LEGO Star Wars 2020 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[lego_guyon02]

So according to MandRProductions the game code included in the Death Star Duel set is simply 'SIDIOUS', which would imply none of the codes are unique and can be used an infinite amount of times.

[Fuppylodders]

Dare I say it, @Mandrproductions to start a second movement for.... #wewantaTIEBomber 

 

 

 

Seriously... Needs doing 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Fuppylodders

[ARC2149Nova]

2 hours ago, Guyon2002 said:

So according to MandRProductions the game code included in the Death Star Duel set is simply 'SIDIOUS', which would imply none of the codes are unique and can be used an infinite amount of times.

That's honestly a little lazy, but at least one doesn't need the sets for the codes, so it's sort of a win in my book.

32 minutes ago, Fuppylodders said:

Dare I say it, @Mandrproductions to start a second movement for.... #wewantaTIEBomber 

Ryan does seem to get things done.

"Are all AFOLs this reckless?"

Ryan: "Only the good ones."

(This is a quote from TCW for any wondering).

[Samppu]

Still about the TIE Bomber:

Big sets need to have tons of play features, yes, but who said the TIE Bomber could not have more than dropping bombs and shooting flick fire missiles?
I think this is where the designers could put some more imagination into. Light up motors, sound effects, some motor details, an ejections seat (TIE Bomber actually had one in the EU at least) and a small ground piece including e.g. a technician and an officer. The possibilities are plenty.
 

[TheNerdyOne_]

19 hours ago, jdubbs said:

This is ill-informed hyperbole. Lucasfilm/Disney does approve licensees' products, sure. (This is true of virtually all licensors, not just Disney). But to suggest that they dictate the products being produced by the likes of LEGO, etc. is just factually incorrect. It is always a dialog between the two partners, not one company telling the other what to do (the simple truth is that neither company would agree to being dictated to by the other).

LEGO presents its plans for the upcoming quarter/year and Disney has an opportunity to offer feedback... in the form of "We love this. We're iffy on that. We wish there were more of this other thing, because we've got it coming up in XYZ and we'd like to cross-merchandise it." In some cases Disney's requests are honored; in some cases they're not. You need only look to the wide disparity in products offered by Hasbro vs. Funko vs. LEGO to see that the licensee has a great deal of sway in shaping the assortment of toys they offer. 

Oh I know, wasn't saying Disney literally dictates what is and isn't made.  As I lined out earlier in my post, my reason for saying we should be blaming Disney and not the designers is licensing fees.  Sorry for not making that more clear in the final paragraph.

 

Quote

"They never said that the TIE Bomber was simply too niche, or not playable enough.  They said that the TIE Bomber was too niche and not playable enough for the price range it would require."

This is such a literal contradiction it's not even funny. Tacking on that extra bit changes nothing. There hasn't been a real "playset" (for Star Wars at least) in ages. A Bomber is quite par for the course. This isn't just about one ship, though. If something like the TIE Bomber gets leaked on because of this logic, then what's to stop them from saying the same about anything? What's next? ARC-170? new B-Wing?

Disney can only influence so much. I'm actually starting to suspect that Lego (or at least the teams behind certain themes) are their own worst enemy.

Ignoring context to further one's outrage seems pretty contradictory to me too.

The LEGO sets in the $100+ range generally either have a ton of play features, or are very recognizable.  Take a look at this year for example.  We have the AT-AT and the Razor Crest.  Two extremely recognizable vehicles, both filled to the brim with play features.  But you're focusing way too much on the "play feature" aspect of what I said, and not the "niche" aspect.  The fact is the TIE Bomber is more of a background ship that has proven to not be super popular, regardless of how many appearances it has technically made.  A kid would much rather play with an AT-AT than a TIE Bomber.  To act like the TIE Bomber is on the same level as the ARC-170 or B-wing is a bit silly.  I'll say it again, attacking the designers for issues outside of their control doesn't help anything (and is really just a jerk move tbh).

