Is LEGO using the 18+ rating wrong?

[ArneNielsen]

 

3 hours ago, MAB said:

It is too complicated for the age group of kids that generally watch the show now, so they might as well go for the adult market.

I know a 4 year old who is wishing for this set for Christmas, as Sesame Street is her favorite show. Of course her mother will have to help her assemble it, but she will be using it as a toy, not for display. I my belief this set is a misunderstanding in the 18+ agegruop.

Lego should have made a Friends-like set for Sesame Street for ages 4 to 10.

[JintaiZ]

37 minutes ago, ArneNielsen said:

Lego should have made a Friends-like set for Sesame Street for ages 4 to 10.

Right, kids would probably enjoy it. But I'm not sure if it should be branded as 4+...

Though for this particular set, I'd say 12+ or 14+ would be reasonable.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, ArneNielsen said:

 

I know a 4 year old who is wishing for this set for Christmas, as Sesame Street is her favorite show. Of course her mother will have to help her assemble it, but she will be using it as a toy, not for display. I my belief this set is a misunderstanding in the 18+ agegruop.

Lego should have made a Friends-like set for Sesame Street for ages 4 to 10.

That age range is huge in terms of children's ages. A four year old will have trouble building it. Probably a 6/7+ year old will feel they are too old for it and that it is too babyish for them. I cannot think of many 9-10 year olds that would both admit they were into Sesame Street and also prefer this over something else aimed at their age range. So what age range is left requires the set to be buildable by a very young child - as some parents do not expect that they should have to put together a set aimed at young children. If it is aimed at youngsters then they should be able to put it together themselves. If it is buildable by youngsters, then it is not what was submitted to Ideas. Thus instead they are going for nostalgia with the 18+. Of course this does not mean that a 12 year old or a 16 year old cannot buy it if they are into Sesame Street. Similarly a 4 year old can play with it if they have help from a parent to build it.

 

[Mylenium]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

A four year old will have trouble building it. Probably a 6/7+ year old will feel they are too old for it and that it is too babyish for them. I cannot think of many 9-10 year olds that would both admit they were into Sesame Street and also prefer this over something else aimed at their age range. So what age range is left requires the set to be buildable by a very young child - as some parents do not expect that they should have to put together a set aimed at young children.

...by that token, though, even the Trolls and Toy Story 4+ sets were aiming at the wrong age ranges because they require assistance, which kind of is the point here. I would agree that the Sesame Street set may be too complex for a four-year-old, but at the same time I can't really see why it should not be interesting for slightly older school kids, especially when you consider the ones that are leaning more towards Friends and the like anyway (not just girls).

Mylenium

[The Stud]

8 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Well put. Indeed the 18+ moniker just seems like a cheap excuse to ramp up pricing for some sets.

Frankly, who cares? That's the old gag of LEGO seriously misjudging these things right from the outset. What does a kid even care if a stud is on the sides or upside down as long as its cognitive capabilities allow it to follow the instructions?! You know, it's not like this is rocket science and these days the instructions are so dumbed down with only a bunch of pieces per steps, most people will have no difficulty working things out. That is, of course, if those morons at LEGO wouldn't permanently screw themselves by including errors in the instructions or doing dumb stuff like not choosing a suitable perspective, but that's a topic for another time...

You must be kidding?! When did LEGO ever have a "unified packaging style"? I mean even on the 18+ sets we got so far the design philosophies vary hugely from color usage to package sizes to logotype. Nope, 18+ just feels like a cheap sticker slapped on to suggest a higher value where none may actually exist. It's just pretentious.

Mylenium

I don’t see a single instance where Lego has ramped up the price for any of these 18+ sets just because they’re 18+. I doubt a change in packaging and age range influenced Lego to charge as much as they have for sets like the Mos Eisley Cantina or Sesame Street; they would have cost the same either way.

Also, Lego liking unified packaging style is nothing new. Each wave of Star Wars, Ninjago, Friends, etc. has maintained the same boxart, or aesthetic at least, for years. This 18+ directive is no different.

 

 

I’m not even necessarily a fan of this push for these 18+ sets, but I understand why Lego is doing it. It’s less for people like us and more for the casual adult fan who picks up a one-off set or two. They see sets that say “18+” on them and figure that that’s for people like them. It also probably helps Lego save money when they don’t have to design a backdrop for every single set’s box art.

