The disappearance of the mid-range sets

[TeriXeri]

17 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

From that perspective, sure, but at least the theme has a solid history of releasing such. On the other hand, when was the last time Creator have us anything Medieval, Steampunk, Greco-Roman, Pulp-inspired, Mayan/Aztek, Classic Space, Piratry-related, Cyberpunk, and whatever-else-not-within-the-realm-of-modern-Town/City-in-some-way? *

Answer: Never!

Pirate ? multiple times , even while subtle:

2017 Island Adventures had a treasure map, bottle, and brick built parrot and a small palm tree island.

2018 Tree House Adventures had a skull cave alternate build, pirate swords/hat/treasure, and of course Rollercoaster with a modern take on old pirate structure, and pirate minifig/parrot/palm trees.

Of course it's not a pirates replacement but it was something.

 

Castle, not so much, just a shield in a 2018 LEGO store, which isn't officially listed as Creator, but uses the 3-in-1 modular style, (nexo knights was still running in 2018 however, unlike pirates)

2018 Bigger Building Thinking line had multiple pirate and castle accesoires, and a few castle/undersea ruins/pirateship builds, that theme was like a  spinoff of Classic with more older theme hints being a 60 year anniversary after all.

As for Classic Space, if there's one theme Benny's influence could be continued it'd certainly be cool to see 3-in-1 Classic spaceships.

TLM2 kinda took this year's place for multiple spaceships, benny's pack and lesser pirate influences via metalbeard sets, in the past Ninjago had sky pirates as well.

Edited March 24, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Digger of Bricks]

Just now, TeriXeri said:

Pirate ? multiple times , even while subtle:

2017 Island Adventures had a treasure map, bottle, and brick built parrot and a small palm tree island.

2018 Tree House Adventures had a skull cave alternate build, pirate swords/hat/treasure, and of course Rollercoaster with a modern take on old pirate structure, and pirate minifig/parrot/palm trees.

Of course it's not a PIRATES theme replacement but it was something.

Sure, but both of those still pretty much fall into the Town/City context. I mean, for the most part, it almost feels like the Creator theme is just a component of some pantheon of Town-based lines like City, rather than being more like the broadly-arching playset equivalent to the Collectable Minifigure line.

[TeriXeri]

6 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

Sure, but both of those still pretty much fall into the Town/City context. I mean, for the most part, it almost feels like the Creator theme is just a component of some pantheon of Town-based lines like City, rather than being more like the broadly-arching playset equivalent to the Collectable Minifigure line.

Creator never had to branch off very differently as there's been themes ongoing in the past, it's just now that we're truly without any Castle or Pirate themes at all that the question of Creator being a home for such themes could be possible imo.

Either Castle and Pirates pretty much have been ongoing nonstop until now. 2014 had no new sets but 2013 castle probably was still on shelves, 2015 had pirates, 2016-1H2018 had nexo knights. That's why I think 2020 seems the most likely time to bring at least something back.

In-house space certainly had a longer break then that, outside the movies, nothing new since 2013 , not counting TLM2 , dimensions or promotional classic space microscale builds (micro scale cruiser, or one in the bigger-building-thinking theme)

Edited March 24, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Digger of Bricks]

12 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

Castle, not so much, just a shield in a 2018 LEGO store, which isn't officially listed as Creator, but uses the 3-in-1 modular style, (nexo knights was still running in 2018 however, unlike pirates)

Well, the many brick-built dragon sets we've seen so far technically fall into the context of Castle; but still, it just ain't medieval architecture. 

2 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

Creator never had to branch off very differently as there's been themes ongoing in the past, it's just now that we're truly without any Castle or Pirate themes at all that the question of Creator being a home for such themes could be possible imo.

Exactly, at least for the time being that is. 

18 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

As for Classic Space, if there's one theme Benny's influence could be continued it'd certainly be cool to see 3-in-1 Classic spaceships.

Grey, Blue, and Trans-Yellow Spaceships? I mean, it's so colorfully characteristic for the Creator Three-In-One line, it's kind of a no-brainer. 

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, Digger of Bricks said:

From that perspective, sure, but at least the theme has a solid history of releasing such. On the other hand, when was the last time Creator have us anything Medieval, Steampunk, Greco-Roman, Pulp-inspired, Mayan/Aztek, Classic Space, Piratry-related, Cyberpunk, and whatever-else-not-within-the-realm-of-modern-Town/City-in-some-way? *

Answer: Never!

I mean, a lot of the time when we don't get stuff like that in other existing themes it's because kids genuinely aren't as drawn to it as the stuff we do tend to see more often. It's not as though releasing sets like that with a different theme name on the box magically cracks the code for how to make kids like it more than they would as its own theme.

I suspect Creator, like any other theme, tests WAY more different concepts with kids than ever wind up becoming actual products, at least in the short term. What products get made is decided by which concepts get the most positive feedback from kids, not just according to the whims of the designers. It's the same as how designers tested way more animal tribes for Legends of Chima or monster categories for Nexo Knights than they ended up using. We'll always

Town/City sets have almost always surpassed other themes in terms of both popularity and sheer number of sets. There's a reason why relaunching City was one of the first major development milestones designers sought to tackle during their recovery process from 2004 onward, and why Town/City layouts are among some of the biggest at any LEGO convention or LEGOLAND park. Suffice to say, the modern world is "alike" enough from place to place that there are a lot of things about it that most kids and adutls alike can relate to on some level, whereas the success of historic and sci-fi themes depends on kids having both an awareness of and an attraction to what society and culture were like at a very particular place and time, or an even more particular vision of the future.