I've seen claims that the designers here are lying and not saying the real reason they aren't making a TIE Bomber (the real reason apparently being because they just don't want to?).  The real reason is pretty clear, and pretty clearly spelled out in the interview to the extent in which they're allowed.  A TIE Bomber is too big of a risk for a large price range.  And it requires a large price range.  Play-ability is definitely a factor in that decision, but we all know they could make it more playable if they had to (its mention here is more just saying that it's one more obstacle that needs to be overcome, in addition to others).  Play-ability takes second seat to the niche aspect of the vehicle.  Yes, LEGO makes niche vehicles all the time, but almost never in the price range a TIE Bomber requires (with occasional exceptions for promotion reasons, which does not apply here).  That's why the context of the price range is incredibly important in that interview, and why ignoring it is simply ignoring the reality of the situation.

Our best hope for another TIE Bomber in the near future is a UCS set.  And the most productive thing to do right now is to campaign for that.  Because frankly, AFOL opinions really don't make much difference in regards to regular sets, because those are primarily sold to children.  Where AFOL opinions can matter is with UCS sets, and we've been told that the TIE Bomber is still on the table.  A system-scale TIE Bomber very likely won't be happening unless it's heavily promoted in a new show/movie.

Also I always think it's funny when people claim "LEGO are their own worst enemy" for not making what you want them to make, when the sales numbers clearly tell a different story.  I don't see how they're acting against their own interests here.

Edited July 19, 2020 by TheNerdyOne_

[FeepoGerbin]

I just want them to scale the TIEs and alphabet-wing sets down slightly to put them in a more manageable price range :( More than 70 for a single seat fighter feels preposterous

[Pirean_Grammaticul]

Regarding the UCS poll (which I'm sure someone's pointed out in the 4 or so odd months since it went out): if the last poll is any indication, all three sets should eventually be made within the next four years (or more, given that UCS sets take longer to develop simply because of sheer amount of detail and the leap in greebling in even regular sets within the last decade).

frankly,  as much as i'd like to see a new tie bomber on shelves from lego just because it sets up the benchmark for a good tie bomber for future mocists, which is probably why we lobby for these remakes instead of finding a way to build our own, even with the new norm with starfighters set at $70 or $80 and the piece count necessary to get the tie bomber's fuselage right, i could never see myself buying a tie fighter exceeding $80 either as a broke college student or as a casual lsw collector; at this point, the only viable tie bomber would either be a ucs or juniors set

---

but anyways, i think this got lost a page or two back but wow (thanks @Anio for the review) that night buzzard looks like shit; incredible that lego's selling what is essentially a tiny hollow shell with pretty decorations and three neat figs for $70 but i guess that's where we are with modern lego sets. that the designers couldn't really be bothered to fill the gaps around the part with the hoses or add even the slightest bit of interior to justify the $.12 p:p ratio is astounding. haven't checked out star wars releases in a while so i haven't seen how bad things are getting but wow this wave is almost a textbook case of bad decisions entirely contingent on the whims of capital; selling sets entirely based on figure selection, jacking up prices on what in normal releases would be fantastic sets, rereleasing models from 6 years ago with maybe 4 pieces changed despite an improvement in between... damn

[Makin Bacon]

5 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

Dare I say it, @Mandrproductions to start a second movement for.... #wewantaTIEBomber 

 

 

 

Seriously... Needs doing 

We can't just get up in arms and act like children every time we want a certain set

[Fuppylodders]

1 hour ago, Makin Bacon said:

We can't just get up in arms and act like children every time we want a certain set

Oh just megabluck off, I was being light hearted about it. 

[Redroe]

Am I allowed to talk about the Cantina rumour here or is there another place for such murky waters? 

[lego_guyon02]

8 minutes ago, Redroe said:

Am I allowed to talk about the Cantina rumour here or is there another place for such murky waters? 

