The disappearance of the mid-range sets

[Mylenium]

13 hours ago, Aanchir said:

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.

Allow me to disagree and just point to this:  https://www.brickmerge.de/41363-1_lego-friends-mias-outdoor-abenteuer Seriously? Do LEGO really expect anyone to buy this little pile of garbage for 15 Euros MSRP? Other examples sure could be found. I'm clearly seeing a downward trend here. It's subpar in every way and LEGO should feel embarassement and shame over even producing such sets. At those ridiculous prices even your "impulse buy" argument doesn't hold water...

Mylenium

[astral brick]

15 hours ago, Aanchir said:

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).

Summarizing, Creator 3-in-1 is not a solution because, in fact, there isn't any problem to solve at all, if I have understood correctly this reply and the following ones. Moreover, according to you, given that the pieces count is not conclusive and the inflaction's criterion demonstrates that there is no trend towards a generational or economical gap between customers, then there shouldn't be any risk of market's reduction in the long term. Just naive concerns from OLDER buyers, probably.

I wonder if you believe that we are living in "the best of all possible worlds", speaking in Lego terms obviously. If we are not, then I would like to know if you think that there is room for improvement, and in this case, the ways to do it. 

[Mylenium]

15 hours ago, MAB said:

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.

I wasn't implying a causal relation of lower-end sets suffering because those super sets even exist. More a general decline of quality on the lower end of the spectrum...

Mylenium

13 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? 

Don't think so. As the "designer" videos show over and over again, actually designing the sets is not the problem. It's more that getting them actually manufactured is. A lot of cool stuff is bound to get stuck and ground up in the decision-making chain for reasons. And let's not be foolish: The profit margin on the 3in1 sets is likely terrible, even if they sell like sliced bread. Therefore understandably LEGO are probably more interested in putting out more sets in other series that net them more cash.

Mylenium

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mylenium

[astral brick]

16 hours 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.

Thank you for having caught the key point of this thread. You have exactly described my concern towards the "high-end" attitude and its consequences. In fact, for a company it is much more easy to sell 10 items for 100 euros than 100 items for 10 euros or, as now I am afraid of, 50 items for 20 euros. This business model is not sustainable in the long term.

[astral brick]

19 hours ago, icm said:

^@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 [...]

What? Weight?!? I cant imagine Lego be treated like meat or flour! :-)

[MAB]

1 hour ago, astral brick said:

What? Weight?!? I cant imagine Lego be treated like meat or flour! :-)

The same is true for number of parts. What would you rather have, a packet of 10 biscuits or a packet of 20 biscuits? What about a set from 1980 with 100 parts or a set from 2019 with 200 parts?

Or I will sell you a MOC with 100 parts, what would you pay?

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by MAB

[MAB]

2 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Allow me to disagree and just point to this:  https://www.brickmerge.de/41363-1_lego-friends-mias-outdoor-abenteuer Seriously? Do LEGO really expect anyone to buy this little pile of garbage for 15 Euros MSRP? Other examples sure could be found. I'm clearly seeing a downward trend here. It's subpar in every way and LEGO should feel embarassement and shame over even producing such sets. At those ridiculous prices even your "impulse buy" argument doesn't hold water...

Mylenium

This is the "pile of garbage" set.

I agree that appears to be awful pricing for that particular set, but it is not necessarily so. It seems at first sight that they have applied Disney prices to it, when it is not a Disney set. For example, from last year's (2018) sets:

This Friends one looks similar, a figure plus some play things,

was £9 / $10 but for Disney ...

was £13 / $15 (and 17 Euro !)

was £13 / $15 / 15 Euro.

 

But it is interesting to look at these three (2019) Friends sets:

  £8

£13

£9

I'm using UK pricing, EU and US pricing will vary as they are not scaled linearly.

They are all one figure plus some play items - should they be priced the same?

Which is best value? If you go by minifigures, clearly the one where you get a minifigure plus some playthings for £8 is best value.  But if you go on price per part, the £13 one is best value - the prices per pert are 16.0p, 9.7p, 11.1p respectively. The £9 one from 2018 is also bad value at 13.4p. The "pile of garbage" set actually has the best PPP from the small Friends sets here.
 

But how does it compare with City?

£8

Here you get two minifigures in a £8 set. Yet price per part is 14.8p.

 

Or compare a set like this, two figures and a vehicle

£8 (12.5p per part)

with this one, with one figure and a vehicle

£10 (11.4p per part)

 

I think pricing is a very difficult thing to do. A minifigure doesn't cost much more to make than a similar number of parts do (although apperently minidolls do), yet sets with larger numbers of minifigures in appear better value if you judge minifigures as having more value than say 12 random bricks/small parts.

I imagine LEGO are trying to cater for people that want figures and also people that want more parts. When these are done on at the same / similar price point, what appears to be large discrepancies in value will occur.

 

Price per part is not a great measure of value. Price per figure is not a great measure of value. You have to base value on what you see in a set and what you think you will get out of it.

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by MAB

[Digger of Bricks]

10 hours ago, Aanchir said:

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.

I know I've proposed this elsewhere before, but would it help or hurt if Lego instead created a intermediate subtheme for Creator that sat in between the Three-In-One and Expert lines, one that offered sets of an MOC-quality priced below Expert's range? I don't know, perhaps it could be named Creator: Advanced? 

10 hours ago, Aanchir said:

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.

Something akin to what Fabuland once was, perhaps? 

2 hours ago, Mylenium said:

And let's not be foolish: The profit margin on the 3in1 sets is likely terrible, even if they sell like sliced bread. Therefore understandably LEGO are probably more interested in putting out more sets in other series that net them more cash.

Hmmph, hence the likely influx of more licensed properties than ever before. 