The fact that so many AFOLs specifically wish for a return of "classic space", rather than "a space theme" in more general terms, is a good indication of just how particular these tastes can be. While a lot of us like to imagine this is because there is something uniquely and universally appealing about that specific blue-and-yellow, arrowhead-shaped aesthetic that can't be said for any other Space aesthetic, let alone for any one specific Castle or Pirates subtheme, the much more likely possibility is that the wider population's tastes in space-related toys and media vary as broadly as those toys and media themselves, and what's most widely agreed upon as "cool" or "futuristic" can hardly be expected to remain unchanged over a 30+ year period! Modern technology and architecture at least offer something a little closer to what can be considered a shared frame of reference.

And anyhow, there have been loads of non City/Town based Creator models over the years if you count humanoid robots, dragons, trolls, giant spiders, etc. After all, let's not kid ourselves — many Town/City/Trains fans would no doubt be up in arms if LEGO put a dragon or a giant flying robot into a City set! Besides https://brickset.com/sets/31090-1/Underwater-Robot and https://brickset.com/sets/31086-1/Futuristic-Flyer released this year, https://brickset.com/sets/31073-1/Mythical-Creatures came out last year (and remains available), while both https://brickset.com/sets/31062-1/Robo-Explorer and https://brickset.com/sets/31058-1/Mighty-Dinosaurs came out just the year before!

It makes no sense to complain that "LEGO Creator never indulges in non Town/City subject matter, besides all the times they do". That's not a useful insight, it's a tautology.

3 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

Winter 2019 3-in-1 had 0 buildings.

Well, not as A-models, but the Houseboat set has a buildings as its C-model. We saw something similar in the Summer 2016 with https://brickset.com/sets/31052-1/Vacation-Getaways as an A-model and stationary houses/shops only as B- and C-models.

[Thedarkmaster2]

18 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Legends of Chima or monster categories for Nexo Knights

TBH both those themes could have lasted longer and done more

[Digger of Bricks]

24 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

The fact that so many AFOLs specifically wish for a return of "classic space", rather than "a space theme" in more general terms, is a good indication of just how particular these tastes can be. While a lot of us like to imagine this is because there is something uniquely and universally appealing about that specific blue-and-yellow, arrowhead-shaped aesthetic that can't be said for any other Space aesthetic, let alone for any one specific Castle or Pirates subtheme, the much more likely possibility is that the wider population's tastes in space-related toys and media vary as broadly as those toys and media themselves, and what's most widely agreed upon as "cool" or "futuristic" can hardly be expected to remain unchanged over a 30+ year period! Modern technology and architecture at least offer something a little closer to what can be considered a shared frame of reference.

While Classic Space & Company can serve as a nice design choice for the sake of paying homage to Lego's roots in Space, it's not incredibly necessarily for hypothetical Three-In-One Sci-Fi Spacecraft to strictly aspire after such. At the very least (irrespective of any particular design inspirations), all I hope to see are some decent minifigure-scaled spacecraft sets from Creator sooner here than never, and the previously cited secondary build for this year's Futuristic Flyer set is at least a start towards something better. 

35 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

It makes no sense to complain that "LEGO Creator never indulges in non Town/City subject matter, besides all the times they do". That's not a useful insight, it's a tautology.

It isn't. It simply illustrates that there is no context Creator operates under that restricts them from delving into fantastical subject matters, yet they seemingly hesitate to try other such ideas beyond what they recycle year-after-year. Lego's got to try at least one ground-breaker for the theme each year alongside their tried-and-true selection for the sake of experimentation. If other fantastical subject matters work for Action/Adventure themes, why couldn't they work for Creator? Would the demographic interested in Action/Adventure themes not be as interested in a more generic Sci-Fi/Fantasy-inspired set? Maybe the primary demographic interested in Creator would be adverse to the fantastical concepts/vehicular craft/architecture otherwise seen in Action/Adventure themes? What about the demographic interested in the generic, non-licensed Collectable Minifigure line? Would they be interested in sets based upon the various worlds such CMF archetypes inhabit? 

[TeriXeri]

As for experimenting beyond the current line of sets, the last City magazine was themed around soccer (and a lawnmower, included as a miniset), but as I learned from the Nexo Knight magazine, that means nothing.

I don't expect a soccer theme in LEGO, maybe in 2020 when the Euro championships go like Europe wide (12 cities in 12 countries), as a 20th year after the original Soccer sets, but that's a far stretch.

Edited March 25, 2019 by TeriXeri

[astral brick]

16 hours ago, Aanchir said:

It seems to me that a lot of the "lack" of mid-range sets as expressed in the initial post is specifically due to how it defines "mid-range" based on piece count rather than other factors like price. Sets today often have considerably higher piece counts for their price than ones from the 80s or 90s.

In my opinion the count of the pieces, related to the same or similar theme, is the most objective way to compare sets from different ages. Regarding the second factor, theme's similarity, it would be possible to create, for instance with 200 pieces of 1x1 plates, tiles and slopes a nice microscale landscape, however I doubt that it would be achievable to build a spaceship.

16 hours ago, Aanchir said:

 but I've found that Sears catalogs are often a good option for looking up older US prices, or Argos catalogs for UK ones.

This is a very useful suggestion, thank you

16 hours ago, Aanchir said:

So yeah, that FX Star Patroller? It cost $20 USD back in 1985. Fast forward nearly 35 years and that equates to $47.65. Again, by today's standards, that's still a pretty normal price for a "mid-range" LEGO set… it's just that the piece count of sets at that price is much higher!

The reason why I didn't use the price to compare sets is because, aside the inflation, there are many more elements to consider, starting with the technological advances. Producing plastic parts in the 70s or the 80s was much more expensive that it is nowadays, therefore we should pay a price per piece which should be a fraction of what we used to pay in the past. Moreover now Lego has many competitors in the construction's toy field, and the videogames' market is much more relevant than it was years ago. Despite all these factors the price per piece - apparently a recurring math in the reviews - is still (and probably will always be) too high.

