ALOT for a Lego set.... but really only if your comparing it to all Lego set possibilities because it falls on the VERY expensive tail end of the distribution.  BUT.. if we compare apples to apples, perhaps only sets more geared towards adults, say the new MF, 42083, 42056, Lego EV3 and others suddenly price really only becomes AVERAGE.  Not even nearly the most expensive in the line.  Does this affect our decision process?  Do we wince less at the sticker price?   If so, I highly encourage TLG to think of this direction.....

[Mr Hobbles]

Yes, it's a toy. A toy is designed for play. LEGO's name, "leg godt", to play well, signifies this. But what do you consider "play"?

Is play:

1. The assembling of the model? The joy of the construction?

1a. It is free play? Building what you want out of what you have?

1b. Is it following the instructions in order to assemble the intended model?

2. Is it playing with the model in a thematic setting, ie. a 5 year old playing cops and robbers with their Lego city set? Or holding a tea party with your Friends set?

3. Is it playing with the final technical features? The gearbox of a Technic model? The trap door of an Indiana Jones play set? The pneumatics of a crane?

4. Is it designing and constructing a realistic 100% accurate architectural marvel?

5. Is it playing in LEGO Digital Designer and never touching a physical brick? (I do this a lot!)

5. Is it programming a robot with LEGO Mindstorms?

6. Or is it something to just marvel at in awe for the enjoyment of it?

I'd argue all of these are play. The way we play is not dictated by anyone, it is all in our imagination.

Further, I'd argue that the value of the toy does not dictate its purpose.

A $2.4 million Bugatti Veyron may go faster than a $30,000 Ford Fiesta, but it is still a car, and will get you from A to B. A $50 coat will keep you just as warm as a $1,000 Louis Vuitton coat, and may look nicer (or maybe not! Depending on personal preference.), but it is still a coat. That's not to say that one wont have more value to some people than others (ie. a person might have a need for a supercar if they participate in track days), but they are the same thing.

So yes, in my opinion, a Lego set is still a toy, whether $500 or $5. One might have more play features than the other, or offer up more opportunity for play than other, but yep, still a toy. :)

I personally will get great pleasure from playing with 42100! In all ways. Building it, looking at it, controlling it from my phone, and coding for it using my laptop.

EDIT: This thread reminds me of The LEGO Movie. :) "Dad, it's a toy...!" "Son, it's a highly sophisticated interlocking brick system." "But we bought it at the toy store!"

Edited February 1, 2019 by Mr Hobbles

[BusterHaus]

34 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Like the Hyundai example above, because their history had given them a name (cheap, affordable but crappy cars) they saw it difficult to cleave themselves from this name and reputation but still desired to go into a new realm.  Luxury cars.  In order to do that they saw the need to create a new division - essentially trying to tell buyers they can be both cheap but crappy car manufacturers AND expensive, performance-focused car manufacturers.

I gave it some more thought and came to the conclusion that the Hyundai example is only partially correct. Lego never made poor quality bricks, so a bad reputation is not something that they need to overcome.  I used Hyundai to illustrate that it's more difficult for a company to get customers to accept high prices when you enter (or exist in) a market with affordable products. It takes time and effort to help customers get over sticker shock, and there is a ceiling to the price customers are willing to accept. We may be reaching that ceiling if the discussions surrounding the 42100 are any indication. 

This being said, I suspect that Lego is trying to differentiate itself from other brick companies by continuing to offer not only high quality bricks, but luxury sets. They are not interested in competing on the price per piece, as that's only a race to the bottom, with a hard limit on profits.  The luxury toy market seems to have/had room for growth, or you wouldn't see products and prices like the 42100 or the latest UCS Millennium Falcon.  At some point they will reach the aforementioned price ceiling that customers are willing to accept for luxury toys, and you will not see (many) sets above that price. But as long as we're buying these luxury toys, they will keep testing the waters with more expensive sets. 

[iLego]

I think it's rather simple. If you feel guilty buying it, consciously or subconsciously, then it's a toy 

 

[Johnny1360]

In my humble opinion, if all you can do with it is play with it, it's a toy. If it makes you money or performs a specific function, it's a tool. If it does both, well nevermind. 

[Bricktrain]

It may be expensive for a set, but it is still cheaper than a lot of MOCs that people build.