[TeriXeri]

12 hours ago, Aanchir said:

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.

For me it's the other way around.

Unless you really like the vehicles in those €30-€40 sets, I desire the starter set option more.

I rather get this for €10  , even if you added €15  You still end up cheaper at €25 total.

Compared to  for €40.  

The concept of those sets is very similar.

While I do like the cave and the small vehicle, the big driller is just not wanted in my case.

Also  +  is about half price at €16 for both sets (€10+€6)

Compared to for €30.  .

 

In those cases I do not see more value of money in the €30/€40 set. Unless you really like bigger vehicles.

(total spending for smaller sets : €25 + €16 = €41, or €26 if you opt out of 2nd mining set)

(total spending for medium sets : €40 + €30 = €70)

So for the €29 you save, you can get the Jet set below.

Now I must say, for 2019, one of the better valued sets is at €30 , I see this as a starter pack + €20 jet build. (Total Spending = €10 + €15 + €10 + €6 + €30 = €71)

  

If you opted out of the 2nd Mining set you save €44, which can almost get you for €50. (Total spending €10+ €10+ €6+ €50 = €76)

  

 

This is just 100% my opinion, and in my case I do not desire the big driller or net shooter truck, especially if you can get the police armored truck or jet instead.

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Aanchir]

3 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Allow me to disagree and just point to this:  https://www.brickmerge.de/41363-1_lego-friends-mias-outdoor-abenteuer Seriously? Do LEGO really expect anyone to buy this little pile of garbage for 15 Euros MSRP? Other examples sure could be found. I'm clearly seeing a downward trend here. It's subpar in every way and LEGO should feel embarassement and shame over even producing such sets. At those ridiculous prices even your "impulse buy" argument doesn't hold water...

Mylenium

Weird that you say that, because honestly that set stands out to me as a pretty decent value, all things considered. The price per piece is not ideal, but it includes some very detailed scenery with loads of potential play scenarios. Hardly what I'd call "subpar in every way" or worthy of "embarrassment and shame".

And anyhow, last year the "deluxe bedroom" sets offered considerably higher piece counts for the same price. A single year does not signify a downward trend by any stretch of the imagination.

And there are plenty of counterexamples from this year that I think speak just as loudly. The current LEGO Ninjago spinners involve way more building than any previous spinners/fliers at the same price points, and what's more, the spinners themselves are much more versatile as building elements. The Creator 3-in-1 Deep Sea Creatures set is $15/€15 for a whopping 230 pieces, while Ninjago's Monastery Training is $10/€10 for 122 pieces (more than any other Ninjago set at that price point to date)! What about Emmet's Thricycle, which has 174 parts (including 3 fairly beefy tires) for just $15/€15, or the reliably thorough building experience and high piece counts of the Speed Champions sets at the same price point?

1 hour ago, MAB said:

This is the "pile of garbage" set.

I agree that appears to be awful pricing for that particular set, but it is not necessarily so. It seems at first sight that they have applied Disney prices to it, when it is not a Disney set. For example, from last year's (2018) sets:

[snip]

While I appreciate the amount of time you put into these comparisons, I think it's worth pointing out that several of these sets you are comparing are Juniors/4+ sets, and as such not really fair comparisons against a set like this which inherently tends towards smaller detail elements.

44 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

Something akin to what Fabuland once was, perhaps? 

That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Currently, LEGO doesn't really have any media-driven IPs aimed at an audience younger than 6 or 7 (even the Unikitty! TV series has a TV-Y7 rating in the United States), but if they really wanted to introduce one (like Fabuland back in the day) it'd make sense for the sets in question to all carry the 4+ label, rather than a mix of that and higher target age ranges like most current themes with 4+ sets.

5 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

For me it's the other way around, I think the starter packs held way more value then the current €20-60 range of vehicle sets.

Unless you really like the vehicles in those sets, you pay a lot more.

I rather get this for €10 

Compared to  for €40.  

The concept of those sets is very similar.

While I do like the cave and the small vehicle, the big driller is just not wanted in my case.

Also  +  is about half price at €16 for Both sets

Compared to for €30.  .

In those cases I do not see value of money, for less minifigs.

Again, fewer minifigures or not, the larger examples you cite here include way more elaborate builds than the smaller ones, and in the case of the drill set, also some decidedly more complex play features. Whether you prefer more minifigures or more building will inevitably come down to personal preference, and I'm not at all saying your preference is WRONG, but I don't think LEGO putting more emphasis on more construction-heavy sets is some sign that LEGO is targeting wealthy adults at kids' expense — particularly when so far, most complaints about current sets in this thread are coming from the perspective of adults speaking anecdotally about THEIR personal preferences, and not, say, from parents sharing anecdotes about their kids' preferences, or toy store owners sharing anecdotes about their customers' preferences.

And once more, one year does not constitute a trend. Maybe in the future LEGO will introduce some other type of low-priced City minifig pack comparable in value to the Starter Sets — or even, perhaps, minifigure packs in the Xtra theme, similar to how that theme has now become the home of City/Town related accessory packs, playmats, and sticker packs.

But it's worth keeping in mind that the City Starter Sets were originally something of a DEPARTURE from the norm, having only appeared from 2015–2018. There were a few low-priced minifig packs somewhat like them in earlier years (namely https://brickset.com/sets/8401-1/City-Minifigure-Collection and https://brickset.com/sets/7279-1/Police-Minifigure-Collection), but in most cases, from 2005 to 2014, the number of minifigures in a City set being proportional to the set's size was normal and expected.