So, as I said, the pieces' count in sets of the same theme or similar, is the best criterion to make a comparison.

16 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Even in themes like LEGO City and LEGO Star Wars that are often perceived as a poor value by today's standards, $40 to $50 or can easily get you sets like...

Please see above considerations

16 hours ago, Aanchir said:

https://brickset.com/sets/75233-1/Droid-Gunship,

It is very interesting that you are quoting this model as an example whereas I have used it with a very different meaning. As a matter of fact the four 58846 parts are limiting the rebuild potential due to their size, and they are also a perfect representation of a nefarious tendency, the expensive production of pieces with a specific use, that played an important role when Lego almost went to bankrupt.

Anyway, the purpose of my opening message was not to start a Space vs Star Wars polemic, but to share a concern that I am feeling in relation to a trend which is creating a generational gap between buyers, entailing, in the long term, a serious risk for TLC.

I hope that Lego won't end as hifi did, a niche hobby for a few wealthy adults.

[MAB]

15 hours ago, Digger of Bricks said:

From that perspective, sure, but at least the theme has a solid history of releasing such. On the other hand, when was the last time Creator have us anything Medieval, Steampunk, Greco-Roman, Pulp-inspired, Mayan/Aztek, Classic Space, Piratry-related, Cyberpunk, and whatever-else-not-within-the-realm-of-modern-Town/City-in-some-way? *

Answer: Never!

I guess the answer is because they don't feel the need to do medieval, steampunk, Classic Space, etc in Creator, when they can often find places for that sort of stuff in other lines.

 

Bricklink has this down as a Creator set ...

 

And this one is Creator and Piratey:

[Digger of Bricks]

33 minutes ago, MAB said:

Bricklink has this down as a Creator set ...

...yet Brickset has it down as a Bricks and More set for 2011. 

35 minutes ago, MAB said:

And this one is Creator and Piratey:

While it's potentially a start, that's still more of a Town-based homage to Classic Pirates rather than a straight-up Pirate set.

37 minutes ago, MAB said:

I guess the answer is because they don't feel the need to do medieval, steampunk, Classic Space, etc in Creator, when they can often find places for that sort of stuff in other lines.

Back then, of course, as at least Castle and Space in particular had their own generic, in-house themes six years ago at the most recent; but, for whatever reason those genres are being held back currently, Creator could be filling that gap with at least a couple sets based upon such for the time being. 

Steampunk though? Where's there been generic representation for that genre beyond this set?

[Lyichir]

42 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

...yet Brickset has it down as a Bricks and More set for 2011. 

While it's potentially a start, that's still more of a Town-based homage to Classic Pirates rather than a straight-up Pirate set.

Back then, of course, as at least Castle and Space in particular had their own generic, in-house themes six years ago at the most recent; but, for whatever reason those genres are being held back currently, Creator could be filling that gap with at least a couple sets based upon such for the time being. 

Steampunk though? Where's there been generic representation for that genre beyond this set?

 

Lego designers have talked in the past about the issues pitching steampunk to kids—oftentimes young kids don't have a frame of reference for the particular Victorian time period that steampunk technology is inspired by. As such, it's unsurprising that most of the times that a "steampunk" aesthetic has found its way into sets it has been in a non-"generic" context—in themes like Ninjago or Elves that already have a vibrant setting and cast of characters that appeal to kids.

[Digger of Bricks]

6 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

Lego designers have talked in the past about the issues pitching steampunk to kids—oftentimes young kids don't have a frame of reference for the particular Victorian time period that steampunk technology is inspired by.

Heh, but they could at least slip some generic Steampunk archetypes into the traditional CMS line every now-and-then. 

[MAB]

As ^^, Ninjago and Elves airships are pretty much steampunk for kids.

 

I sold a load of Rodney Rathbones and Ann Lees from Monster Fighters to someone who wanted them for steampunk figures. He also buys a lot of tophats from me!

Edited March 25, 2019 by MAB

[icm]

^@astral_brick, if you follow the forums for a while you'll see a pretty general consensus that the better measure of value is weight or volume of product, not parts count.  I wouldn't necessarily expect the average price per part to decrease with time, because set sales have to cover the development of new parts.  With that in mind, I think it remarkable that in real, inflation adjusted terms, the average price per part has actually gone down by about a factor of three over the past forty years.  This lets modern sets at the same inflation adjusted price point have three times as many parts for the same bulk as the old Space ships.  Aanchir described this phenomenon very well.  If we are to make an apples to apples comparison of midrange sets, we must inevitably consider inflation, which leads to that conclusion.  Now let's talk about specialized parts in sets of a midrange price point.  The only really specialized parts in the droid gunship are the round bricks.  These are specialized, yes, but a cursory look at the Bricklink catalog shows they can be used for many things:  roofs, floors, wings, flying saucers, many Star Wars and Super Heroes craft, etc.  The old midrange spaceships were also full of specialized parts:  wedge plates with cutouts that were rarely used for anything besides the noses of small spaceships, large corrugated corner panels that were never used outside Space, Castle panels turned sideways, etc.  I really don't see any meaningful difference in rebuild value between modern midrange sets and old ones, and I don't believe raw parts count is the best comparison.

[danth]

On 3/22/2019 at 4:22 AM, astral brick said:

In my opinion Star Wars license has been the death sentence of the Space line.

I don't know if there are explicit clauses that forbid to sell other pure scifi models or if it is just a market decision to avoid overlapping...

