Is LEGO getting to inaffordable for kids?

[Lyichir]

7 hours ago, Lego David said:

Well.. if they can't even afford it to begin with, I assume they will get tired eventually. Especially when they have video games that they can play for free.

"Free" isn't necessarily always or even often the case with video games. Any games on a dedicated console require an upfront investment on the hardware (often a substantial one). Most games on PC and mobile cost money as well. Even "free to play" games often rely on incentivized "microtransactions" to get the full enjoyment out of them (many of which can, over time, rack up an enormous cost). Notably, Lego's own apps are often an exception, especially those which tie in with physical toys like Hidden Side (since their purpose is to advertise Lego's own sets and extend engagement with them rather than rely on their own independent revenue stream for profit).

Lego still remains a pretty solid investment for kids and families for a number of reasons. It's high quality and for the most part compatible with all past and future bricks. It provides an open-ended play experience that kids can adapt to their current building level and interests, rather than only providing one type of play that kids might tire of or grow out of. By comparison, video games can be a more fleeting interest and don't necessarily retain as much value used—especially "free to play" games which are monetized as a service and as such can't be resold. That's not to say video games are all bad—I'm a huge fan of many games! But Lego has its own inherent appeal that is wholly different from what video games can offer.

[KotZ]

38 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

"Free" isn't necessarily always or even often the case with video games. Any games on a dedicated console require an upfront investment on the hardware (often a substantial one). Most games on PC and mobile cost money as well. Even "free to play" games often rely on incentivized "microtransactions" to get the full enjoyment out of them (many of which can, over time, rack up an enormous cost). Notably, Lego's own apps are often an exception, especially those which tie in with physical toys like Hidden Side (since their purpose is to advertise Lego's own sets and extend engagement with them rather than rely on their own independent revenue stream for profit).

Lego still remains a pretty solid investment for kids and families for a number of reasons. It's high quality and for the most part compatible with all past and future bricks. It provides an open-ended play experience that kids can adapt to their current building level and interests, rather than only providing one type of play that kids might tire of or grow out of. By comparison, video games can be a more fleeting interest and don't necessarily retain as much value used—especially "free to play" games which are monetized as a service and as such can't be resold. That's not to say video games are all bad—I'm a huge fan of many games! But Lego has its own inherent appeal that is wholly different from what video games can offer.

Exactly. The investment into LEGO (while expensive for some) lasts a very long time. And with the rise of games-as-a-service models and digital games (god forbid Steam goes under), there's a rising chance of losing games you purchased. With LEGO, the physical bricks are always there.

[Aanchir]

On 10/7/2019 at 10:26 AM, MAB said:

Yes, the play value of the two Arendelle sets seems to be very similar, but their pricing has changed significantly.

2016:

477 parts / £55 / $60

2019:

521 parts / £75 / $80

I just gave those two sets a look on BrickLink and found some other stats that might be worth mentioning in this case. The new version of the set weighs about 26% more than the old version as a complete package, or about 22% more when you deduct the weight of the box and instructions. The reason for the instructions being so much heavier is probably that the new version is aimed at ages 5+, and the old version at ages 6+, so the manuals require slightly more clarity.

From a US standpoint, the 2016 version would cost $64 after adjusting for inflation, and the overall weight difference brings that up to $80.72. So while it's definitely less affordable, it certainly doesn't seem like an arbitrary price hike. And anyhow, even in my childhood back in the 90s, $80 was hardly out of the ordinary for the biggest set in a particular theme!

All that said, your post implies the sets ought to be priced similarly based on their play value. And that's admittedly trickier to quantify. But there's a lot of differences between the contents of the sets in terms of features even if they depict the same building.

On the most basic level, the new version has three stories instead of two. It also has double doors instead of a single door. Within the castle, it has a bed with a hinge so a figure can lie down underneath the top blanket, a throne, an opening dresser, a telescope, a painter's easel, a sculpted bust, a birdhouse (with bird), and a chest with a (presumably plot relevant) sword. Outside, it has a pier with cat and seafood stall, a rowboat, a streetlight, and a baked goods stall.