Yes you can, it's been discussed extensively before the Bomber discussion was blown of it's hinges

[Redroe]

2 minutes ago, Guyon2002 said:

Yes you can, it's been discussed extensively before the Bomber discussion was blown of it's hinges

Lol I won't blether on it again then, I'll go back a few pages and find some juicy stuff to reply to. I went looking but got lost in among Bomber-related crossfire. (Guys, BTW. Those chibi Rebels style TIE advanceds [grammar mare] are about 30 quid on ebay and you can throw together a great Bomber MOC without breaking a sweat).

 

..... and actually that chibi x1 version kinda pioneered a lot of the features we now see on other TIEs like the striker or interceptor (red one... I forget the name). The outlier is ironically the standard hex-panel TIE fighter with the Snotty wings. Aesthetically it doesn't fit with the others.

On 7/16/2020 at 5:58 AM, wesker said:

There were two different wolfmen in the cantina scene. Lak Sivrak (left) was cut from the Special Editions but Arleil Schous (right) is still present in them. His mask also looks a lot closer to the existing werewolf headpiece than Lak's mask does.

The CMF werewolf hair and head combo could scarcely be better for Sivrak. He's sat in one corner of my (tiny) cantina MOC now, which is going to have to get bigger to accomodate the figures I will be bricklinking from this rumoured beast. I can't see how it is gonna look like 300 quid worth (rough estimate for converting from euro), but I look forward to finding out.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Redroe
Postscript

[Redroe]

On 7/15/2020 at 7:25 AM, Kit Figsto said:

Talz has been made before in the Freeco Speeder set, they’d have to slightly change the mold (it has a plume on the head) but it would be very minimal since it’s just removing a part extending off of the head and filling in the gap

I snagged a Thi Sen off bricklink last week, with a view to taking a stanley knife to that headress and rechristening him Muftak. Honestly... it didn't work, because there is a big shell thing on there too, and the mold doesn't actually hold up to today's standard. The face is too small and the detail too blobby. They had better do a ground up new mold. 

[ARC2149Nova]

5 hours ago, TheNerdyOne_ said:

Ignoring context to further one's outrage seems pretty contradictory to me too.

The LEGO sets in the $100+ range generally either have a ton of play features, or are very recognizable.  Take a look at this year for example.  We have the AT-AT and the Razor Crest.  Two extremely recognizable vehicles, both filled to the brim with play features.  But you're focusing way too much on the "play feature" aspect of what I said, and not the "niche" aspect.

Also I always think it's funny when people claim "LEGO are their own worst enemy" for not making what you want them to make, when the sales numbers clearly tell a different story.  I don't see how they're acting against their own interests here.

I know when I'm being insulted, but that's okay. Defending LEGO no matter the cost.

Consumerism at its finest. Look, if you want to buy into the Bantha Crap fine, but at the end of the day, there is no reason to defend a corporation, especially LEGO.

Also, to say Razor Crest is more well known than the TIE Bomber, I could scream that's so far off from the truth. But I'm done with this. 

And we don't know sales numbers. Never have and never will, and to  be frank, don't need to. I always find it funny that no matter what, some will always shill for a company.

3 hours ago, Makin Bacon said:

We can't just get up in arms and act like children every time we want a certain set

Dude come on. Is this what we're coming to? Petty insults?

56 minutes ago, Redroe said:

 (Guys, BTW. Those chibi Rebels style TIE advanceds are about 30 quid on ebay and you can throw together a great Bomber MOC without breaking a sweat).

But for those of us who can't/don't MOC, we shouldn't have to always do LEGO's job for them.

Still, Jerac and others know what's what, so supporting them is a reasonable alternative.

[GlacierPhoenix]

6 hours ago, TheNerdyOne_ said:

 

I've seen claims that the designers here are lying and not saying the real reason they aren't making a TIE Bomber (the real reason apparently being because they just don't want to?).  The real reason is pretty clear, and pretty clearly spelled out in the interview to the extent in which they're allowed.  A TIE Bomber is too big of a risk for a large price range.  And it requires a large price range.  Play-ability is definitely a factor in that decision, but we all know they could make it more playable if they had to (its mention here is more just saying that it's one more obstacle that needs to be overcome, in addition to others).  Play-ability takes second seat to the niche aspect of the vehicle.  Yes, LEGO makes niche vehicles all the time, but almost never in the price range a TIE Bomber requires (with occasional exceptions for promotion reasons, which does not apply here).  That's why the context of the price range is incredibly important in that interview, and why ignoring it is simply ignoring the reality of the situation.