 

On 3/22/2019 at 9:13 AM, MAB said:

This cannot be true, because in the past 20 years since LEGO started doing SW, we have had a number of space themes. 

Note there was a break 2001-2007. Just like there has been a break 2013-?

 

On 3/23/2019 at 5:05 AM, Digger of Bricks said:

Yeah, most likely in correlation with the cinematic run of Star Wars' prequel trilogy with the first break, whereas the current absence could be in correlation with the cinematic run of the sequel trilogy (if one were to play along with that line of speculative thought).

I think Digger is 100% correct and the evidence is pretty unambiguous.

The first year ever, after 20+ steady years, that there were no Lego Space sets was 2000. This was immediately after the first ever Star Wars sets in 1999. Then, in 2001 when Space sets returned, they were on Mars. On a known nearby world, in our own solar system. Not in deep space, not out in the galaxy. Not anything that could be confused with Star Wars.

Then nothing for six years while Star Wars movies were in theatres.

Finally, in 2007 we got Lego Space sets again. On Mars...again. And just in time not to compete with the Revenge of the Sith sets.

Then we get semi-steady Lego Space on the shelves until 2014. Guess what happens the year after? The Force Awakens.

Every bit of evidence points to some non-competition strategy/agreement to keep in-house Space sets off the shelves when there are Star Wars movies being made.

[Aanchir]

15 hours ago, Digger of Bricks said:

It isn't. It simply illustrates that there is no context Creator operates under that restricts them from delving into fantastical subject matters, yet they seemingly hesitate to try other such ideas beyond what they recycle year-after-year. Lego's got to try at least one ground-breaker for the theme each year alongside their tried-and-true selection for the sake of experimentation. If other fantastical subject matters work for Action/Adventure themes, why couldn't they work for Creator? Would the demographic interested in Action/Adventure themes not be as interested in a more generic Sci-Fi/Fantasy-inspired set? Maybe the primary demographic interested in Creator would be adverse to the fantastical concepts/vehicular craft/architecture otherwise seen in Action/Adventure themes? What about the demographic interested in the generic, non-licensed Collectable Minifigure line? Would they be interested in sets based upon the various worlds such CMF archetypes inhabit? 

Just because the context of the Creator 3-in-1 theme ALLOWS for more variety of non-modern-day subject matter does not mean that LEGO has any reason to WANT the theme to become a "catch-all" theme like you envision. Not when the modern day types of Creator 3-in-1 sets seem to remain reliably popular and successful despite coexisting with multiple other modern-day themes (City, Friends, Speed Champions, etc).

And of course, it can't be understated how frustrated many LEGO Creator fans would be if the "modern day" categories of 3-in-1 sets they've grown accustomed to were reduced in order to make room for new categories they haven't previously expressed interest in. When people have come to expect modern house/shop sets, aircraft sets, car sets, truck sets, motorcycle sets, animal sets, etc. pretty much every year, what executive or designer or retailer is going to want to risk letting all the fans of those established categories down just to make room for ancient Greek/Roman/Mayan/Aztec sets, steampunk/cyberpunk sets, pulp-inspired sets, etc. for which the prospective audience remains largely hypothetical?

To you, the modern-day categories are repetitive to the point of being overdone or redundant, but that's largely because you group all these categories together by genre alone, when the construction-based nature of LEGO Creator means that the style of build is probably a bigger consideration in which sets many fans are drawn to than any sense of a shared genre. Even here on Eurobricks, people NOTICE if there's a wave without a set focusing on houses/shops, or on real-world animals, or on large-scale vehicles, or on impulse-priced microscale vehicles.

And Creator 3-in-1 is not a huge theme! For the past few years the tendency has been to have 12 to 14 non-polybag 3-in-1 sets per year. If that has to include a minimum of 2 sets per year in the categories of posable robots/creatures, microscale vehicles, large-scale vehicles, minifig-scale vehicles, and minifig-scale houses/shops, that leaves only two to four sets per year with more flexible subject matter… and there are signs that fairground ride themed sets might become yet another recurring category for this theme, which would further eat into that.

I definitely think you and I have both cited examples of designers beginning to dabble in more fanciful subject matter, and I think you and I both appreciate those examples! But I don't think there's as much room as you think for a wider range of sets like those without it happening at the expense of other categories that people are already passionate about.

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

In my opinion the count of the pieces, related to the same or similar theme, is the most objective way to compare sets from different ages. Regarding the second factor, theme's similarity, it would be possible to create, for instance with 200 pieces of 1x1 plates, tiles and slopes a nice microscale landscape, however I doubt that it would be achievable to build a spaceship.

The fact that the value of an individual piece can be so unpredictable is exactly the reason that expecting sets from the 80s to have the same value as sets from today with the same number of pieces makes no sense at all!

After all, if you compared sets from today based on how big and playable they are compared to ones with the same piece count, then you'd arrive at the utterly bonkers conclusion that https://brickset.com/sets/10770-1/Buzz-Woody-s-Carnival-Mania! is a better value than https://brickset.com/sets/31088-1/Deep-Sea-Creatures, because with the same number of pieces it's bigger and has more play features than the latter — even though the former costs more than THREE TIMES as much as the latter!

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

The reason why I didn't use the price to compare sets is because, aside the inflation, there are many more elements to consider, starting with the technological advances. Producing plastic parts in the 70s or the 80s was much more expensive that it is nowadays, therefore we should pay a price per piece which should be a fraction of what we used to pay in the past. Moreover now Lego has many competitors in the construction's toy field, and the videogames' market is much more relevant than it was years ago. Despite all these factors the price per piece - apparently a recurring math in the reviews - is still (and probably will always be) too high.

