Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Aanchir]

23 hours ago, The Brick Boss said:

Would it be unpopular to say that I an setting insanely low standards and/or expectations for the 2024 wave of City sets? 2022 was a bang and a half. But winter 2023 disappointed me. Summer 2023 is okay. 

I don't know about whether that opinion is popular or unpopular, but I do think it's pretty reasonable.

In general, the first wave of City sets each year tends to have a lot of Fire and Police stuff, so regardless of whether you think the quality of those sets is good or bad, it DOES tend to feel repetitive compared to the more varied subthemes and subject matter that tend to launch in the second half of the year. There also tend to be more 4+ sets in the first half of the year than the second. As such, that initial wave tends to depend heavily on the Great Vehicles range for any sense of novelty.

2021 and 2022 were both a departure from the norm in terms of how many "My City/Life & Work" sets (and in 2022's case, even "exploration" sets) got pushed to the first half of the year. This served to promote the new road system and to make more room for the massive Stuntz waves that dominated the second half of both those years. Prior to that, it was more typical to see those sorts of sets in the second half of the year — 2023 is a bit of a "return to form" in that regard.

I'm not sure whether 2024 will follow 2023's release pattern as well, but it's not a bad idea to be prepared for that possibility.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, danth said:

I think "how much do I like/want something" is a good question, but "what is a fair price for a new Lego set" is a different question. I think you probably agree.

What you might be missing is that anyone talking about price per piece is talking about the second question.

Price per piece doesn't answer the first question at all. But it does help to answer the second question. It's generally the only hard piece of data we have to answer the second question.

I can't say I have ever bought a set because it was a fair price and definitely not buying blind based on a single number such as PPP. The former question is much more important to me, do I want it (at the asking price). The second half of that is determining the value based on how I value parts.

There is other hard data in addition to price per part to determine a fair price, such as the weight of the set, how many minifigures are in the set,  how many parts that aren't 1x1 plates or tiles in the set, how many new parts or how many 1x2 or 2x4 or larger bricks, these all take slightly more work but are still hard data. Which one is appropriate becomes subjective. There is also more anecdotal evidence such as whether or how long the set or a similar set was discounted and by how much, and how people respond to surveys about whether they would buy the set at the advertised price. If a similar set was heavily discounted then chances are the new one is not fairly priced either. If lots of people say they are going to purchase a set at the asking price, chances are it is a fair price.

Then there is also data like how similar are the contents of a new set and price compared to other sets and were they at a fair price. For me, this is much more important than the average price of a part in the set. If a set is minifig heavy, a high PPP is not necessarily an instant no. If a set is minifig light, a low PPP is not necessarily good value.

There is also another way to determine a fair price - cost it on bricklink - with educated guesses used for new parts based on similar existing parts and minifigs, then divide that by two as many sets parts out at about twice retail price.

All of this is really knowing and understanding what value actually means rather than trying to come up with a simple calculation to say what is a fair price / good value / bad value without any knowledge of the contents.

 

1 hour ago, danth said:

Price per piece is an objective measure of a number value.

It is a measure of the average price of a part in a set, irrespective of what the parts are. Nothing more and nothing less. It only really has a comparative meaning if all parts are equally valuable or if the size/shape distribution of parts in a set is always similar no matter how large or small the set is.

If someone can buy a bag of fruit for £1 (where one bag has five apples and the other bag has 20 grapes) do people go for the objectively lower price per fruit of 5p as the other at 20p per fruit is four times worse value. Or do they look in the bags and use their knowledge about the values of apples and grapes. Just because something can objectively be measured doesn't mean the value measured is of any practical use. And as soon as you look in the bag or look at the set, the PPP also takes on a subjective nature - just like when people say don't apply it to dots. And don't apply it to art sets. And don't apply it to even large sets like Rivendell without compensating for all the tiles used in the roof or Technic sets with large numbers of pins. As soon as exclusions start appearing, the measure is subjective again.

[benderisgreat]

Lego has gone insane with the recent price increases while also not adding more value to the sets. Recent The Marvels set shows they are either insane or just don't care at all about reasonable price for the value of the product.

It's really a big "F you" from Lego to not give every minifig a leg printing in 2023. It costs them almost nothing to print legs , but they are penny pinching when it comes to this, especially in Marvel theme. If someone asked me say 10 years ago if something like leg print on all minifigs will become the norm, I would have said yes, but Lego managed to screw us still.

Lego does way too much  overpriced 18+ "adult" sets(like Black Panther bust) that have limited appeal. 

