Captain Nemo

Harry Potter 2020 - Rumors & Discussion

Recommended Posts

Just now, PGBQW said:

I mean, losing a $400 sell in exchange of a $100 one doesnt seem like a great bussiness model to me.

But if you sell 10x as many $100 sets, then it doesn’t matter. And there are plenty of people, myself included, who will buy both the $400 set and the $100 set, so we will make up for the loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope another sticker sheet leak or a full reveal is coming soon, because this discussion of Gringotts supposedly not being included just because we haven't seen stickers for it yet is really rubbing me the wrong way. I don't know why... All the stickers confirm is that those shops are included in some way. There's probably a perfectly logical reason why those 4 sheets did not include Gringotts (and LC) stickers as Gringotts might get printed pieces, those transparent stickers on a separate sheet, just a separate sheet with regular stickers, or least likely it's not included somehow which I just refuse to believe until we see the actual set. Luckily that won't take that long anymore as September is slowly approaching. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just realised two things about the stickers, apologies if they've already been mentioned. 

1. We can't see the edge of sheet C, so there is a chance some more stickers are on that sheet. 

2. There is no sign for Flourish and Blotts above the shopfront window like there is for Ollivanders and Scribbulus. It has the same shopfront profile as the ice cream parlour (slightly curved bay windows) so could it be possible that these pieces can be printed, whereas the curved pieces on Ollivanders windows cannot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Salix said:

I hope another sticker sheet leak or a full reveal is coming soon, because this discussion of Gringotts supposedly not being included just because we haven't seen stickers for it yet is really rubbing me the wrong way. I don't know why... All the stickers confirm is that those shops are included in some way. There's probably a perfectly logical reason why those 4 sheets did not include Gringotts (and LC) stickers as Gringotts might get printed pieces, those transparent stickers on a separate sheet, just a separate sheet with regular stickers, or least likely it's not included somehow which I just refuse to believe until we see the actual set. Luckily that won't take that long anymore as September is slowly approaching. :)

I hope you’re right and that it’s included, but my business instinct tells me it’s not. And I, for one, can come to terms with that. I’d rather have a big beautiful highly detailed Gringott’s with a dragon next year, than one that’s crammed in this year just so we can say we got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sebastian666 said:

And I also assume that this means you would still buy the $100 Gringott’s set that is likely to come out next year if it’s not in this set - so for LEGO, you’re ultimately not much of a loss

I have to disagree about omitting Gringotts being a shrewd business idea.  There are other factors at play besides maximising sales:

- Many fans will see Gringotts as the centrepiece of Diagon Alley and feel let down by its omission (if I didn't have the previous Diagon Alley then I'd certainly be one of them)

- A set of this scale (by far the largest minifig scale Harry Potter set) should be "complete", it would be difficult to market it otherwise

- An add-on set would be a cheap move (look at in-game purchases for EA) and LEGO puts customers at number one, that's why it is one of the most reputable business (a very profitable thing to be)

- Selling loads of extra $100 sets can happen regardless, Harry Potter is a big universe and if that is LEGO's model then why not pick one of numerous other locations (Ministry of magic, Lovegood house, Durmstrang ship, etc)

 

Borgin and Burkes might be more justifiable if they are sticking exclusively to Diagon Alley, but I think it would be a significant misstep to sell a $400 titan of a set missing the most iconic part.  Imagine if the Paris Architecture set didn't have the Eiffel Tower!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yope said:

- Selling loads of extra $100 sets can happen regardless, Harry Potter is a big universe and if that is LEGO's model then why not pick one of numerous other locations (Ministry of magic, Lovegood house, Durmstrang ship, etc)

As I said before, I genuinely hope that I am proven wrong here. But it appears that the sticker sheets confirmed my original suspicions - we will either be getting Gringott’s or WWW in this set - not both. Either of these two sets would sell like hot cakes as a stand alone set.