I'm not sure what you mean here, considering that even as the examples I cited showed, LEGO's price per piece has gone down tremendously when adjusted for inflation. This blog entry gives a more thorough statistical analysis which backs this up (although it is at this point about six years old).

And for what it's worth, many of LEGO's strongest "competitors in the construction toy field" tend to have an extremely similar price per piece to comparable LEGO sets. For example, in Mega Construx's (formerly Mega Bloks's) Pokémon range, their Charizard set is 198 pieces for $20, their Blastoise set is 284 pieces for $25, and their Gyarados set is 352 pieces for $30.

If LEGO's price per piece were really "too high", surely their biggest competitors like Mattel (Mega Construx's parent company) would be taking advantage of that by offering toys with equivalent piece counts for lower prices? After all, back in the 90s and early 2000s, Mega Bloks used to have a reputation as a low-priced alternative to LEGO. Giving that up (at risk of alienating buyers who would prefer the same products at lower prices) implies that they CAN'T create successful LEGO-quality products at a substantially lower price per piece.

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

It is very interesting that you are quoting this model as an example whereas I have used it with a very different meaning. As a matter of fact the four 58846 parts are limiting the rebuild potential due to their size, and they are also a perfect representation of a nefarious tendency, the expensive production of pieces with a specific use, that played an important role when Lego almost went to bankrupt.

I feel like this comment demonstrates a little bit of bias against newer parts, or at least selective memory about older ones. 58846 is an incredibly versatile piece, usable (and used in the previous 30 set appearances of that part) not only for vaguely flying saucer shaped builds but also as roofs/awnings, landscaping, interior, aircraft/spacecraft wings, ancient stone structures, helicopter landing pads, the curved edge of roads/racetracks, or generally anything you might want a big circular shape for!

A basic circular slope piece like that is certainly no more "nefarious" than many much more specialized and less frequently used parts that appeared in actual Classic Space sets of the 80s: for example, 2336, 3430, 3947, 4089, 4228, 4597, 4737, 4741, 4746, etc. Some of those have gone decades without finding use in as many sets or themes as the 10x10 quarter circle slope has in just 12 years!

And anyhow, weren't you earlier extolling the value of big wing pieces that make it easier to rebuild sets into original creations? Why would a big quarter circle brick be any less conducive to original creations than parts like, say, 4475?

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

I hope that Lego won't end as hifi did, a niche hobby for a few wealthy adults.

Doesn't seem likely. KFOLs still vastly outnumber AFOLs, and if anything, a lot of the concerns you've discussed are very typical frustrations of OLDER fans, not younger ones.

In 1988, LEGO revenues were around 5 billion DKK (equivalent to around 9 billion DKK in 2018). Whereas their revenue last year, 30 years later, amounted to over 36 billion DKK! That growth hasn't been driven by the handful of spectacularly wealthy adults who collect high-priced sets like the Star Wars Ultimate Collector Series or the Modular Buildings.

In fact, most of the best-selling LEGO sets and themes often tend to be ones preferred by kids, like City, Friends, Ninjago, or even Duplo! This isn't to say AFOLs don't enjoy these themes, but they aren't the typical audience expected to get excited for new seasons of LEGO Ninjago, new LEGO City police sets, or new LEGO Friends dollhouses.

It is extraordinarily naive to assume that kids who grow up loving today's top themes, so different from those you remember from your own childhood, will be more likely to lose interest in LEGO permanently. I say that as an AFOL born in 1991, whose childhood favorite theme was Bionicle, of all things. I believe it was in part thanks to the Bionicle theme coinciding with my teen years that I never had anything even resembling a "dark age" between my KFOL and AFOL years, even though for earlier generations of AFOLs the idea of temporarily losing interest in LEGO as a teenager or young adult was practically taken for granted.

Do you honestly believe that today's Ninjago sets have less creative building potential and less chance of "hooking" kids on the LEGO building experience than the vastly more specialized parts and builds of the late 90s and early 2000s? If not, why are there even so many AFOLs today who are nostalgic for those themes?

"In the end, the teenager who has stopped building will never become the adult buyer of a Ucs Millennium Falcon or a Bugatti Chiron", you posited in your initial post, but I think the fact that there even exists an audience for these sets today proves that to be false. It has NEVER been the norm for kids to consistently enjoy LEGO as a hobby from childhood into adulthood, because kids in general go through all kinds of different phases during their childhoods and teenage years as they try to figure out what passions best suit their skills, interests, and aspirations the best.

How many buyers of today's AFOL-targeted sets do you honestly think never lost interest in LEGO, not even for reasons entirely unrelated to the availability of sets that suited their creative building needs? I think in the case of the licensed AFOL-targeted products in particular, many are probably bought by AFOLs who otherwise never had any unique passion for LEGO compared to other brands, and yet who are excited by the prospect of a high-quality building toy of something they recognize from an outside brand that they are CURRENTLY passionate about.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Aanchir

[Mylenium]

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

In my opinion the count of the pieces, related to the same or similar theme, is the most objective way to compare sets from different ages.

Just the opposite. Parts count is the least reliable factor in all this. More to the point you'd have to come up with some fancy formula to calculate an abstract actual per-part value and compare that. You'd have to figue in versatility of a part, its actual design, mass and volume, raw material usage, complexity of the molds, printed parts down to tiny things like larger parts cooling off ever so slightly slower, affecting the hourly yield. In addition you'd have to figure in overall market developments for some of that stuff, comparable cost with similar toy products and whatnot. you could spend a lifetime doing that. Therefore it probably suffices to say that perhaps a set with less parts to day may still have a higher value if it uses more sophisticated pieces, difficult to produce colors, complex prints and so on. Using a single part that may have only been introduced a few years ago, today may allow you to do stuff that was impossible back then or at least could eliminate awkward building techniques that required many extraneous parts. In any case, it's a complex matter.