[TeriXeri]

15 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

And once more, one year does not constitute a trend. Maybe in the future LEGO will introduce some other type of low-priced City minifig pack comparable in value to the Starter Sets — or even, perhaps, minifigure packs in the Xtra theme, similar to how that theme has now become the home of City/Town related accessory packs, playmats, and sticker packs.

I agree ,this thread is about personal opinions and certainly 1 half year release isn't anywhere close to a trend. 

And I also agree about the Xtra theme, it basicly originated in the City line in 2017 :

 Became Xtra polybags (bikes , plants, food, traffic lights/lanterns)

  853656 (currently 50% off at shop@home along  with the Friends variant) ,  turned into Xtra playmats, with similar system of 2x2 holes in corners

 

 

I know the City Summer Space theme has sets in all sorts of price ranges, especially interested to see how the €10, €20, €30 sets look in their size / parts / minifig amount.

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Digger of Bricks]

25 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

And once more, one year does not constitute a trend. Maybe in the future LEGO will introduce some other type of low-priced City minifig pack comparable in value to the Starter Sets — or even, perhaps, minifigure packs in the Xtra theme, similar to how that theme has now become the home of City/Town related accessory packs, playmats, and sticker packs.

Heh, despite the name of the line implying that it's supplementary to preexisting themes, it'd be nice if Xtra could offer supplement packs for lines that don't exist at the present time. Ya know, a Spartan Warrior pack, a '20s-Era Factory Workers pack, a Space Troopers pack, a Medieval Villagers pack... 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, TeriXeri said:

For me it's the other way around.

Unless you really like the vehicles in those €30-€40 sets, I desire the starter set option more.

I rather get this for €10  , even if you added €15  You still end up cheaper at €25 total.

Compared to  for €40.  

The concept of those sets is very similar.

 

 

4

Isn't that what is great about the way they are doing the sets though - they are providing different build styles within the range. If you prefer larger numbers of minifigures but really simple builds / low part counts then there are sets for you. If you prefer more focus on the builds and parts rather than minifigures, there are sets for you.  The concepts of the sets may be similar, but the 40Eur one looks like a significantly better build, whether you are looking at the vehicle or the rockwork / scenery. Within the same theme, LEGO are providing quite different sets at different price points. I don't think the range would be enhanced by not doing the larger set. Similarly, the range would not be enhanced by doing a Eur 40 made from the equivalent of the Eur 10 + two Eur 15 sets, with six minifigures and lots of small simple build vehicles. If people want those, they can buy multiples of the cheaper sets. Isn't the point of the mid-range sets that they are not just a big version of the smaller sets, but provide something a little more in terms of the build.

[Mylenium]

3 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Weird that you say that, because honestly that set stands out to me as a pretty decent value, all things considered. The price per piece is not ideal, but it includes some very detailed scenery with loads of potential play scenarios. Hardly what I'd call "subpar in every way" or worthy of "embarrassment and shame".

Not really. It's not even the price per piece - which is an utterly inadequate measure, anyway, considering that some of that stuff merely costs fractions of Cents, not what LEGO actually sell it for - but more the "volume of stuff" and the (perceived) return value. Clearly we have completely diametrical opinions here, but this set is nowhere near worth 15 bucks or Euros IMO. It doesn't have any special parts and you could probably rebrick it for less than half the price. Point in case: It would probably be okay as a 10 Euro set (making for 7 Euros with discounts), but at this high asking price I consider it an utter failure, both thematically and in abstract terms of market placement. LEGO are most definitely trying very hard to see what they can get away with - minimal effort, maximum profit.

Mylenium

5 hours ago, MAB said:

They are all one figure plus some play items - should they be priced the same?

Basically yes - the plain manufacturing cost isn't that much different. The rest is merely LEGO attributing some sort of idealistic virtual value to different sets and making a price distinction based on that. Arguably one can live with a one or two Euro/ GPB price difference on some sets and of course some extra licensing fees can't be avoided on some themes, but it feels to me that this is way too often out of proportion or as I like to say, LEGO are pulling those prices out of their derriere/ playing bingo rather than basing them on transparent, rational calculations people can make sense of. There's just no rhyme and reason to it, though that's pretty much true for any price range, not just the low budget sets.

Mylenium

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mylenium

[Aanchir]

6 hours ago, astral brick said:

Summarizing, Creator 3-in-1 is not a solution because, in fact, there isn't any problem to solve at all, if I have understood correctly this reply and the following ones. Moreover, according to you, given that the pieces count is not conclusive and the inflaction's criterion demonstrates that there is no trend towards a generational or economical gap between customers, then there shouldn't be any risk of market's reduction in the long term. Just naive concerns from OLDER buyers, probably.

I wonder if you believe that we are living in "the best of all possible worlds", speaking in Lego terms obviously. If we are not, then I would like to know if you think that there is room for improvement, and in this case, the ways to do it.

I think there is LOTS of room for improvement, but I think that it is in forms much different than the kinds most AFOLs tend to wish for. Many of the LEGO Group's biggest achievements in recent years have in fact been super divisive among AFOLs and often remain so.

LEGO Ninjago, like Bionicle before it, achieved massive, long-lasting success with kids and raised the bar for the amount of media support LEGO was able to commit to their "big bang" themes going forward. Many AFOLs still outright hate Ninjago, even if it's not as widespread as the gut reaction many had when it was first announced or released.

LEGO Friends, likewise, was more successful at making the LEGO hobby as enticing to girls as it's always been to boys than any theme before it. A lot of AFOLs are still extremely dismissive of the Friends theme's color palette, design language, and storylines.