All licensed Cmf should have 16 characters at least, original Cmf are fine with current 12 figs. 12 is just not enough for licensed themes

Also the decision to make Cmf in boxes now is utterly ridiculous and money hungry move by Lego. All this corporate talk about 'eco friendly" packaging for Cmf is just poor man's excuse to remove last opportunity for us to find minifigs we actually want and make us spend more on cmf! They should really reconsider this stupid decision cause the reaction from everyone is very negative on boxed Cmf...

[Lyichir]

36 minutes ago, benderisgreat said:

It's really a big "F you" from Lego to not give every minifig a leg printing in 2023. It costs them almost nothing to print legs , but they are penny pinching when it comes to this, especially in Marvel theme. If someone asked me say 10 years ago if something like leg print on all minifigs will become the norm, I would have said yes, but Lego managed to screw us still.

I just wanted to push back on this claim because it just isn't true. The fact that Lego has the capability to print some minifigure legs does not mean they have the equipment capacity to extend that across all minifigures, let alone the means (production capacity and inventory space) to produce bespoke prints for every figure.

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, benderisgreat said:

It's really a big "F you" from Lego to not give every minifig a leg printing in 2023.

Is it? And what about people who don't want printed legs?

There's a middle ground to be had, where some of the legs are printed but plenty aren't. Imo they strike that middle ground quite well (honestly, if anything they've gone too far towards printing - why on earth are stormtroopers and clone troopers having printed legs?)

[icm]

I actually really appreciate a plain simple pair of unprinted legs on a plain simple figure sometimes. Leg printing is appropriate for a lot of licensed figures with particular character designs, and there is does suck sometimes when legs aren't printed. But unlicensed figures, especially in City, don't always need it. An ordinary citizen's blue jeans or tan chinos don't need leg printing, for example.

[danth]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

I can't say I have ever bought a set because it was a fair price and definitely not buying blind based on a single number such as PPP.

Nobody does, and it's ridiculous to suggest.

But people very often don't buy a set they would otherwise buy because the price per part is too high. For example, the 60354 is a set I quite like, but at $40 for less than 298 parts and no instructions, it's not a great value. I ended up buying it when it was on sale for half off though.

I've also bought other sets I only wanted a little bit because they had great PPP ratios, like 75312, which was only $40 at Target.

4 hours ago, MAB said:

There is other hard data in addition to price per part to determine a fair price, such as the weight of the set, how many minifigures are in the set,  how many parts that aren't 1x1 plates or tiles in the set, how many new parts or how many 1x2 or 2x4 or larger bricks, these all take slightly more work but are still hard data.

Price per weight is almost assuredly a better metric for what you get than price per part, but they don't exactly put that on the box, or make that info available. I've never seen someone with a scale in a store weighing Lego sets, and you can't weigh sets online. So I would argue it's not data we have, just data we could have. EDIT: Brickset has weights for some sets, but not others.

Everyone who uses PPP knows to factor in minifigs and part size.

4 hours ago, MAB said:

It is a measure of the average price of a part in a set, irrespective of what the parts are. Nothing more and nothing less. It only really has a comparative meaning if all parts are equally valuable or if the size/shape distribution of parts in a set is always similar no matter how large or small the set is.

Parts size per set generally averages out. There are outliers. But for most sets it's fine.

4 hours ago, MAB said:

If someone can buy a bag of fruit for £1 (where one bag has five apples and the other bag has 20 grapes) do people go for the objectively lower price per fruit of 5p as the other at 20p per fruit is four times worse value. Or do they look in the bags and use their knowledge about the values of apples and grapes.

Lego sets aren't bags of one kind of fruit so not a great example.

Edited July 21, 2023 by danth

[Lion King]

3 hours ago, icm said:

I actually really appreciate a plain simple pair of unprinted legs on a plain simple figure sometimes. Leg printing is appropriate for a lot of licensed figures with particular character designs, and there is does suck sometimes when legs aren't printed. But unlicensed figures, especially in City, don't always need it. An ordinary citizen's blue jeans or tan chinos don't need leg printing, for example.

Agreed! As an artist myself, there is a rule I tas taught about…

it’s K.I.S.S. 

Keep
It
Simple, 
Stupid (I don’t intend to insult you here!)

Edited July 21, 2023 by Lion King

[MAB]

I find printed legs are good for figures that you want to display standing upright. But if you want to pose them in action, they look bad if the print no longer matches up. I also don't like the break in print where it is meant to continue from torso to legs as LEGO cannot print to the edges. Some clone manufacturers do a better job here as they print the combined torso and legs. Obviously not an issue if it is just knee pads or boots.