 

One thing to note is previously we would typically see a large scale set as a TRU exclusive, maybe another one as a Walmart or Target exclusive . This is because the retailers would put in a larger order for a specific set only sold through them. This enabled riskier sets as the retailer would commit to a certain order. While this normally applied to smaller sets say $30-70 price range it has happened with larger sets too like the Jedi Starfighter with Hyperdrive Ring or the Rebel Combat Frigate. Sets that may have been too risky to do without the retail exclusivity. 

 

Now ever sine TRU went belly up we haven't seen those large retailer exclusive sets in a while other than Vader's Castle, which likely would have gone to TRU and not Amazon had TRU not gone belly up. Yes we have the Razrocrest going to Amazon but who knows what we'll see in the future and that seems like a quick turnaround due to the shows popularity so likely unscheduled.  

[Kit Figsto]

1 hour ago, Redroe said:

I snagged a Thi Sen off bricklink last week, with a view to taking a stanley knife to that headress and rechristening him Muftak. Honestly... it didn't work, because there is a big shell thing on there too, and the mold doesn't actually hold up to today's standard. The face is too small and the detail too blobby. They had better do a ground up new mold. 

Hm, that's unfortunate.  I never actually bought the set so I was just sort of assuming, as I don't believe I've even seen the figure in person either.  So either we get lucky and they make a new mold (which is by no means a given), they do use the old mold but it's less accurate, or we don't get Muftak at all.  

[Pedilego]

1 hour ago, ARC2149Nova said:

I know when I'm being insulted, but that's okay. Defending LEGO no matter the cost.

Consumerism at its finest. Look, if you want to buy into the Bantha Crap fine, but at the end of the day, there is no reason to defend a corporation, especially LEGO.

Also, to say Razor Crest is more well known than the TIE Bomber, I could scream that's so far off from the truth. But I'm done with this. 

And we don't know sales numbers. Never have and never will, and to  be frank, don't need to. I always find it funny that no matter what, some will always shill for a company.

Dude come on. Is this what we're coming to? Petty insults?

But for those of us who can't/don't MOC, we shouldn't have to always do LEGO's job for them.

Still, Jerac and others know what's what, so supporting them is a reasonable alternative.

It's important to distinguish between calling what somebody's doing, say, silly, and actually calling them as a person silly. TNO is simply pointing out the flaws in the logic used against the TLG designers, whereas you're calling him a shill. Who's insulting who?

I say that to address the 'insulting', but also call attention to the need for nuance in language and thought:

 

Sincerely, you all arguing in favor of the Tie Bomber make valid points. However, these arguments oscillate between context and selective focus. For example,

• You cite examples like the ship from Galaxy's edge as being obscure. Yes, this is true. However, it ignores that it created as a co-branding effort for a brand-new ride around (a) receiving sales from Disney Theme Park fanatics and, on the other side, (b) build awareness for the ride to make it less obscure & more popular - increasing park interest. Will it work? Unsure. But the unknown presents an opportunity. (Note that you don't have to agree with the decision to see how the decision could've been reasonably justified.)
• Further, I underlined brand-new because timing is important for Lego sales. (IMO this is a point that can, probably did, and probably will be applied to the Fallen Order series.) Where's the timing for a Bomber? Other than the failed UCS vote, if you catch my meaning.

Again, regarding context: obscurity & timing are just two of many variables that make up a very long equation in decision making in sets. You can't simply address each one in a vacuum and think you've effectively dispelled TLG's logic.

 

On the other hand, TNO has done an excellent job providing the broader context, the sum of variables if you will, by filling in gaps between what the interviewers didn't say. After all, they can't do so themselves - it's a short-form interview, and they're limited in what they can reveal by legal and normative business reasons. It's not being a shill to provide this context. Rather, it's our responsibility to fully understand their perspectives, especially if you disagree with them. After all, you can't prove them wrong unless you've effectively dispelled their logic.