And can you seriously tell me with a straight face that you think the decision makers in LEGO’s business offices would opt to sell a $100 set of Xenophilius Lovegood house over a $100 set of Gringott’s? :laugh_hard: God bless, I needed a good laugh this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yope said:

I have to disagree about omitting Gringotts being a shrewd business idea.  There are other factors at play besides maximising sales:

- Many fans will see Gringotts as the centrepiece of Diagon Alley and feel let down by its omission (if I didn't have the previous Diagon Alley then I'd certainly be one of them)

- A set of this scale (by far the largest minifig scale Harry Potter set) should be "complete", it would be difficult to market it otherwise

- An add-on set would be a cheap move (look at in-game purchases for EA) and LEGO puts customers at number one, that's why it is one of the most reputable business (a very profitable thing to be)

- Selling loads of extra $100 sets can happen regardless, Harry Potter is a big universe and if that is LEGO's model then why not pick one of numerous other locations (Ministry of magic, Lovegood house, Durmstrang ship, etc)

 

Borgin and Burkes might be more justifiable if they are sticking exclusively to Diagon Alley, but I think it would be a significant misstep to sell a $400 titan of a set missing the most iconic part.  Imagine if the Paris Architecture set didn't have the Eiffel Tower!

The modular Hogwarts sets (Great Hall, Astronomy Tower) were never complete and aren't to this day, yet no one is saying he's not buying the Great Hall because there is no Bell Towers (or Astronomy Tower in 2018). If Gringotts (or Borgin and Burkes) is a seperate set which will release in six to eight months, then both sets will be available on the shelf for the next three years. So there is plenty of time for the hardships of the pandemic to recede and for everyone to save 500 quids to buy the sets eventually...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Metanoios91 said:

You should look at the better quality pics of the cmf box art. They have double sided faces (each one unique so you get 4 possible expressions for the twins) and one expression is almost the identical slight smirk as on the old figure. And the laughing face on the old one looks also similar to one of the 4 new expressions. The grainy picture you propably saw and judged them from made it look like they have "hare" teeth which isn't the case. It was just the pixelated scan quality. So please check the better pictures or wait for the high quality press release before you pass judgement

Sorry, It was just my personal opinion. I have seen the high quality pictures and still think they look like little kids. I will admit the hats sitting way too low on their face may be a significant contributor to them looking like 6 year olds. All I was thinking about was how sometimes the old is still better than the new even if it's just how I see it. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Metanoios91 said:

The modular Hogwarts sets (Great Hall, Astronomy Tower) were never complete and aren't to this day, yet no one is saying he's not buying the Great Hall because there is no Bell Towers (or Astronomy Tower in 2018). If Gringotts (or Borgin and Burkes) is a seperate set which will release in six to eight months, then both sets will be available on the shelf for the next three years. So there is plenty of time for the hardships of the pandemic to recede and for everyone to save 500 quids to buy the sets eventually...

But the Great Hall is iconic on its own and doesn't cost $400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chris6507 said:

Sorry, It was just my personal opinion. I have seen the high quality pictures and still think they look like little kids. I will admit the hats sitting way too low on their face may be a significant contributor to them looking like 6 year olds. All I was thinking about was how sometimes the old is still better than the new even if it's just how I see it. :-)

Just hold the pics side by side and tell me that the smirk is not similar. It's even on the same side... On a side note: the old Fred and George have the wrong colour for their suits.

2 minutes ago, Zepthire said:

But the Great Hall is iconic on its own and doesn't cost $400.

Well it will cost that in a few months, because they will no longer produce it ( it has reached EOL-status)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zepthire said:

But the Great Hall is iconic on its own and doesn't cost $400.

And you don’t think Gringott’s is iconic on its own too? Every fifteen minutes on American television, I see an ad for Universal Studios that begins with a camera panning up to Gringott’s and it’s firebreathing dragon to the delighted squeals of dozens of little Muggles below. There are millions of kids in the US who have been to the Wizarding World and would never be able to afford a $400 LEGO set, but for whom a $100 Gringott’s would be an ultimate Christmas or birthday present. LEGO stands to make a lot more money selling these $100 sets at Walmart, Target, and everywhere in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Metanoios91 said:

Just hold the pics side by side and tell me that the smirk is not similar. It's even on the same side... On a side note: the old Fred and George have the wrong colour for their suits.