 

[allanp]

I think a toy is something that's sole purpose is pleasure. This can then be subdivided into more categories, like child's toy for example. Everything Lego releases (except for Lego education) is a toy. But that doesn't mean it's a child's toy. So is 42100 a toy? Yes. Is it a child's toy? That may depend on the child. Is the child smart and patient enough to build it? Will the child enjoy building and playing with it? I can see many children doing that while many others won't. So it could be considered a child's toy in many instances, but is it aimed at children? The age given on the box will answer that question. I'm not sure if the cost of 42100 is that much of a factor as much as the cost of the UCS millennium falcon is. The falcon is more expensive and is an immobile scale replica, while 42100 is cheaper and packed with electronics. How much is a high end games console? But do rising part counts preclude such sets from being a toy for children? I honestly don't think it does. Connecting one Lego piece to another provides the same challenge in a 50 piece set as it does in a 5000 piece set. Only with increased complexity comes the increased risk of mistakes being made that would affect the function of the model. 42100 has a very high piece count but I don't see a whole lot of mechanical complexity. One motor almost directly and simply drives one function. Repeat seven times. I think a child could handle that if they have the patience. The Bugatti is the opposite of that, and so I would say the Bugatti is much less of a child's toy despite being cheaper and with a lower piece count. So high prices and part counts aren't really that big factors in deciding if 42100 is a child's toy. Despite its high part count is it mechanically simple enough for a child? It very well could be. Despite its high cost does it provide enough in return to be good value? I think it probably does considering how expensive Lego is in general. So really it just comes down to do enough children want it. If enough children are asking their parents to buy it to make the set financially viable without the need for AFOLs to make it financially viable, then it's a child's toy that some AFOLs may also enjoy. But if it requires the existence and a substantial number of AFOL buyers to make it financially viable, it's still a toy but in the broader sense of the word in that it's not necessarily a child's toy.

[dr_spock]

It's designed as a toy, n'est-ce pas?

[sirslayer]

Lego bricks are toys for young children and adults  and Lego Technic are models for children and adults! !! 

Edited February 2, 2019 by sirslayer
grammar

[TeamThrifty]

13 hours ago, iLego said:

feel guilty buying it

Wow, there's whole other world opened up right there!!! But not for this forum... (probably right though, still a toy )

[Erik Leppen]

22 hours ago, Didumos69 said:

To me LEGO is a toy and 42100 is not. Toys should be playable and over the last few years LEGO is releasing less playable Technic models with less and less reluctance. 42056 and 42083 are signs on that wall and I can't imagine 42100 to be really playable.

Now this is interesting.

Because it seems to forget the distinction between 42100 as a set, and 42100 as a model.

I would say that the primary idea of Lego is that the build is the play. Playing with Lego, to me, and to many people, is building things with the parts. And if that is the case, then every set is a toy, because every set allows you to build models with the pieces, and there's even a prescribed model with building instructions.

Whether the assembled model, after it is built, is a toy, is another question. That is, if you built the model, did you construct a toy that someone else can play with? Then, you'd have to compare to pre-assembled models of other brands. I mean, there are toy cars whose only functino are rolling wheels. But they are still toys. Now, I agree that the assembled model of 42083 is one of the least playable models ever. But, it can still be rolled around, which is a form of play. So even the 42083 model is a toy. It's just not a very good toy.

But with 7 motorized functions, I'd reckon that 42100 will be one of the more playable models. I mean, is the 42030 model a playable model? I'm quite sure it is :) And I remember from the Jim''s review of 42070 that his nephews had a lot of fun playing with that model.

So in short, I see totally zero reason to think the 42100 model will not be playable.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Erik Leppen

[dr_spock]

26 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

So in short, I see totally zero reason to think the 42100 model will not be playable.

If you don't have a smartphone or tablet with the correct requirements to run the Control + app, then....

 

 

[Didumos69]

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

I would say that the primary idea of Lego is that the build is the play. Playing with Lego, to me, and to many people, is building things with the parts. And if that is the case, then every set is a toy, because every set allows you to build models with the pieces, and there's even a prescribed model with building instructions.

It all depends on what you define as toy or what you define as playable. Of course the building experience is part of the play, but when building some sophisticated mechanisms results in a model that functions poorly or not at all, much of the joy is taken away. If building would be the only pleasure gained from LEGO then there would be no need for a Technic theme.

[Bartybum]

@dr_spock Anyone who buys this set and is surprised they can't control it because they don't have a phone deserves it tbh.

[suffocation]

7 hours ago, Bartybum said:

@dr_spock Anyone who buys this set and is surprised they can't control it because they don't have a phone deserves it tbh.

Is it stated clearly and unequivocally on the box that a smartphone is required to control the model?

[keymaker]

Just now, suffocation said:

Is it stated clearly and unequivocally on the box that a smartphone is required to control the model?

You get your answer when official boxes will be presented.

[suffocation]

Just now, keymaker said:

You get your answer when official boxes will be presented.

You get the sarcasm when you get the sarcasm.

[Bartybum]

Just now, suffocation said:

Is it stated clearly and unequivocally on the box that a smartphone is required to control the model?

Well obviously it will be, otherwise it's false advertising.

[suffocation]

The number of instances that could be tossed into the "false advertising" category is huge, so don't count on that.

[Bartybum]

Just now, suffocation said:

The number of instances that could be tossed into the "false advertising" category is huge, so don't count on that.

I'm counting on it because it's one of the main features. There's zero reason to suspect they'll leave it out.

[suffocation]

Exactly, all they need to do is transition from "batteries not included" to "smartphone not included". Standard fare, innit?