Mylenium

17 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Doesn't seem likely. KFOLs still vastly outnumber AFOLs, and if anything, a lot of the concerns you've discussed are very typical frustrations of OLDER fans, not younger ones.

Sure, though to me it seems that LEGO are heavily shifting towards a specific "high-end" mentality, which makes me think @astral brick is on to something. The number of super expensive sets is growing a bit too rapidly for my taste and small sets are a bit too obviously optimized/ stripped down to maximize profit by reduzing the number of parts. There's always the risk that it furthers this already existing rift between different demographics and then we end up with the analogy of the two LEGOs again - one being solely focussed on expensive collectible stuff, the other churning out lackluster low-end stuff like every other cheap toy company. In that regard I think there's even some value in the original statement of a certain type of mid-range being missing or disappearing - a kind of middleground with a broad mass appeal bridging the two extremesin terms of price, themes and quality of sets.

Mylenium

[TeriXeri]

2 hours ago, danth said:

Every bit of evidence points to some non-competition strategy/agreement to keep in-house Space sets off the shelves when there are Star Wars movies being made.

This, Galaxy Squad was in 2013.

2014 had Benny related TLM1 sets, and now 2018 we have Benny again for TLM2.

SW: Rogue One came in 2016.

Edited March 25, 2019 by TeriXeri

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

Sure, though to me it seems that LEGO are heavily shifting towards a specific "high-end" mentality, which makes me think @astral brick is on to something. The number of super expensive sets is growing a bit too rapidly for my taste and small sets are a bit too obviously optimized/ stripped down to maximize profit by reduzing the number of parts. There's always the risk that it furthers this already existing rift between different demographics and then we end up with the analogy of the two LEGOs again - one being solely focussed on expensive collectible stuff, the other churning out lackluster low-end stuff like every other cheap toy company. In that regard I think there's even some value in the original statement of a certain type of mid-range being missing or disappearing - a kind of middleground with a broad mass appeal bridging the two extremesin terms of price, themes and quality of sets.

8

While the number of big / expensive sets is growing, I think that is just LEGO's realisation that there is some demand for sets like that. However, I don't feel it has an impact on the smaller, cheaper, kid-level sets available or on their build quality.

[TeriXeri]

27 minutes ago, MAB said:

 However, I don't feel it has an impact on the smaller, cheaper, kid-level sets available or on their build quality.

I do think it had an impact, especially this year, the disapearance of €10 3-4 minifig+accesoires+build/vehicle starter packs from City was a big change imo.

Those were maybe too good of a value, however via TLM2, Benny's Space Squad did functionally act as a starter pack, with 4 figs + builds.

2018 Mining and Arctic starter packs were fantastic value, 4 figures with good small builds.

2019 has 4 good vehicle sets with just 1 minifig. But I hope it won't be the end of City starter packs.

I was kinda surprised to not see a Fire theme starter set, smallest set instead is a 4+. (not counting the polybags) , or a Sky Police starter set.

 

I suppose we'll see soon with the Space theme if the smallest €10 set has more then 1 minifig.

 

It's probably just me that really focuses on the Start Sets, because I only just recently started collecting City and I don't go back buying off-shelves sets. 

So far the "fun in the park/beach/outdoor" sets have been a great source of regular people, so I wouldn't mind something like that for a mix of city jobs as well.

Edited March 25, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Aanchir]

46 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

This. 

And the only times we got "Classic Space" sets again was during LEGO Movie 1 and 2 with Benny sets. 

Well, also one of the builds in https://brickset.com/sets/10404-1/Ocean-s-Bottom, one of the builds in https://brickset.com/sets/40290-1/60-Years-of-the-LEGO-Brick, the microscale set https://brickset.com/sets/11910-1/Micro-Scale-Space-Cruiser that was included with the book "Great LEGO Sets", arguably https://brickset.com/sets/21109-1/Exo-Suit (though that's more of a "neo-Classic Space" set), https://brickset.com/sets/5002812-1/Classic-Spaceman-Minifigure, the logos on several Collectible Minifigures, a major LEGO Worlds update, etc.

If you define the kind of "Classic Space" stuff you want in new sets as "must be minifig-scale and purposely limit itself to obsolete set and character design standards", then it goes without saying that you're setting yourself up for disappointment. It's honestly remarkable how MANY references to Classic Space there have been in recent years, considering that if it weren't for Benny, most kids would have no more reason to care about Classic Space references than references to Space Police, M:Tron, or Exploriens.

I mean, where's this idea coming from that expensive Star Wars sets pander to adults at kids' expense, but LEGO failing to make more than one or two sets referencing Classic Space per year is some big missed opportunity for them? I guarantee you that way more kids have watched the Star Wars original trilogy and developed a passion for those movies, characters, and ships than have had any firsthand experience playing with LEGO sets from a subtheme that ended more than 30 years ago…

14 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

Sure, though to me it seems that LEGO are heavily shifting towards a specific "high-end" mentality, which makes me think @astral brick is on to something. The number of super expensive sets is growing a bit too rapidly for my taste and small sets are a bit too obviously optimized/ stripped down to maximize profit by reduzing the number of parts. There's always the risk that it furthers this already existing rift between different demographics and then we end up with the analogy of the two LEGOs again - one being solely focussed on expensive collectible stuff, the other churning out lackluster low-end stuff like every other cheap toy company. In that regard I think there's even some value in the original statement of a certain type of mid-range being missing or disappearing - a kind of middleground with a broad mass appeal bridging the two extremesin terms of price, themes and quality of sets.