I've only seen the second face for one of them and I will admit it's close. I was more comparing the open mouthed smile design between the two and just think the older one is a bit simpler, but better. But I would love it if they are very similiar, because I still need heads for both of my Quidditch Weasleys. And 100% agree on the suits. I was only commenting on the face aspect, nothing else. :-)

Just to weigh in on the current conversation. While I don't mind which way the whole Gringotts argument goes. I'm not sure comparing to the current minifig scale Hogwarts is the best comparison. The Hogwarts is coming out a piece at a time and you feel like you are building the castle section by section. Whereas the Diagon Alley will admittedly feel a bit weird that they've given you 90% of the set with one glaring omission. Feels more comparable to a video game having DLC than the minifig Hogwarts. 

But yeah, if we get it. Great! It's a complete Diagon Alley. If we don't. Great! Means the other builds can be bigger and more detailed! :-)

I do really appreciate the discussions though. It fills a slight void waiting for the actual set! :-D

Edited by chris6507

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Metanoios91 said:

The modular Hogwarts sets (Great Hall, Astronomy Tower) were never complete and aren't to this day, yet no one is saying he's not buying the Great Hall because there is no Bell Towers (or Astronomy Tower in 2018). If Gringotts (or Borgin and Burkes) is a seperate set which will release in six to eight months, then both sets will be available on the shelf for the next three years. So there is plenty of time for the hardships of the pandemic to recede and for everyone to save 500 quids to buy the sets eventually...

The Hogwarts Great Hall and Hogwarts Astronomy Tower sets were sufficiently "complete".  They contained the name of the sets in their entirety and more, there wouldn't be any expectation to get anything else.

If there was a $400 set called Hogwarts Castle however and it didn't have the great hall for example then I'm sure people would be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sebastian666 said:

And you don’t think Gringott’s is iconic on its own too? Every fifteen minutes on American television, I see an ad for Universal Studios that begins with a camera panning up to Gringott’s and it’s firebreathing dragon to the delighted squeals of dozens of little Muggles below. There are millions of kids in the US who have been to the Wizarding World and would never be able to afford a $400 LEGO set, but for whom a $100 Gringott’s would be an ultimate Christmas or birthday present. LEGO stands to make a lot more money selling these $100 sets at Walmart, Target, and everywhere in between.

I'm with you in that I don't think Gringott's will be included and may be a stand alone set or 2nd year D2C with Gringott's and a couple other shops.  This is all based on seeing some images of a leaked sticker sheet.  I'll hold off on feeling any way in particular until a full reveal.  That said, wouldn't it be crazy if like, there was a way to build with like bricks or something any inclusion you'd like to see that was omitted.  If only.  Large D2C sets are some of the best value sets out there assuming you have the stacks to drop on them so its not like the set is going to be a ripoff regardless of what is included. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sebastian666 said:

I hope you’re right and that it’s included, but my business instinct tells me it’s not. And I, for one, can come to terms with that. I’d rather have a big beautiful highly detailed Gringott’s with a dragon next year, than one that’s crammed in this year just so we can say we got it.

I wouldn't mind if Gringotts turns out be a separate set next year. It would be weird to get a DA without it though. But I'm not assuming that just because we haven't seen stickers for it (yet). You do make a point that as a separate set it would get more justice, but yeah, I'm not gonna assume. I wanna see proof. :P

Edited by Salix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity. Are you all happy you knew about Diagon Alley way in advance? Or do you wish it had been a big surprise? I'm kind of in the middle, as it's given me time to save up, bug geez the wait is excruciating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chris6507 said:

Just out of curiosity. Are you all happy you knew about Diagon Alley way in advance? Or do you wish it had been a big surprise? I'm kind of in the middle, as it's given me time to save up, bug geez the wait is excruciating.