Real talk, it's like when my wife tries to parse my words instead of address their collective meaning. When she does this, it's clear she's trying to win an argument rather than truly address my concerns. She may feel like she won a battle, that argument, the war of words, but because I wasn't heard, neither of us change our behavior for the better afterwards.

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood". Without doing so, you'll just be talking past them the same way you may feel like they're doing to you.

[jdubbs]

For LEGO to produce a set like the TIE Bomber, it has to meet certain criteria, and unfortunately it just doesn't. 

It’s expensive ($100 min, more like $120 realistically), it’s not current, it’s not iconic enough (in LEGO’s view; that's all that matters here), it’s not playable enough (again, their opinion that counts here, not yours or mine). Honestly, it fails on all of these criteria, in LEGO’s view of the line. Yes, the Y-Wing offers identical playability, but it’s also half  the cost, more iconic, more current (in terms of prominent appearances), etc. Yes, the Galaxy’s Edge ship is just as obscure, but it’s also very current, and more playable, and had potential to be way more visible, had COVID not shuttered Disney parks. There are loads of sets that compare to the Bomber in one way or another, but few (if any) that have been made that compare on all points.

I don’t like that LEGO makes decisions this way, but it’s entirely consistent with how they run their Star Wars business. They’ve become really risk-averse with the System line over the last few years, and I don’t see that changing until this way of running things stops working for them. I wish they would take more chances, and venture outside the same well-worn, tried-and-true 20-odd sets they keep re-re-re-releasing. But it is what it is, and it’s probably going to get worse before it gets better, as the number of System sets continues to shrink year over year.

The good news: there are plenty of good, sturdy, highly detailed TIE Bomber MOCs out there (enough of them that LEGO really ought to recognize its value to AFOLs, at least) that are comparable to what LEGO would do. And there aren’t any super-desirable minifigs that could only reasonably be packaged with it, which we’ll never see if LEGO doesn’t release its own version of this set. So, LEGO skipping it isn’t the end of the world...

[ARC2149Nova]

@Pedilego I've got some time now, so I'll give your response a reply it deserves.

38 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

It's important to distinguish between calling what somebody's doing, say, silly, and actually calling them as a person silly. TNO is simply pointing out the flaws in the logic used against the TLG designers, whereas you're calling him a shill. Who's insulting who?

It is a shill move though, to defend a company in which you have no stake. And to present the opposing side as silly for "not making a set you want" is kind of an insult. If you want, the logic on both sides is flawed equally. Both on the part of the designers and on us, if you care to see it that way.

41 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

Sincerely, you all arguing in favor of the Tie Bomber make valid points. However, these arguments oscillate between context and selective focus. For example,

• You cite examples like the ship from Galaxy's edge as being obscure. Yes, this is true. However, it ignores that it created as a co-branding effort for a brand-new ride around (a) receiving sales from Disney Theme Park fanatics and, on the other side, (b) build awareness for the ride to make it less obscure & more popular - increasing park interest. Will it work? Unsure. But the unknown presents an opportunity. (Note that you don't have to agree with the decision to see how the decision could've been reasonably justified.)
• Further, I underlined brand-new because timing is important for Lego sales. (IMO this is a point that can, probably did, and probably will be applied to the Fallen Order series.) Where's the timing for a Bomber? Other than the failed UCS vote, if you catch my meaning.

Again, regarding context: obscurity & timing are just two of many variables that make up a very long equation in decision making in sets. You can't simply address each one in a vacuum and think you've effectively dispelled TLG's logic.

To point one: Sure, the IT-S is promotional. No one's arguing that. What we are saying is that it's very hypocritical to make a $100 set of a vehicle no ones really knows or cares about, and then say another $100 vehicle that would attract more people is too risky for business. Galaxy's Edge is the new Star Tours for all intent and purposes. It will always be a tad obscure. That doesn't make the IT-S a bad set/set choice, nor does it invalidate the IT-S as a counterpoint to the "Risky business" argument.