[MAB]

6 hours ago, danth said:

Lego sets aren't bags of one kind of fruit so not a great example.

Compare a CMF to a small DOTS set. One has a low number of parts that are all perceived to be of high value, the other has large numbers of parts that are perceived to be low value. DOTS have a low PPP and CMF have a high PPP. Just like comparing a bag of apples with a bag of grapes. You need to look at what is inside to determine the value, not the PPP.

 

6 hours ago, danth said:

Everyone who uses PPP knows to factor in minifigs and part size.

 

But how is this being done objectively? You have said I am confusing a feeling of how much I like something with an objective count that is independent of the individual. Now you are implying that there is some invariant way of including minifigures and part size into an objective measure, based only on information on the box? The minifig selection is often on the box, but what about part size?  Is a minifigure worth 50 parts, 100 parts? A fixed price? Are licensed worth more than unlicensed? Are new licensed worth more than repeated characters? None of this feeds into the simple, objective measure of PPP. How is part size fed into PPP? LEGO don't list the number of big/small parts on the box, so this is not readily available. As soon as you are taking this into account, you are not using PPP, you are taking into account other factors that are important to the indivudual. The value is subjective, depending on what you want from a set. The correlation with the average price per part in a set is weak if you look at different types of sets. If you are factoring in minifigs and part size, you are using subjective measures, the same as I am doing when perceiving the value to me. It is no longer objective and varies from person to person.

[benderisgreat]

12 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

Is it? And what about people who don't want printed legs?

There's a middle ground to be had, where some of the legs are printed but plenty aren't. Imo they strike that middle ground quite well (honestly, if anything they've gone too far towards printing - why on earth are stormtroopers and clone troopers having printed legs?)

Ok, I misspoke let me rephrase it. It's ok for say City minifigs to have no leg prints as they are meant to be just random citizens. But every licensed set should have leg printing as those usually have iconic character who have highly detailed costumes like Marvel, SW or Jurrasic themes. Look no further onthis than Captain America who looks very bland without leg print.

Edited July 21, 2023 by benderisgreat

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, benderisgreat said:

Ok, I misspoke let me rephrase it. It's ok for say City minifigs to have no leg prints as they are meant to be just random citizens. But every licensed set should have leg printing as those usually have iconic character who have highly detailed costumes like Marvel, SW or Jurrasic themes. Look no further onthis than Captain America who looks very bland without leg print.

I can't say I agree with this. Look at the Stormtrooper minifigures. The original ones up to about 2010 look great, they're instantly recognisable as Stormtroopers and also feel like Lego - plus the legs can be used for other things.

By contrast the modern ones are way too busy, don't look any more like Stormtroopers than the old ones but also look less Lego-ey, and aren't as reusable. Imo printed legs should be reserved for minifigures where the leg printing is fundamental to actually representing the character. The only one that comes to mind off-hand is Han Solo with his holster, but I'm sure there are others where the leg decorations are actually essential and not just extra detail.

 (I also personally disagree that Captain America looks bland without printed legs, the figures look just fine to me)

[icm]

2 hours ago, benderisgreat said:

Ok, I misspoke let me rephrase it. It's ok for say City minifigs to have no leg prints as they are meant to be just random citizens. But every licensed set should have leg printing as those usually have iconic character who have highly detailed costumes like Marvel, SW or Jurrasic themes. Look no further onthis than Captain America who looks very bland without leg print.

How about: every licensed character with a highly detailed costume should have leg printing? That's a narrow claim I can get behind. Dr Alan Grant still doesn't need leg printing for his tan chinos.

[benderisgreat]

13 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I can't say I agree with this. Look at the Stormtrooper minifigures. The original ones up to about 2010 look great, they're instantly recognisable as Stormtroopers and also feel like Lego - plus the legs can be used for other things.

By contrast the modern ones are way too busy, don't look any more like Stormtroopers than the old ones but also look less Lego-ey, and aren't as reusable. Imo printed legs should be reserved for minifigures where the leg printing is fundamental to actually representing the character. The only one that comes to mind off-hand is Han Solo with his holster, but I'm sure there are others where the leg decorations are actually essential and not just extra detail.

 (I also personally disagree that Captain America looks bland without printed legs, the figures look just fine to me)

That's why it's unpopular opinion I guess🤷‍♂️

As far as Stormtroopers go, I disagree. 2014-2017 was peak Stormtrooper design imho. Leg prints make them look great. New "family guy" helmet is the problem with current 2019-2023 design though, not leg prints.