I think a lot of the biggest potential improvements to LEGO going forward will be things like this — not things that pander to the tastes of people like you or me who already had amazing childhood experiences playing with LEGO and continue to enjoy the LEGO brand as adults, but things that make LEGO more enticing and accessible to audiences that have previously been alienated by one aspect or another of the LEGO brand and the way its products are designed/marketed

Just as one possibility, consider how over the years LEGO has dabbled in ways to convert many types of toy once thought of as separate from construction toys into LEGO-style creative building and play experiences:

• Toy cars (City, Racers, Speed Champions, etc)
• Toy train sets
• Action figures (Bionicle, Exo-Force, Nexo Knights battle suits, Creator 3-in-1 robots, etc)
• Spinning tops (Ninjago spinners)
• Robotics kits (Mindstorms, Boost, etc)
• Puzzle toys (the Ideas Maze, etc)
• Collectible figurines (BrickHeadz, Minifigures, etc)
• Scale models (Model Team, Creator Expert, etc)

But think about all the kinds of toys out there with different forms of play that we HAVEN'T seen combined with authentic LEGO building and play experiences so successfully or seamlessly:

• Fashion dolls
• Yo-yos
• Puppets
• Model rockets
• Plush toys
• Dress-up toys and costume jewelry
• Musical toys
• …and so on

Additionally, and I know this kind of thing tends to be controversial… but I've heard a LOT of complaints over the years from African-Americans in particular that they have a hard time seeing themselves in LEGO products. Dark-skinned LEGO characters currently tend not to appear outside of licensed or girl-targeted themes, and while their representation in those themes has improved considerably in recent years, a lot of the representation issues in the mainstream movies and TV shows LEGO bases their themes only further reinforce the imbalance between lighter-skinned and darker-skinned LEGO characters.

While the yellow skin tone of the typical LEGO Minifigure may be intended to be raceless, it hardly escapes my notice that a white, straight-haired brunette like me has a much easier time creating a sigfig that I feel closely resembles my real-life appearance (as seen in my Eurobricks avatar) than people with darker skin tones or the tight, dark, curly hair typical of people of African descent. At some point LEGO may have to seriously consider whether the intended racelessness of non-licensed LEGO characters is still making it easier rather than harder for current potential customers to relate to the characters on an equal level. Abandoning this status quo would be difficult, and it would be controversial, but at some point it may be necessary.

Other forms of representation could also be improved, particularly in story-driven themes — disabled characters, neurodivergent characters, LGBTQ characters, characters and settings associated with different ethnic/cultural backgrounds, etc. Again, every time I bring this up, it tends to be met with a weird amount of hostility from people who reject the idea that representation matters at all, or that it can even exist in a brand where you can supposedly imagine anything about any character. But I think it goes without saying that a lot of LEGO sets and media DO depict their characters having lifestyles associated with a particular cultural background, experiencing opposite-sex romantic attraction or being in opposite-sex couples, etc.

As far as more personal preferences, there are loads of things I would like to see in the future, whether or not they would lead to stronger-than-usual success for the company as a whole… for instance, more buildable action figure themes in the spirit of LEGO Bionicle (albeit not necessarily with the same building system or similar mechanical-looking characters), or a new girl-targeted action/adventure theme (either fantasy, sci-fi, or both) in the spirit of LEGO Elves.

I don't tend to make a big deal of these wishes, though, because the way I see it, LEGO revisits older concepts often enough that it may only be a matter of time before something fitting one of these descriptions shows up again. Also, I often tend to enjoy entirely new sets and themes about as much as ones I enjoyed in the past — so it's not urgent in my eyes for LEGO to bring back any one particular theme category or product idea I'm nostalgic for. I'm excited to learn what's in store for the future regardless of what it might be, because I feel like LEGO has a good track record of both coming up with fun and surprising new ideas, and learning from whatever mistakes they end up making along the way.

So yes, I see lots of room for improvement. But unlike many other AFOLs, I don't think that the most important forms of improvement they could work towards are ones you find from looking at how the company did things decades ago. Right now, the LEGO brand is vastly bigger, more popular, and more successful with all ages than it was at any point in the 20th century. So I'm skeptical that the secret to greater success can be summed up as "go back to the way things used to be".

And I certainly don't think purely hypothetical concerns about whether today's KFOLs will or won't become AFOLs are reason enough to go back to how things were back when the idea of kids growing out of LEGO was taken for granted and nobody imagined there being a community of adult LEGO enthusiasts as big and passionate as today's AFOL community. LEGO's 1986 medium catalog advertises sets for "every age and stage of your child's development", but the "stages" in question only list one theme — Technic — as suitable for even the youngest teenagers (the sets in question have the same 7–14 and 9–14 recommended age ranges as is typical of many Ninjago, Legends of Chima, or Nexo Knights sets).

Do you really think that LEGO knew more about how to keep the LEGO hobby exciting for builders of all ages back then, when all but one of their themes were aimed at builders 12 or younger, than today, when they have all kinds of sets and themes specifically designed to be enjoyable for older kids, teens, and adults, and when many of their designers are AFOLs themselves?

23 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

Not really. It's not even the price per piece - which is an utterly inadequate measure, anyway, considering that some of that stuff merely costs fractions of Cents, not what LEGO actually sell it for - but more the "volume of stuff" and the (perceived) return value. Clearly we have completely diametrical opinions here, but this set is nowhere near worth 15 bucks or Euros IMO. It doesn't have any special parts and you could probably rebrick it for less than half the price. Point in case: It would probably be okay as a 10 Euro set (making for 7 Euros with discounts), but at this high asking price I consider it an utter failure, both thematically and in abstract terms of market placement. LEGO are most definitely trying very hard to see what they can get away with - minimal effort, maximum profit.

Maybe you're right and it would be better as a 10 Euro set. I can't even hazard a guess at how much it costs to make. I will say that on BrickLink, the average value its parts have sold for over the past six months (for parts in "new" condition, no instructions, no box, and no extra parts) is close to $15 already, and the part out value based on current listings is nearly $20.