To point two: Timing is important. Strike while the iron is hot. But let's think this through: A Pelta-class frigate over an Imperial Interdictor? One example of how even timing doesn't help with this obscurity argument. Yes, Fallen Order is a one-and-down game (for now), but the Star Wars franchise is over 40 years old. Surely anything from those movies are old hat by now, but that doesn't stop them from being popular. The TIE Bomber would've been a nice choice for ESB's 40th Anniversary, but we got helmets instead (nothing against those). People are still wanting sets from TCW, RO, and Rebels, sets that now we may never see due to this type of reasoning.

51 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

On the other hand, TNO has done an excellent job providing the broader context, the sum of variables if you will, by filling in gaps between what the interviewers didn't say. After all, they can't do so themselves - it's a short-form interview, and they're limited in what they can reveal by legal and normative business reasons. It's not being a shill to provide this context. Rather, it's our responsibility to fully understand their perspectives, especially if you disagree with them. After all, you can't prove them wrong unless you've effectively dispelled their logic.

Broader context only further highlights the absurdity of the argument. Timing, Iconicity, Price, Playability, etc., those altogether could make for a compelling case. But if even one link is weak, the whole chain is useless. To each of these variables:

Time - ESB's 40th Anniversary. We have an AT-AT and... nothing else (System scale or UCS). Pretty poor to shove one of the best Star Wars movies (and one of the best movies period) in this manner. For it's 30th Anniversary, we got battle packs, an AT-AT, Wampa Cave, and an Echo Base within a year of it (most being the same year, while Echo Base was in 2011).

Iconicity: For a franchise this big, it's a slippery argument. If Boba Fett and Slave I are icons, it's certainly not because of screentime or effective coolness. Slave I is very blink-and-you-miss-it in Empire, but we still know and love it. TIEs of any make will always be a good choice (irregardless of price...looking at you TIE Dagger) because the TIE standard design is very iconic, and derivatives of said design are easily recognizable, even if through sheer knowledge that "it's some kind of TIE Fighter". After all, not everyone knows what a TIE Advance/Interceptor/Defender is, but they'd be able to tell that it's a TIE Fighter. This isn't rocket science. To further that point, the Razorcrest is the least memorable thing about the Mandalorian. Everyone knows Mando and The Child, maybe Cara and Kuill, and of course Moff Gideon. That said, it's still a great vehicle, and it's getting a set, like it should.

Price: The most contentious point by far, and the arguments of expense are quite valid. However, let's not let LEGO off the hook for a problem that they created. No way does any TIE Fighter need to cost $70. But now it does. The TIE from 2012 was a great model, and only cost about $50. Yes, new parts and all that jazz, but a whole $20 price hike in around what? Six years? Get outta here! So, yes, pricing is a strong point, but it's not entirely reasonable.

Playability: We're gonna argue this til the Sun goes out. What even counts as a play feature, anyway? It's a very arbitrary concept, and if it can't be specifically codified, then it's an invalid argument to make, either for or against the Bomber.

1 hour ago, Pedilego said:

Real talk, it's like when my wife tries to parse my words instead of address their collective meaning. When she does this, it's clear she's trying to win an argument rather than truly address my concerns. She may feel like she won a battle, that argument, the war of words, but because I wasn't heard, neither of us change our behavior for the better afterwards.

Isn't everyone like this? But even so, this isn't about "Winning an argument", there are no winners here. I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't a close interpersonal disagreement. LEGO said X, we're debating over whether or not X makes sense. Long-story short, it doesn't. And even if some can justify LEGO's reasoning, it doesn't make it any less flawed. But at the end of it all, no one's right or wrong here. And more importantly, we can't prove one way or the other that LEGO is lying. It's not possible.

1 hour ago, Pedilego said:

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood". Without doing so, you'll just be talking past them the same way you may feel like they're doing to you.

Good words to live by, no doubt.