Captain America is just a simple example here. Just compare say Marvel Cmf Captain Carter(I'll use her as stand-in as they are similar characters) figure to Hydra stomper Captain Carter figure. Or zombie Captain America Vs Endgame Cap from 2021 set. Lack of leg prints makes latter way worse than former.

6 minutes ago, icm said:

How about: every licensed character with a highly detailed costume should have leg printing? That's a narrow claim I can get behind. Dr Alan Grant still doesn't need leg printing for his tan chinos.

Ok how do we decide what qualifies detailed costume though? Using Mcu as example here all character have detailed suits. Yet only Iron Man and Spiderman seem to consistently get leg prints. Even though Caps or Thors suits are very detailed too.

[danth]

8 hours ago, MAB said:

Compare a CMF to a small DOTS set. One has a low number of parts that are all perceived to be of high value, the other has large numbers of parts that are perceived to be low value. DOTS have a low PPP and CMF have a high PPP. Just like comparing a bag of apples with a bag of grapes. You need to look at what is inside to determine the value, not the PPP.

No, you look at PPP, and accept a higher or lower PPP depending on what's inside. If it's all DOTS tiles you expect a lower PPP.

The actual PPP is still an objective metric. What PPP you are willing to accept may not be.

Honestly, would you be happy if Lego could just raise prices arbitrarily without Lego fans knowing they're being gouged? How do we do that without PPP?

I do agree that PPP is not helpful when it comes to CMFs or minifigures. For minifigures, when trying to decide if a set price is fair, I generally slap a value of $3-$5 on them, depending on how "deluxe" they are based on accessories and prints.

Like if a set has 1200 pieces, but only 4 minifigs, I'm subtracting like $15 or so from the price I expect. Mainly because I expect sets to have a fair number of minifigs to justify a $.10 PPP. I think I'm remembering $100 castles with 8+ minifigs and expecting that for other sets. Which might not be fair. I dunno, my minifig math here is much more subjective than PPP. 😁

Edited July 21, 2023 by danth

[LegendaryArticuno]

@danth has repeatedly hit the nail on the head, while @MAB, has take an anti-consumer approach and debating in bad faith. I didn't think there was a need to define OUTLIER, but here am I reading bad faith arguments on DOT sets.

Ultimately, PPP and subjective personal tastes have equal weight in value assessment, however, if PPP was adopted again as an important part of the purchasing decision, I can guarantee Lego would be more hesitant to release extreme profit taking sets with CAD$0.3 PPP, i.e. the Hoopty.

Reverence to PPP only helps every Lego consumer.

[danth]

2 minutes ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Ultimately, PPP and subjective personal tastes have equal weight in value assessment, however, if PPP was adopted again as an important part of the purchasing decision, I can guarantee Lego would be more hesitant to release extreme profit taking sets with CAD$0.3 PPP, i.e. the Hoopty.

Oh my god, the Hoopty. That's the exact reason we need PPP. That thing is outrageously priced, and without PPP, there is no way to prove it, or even talk about it really.

3 minutes ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Reverence to PPP only helps every Lego consumer. 

Yep.

[Alexandrina]

48 minutes ago, danth said:

Oh my god, the Hoopty. That's the exact reason we need PPP. That thing is outrageously priced, and without PPP, there is no way to prove it, or even talk about it really.

I'd never heard of that set but wow, it's a huge exception to what imo is normally relatively fair pricing. (Is there, like, some weird technical gimmick in the set that might justify extra pricing?) That said, I'm a bit confused by why you're talking about PPP as though it's something that Lego can take away. It's a measurement, and my understanding is that the amount of pieces has to be shown on the box in the USA under some American law? (Correct me if I'm wrong on this; I seem to remember a lot of pictures of boxes shipped from Europe with white stickers on them when the Mexican factory was shut down during Covid, as the rules in America are different from the rest of the world) Even if the Lego community as a whole decided not to care one jot about PPP, both the price and the amount of parts would still be available information?

However:

57 minutes ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

@danth has repeatedly hit the nail on the head, while @MAB, has take an anti-consumer approach and debating in bad faith

I don't think it's fair to just decide that somebody is arguing in bad faith when their argument is different from your opinion. Just because an opinion is different to yours (and I've seen some opinions on this board that are wild to me) doesn't mean that it isn't sincerely held by the person commenting.

[danth]

5 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

That said, I'm a bit confused by why you're talking about PPP as though it's something that Lego can take away.

Lego doesn't want to take it away, MAB does. :D Just kidding, but MAB and I are arguing about its usefulness.

8 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I don't think it's fair to just decide that somebody is arguing in bad faith when their argument is different from your opinion.

That statement in and of itself is in bad faith isn't it? Nobody said someone was arguing in bad faith just because they had a different opinion.