While I personally think the new direction with box design is kinda bland, I can see why Lego went this way. I have seen plenty of adults complain about the designed boxart of other sets and how they have trouble distinguishing the backgrounds from the sets themselves (the latest wave of Ninjago comes to mind.) In theory, this move is great for those types of AFOLs. Though I like my Lego boxes to have a little more character, it doesn’t make too much of a difference to me as long as the sets themselves retain the same level of quality.


If memory serves correct, I think I recall there being a survey of some kind where Lego was testing to see how people would respond if their stores were organized by age range and price rather than theme. I think they even tested this out with their temporary pop-up stores they opened during the holidays back in 2018. Maybe they’re actually considering going through with that idea and there will be a section dedicated to these black 18+ boxes? Of course, this is just speculation based off something I think I remember hearing about a while ago, but maybe the new box designs could be a result of that.

 

Side note, but something I find funny is that Hasbro has done similar style “adult” packaging for their Star Wars Black Series line but have started to move away from it this year. They’re adding more color and character to their new style of Black Series boxes, while Lego is doing the opposite for their own collector items. All in the same year ironically. 

[JintaiZ]

11 minutes ago, The Stud said:

I don’t see a single instance where Lego has ramped up the price for any of these 18+ sets just because they’re 18+. I doubt a change in packaging and age range influenced Lego to charge as much as they have for sets like the Mos Eisley Cantina or Sesame Street; they would have cost the same either way.

Also, Lego liking unified packaging style is nothing new. Each wave of Star Wars, Ninjago, Friends, etc. has maintained the same boxart, or aesthetic at least, for years. This 18+ directive is no different.

 

 

I’m not even necessarily a fan of this push for these 18+ sets, but I understand why Lego is doing it. It’s less for people like us and more for the casual adult fan who picks up a one-off set or two. They see sets that say “18+” on them and figure that that’s for people like them. It also probably helps Lego save money when they don’t have to design a backdrop for every single set’s box art.

While I personally think the new direction with box design is kinda bland, I can see why Lego went this way. I have seen plenty of adults complain about the designed boxart of other sets and how they have trouble distinguishing the backgrounds from the sets themselves (the latest wave of Ninjago comes to mind.) In theory, this move is great for those types of AFOLs. Though I like my Lego boxes to have a little more character, it doesn’t make too much of a difference to me as long as the sets themselves retain the same level of quality.


If memory serves correct, I think I recall there being a survey of some kind where Lego was testing to see how people would respond if their stores were organized by age range and price rather than theme. I think they even tested this out with their temporary pop-up stores they opened during the holidays back in 2018. Maybe they’re actually considering going through with that idea and there will be a section dedicated to these black 18+ boxes? Of course, this is just speculation based off something I think I remember hearing about a while ago, but maybe the new box designs could be a result of that.

 

Side note, but something I find funny is that Hasbro has done similar style “adult” packaging for their Star Wars Black Series line but have started to move away from it this year. They’re adding more color and character to their new style of Black Series boxes, while Lego is doing the opposite for their own collector items. All in the same year ironically. 

Actually... I think the price has ramped up quite a bit...

For example, last year's Gingerbread House was 12+ and had nearly 300 pieces more for the same price.

And 18+ sets are getting expensive, too. 21323 Grand Piano is impressive but $350 for just black and white pieces seems a bit steep, even with the electronics.

I'm wondering if 2021's modular will be 18+, only time will tell 

As for the boxes, I think it makes the sets feel less like a toy...

Edited October 25, 2020 by JintaiZ

[The Stud]

1 hour ago, JintaiZ said:

And 18+ sets are getting expensive, too. 21323 Grand Piano is impressive but $350 for just black and white pieces seems a bit steep, even with the electronics.

As for the boxes, I think it makes the sets feel less like a toy...

I didn’t say they weren’t expensive or even overpriced; I just don’t think the 18+ label is a reason why. I disagree with the sentiment that Lego is using this 18+ thing as an excuse for ramping up set prices, because, other than the Grand Piano, all of the other 18+ sets and their prices seem relatively fine.