There has definitely been an increase in the super-expensive sets, but I don't feel like it's out of control. Of last year's sets (excluding stuff costing less than $5 since that includes a lot of polybags that Brickset has less consistent price information for):

• 7 sets (2%) cost more than $200 USD
• 20 sets (5.7%) cost more than $100 USD but less than $200 USD
• 48 sets (13.7%) cost more than $50 USD but less than $100 USD
• 100 sets (28.6%) cost more than $25 USD but less than $50 USD
• 175 sets (50%) cost more than $5 USD but less than $25

This seems like a fairly healthy spread of prices from my perspective, with as many or more sets within any of those price brackets than in all of the higher price brackets combined.

Likewise, I think any recent trend towards LEGO "churning out lackluster low-end stuff like every other cheap toy company" only exists in AFOLs' imaginations. Teeny-tiny impulse sets were ubiquitous back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. A healthy chunk of Classic Space sets like https://brickset.com/sets/885-1/, https://brickset.com/sets/886-1/, and https://brickset.com/sets/6804-1/, and https://brickset.com/sets/6805-1/ were piddly little builds featuring fewer than 30 pieces, and by today's standards look downright mediocre in terms of minifigures, play features, pieces, and building experience. Many modern polybag sets demonstrate more quality and value than those sets did.

1 minute ago, TeriXeri said:

I do think it had an impact, especially this year, the disapearance of €10 3-4 minifig+accesoires+build/vehicle starter packs from City was a big change imo.

Those were maybe too good of a value, however via TLM2, Benny's Space Squad did functionally act as a starter pack, with 4 figs + builds.

I don't see how that change implies any sort of connection to increases in bigger, AFOL-targeted sets, particularly when the one remaining set like that you can cite is a fairly bland set one that is only especially interesting through nostalgia goggles. If anything, moving away from "starter sets" strikes me as an attempt to bring the emphasis of sets at those lower price brackets back towards more substantial amounts of building, rather than on making it easy to stockpile minifigs without having to pay extra for the yucky building elements and play features that appear in other sets containing the same figures.

After all, City still has three $10/€10 Great Vehicles sets and three $10/€10 4+ sets, so it's not as though they've abandoned the entire price point or shifted it away from stuff kids can enjoy.

13 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

Also this year, the change from Juniors to 4+ happened.

Don't really see how that says anything about any major shift in LEGO's focus/quality, either. After all, it's mostly just a change in the sets' labeling, not their contents — same as how this year's Super Heroes sets are labeled at the top with the names of the particular superhero IPs/subthemes they relate to (Spider-Man, Batman, Captain Marvel, Avengers, etc) rather than with a shared "LEGO Super Heroes" logo. The actual number of 4+ sets does not appear to have increased substantially compared to previous years.

[Digger of Bricks]

3 hours ago, Aanchir said:

And Creator 3-in-1 is not a huge theme! For the past few years the tendency has been to have 12 to 14 non-polybag 3-in-1 sets per year. If that has to include a minimum of 2 sets per year in the categories of posable robots/creatures, microscale vehicles, large-scale vehicles, minifig-scale vehicles, and minifig-scale houses/shops, that leaves only two to four sets per year with more flexible subject matter… and there are signs that fairground ride themed sets might become yet another recurring category for this theme, which would further eat into that.

I definitely think you and I have both cited examples of designers beginning to dabble in more fanciful subject matter, and I think you and I both appreciate those examples! But I don't think there's as much room as you think for a wider range of sets like those without it happening at the expense of other categories that people are already passionate about.

Well, I don't know why it's annual output isn't bigger as so accommodate further ideas; as it is, after all, one of Lego's top-selling themes year-after-year. Perhaps that's due to the sets' alternate builds, as maybe it takes longer for designers to develop each set as a consequence? 

27 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Don't really see how that says anything about any major shift in LEGO's focus/quality, either. After all, it's mostly just a change in the sets' labeling, not their contents — same as how this year's Super Heroes sets are labeled at the top with the names of the particular superhero IPs/subthemes they relate to (Spider-Man, Batman, Captain Marvel, Avengers, etc) rather than with a shared "LEGO Super Heroes" logo. The actual number of 4+ sets does not appear to have increased substantially compared to previous years.

Well, much like Creator, I feel Juniors could've easily accommodated sets based upon themes, genres, and ideas that otherwise don't exist on Lego's template at any particular time. Can't really say that could be possible anymore with the current 4+ denotation. 

[TeriXeri]

5 hours ago, Aanchir said:

If anything, moving away from "starter sets" strikes me as an attempt to bring the emphasis of sets at those lower price brackets back towards more substantial amounts of building, rather than on making it easy to stockpile minifigs without having to pay extra for the yucky building elements and play features that appear in other sets containing the same figures.

I actually liked the builds in the few starter packs I have from recent times (Arctic, Mining, Mountain Police, Jungle), they all include 3-4 figs each, and some terrain, and either a boat/quad/dumper/snowmobile, so the amount of building is still there, just smaller and more spread out.

But I can understand for some people they have 0 interest in a rock or tree build, but starter sets also gave kids some cheap play value like 2 cop vs 2 criminal in some cases. 

Again not saying that the 2019 €10 sets are bad, they just went a different direction and I accept that.

Those 2 sets are great variations on the "fun in the xxxx"  concept.

 However, even if that sounds strange, I'd still like LEGO to make an official retail version of such set. On the other hand, I can understand the possible "competition" with CMF series.

 

45022-1: Community minifigure set - 2017 :  22 minifigs.

45023-1: Fantasy minifigure set - 2017  21 minfigs.

What's most interesting to me is that the Fantasy one goes really wide on the represented themes.

 

Right now I am just waiting for Summer 2019 (City/Creator) sets .