Same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yope said:

The Hogwarts Great Hall and Hogwarts Astronomy Tower sets were sufficiently "complete".  They contained the name of the sets in their entirety and more, there wouldn't be any expectation to get anything else.

If there was a $400 set called Hogwarts Castle however and it didn't have the great hall for example then I'm sure people would be disappointed.

The Marble Staircase Tower (in the Great Hall set) did not include any portraits and only one tiny staircase which wasn't even accurate to the Grand staircase that we see in most of the movies. In my opinion the Great Hall set needs an update and they can improve on a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chris6507 said:

Just out of curiosity. Are you all happy you knew about Diagon Alley way in advance? Or do you wish it had been a big surprise? I'm kind of in the middle, as it's given me time to save up, bug geez the wait is excruciating.

Knowing of its existence and looking forward to the release kind of saved me this crazy year in some way, so I'm definitely happy how it is ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Metanoios91 said:

The Marble Staircase Tower (in the Great Hall set) did not include any portraits and only one tiny staircase which wasn't even accurate to the Grand staircase that we see in most of the movies. In my opinion the Great Hall set needs an update and they can improve on a lot

To me those stairs feel more like the stairs leading to Dumbledore's office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sebastian666 said:

And you don’t think Gringott’s is iconic on its own too? 

No, I meant it the other way around. Gringotts is definitely iconic and would be a good $100 set but I don't know that the row of town houses with bay windows that makes up most of Diagon Alley is $400 worth of interesting if it doesn't have Gringotts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not sure whether I'm sad or happy if Gringotts isn't included. Really depends on the quality of the sets.

6 minutes ago, 8fifty said:

Just a quick side note regarding the CMF which almost feels to be off-topic here atm but I have to share this with you. Promobricks uploaded the leaflet in a way better quality than we have seen on IG so far: https://www.promobricks.de/lego-71028-harry-potter-bpz/106419/

I can see clearly onw that baby Harry definitely doesn't have the scar. Oh well. This will do I guess. I might just buy 2 and cheat a little with some paint. Won't be purist though :cry_sad:

7 minutes ago, Yope said:

I have to disagree about omitting Gringotts being a shrewd business idea.  There are other factors at play besides maximising sales:

- Many fans will see Gringotts as the centrepiece of Diagon Alley and feel let down by its omission (if I didn't have the previous Diagon Alley then I'd certainly be one of them)

- A set of this scale (by far the largest minifig scale Harry Potter set) should be "complete", it would be difficult to market it otherwise

- An add-on set would be a cheap move (look at in-game purchases for EA) and LEGO puts customers at number one, that's why it is one of the most reputable business (a very profitable thing to be)

- Selling loads of extra $100 sets can happen regardless, Harry Potter is a big universe and if that is LEGO's model then why not pick one of numerous other locations (Ministry of magic, Lovegood house, Durmstrang ship, etc)

Borgin and Burkes might be more justifiable if they are sticking exclusively to Diagon Alley, but I think it would be a significant misstep to sell a $400 titan of a set missing the most iconic part.  Imagine if the Paris Architecture set didn't have the Eiffel Tower!

Well ever thought maybe lego is putting the customer at number 1 right now? You must remember the countless of people, many of which said so on this very forum, who can't afford a 400,- diagon alley set, but desperately want a part of it. This is probably the majority of the people. So they will be very happy if they're able to get the one centre piece of the street separately. They even were able to get the most important shop owner through a gwp set 2 years ago (although that one was kinda hard to get for some people.)

That being said, now that those without 400 to spare are happy, let's take a look to the other side of people. What difference does it make for them whether they buy a 500,- fully filled diagon alley set, or a 400,- + a 100,- one? The end result will be the same, a complete diagon alley. Only the boxes might look a little bit off, but that should hardly be a real problem. And if it is Lego could just do a 2in1. Not sure if that's ever been done with a d2c, but they might as well give it a try.