 

As for the boxes making them feel less like a “toy”...

 

In all seriousness though, I do agree that the 18+ boxes need some work to give them that extra bit of pizazz. I also wonder if the next modular will be 18+ as well, but seeing as how this year’s Winter Village set was counted as 18+, I imagine that the Modulars will follow suit.

Edited October 25, 2020 by The Stud

[JintaiZ]

24 minutes ago, The Stud said:

I didn’t say they weren’t expensive or even overpriced; I just don’t think the 18+ label is a reason why. I disagree with the sentiment that Lego is using this 18+ thing as an excuse for ramping up set prices, because, other than the Grand Piano, all of the other 18+ sets and their prices seem relatively fine.

 

As for the boxes making them feel less like a “toy”...

 

In all seriousness though, I do agree that the 18+ boxes need some work to give them that extra bit of pizazz. I also wonder if the next modular will be 18+ as well, but seeing as how this year’s Winter Village set was counted as 18+, I imagine that the Modulars will follow suit.

Honestly, some 18+ sets are easier than 12+ sets... 

[koalayummies]

The best way to judge the price is by per piece. Of the 18+ sets (using Brickset 18+ tag as the Lego.com site doesn't list 18+ by theme or age) they are a bit on the high side with the Mosaics being the only ones with a really fantastic PPP ratio that is below the average/good price (~$0.06 per piece is a good to fair price).

20 sets listed as 18+, total of 164.1/20= $0.082 cents per piece average. Considering most of them are licensed content that's actually not that bad, but some of them by themselves have a steep PPP ratio. The Mosaics $0.037 per piece really shifts the average. 

[Vindicare]

4 hours ago, The Stud said:

I didn’t say they weren’t expensive or even overpriced; I just don’t think the 18+ label is a reason why. I disagree with the sentiment that Lego is using this 18+ thing as an excuse for ramping up set prices, because, other than the Grand Piano, all of the other 18+ sets and their prices seem relatively fine.
 

In all seriousness though, I do agree that the 18+ boxes need some work to give them that extra bit of pizazz. I also wonder if the next modular will be 18+ as well, but seeing as how this year’s Winter Village set was counted as 18+, I imagine that the Modulars will follow suit.

The only sets that feel overpriced, for what you get at least, is the Art sets. Granted we get those new plates & a crap ton of 1x1 rounds, $120 feels overpriced. Other sets seem par for the course. Going back an additional year to WV Fire Station it was $99 for nearly the same amount of parts as this year’s Elf Clubhouse. And the Haunted House & NES, the other 18+ sets I own, feel appropriately priced. 

I fully expect the Modulars to be branded 18+. 

[Toastie]

I believe(?) this is about folks out there, who are running into a LEGO store or browsing TLG's online store with >no clue<, what they really want. 2/4/6; "+" or "-" for kids, then the wild ones in between, and 18+ for the "adults" ... no plan, no nothing. But LEGO it should be, so what do we do??? We look at the age tag and all is good.

Huh?

They can print and brand whatever they want on their boxes. I am 58 years old. >Disqualified< for purchasing almost any of the sets they offer - but the XY"+" sets. 18+. Oh my.

So: I simply do not care what is printed on the box. Colored in black, or colorful, or just recycled paper: I look at the model, try to >think<, try to >like< and then judge price vs joy. Has that really become so hard to do? In the olden days there was a " ... - 99 years" tag. And then above 99 - busted? How weird was that?

Also, when you want to make gifts for kids - just do it. When your judgement is: Could work, or we do this together - just do it!

Man. I bought sets with a tag: 6 to something less than 18 on it. And so what? 

It is entirely on us to decide. Or: Just let it fly.

Best
Thorsten

 

 

 

[LEGO Historian]

Well stated Thorsten...

Did some of you miss the announcement that LEGO was going to start labeling all sets geared for adults with the "18+" label, so that retailers can follow directions to put all of these sets together into one section just for adult collectors?

https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/06/07/legos-new-adult-product-strategy-why-lego-is-retiring-creator-expert-feature/

Not all adult LEGO builders are active AFOLs... so this will help them out as well as AFOLs.