Edited March 26, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, Digger of Bricks said:

Well, I don't know why it's annual output isn't bigger as so accommodate further ideas; as it is, after all, one of Lego's top-selling themes year-after-year. Perhaps that's due to the sets' alternate builds, as maybe it takes longer for designers to develop each set as a consequence? 

I suspect that may be part of it, along with the fact that themes more inherently based around basic elements and creative building don't really need as many sets to deliver the same variety of experiences as ones based around more specific play scenarios. Similar to how LEGO Classic is a pretty strong seller in its own right, and yet usually has even fewer sets than Creator 3-in-1 does.

For example, in a "play theme" like LEGO City or LEGO Friends, a helicopter, an airplane, and a boat might ordinarily need to be released as at least two or three separate sets whereas in Creator or Classic they can just as easily be alternate builds of the same set (albeit without the kind of playability after the building experience or shared scale/visual language from one model to the next that you might expect within a particular "play theme")

4 hours ago, Digger of Bricks said:

Well, much like Creator, I feel Juniors could've easily accommodated sets based upon themes, genres, and ideas that otherwise don't exist on Lego's template at any particular time. Can't really say that could be possible anymore with the current 4+ denotation. 

Juniors/4+ originally seemed to have some sets that weren't as specific to existing themes, at least not current ones. And it still does as far as the licensed Pixar sets are concerned. But I can see why LEGO shifted towards 4+ sets focusing primarily on the same themes they have for older builders.

For one, it makes it easier for kids who like the kind of sets their older and more experienced parents/siblings might collect to feel like they're able to have those hobbies in common. After all, younger kids often look to older siblings or parents as role models for what's "cool" — it's not until they get older that they develop a slightly more subversive streak and start seeking out interests older folks don't get, and that give them and their same-age peers a sense of being in on some exclusive or revolutionary trend.

Additionally, the cost of Juniors sets is already pretty high by default on account of their larger-than-average pieces and extensive printing. But they can offset that somewhat by using minifig prints or other moderately theme-specific parts that are already common in much bigger themes.

Finally, having Juniors sets that are the same themes as "big kid LEGO" helps streamline the transition OUT of Juniors-level builds once kids are experienced enough to feel ready for them. Whereas if it's a theme like, say, Western that's usually not exciting enough to most older kids to justify a "big kid" theme of its own, then that severely weakens the sense of compatibility between Juniors parts and other System parts (one of the Juniors theme's strengths compared to earlier preschool product lines like Fabuland and Jack Stone). The kids who got their start with Juniors then wind up stuck with lots of printed or otherwise specialized parts that, aside from shared connection points, seem to belong to a totally different world than any of the sets more appropriate to their current building level.

That said, who knows? Maybe at some point, now that "Juniors" is now no longer a theme of its own but a label appended to beginner sets in other themes, maybe at some point we'll see LEGO introducing new non-licensed themes entirely at that building level, just like with the licensed Cars 3 and Toy Story 4 sets.

1 minute ago, TeriXeri said:

I actually liked the builds in the few starter packs I have from recent times (Arctic, Mining, Mountain Police, Jungle), they all include 3-4 figs each, and some terrain, and either a boat/quad/dumper/snowmobile, so the amount of building is still there.

Nothing yucky about the bricks, the sets were well-rounded and very generous. Even containing some animals as well.

Parts count didn't change much in 2019, except the minfigs went down.

Now if you look at City sets with 3-4 minfigs for 2019, you look at €30-60 sets. 

I was being facetious about the bricks being "yucky". It just strikes me as strange how often AFOLs who are dedicated collectors and experienced builders would rather pay more per part just to pay less per minifigure — even if there are other reasonably affordable sets with a way better value for money and more or less the same minifigures.

It's the same as how strange it's always seemed to me when fans would rather pay high prices for the licensed LEGO magazines (LEGO Star Wars, etc), the old LEGO magnets, or the early LEGO Ninjago Spinners, but didn't care at all about the non-minifigure contents, just about obtaining already-available figs without having to pay for substantial non-minifigure builds. After all, aren't those builds (and the original creations you can then turn them into) the main point of these characters being LEGO minifigures in the first place? Otherwise you might as well collect generic, non-buildable action figures from a company like Hasbro or Mattel.

Even if the $10 LEGO City Starter Sets sometimes have as many pieces total as the $10 Great Vehicles sets, a lot of those pieces are eaten up by minifigures, minifigure accessories, and animals. For example, even excluding standard building elements like bricks and tiles used for the minifig headgear and accessories, all three of last year's Starter Sets devoted 25% or more of their piece counts to the minifigs, accessories, and prefab animals. So while some technically had higher piece counts than some of that year's $10 Great Vehicles sets, the reality is that the amount of non-minifigure building in the Great Vehicles was decidedly more extensive.

A similar case can be made for several of this year's $10 Great Vehicles sets. It's simply not plausible that builds as substantial in terms of both piece count and size as this year's Desert Rally Racer, Construction Loader, Kayak Adventures, and Police Patrol Car could have been released with three more minifigures plus accessories (in other words, at least 15 additional pieces per set) and no price hike. After all, if LEGO could do that, they could have just as easily put builds of that size and complexity in the $10 Starter Sets to begin with!

None of this is to say that a set that prioritizes a greater number of minifigures is inherently better or worse than a set that focuses on more substantial brick-built contents at the same price point. But it's easy to see how keeping most sets' minifig counts in relative proportion to their size and piece count might make it easier for LEGO to combat the obnoxious stereotype among non-FOL parents (and other non-FOLs) that "sets these days are just pathetic little builds people only buy for the minifigs" (something VERY frequently leveled at the licensed themes like Star Wars, but also at non-licensed themes frustratingly often).