But regardless, it's literally just one set, and it's bonkers to assume that occasional sets being seemingly overpriced speaks to some larger trend of LEGO trying to cheat their consumers. For one thing, as stated previously, there are both all kinds of examples of sets with much better values than their counterparts from previous years. Cherry picking examples is inevitably going to make it easier to see the trends you expect to see, and is hardly an effective way of analyzing LEGO's overall pricing trends.

23 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

Basically yes - the plain manufacturing cost isn't that much different. The rest is merely LEGO attributing some sort of idealistic virtual value to different sets and making a price distinction based on that. Arguably one can live with a one or two Euro/ GPB price difference on some sets and of course some extra licensing fees can't be avoided on some themes, but it feels to me that this is way too often out of proportion or as I like to say, LEGO are pulling those prices out of their megablocks/ playing bingo rather than basing them on transparent, rational calculations people can make sense of. There's just no rhyme and reason to it, though that's pretty much true for any price range, not just the low budget sets. 

Mylenium

There are all kinds of reasons BESIDES testing the limits of their customers' LEGO obsession that they might price a set higher than might ordinarily be expected — for example, creating a more varied range of price points instead of too many clustered together, seeing much stronger demand in kid testing for it than for other sets its size, or certain parts being more expensive than others for reasons that people outside of LEGO would never guess (like how ten years ago, 4M cross axles used to be more expensive than 5M or 6M cross axles because the 4M axles came from an older mold which produced only half as many copies per molding cycle). The idea that you can look at a set and know how much it costs to manufacture or how much it should be priced at is laughably arrogant.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Aanchir

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, Digger of Bricks said:

Heh, despite the name of the line implying that it's supplementary to preexisting themes, it'd be nice if Xtra could offer supplement packs for lines that don't exist at the present time. Ya know, a Spartan Warrior pack, a '20s-Era Factory Workers pack, a Space Troopers pack, a Medieval Villagers pack... 

For the most part I don't think those sorts of things would be any more practical than full-size sets revolving around those themes. Xtra sets are generally small packs of fairly common (or at least, not new) parts, whereas most of the things you mention would require not only new prints and/or molds, but would have to have higher prices to compensate for those new parts since they wouldn't be shared by other sets or offset by a quantity of common parts more typical for a non minifigure-focused set.

Now, accessory packs would be another story. It would be great if Xtra moved beyond the ordinary sort of "City" subject matter in the packs we've gotten so far and have packs themed around other subject matter such as Pirates, Castle, or Space. These still would most likely focus on existing parts, but could be a great asset for kids who want to accessorize their figs and builds or possibly even for adult army builders.

For that matter, an Xtra sticker pack like the one that came out recently but focused on something like Space or Castle could also be neat—while AFOLs often abhor stickers, just imagine a Space sticker pack that featured some common parts for decorations (slopes, tail fins, tiles, etc.) along with stickers of faction logos, control panels, and more. Or a Castle sticker pack that featured some common parts like flags, banners, and shields as well as stickers to decorate them with heraldry.

[TeriXeri]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

Isn't that what is great about the way they are doing the sets though - they are providing different build styles within the range. If you prefer larger numbers of minifigures but really simple builds / low part counts then there are sets for you. If you prefer more focus on the builds and parts rather than minifigures, there are sets for you.  

I do agree with the points here, I do like that they vary up the price ranges and sizes within a same City sub-theme, and it being generic enough with no real story or named characters around it.

(usually for other themes, especially licensed themes, the focus on characters is bigger)

However there's also the opposite case where a large bit of everyhing is put into 1 huge set in the case of Capital City (2018).

Now I understand it's probably limited due to logistical reasons/shelf space/set numbers that this had to be 1 set, but from my perspective I'd prefered a split into smaller sets.

 

Nothing wrong with the amount of variation of the 13 minifigs however.

And yes, I know this is LEGO, not tied to instructions, but the original builds certainly do influence sets for me more then just considering all sets as "parts packs".

This is again very opinion based, and not LEGO's mistake per se.

From a kid's perspective I imagine, this set would be amazing to get.

However huge sets like this also aren't sold as wide as others.

There are even people who sell parts of this set seperately on ebay, however the price is high + high shipping cost. 

I tend to avoid ebay or buying partial sets, so maybe that's another case of "me", but shipping cost seem to have gone up massively the recent years.

However my perspective tends to look forward and not back, so for me it's a case of "better luck next time", which the closest for me is Summer 2019 City/Creator.

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Mylenium]

55 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

But regardless, it's literally just one set, and it's bonkers to assume that occasional sets being seemingly overpriced speaks to some larger trend of LEGO trying to cheat their consumers. For one thing, as stated previously, there are both all kinds of examples of sets with much better values than their counterparts from previous years. Cherry picking examples is inevitably going to make it easier to see the trends you expect to see, and is hardly an effective way of analyzing LEGO's overall pricing trends.

That could be argued both ways, apparently. Citing some sets having a better value doesn't prove or disprove that either. Let's call it a draw?! ;-)

55 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

The idea that you can look at a set and know how much it costs to manufacture or how much it should be priced at is laughably arrogant.