31 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

(in LEGO’s view; that's all that matters here)

I don’t like that LEGO makes decisions this way, but it’s entirely consistent with how they run their Star Wars business. They’ve become really risk-averse with the System line over the last few years, and I don’t see that changing until this way of running things stops working for them. I wish they would take more chances, and venture outside the same well-worn, tried-and-true 20-odd sets they keep re-re-re-releasing. But it is what it is, and it’s probably going to get worse before it gets better, as the number of System sets continues to shrink year over year.

Then maybe we campaign the old fashioned way: with our wallet. If we keep supporting LEGO come hell or high water, then they'll continue the way they're going now. Whatever happened to "No Risk No Reward"? All business is risky, but when it gets too comfy at the top, and the risks stop, things get stale and begin to suck. It's happened with gaming, it's happened with movies and television, and now in our collectible hobbies. The only company taking real risks right now is Funko, because there's literally a Pop for everything. And they are thriving because of it. Not saying LEGO needs to be Funko, but there's certainly a lesson to take here.

37 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

The good news: there are plenty of good, sturdy, highly detailed TIE Bomber MOCs out there (enough of them that LEGO really ought to recognize its value to AFOLs, at least) that are comparable to what LEGO would do. And there aren’t any super-desirable minifigs that could only reasonably be packaged with it, which we’ll never see if LEGO doesn’t release its own version of this set. So, LEGO skipping it isn’t the end of the world...

Like I said earlier though, not everyone into LEGO is also seriously involved in MOCing. It shouldn't be up to us to do LEGO's job for them. That said, I agree that it's time we pay MOCers more attention.

And yes, Ozzel, Needa, and whoever else are fairly easy to make, still would be nice to have "official" versions.

[jdubbs]

2 minutes ago, ARC2149Nova said:

The only company taking real risks right now is Funko, because there's literally a Pop for everything. And they are thriving because of it. Not saying LEGO needs to be Funko, but there's certainly a lesson to take here.

"Thriving" is overstating it a bit. Their financial results have been mixed, at best, over the last year. I don't disagree that LEGO should take more risks and broaden its horizons, but I'm not sure that I would hold Funko up as the company to emulate. Especially when it comes to the measures they seem to take to create demand for their products. 

12 minutes ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Whatever happened to "No Risk No Reward"? All business is risky, but when it gets too comfy at the top, and the risks stop, things get stale and begin to suck.

I think LEGO views the System line as their bread-n-butter, and so they're not willing to take chances there. On the other hand, they do take risks in off-shoots like constraction figs, Brickheadz, statues, helmets, mosaics, etc. Several of which have failed (or will eventually). Personally I wish they would do the reverse, and redirect resources away from these sublines to instead do System sets from the less-travelled corners of the trilogies, but I ain't running the show.

7 minutes ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Like I said earlier though, not everyone into LEGO is also seriously involved in MOCing. It shouldn't be up to us to do LEGO's job for them. That said, I agree that it's time we pay MOCers more attention.

Building someone else's MOC doesn't require any special skill or talent. It's not cheap, and there are some MOCs out there that fall apart if you so much as look at them funny. But if you want sets other than the sort that LEGO has released over the last 5-6 years, it's something you're probably going to need to start exploring.

[Terrasher]

Someone on Instagram is saying the MBS Mos Eisley has 3200+ pieces, retails for 350$, VIP release mid September with general release on October.

Gonna go check when the UCS Star Destroyer was revealed to get an idea of when we could expect official pics for Mos Eisley.

[2maxwell]

59 minutes ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Like I said earlier though, not everyone into LEGO is also seriously involved in MOCing. It shouldn't be up to us to do LEGO's job for them.

What exactly do you feel is Lego's job? They're not providing you a service, where you can say the service has been poor. They provide a product. They can't provide every possible product for everyone that demands it, but they do have the next best thing: a product that is intended to serve as the building blocks for whatever you want to make. They've already done their job in that respect.