[The Island Chronicles]

@Aanchir Sorry I took too long to respond. I've been busy recently. But yes, I have to agree with you 100%. For 2022 especially, that year went above and beyond the call of duty for City sets. It was definately a proper send off to the City Adventures series and I can tell that Lego wanted to sendoff with a bang. I got the police station, fire station, hospital, school, beach, train station, bank and grocery store from that year. Wish I got the abandoned fish factory with the downtown fire brigade set. However, we have so many options for town builders now that for 2023's winter wave, playability became a thing again. Though I was hoping the custom car garage would be something like the hot rod club set from the 90s. But its still good i guess. 

[Peppermint_M]

Unfortunately, PPP as a metric does not take into account desire to have a set or a specific character minifigure. That is the crux of the matter. With something like LEGO purchased by AFOLs, Desire for Thing is an important subjective facet of perceived "value" that always supersedes PPP. Sure, PPP will be a consideration, but if you really really want something, it doesn't matter!

I encounter a lot of discounts in the supermarket, all sorts of themes are on the shelves. However, the cost has to be sub £15 for me to pick up Harry Potter, Star Wars and Architecture. Maybe even less than £10. The themes aren't bad, I just don't like them as much, so if the reduction is significant and the parts in the set are useful to my builds, I will buy.

A collector of Star Wars LEGO would snatch up certain sets at even retail price and if it was cheaper they would get it faster still. The value is there for them. 

All very subjective.

[Alexandrina]

28 minutes ago, danth said:

That statement in and of itself is in bad faith isn't it? Nobody said someone was arguing in bad faith just because they had a different opinion.

No, it's not a bad faith statement. The only apparent reason @LegendaryArticuno accused @MAB of arguing in bad faith was because their views on the topic differ. As you said yourself, you and MAB were having a genuine discussion about the usefulness of PPP as a metric. (For my two cents, I absolutely use it as the first thing I look at before making a judgement call on all purchases, except for certain discontinued sets - not the only thing I consider, but a big part of it.)

[Aanchir]

I definitely think price per piece is a useful metric. That said, it's one of several useful metrics out there.

Price per gram is another useful one (albeit a trickier one to use for comparing brand-new or not-yet-released sets since a lot of sites won't have weight data for them yet). Linear dimensions can also be a great point of comparison for some sets, especially ones with a roughly rectangular footprint like modular buildings, Creator houses, or Technic supercars. What point of comparison is MOST useful is inevitably gonna vary depending on what type of sets are being compared.

And sometimes if you want to get into the nitty-gritty details you might even want to consider multiple points of comparison simultaneously. By comparing price per piece AND price per gram, you can get a better feel for whether a set with a particularly impressive price per piece is genuinely more substantial than similarly-priced sets, or just uses smaller pieces on average. With some sets this is obvious — obviously a 4+ set will use bigger pieces on average than an 18+ set — but it can be more ambiguous in other cases, such as when comparing two UCS Star Wars sets that make extensive use of both small detail pieces AND larger plates, tiles, and panels.

Specific desirable contents like minifigures or animals can naturally introduce entirely different complications to the decision-making process, but I don't think they negate the value of these more objective metrics on a more general level. After all, I doubt even most buyers who DO use price per piece for comparisons let it dictate all their purchasing decisions. I know I've certainly bought sets with a relatively high price per piece if the contents seemed worth my while in other, more subjective ways.

[danth]

@Aanchir, I agree with all of what you said.

Here's an example:

That's a set with a little less than 200 pieces for $40. But...it has the fairly large floating boat piece. And 4 special animals, that I think might all be new, and two are dual molded. And it looks really cool, IMO. So is all that worth the extra $20 you're paying past the $.10 PPP value of $20? For me it probably is, especially if all those tiles are printed.

If I didn't at least start with PPP, I would have no idea how to determine if the $40 price is fair.

[LegendaryArticuno]

4 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

No, it's not a bad faith statement. The only apparent reason @LegendaryArticuno accused @MAB of arguing in bad faith was because their views on the topic differ. As you said yourself, you and MAB were having a genuine discussion about the usefulness of PPP as a metric. (For my two cents, I absolutely use it as the first thing I look at before making a judgement call on all purchases, except for certain discontinued sets - not the only thing I consider, but a big part of it.)

Nope, I consider it bad faith because it is, and it's the go-to excuse for detractors of PPP to use. It's bad faith because I've already specifically highlighted that outliers such as DOTs exists and that no reasonable person would apply PPP as a measurement in these fringe cases.

The key word is reasonable.