Fair enough, but if you have ever been involved with industrial level cost calculation, it's really not that hard to figure out, especially in a day and age where you can design a part in the morning and a CNC machine spits out your production-ready mold in the afternoon, give or take calibration and finetuning issues and on the next day you can produce millions of copies of a part with that new mold. Working with existing molds and parts designs should be even more straightforward. Same for package printing, manuals etc.. Say what you will, unless you seriously believe that e.g. a 4 x 1 Medium Dark Flesh tile is worth even 7 Cents in that mix of small to medium sized parts in that set, there is simply no way for me to see where those 15 Euros are supposed to stem from even if you account for every shred of ancillary cost, profit margins and whatever idealistic value you may add on top. In that regard I maintain my position - LEGO are squeezing the costumer perhaps a bit too hard and prices for some of their products are not justifiable. The latter used to be an occasional occurrance, but lately it seems they have just come to a point where they say "Screw it, we're doing it anyway." and that cannot be a good thing.

Mylenium

 

[TeriXeri]

Meanwhile I recently got the 40198 LEGO Ludo board game to increase my population of "generic" people, 16 minfigs, baseplate, and 4 16x16 plates, and a lot of tiles/plates/jumpers.

Even while it has 2 of each figure torso/head/hair, can easily be swapped around.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Aanchir]

37 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

I do agree with the points here, I do like that they vary up the price ranges and sizes within a same City sub-theme, and it being generic enough with no real story or named characters around it.

(usually for other themes, especially licensed themes, the focus on characters is bigger)

However there's also the opposite case where a large bit of everyhing is put into 1 huge set in the case of Capital City (2018).

 

That set has great things, but could as well have been split into smaller sets. Now I understand it's probably limited due to logistical reasons/shelf space/set numbers that this is the "BIG" set of 2018.

City has had a few sets like that, usually as part of the "Town" subtheme (which is sort of a catch-all for stuff that doesn't fit as neatly in other subthemes or the Great Vehicles). Other examples include the even more expensive https://brickset.com/sets/60097-1/City-Square from 2015 and the slightly less expensive https://brickset.com/sets/60026-1/Town-Square from 2013.

To be honest, I suspect one of the reasons LEGO does this is the stuff in these sets is stuff that might not be nearly as enticing on its own to kids who crave the kind of excitement or action they get from Police, Fire, or Arctic sets. Most of the subject matter in these huge sets and other smaller Town sets tends to be more "everyday" stuff like buses and bus terminals, statues/monuments, restaurants/street vendors, shops, etc. — stuff that might be more appealing to the kind of serious kid and adult collectors who want to build a believable "tabletown" than people who buy sets to play with or display individually or as a smaller group.

In some respects, you can think of them as the modern equivalent of https://brickset.com/sets/6390-1 ($40 USD in 1980, or the equivalent of about $122 USD in 2018).

Also of note: in the case of a double-decker bus, note how a set like https://brickset.com/sets/60154-1/Bus-Station with a single-decker bus has a high price per piece due to having an unusually high number of minifigures for its price. With a double-decker sightseeing bus, filling enough seats to keep it from looking under-populated would take even more minifigures — so putting it in a set with lots of bricks besides those used to build the box helps to offset the cost associated with minifigure printing and pre-assembly.

After all, even if a standard minifig only counts as 4 pieces in a set's piece count, it takes at least 10 molds (9 different elements, assuming the hands are both the same color). Then each torso and legs assembly is its own additional element, and then the printed versions of those torso assemblies and the heads are additional elements still. So a 4-piece minifigure with printed torsos, heads, and legs and unprinted headgear has at least the same logistical costs associated with it in terms of packing, warehousing, etc as 13 different standard unprinted bricks/plates of a similar total volume. THESE are the kinds of costs that tend to result in some of the biggest discrepancies in price-per-piece (like the $1 per piece cost of the collectible minifigures, which include a disproportionately high number of unique prints/molds/recolors compared to regular sets).

If LEGO is going to keep their number of total elements limited instead of letting it explode out of control like it did in the early 2000s, then needless to say they're going to price their sets roughly in proportion to the manufacturing resources (including the space and time required to manufacture those elements) of the elements they contain. And outside of some weird edge cases like the redesigned UCS Millennium Falcon (for which I believe the designer was basically allowed to make the greebling and other contents as complex as they wanted, regardless of how high the final price turned out to be), the usual tendency is for set designers to be given a strict budget for the sets they work on according to the intended price point, and a computer program that will tally how much of that budget each part will eat up.

In some cases, people accusing the LEGO Group of pricing sets based on pure greed feebly attempt to avoid implicating their fellow builders of that greed by claiming that the designers are just doing the best they can to design quality sets, and that it's some accountants or executives elsewhere in the decision-making chain who are then arbitrarily hiking up the price tags after the fact. For the most part, the implication we've gotten from designer interviews is that this is nowhere close to the truth. In fact, it's often hard work for the designers to make sets as cool as possible while still keeping it within the budget for the intended price point.

Remember that the prices we talk about for sets are their recommended RETAIL price. At least 50% of that is usually going to be kept by the retailers to cover their overhead and/or to let them offer sale prices without selling the sets at a loss (LEGO does keep a greater portion of the total revenue with sets they sell on their own online shop or in LEGO Brand Stores, but they don't have the option of charging less through their own retail site and stores without losing the much-needed support of other, bigger retailers). Then a lot of the price is also covering the costs associated with distribution

For what it's worth, the number of sets LEGO was actively LOSING money on in 2003 (including every set that wasn't part of the Bionicle or Star Wars themes) should also be a pretty good indication that some of the most popular sets at that time like https://brickset.com/sets/8366-1/Supersonic-RC and https://brickset.com/sets/8374-1/Williams-F1-Team-Racer may have in fact been priced too LOW compared to the licensing, manufacturing, design, and logistical expenses associated with them.

45 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

Fair enough, but if you have ever been involved with industrial level cost calculation, it's really not that hard to figure out, especially in a day and age where you can design a part in the morning and a CNC machine spits out your production-ready mold in the afternoon, give or take calibration and finetuning issues and on the next day you can produce millions of copies of a part with that new mold. Working with existing molds and parts designs should be even more straightforward. Same for package printing, manuals etc..