[ARC2149Nova]

12 minutes ago, 2maxwell said:

What exactly do you feel is Lego's job? They're not providing you a service, where you can say the service has been poor. They provide a product. They can't provide every possible product for everyone that demands it, but they do have the next best thing: a product that is intended to serve as the building blocks for whatever you want to make. They've already done their job in that respect.

I mean in the sense of "they didn't make X so make your own". Yes, we can do that, and there's nothing lacking in that aspect, but it's always nice getting an official set. Some of us are MOCers, others like to stick to the sets as much as we can. You can't argue that everyone into LEGO is into it for MOCing, some of us collect sets as they are, and on rare occasions whip up something new.

[Mandalorianknight]

2 hours ago, jdubbs said:

The good news: there are plenty of good, sturdy, highly detailed TIE Bomber MOCs out there (enough of them that LEGO really ought to recognize its value to AFOLs, at least) that are comparable to what LEGO would do. And there aren’t any super-desirable minifigs that could only reasonably be packaged with it, which we’ll never see if LEGO doesn’t release its own version of this set. So, LEGO skipping it isn’t the end of the world...

are you joking, between random tie pilot extra and captain needa, this could sell better than anything from figures alone 

Good point about the MOCs, I'm going to try and make on in the style of the 2018 fighter.

1 hour ago, ARC2149Nova said:

It is a shill move though, to defend a company in which you have no stake. And to present the opposing side as silly for "not making a set you want" is kind of an insult. If you want, the logic on both sides is flawed equally. Both on the part of the designers and on us, if you care to see it that way.

Like I said earlier though, not everyone into LEGO is also seriously involved in MOCing. It shouldn't be up to us to do LEGO's job for them. That said, I agree that it's time we pay MOCers more attention.

I want to quickly talk about the shill thing, just because it irrationally irks me when people do this. Just going off a quick google, it looks like shilling is defending a company or pretending to be an enthusiastic consumer when you do have a stake in it, or at least in the context of swindling or gambling. You have a lot of good points, but I just wanted to point out no one here's really shilling. I mean, I don't think @Pedilego has anything to gain from expressing his opinion on the bomber.

Nothing wrong with defending a decision of a company, just like there's nothing wrong with attacking it. (I say this as someone who disagrees with lego's decision and finds it stupid they won't make a bomber)

But that's the good thing about lego. It's not like black series (there are black series vehicles, right? I never got into those but I assume they have TIEs and stuff.) where if you don't get the figure you want you don't really have any options. Lego's job is to make money, they've decided a TIE bomber won't (regardless of whether or not it will), and luckily we can MOC some.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Mandalorianknight

[ARC2149Nova]

14 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I want to quickly talk about the shill thing, just because it irrationally irks me when people do this. Just going off a quick google, it looks like shilling is defending a company or pretending to be an enthusiastic consumer when you do have a stake in it, or at least in the context of swindling or gambling. You have a lot of good points, but I just wanted to point out no one here's really shilling. I mean, I don't think @Pedilego has anything to gain from expressing his opinion on the bomber.

Nothing wrong with defending a decision of a company, just like there's nothing wrong with attacking it. (I say this as someone who disagrees with lego's decision and finds it stupid they won't make a bomber)

You're right. I wasn't calling @Pedilego a shill though, rather it was a remark I made in my previous post. At the end of the day, some will see LEGO's rationale, and others won't.

16 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

But that's the good thing about lego. It's not like black series (there are black series vehicles, right? I never got into those but I assume they have TIEs and stuff.) where if you don't get the figure you want you don't really have any options. Lego's job is to make money, they've decided a TIE bomber won't (regardless of whether or not it will), and luckily we can MOC some.

Black Series vehicles to date have been one FO TIE Fighter, Luke's Landspeeder, Rey's Speeder, Dewback (yes, technically a vehicle), Enfys Nest's Speeder, and a Snowspeeder that released this year. For the most part I agree with the sentiment, but most of us who collect the figures (4 inch or 6 inch) focus primarily on the figures themselves, and less on the vehicles.

But overall I agree that MOCs are a good alternative.