Now for the people who say they shouldn't need to buy a second set to complete their 400 dollar one (if there are any). It's not like that extra 100 you were willing to pay for a 500 complete set suddenly went away right? You probably even have a full year to save up for it.

And for those comparing it to the real world famous landmarks. Sure you're not gonna make new York without the statue of liberty, Paris without the Eifel tower, London without the Big Ben (and the rest of the tower:tongue:) etc. However that's usually the one thing they're known for. Many people usually aren't even sure about the other landmarks locations in that area, nor would they be able to stand on itself. While the diagon alley shop surely can. It's the most fun part in the theme parks to many and they have quite some interesting buildings to win people over. Mainly Ollivanders and WWW. Sure the daily prophet can't stand on itself, but it doesn't have to.

Besides, most people who are already planning on buying a 400 dollar Harry Potter set surely are the people who are probably hardcore enough of fans to don't mind if it's just a part of a bigger display. Most licensed d2c sets are targeted at hardcore fans anyway, not towards to casual buyers and the children like regular sets.

Also as one final, although slightly jokingly argument. People are also buying gaming consoles and games separately, so why would it be a problem for Lego sets. What I'm trying to say is, you can't have everything at once, surely not in the best possible quality imaginable.

This is, if true, ultimately the only option to please the most amount of people. And thus, lego puts once again, the customer first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, the whole issue can be broken down to this: Is Diagon Alley complete without Gringotts? No? Then TLG is trying to sell an incomplete 400$ set :tongue: That‘s a bit too shady for my liking. Sure, TLG is a company, but their reputation means a lot to them and this would just be cash-grabby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Huigberts Builds said:

Well ever thought maybe lego is putting the customer at number 1 right now? You must remember the countless of people, many of which said so on this very forum, who can't afford a 400,- diagon alley set, but desperately want a part of it. This is probably the majority of the people. So they will be very happy if they're able to get the one centre piece of the street separately. They even were able to get the most important shop owner through a gwp set 2 years ago (although that one was kinda hard to get for some people.)

That being said, now that those without 400 to spare are happy, let's take a look to the other side of people. What difference does it make for them whether they buy a 500,- fully filled diagon alley set, or a 400,- + a 100,- one? The end result will be the same, a complete diagon alley. Only the boxes might look a little bit off, but that should hardly be a real problem. And if it is Lego could just do a 2in1. Not sure if that's ever been done with a d2c, but they might as well give it a try.

Now for the people who say they shouldn't need to buy a second set to complete their 400 dollar one (if there are any). It's not like that extra 100 you were willing to pay for a 500 complete set suddenly went away right? You probably even have a full year to save up for it.

And for those comparing it to the real world famous landmarks. Sure you're not gonna make new York without the statue of liberty, Paris without the Eifel tower, London without the Big Ben (and the rest of the tower:tongue:) etc. However that's usually the one thing they're known for. Many people usually aren't even sure about the other landmarks locations in that area, nor would they be able to stand on itself. While the diagon alley shop surely can. It's the most fun part in the theme parks to many and they have quite some interesting buildings to win people over. Mainly Ollivanders and WWW. Sure the daily prophet can't stand on itself, but it doesn't have to.

Besides, most people who are already planning on buying a 400 dollar Harry Potter set surely are the people who are probably hardcore enough of fans to don't mind if it's just a part of a bigger display. Most licensed d2c sets are targeted at hardcore fans anyway, not towards to casual buyers and the children like regular sets.

Also as one final, although slightly jokingly argument. People are also buying gaming consoles and games separately, so why would it be a problem for Lego sets. What I'm trying to say is, you can't have everything at once, surely not in the best possible quality imaginable.

This is, if true, ultimately the only option to please the most amount of people. And thus, lego puts once again, the customer first.

THIS!!! Say it louder for the people in the back of the classroom!!! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.