Well, you're right that I don't have any experience with industrial level cost calculation. That said, I think you're severely underestimating the level of precision LEGO demands of their molds if you think a typical cost of CNC machining a steel mold is a good estimate of how much LEGO might pay for them. As @Nabii stated on the Brickset Forums here, "As for davee123's dream option of raising $2,000,000 dollars for 20 molds to resurrect the old monorail parts, this is seriously underestimating mold costs at the precision required for LEGO elements." and "There are… good reasons that even well selling motorized trains are only borderline profitable."

There are of course a lot of other costs he mentions separately that are more specific to motorized sets (safety and longevity testing, etc), but even non-motorized sets are inevitably going to cost considerably more than a similar-sized plastic toy from the dollar store, and probably more than many similar-sized toys from major brands like Hasbro or Mattel whose business model doesn't necessarily entail designing the molds for each individual plastic component with the same intended precision, total lifetime, and quantity produced within that lifetime.

That particular Friends set includes at least a few molds that are more complex than a typical brick. Besides the newly recolored, printed, and pre-assembled mini-doll torso and leg elements (see the comments above about the costs of minifigure elements), the helmet and hair are both a new recolor and a 2K mold created in two stages with separate plastic colors and materials, and the bear cub element has not appeared with this color/print in other sets from the past two years, so this set needs to cover the costs of reintroducing it (and whatever factory floor time/space and warehousing space that entails).

[MAB]

18 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Basically yes - the plain manufacturing cost isn't that much different. The rest is merely LEGO attributing some sort of idealistic virtual value to different sets and making a price distinction based on that. Arguably one can live with a one or two Euro/ GPB price difference on some sets and of course some extra licensing fees can't be avoided on some themes, but it feels to me that this is way too often out of proportion or as I like to say, LEGO are pulling those prices out of their derriere/ playing bingo rather than basing them on transparent, rational calculations people can make sense of. There's just no rhyme and reason to it, though that's pretty much true for any price range, not just the low budget sets.

Mylenium

2

If something (market forces / whatever) forces them to sell sets with larger piece counts at the same price as the ones with smaller piece counts, what will happen? The piece counts of all sets will drop and we will end up with small sets comprising of fairly meaningless, simplified builds with few parts and a figure. That jungle set for example would probably end up as the figure and the tree, without the other parts of the set, at a lower price tag. Not that the other bits are particularly good for this set, but at least they add some extra play value to the set.

[TeriXeri]

On 3/26/2019 at 7:08 PM, Aanchir said:

After all, even if a standard minifig only counts as 4 pieces in a set's piece count, it takes at least 10 molds (9 different elements, assuming the hands are both the same color). Then each torso and legs assembly is its own additional element, and then the printed versions of those torso assemblies and the heads are additional elements still. So a 4-piece minifigure with printed torsos, heads, and legs and unprinted headgear has at least the same logistical costs associated with it in terms of packing, warehousing, etc as 13 different standard unprinted bricks/plates of a similar total volume. THESE are the kinds of costs that tend to result in some of the biggest discrepancies in price-per-piece (like the $1 per piece cost of the collectible minifigures, which include a disproportionately high number of unique prints/molds/recolors compared to regular sets).

I am fine with the base price of CMF , it's the random chance element however that I haven't bought any.

I can understand it's no different from many other "collect them all" toys/cards etc. which are around for decades.

Of course there are 2nd market sellers, selling individual figs/parts/boxes and whole complete series, but then you look at even higher prices.

Feeling isn't an option for everyone and buying them online, you often gotta buy multiples to offset shipping cost and then that's still random. (Shipping cost also applies to polybags as just like CMF,  they aren't always sold in physical stores nearby)

 

For me the "Fun in the xxx" are my main source of regular minifigs, and I hope it continues for many years to come, along with Xtra, I think it's one of the nicest concepts of modern day sets.

Edited March 27, 2019 by TeriXeri

[astral brick]

On 3/27/2019 at 1:40 AM, Aanchir said:

But think about all the kinds of toys out there with different forms of play that we HAVEN'T seen combined with authentic LEGO building and play experiences so successfully or seamlessly:

• Fashion dolls
• Yo-yos
• Puppets
• Model rockets 
• Plush toys
• Dress-up toys and costume jewelry
• Musical toys
• …and so on

Interesting ideas, especially the musical toys.

On 3/27/2019 at 1:40 AM, Aanchir said:

While the yellow skin tone of the typical LEGO Minifigure may be intended to be raceless,

Exactly, raceless and genderless, at least years ago. Sometimes I think that too many people have lost the skill of abstraction. In fact the purpose of using a smiling sexless yellow face was to let customers use their own imagination to visualize their own characters and stories. I I mean, isn't it the whole point of Lego? Children are able to do it with ease, teens and adults tend to loose this ability. 

On 3/27/2019 at 1:40 AM, Aanchir said:

And I certainly don't think purely hypothetical concerns about whether today's KFOLs will or won't become AFOLs are reason enough to go back to how things were back when the idea of kids growing out of LEGO was taken for granted and nobody imagined there being a community of adult LEGO enthusiasts as big and passionate as today's AFOL community.

According to my child's memories, afols always existed, it was a niche of course, nothing comparable to today's communities. Internet changed it all, visibility, communication, techniques learning, purchase of the wanted parts...

On 3/27/2019 at 1:40 AM, Aanchir said:

Do you really think that LEGO knew more about how to keep the LEGO hobby exciting for builders of all ages back then, when all but one of their themes were aimed at builders 12 or younger, than today, when they have all kinds of sets and themes specifically designed to be enjoyable for older kids, teens, and adults, and when many of their designers are AFOLs themselves?