The old version had some stuff that the new version lacked: two fireplaces, a grandfather clock with secret compartment, a slide, two fountains, lots of flowers/balloons, three Snowgies, and an outdoor dining table with a huge cake and two chairs. Even so, I feel like the new set considerably outweighs the old in terms of overall play value, simply by virtue of depicting more interior and exterior scenes, including a vehicle.

Perhaps if both market stalls and the boat were removed then I could expect the two sets to be priced similarly, but as is I think the price discrepancy seems about in proportion to the two sets' contents, even in terms of play value.

[The Brick Boss]

Well I'll tell you what. Even if it gets unaffordable for kids, which I doubt it ever will, we AFOLs will always be willing to give newer brickheads a helping hand. Likely they won't even care how expensive it is. 

Whoever agrees has to give me a follow. Sorry, I'm trying to get some followers on here. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by pooda

[HawkLord]

There's so many Lego bricks out there and for cheap, it'll never be unaffordable. And even if all you can get is a $10-15 set, you still have tons of possibility and alot more playtime than a number of comparable toy products out there. I didn't have a ton of Lego when I was a kid, but I had enough for days worth of entertainment and creativity provoking - more than any other action figure or video game. 

[knotian]

HawkLord-

AMEN!!

People should look at the play-ability and creativity of bricks, not sets, that is why some people define Lego as an Educational toy. The first thing I got back in the 60's for my daughter was a 'cubic foot of bricks'. I'm not sure where, but they were all Lego. Fast forward to first grandson, now graduated from College. He was raised on a box full of loose bricks. 14 years later second grandson. He has a couple of large totes full of loose bricks that he favors over sets. Sure they both like to assemble sets, but they get on the shelf and the totes go on the floor. Now that is what I call 'playing' with Lego.

Sorry for rant -

[The Brick Boss]

@knotian @HawkLord Both of you bring up good points. Lego will never go out of style. Toy companies come. Toy companies go. Lego goes on forever! 

I'm following the both of you. 

[Toastie]

7 hours ago, knotian said:

Now that is what I call 'playing' with Lego.

I could not agree more - and I am so happy that this attitude, life style, play style - call it what you want - is out there.

Thank you @knotian to phrasing this in a perfect way.

All the very best,

Thorsten

[MAB]

On 10/12/2019 at 4:57 AM, HawkLord said:

There's so many Lego bricks out there and for cheap, it'll never be unaffordable. And even if all you can get is a $10-15 set, you still have tons of possibility and alot more playtime than a number of comparable toy products out there. I didn't have a ton of Lego when I was a kid, but I had enough for days worth of entertainment and creativity provoking - more than any other action figure or video game. 

The second hand side does being an interesting point. In another 5-10 years time, after the LEGO Movie peak in sales and those kids start getting rid of their old LEGO, will the price ratio of new to used LEGO remain about the same or will there be a glut of used parts/sets on the market. This could lead to used being significantly cheaper than new.

[Capparezza]

On 10/13/2019 at 10:54 AM, MAB said:

The second hand side does being an interesting point. In another 5-10 years time, after the LEGO Movie peak in sales and those kids start getting rid of their old LEGO, will the price ratio of new to used LEGO remain about the same or will there be a glut of used parts/sets on the market. This could lead to used being significantly cheaper than new.

Oh, I think it definitely will. Why do I belive so? Well, one reason is that TLC releases a lot more sets every year than they did back in the 70ies or 80ies. The other thing to consider is, that you can get a lot of sets nowadays with a respectable rebate if you just have the patience (and good timing, of course). And third, old LEGO klodser just don't go away. Most of it is kept and given to the next generation or sold at flea markets or via the net. So the used market just keeps growing.

 

@knotian Hehe, yes. That's the way to go! And that's also the reason why I always keep coming back to Creator 3-in-1 sets or the Creativity boxes. Having a big pile of useful bricks gives me (and my little one) so much more than building by instructions. I think part reusability should be top priority for TLC when designing new parts. It seems to me they are on the way to repeating the same error from way back in the crisis around 2000, when their parts assortment got out of hand...