I think that nowadays building with Lego as adults is much more accepted than it was years ago. However, in my opinion, this is not really connected to Lego's management decisions but to a general process of acceptance of what once was considered "nerd" material. Today superheroes, videogames, genre fiction (scifi and fantasy) and comics are part of the media culture .

Said that, I think that Lego has almost lost this cultural boat risking the bankruptcy, so of course they know better than everyone here - unless there is some former ceo or some executive writing on this forum - but there are concerning signs and maybe they should getting off their high horse and start listening a bit more the suggestions from their most loyal customers.

[astral brick]

On 3/27/2019 at 2:58 AM, Mylenium said:

Fair enough, but if you have ever been involved with industrial level cost calculation, it's really not that hard to figure out, especially in a day and age where you can design a part in the morning and a CNC machine spits out your production-ready mold in the afternoon, give or take calibration and finetuning issues and on the next day you can produce millions of copies of a part with that new mold. Working with existing molds and parts designs should be even more straightforward. Same for package printing, manuals etc.. Say what you will, unless you seriously believe that e.g. a 4 x 1 Medium Dark Flesh tile is worth even 7 Cents in that mix of small to medium sized parts...

That's exactly what I meant when I said that the price per piece will always be too high (due to a rapacious pursuit of profits).

On 3/27/2019 at 2:58 AM, Mylenium said:

...in that set, there is simply no way for me to see where those 15 Euros are supposed to stem from even if you account for every shred of ancillary cost, profit margins and whatever idealistic value you may add on top. In that regard I maintain my position - LEGO are squeezing the costumer perhaps a bit too hard and prices for some of their products are not justifiable. The latter used to be an occasional occurrance, but lately it seems they have just come to a point where they say "Screw it, we're doing it anyway." and that cannot be a good thing.

I am afraid that you have just stated the naked truth.

[Aanchir]

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

Interesting ideas, especially the musical toys.

Exactly, raceless and genderless, at least years ago. Sometimes I think that too many people have lost the skill of abstraction. In fact the purpose of using a smiling sexless yellow face was to let customers use their own imagination to visualize their own characters and stories. I I mean, isn't it the whole point of Lego? Children are able to do it with ease, teens and adults tend to loose this ability.

I think attributing people's dissatisfaction with certain attributes of classic LEGO to people "losing the skill of abstraction" is a bit narrow-minded. If the traditional minifigure were all kinds of random rainbow colors then yeah, I can agree that everybody could agree on it being "raceless". But it being a fairly light yellow color makes it much easier for people of lighter skin tones to relate to it than people of darker skin tones, whether or not they think of it as a specific race like "white" or "Asian".

What's more, since not a lot of actual building goes into minifigures, a lot of the creative fun of getting new ones comes from the possibility of mixing and matching parts. And there's way more possibilities for that sort of mixing and matching when there are all kinds of faces, torsos, legs, and hair pieces with varying details to choose between than when all those features are purposely kept as generic as possible. When

It also seems strange to act as though teens and adults having more difficulty with abstraction is a point against more varied and detailed figures rather than a point in their favor. After all, a lot of the gripes about minifigures becoming too specialized stem from the largely adult concern that the parts all need to believably "match" — and thus, that having parts designed to suggest a specific race, gender, or age makes parts that vary in one or more of those categories fundamentally incompatible. Not to mention a nostalgic sense that any details that create problems mean that today's high level of detail is a problem in and of itself, rather than just that those details ought to be chosen with greater care.

Kids aren't necessarily as persnickety about all that stuff. Like, mini-doll parts have actual molded torso and head variants as well as varied skin colors by default, and yet I've seen kids make custom mini-dolls with female-coded faces and male-coded torsos (or vice-versa), dark skinned faces but light skinned arms and legs, etc. For that matter, even the official sets often use the "female" head mold for younger or less square-jawed male characters, or the "girl" torso mold for adult women who aren't intended to look as full-figured as those with the "woman" torso mold.

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

Said that, I think that Lego has almost lost this cultural boat risking the bankruptcy, so of course they know better than everyone here - unless there is some former ceo or some executive writing on this forum - but there are concerning signs and maybe they should getting off their high horse and start listening a bit more the suggestions from their most loyal customers.

I haven't really heard any "concerning signs" brought up here that aren't largely imaginary. The company's revenues and profits are strong, they're reaching enormous numbers of fans of all ages across the globe, and even the company's recent missteps have done little to weaken the brand's overall popularity. It says a lot that some AFOLs' benchmark for a "failed" product line includes highly successful themes like Legends of Chima or Nexo Knights, primarily because they didn't last longer than three years the way that mega-hits like Bionicle, City, Ninjago, or Friends have.

And lately, I feel like LEGO listens to "their most loyal customers" (assuming you mean AFOLs) more than ever. Besides the number of AFOLs actually working at LEGO, there are also many different forms of community outreach these days such as putting out quarterly AFOL community surveys, letting builders contribute their own product suggestions on LEGO Ideas, inviting fansites to their headquarters for LEGO Fan Media Days, engaging with customers directly on social media, offering support programs for AFOL-organized LUGs/fan sites/conventions, inviting AFOLs to beta-test new digital initiatives like LEGO Worlds, inviting select fans to help make decisions and offer feedback about upcoming product lines long before they're announced, etc.

That said, "listening" is different than "giving us everything we want", especially when a lot of the stuff AFOLs often ask for is completely preposterous like producing and selling any retired set on demand, bringing back coiossal failures like the old monorail system, or retiring product categories kids love (like LEGO City Police, LEGO Friends, or LEGO Ninjago) just because some adults find them uninteresting or repetitive.