 

[JintaiZ]

11 minutes ago, LEGO Historian said:

Well stated Thorsten...

Did some of you miss the announcement that LEGO was going to start labeling all sets geared for adults with the "18+" label, so that retailers can follow directions to put all of these sets together into one section just for adult collectors?

https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/06/07/legos-new-adult-product-strategy-why-lego-is-retiring-creator-expert-feature/

Not all adult LEGO builders are active AFOLs... so this will help them out as well as AFOLs.

 

I thought that's only for creator Expert, not other themes...

[howitzer]

12 hours ago, koalayummies said:

The best way to judge the price is by per piece. Of the 18+ sets (using Brickset 18+ tag as the Lego.com site doesn't list 18+ by theme or age) they are a bit on the high side with the Mosaics being the only ones with a really fantastic PPP ratio that is below the average/good price (~$0.06 per piece is a good to fair price).

20 sets listed as 18+, total of 164.1/20= $0.082 cents per piece average. Considering most of them are licensed content that's actually not that bad, but some of them by themselves have a steep PPP ratio. The Mosaics $0.037 per piece really shifts the average. 

Actually, weight of the set is a better way to judge the price, somewhere in this forum someone did a deeper statistical analysis on the subject, and found that weight (including instructions, packaging etc.) correlates better with price than part count. Price per gram takes into account better stuff like electronics which are very heavy but still count as single part, or sets with lots of larger parts like UCS Imperial Star Destroyer. Still, though, PPP is not that bad measurement, it just tends to give more outliers like the Star Destroyer, or sets like 42070 which have a lot of electronics and high price but not that many parts in total.

I haven't done any actual research on the subject but my gut feeling is that 18+ sets aren't generally much different from other sets as far as bang for the buck is concerned. There are still some outliers though, like Lamborghini, which are priced higher due to licensing, premium packaging etc. and on the other end the mosaics have very low price per piece for obvious reasons. The Grand Piano set doesn't actually seem that expensive even if PPP is considered with 0,093€/piece, which while more than average, is still much less than many other sets, like the aforementioned Star Destroyer or for example 42114 Volvo Hauler (which comes with lots of electronics but no 18+ tag).

[Mylenium]

13 hours ago, koalayummies said:

The Mosaics $0.037 per piece really shifts the average. 

But then again one could argue that an ART set isn't worth 120 Euro MSRP and the actual sales price should be a lot lower. That aside, the absolute price per piece is simply an unsuitable and inadequate metric. Doesn't really make sense here nor does it change the fact that we have seen a major price hike in the last two years, regardless. So even if there may not be a direct correlation, I still tend to see 18+ as a shabby, yet all too obvious attempt at an excuse to justify those prices after the fact... My 2 Cents.

Mylenium

[howitzer]

15 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

But then again one could argue that an ART set isn't worth 120 Euro MSRP and the actual sales price should be a lot lower. That aside, the absolute price per piece is simply an unsuitable and inadequate metric. Doesn't really make sense here nor does it change the fact that we have seen a major price hike in the last two years, regardless. So even if there may not be a direct correlation, I still tend to see 18+ as a shabby, yet all too obvious attempt at an excuse to justify those prices after the fact... My 2 Cents.

Mylenium

Do you have some sort of analysis about the supposed price hike? I haven't been following things for a very long time, but I'd be very interested in seeing how the set prices have been developing over the years, especially compared to more general trends like consumer price index or other metrics.

[MAB]

19 hours ago, Mylenium said:

...by that token, though, even the Trolls and Toy Story 4+ sets were aiming at the wrong age ranges because they require assistance, which kind of is the point here.

Not really. 4+ sets are quite easy to put together for a four year old.

 

2 hours ago, howitzer said:

Actually, weight of the set is a better way to judge the price, somewhere in this forum someone did a deeper statistical analysis on the subject, and found that weight (including instructions, packaging etc.) correlates better with price than part count. Price per gram takes into account better stuff like electronics which are very heavy but still count as single part, or sets with lots of larger parts like UCS Imperial Star Destroyer. Still, though, PPP is not that bad measurement, it just tends to give more outliers like the Star Destroyer, or sets like 42070 which have a lot of electronics and high price but not that many parts in total.

I haven't done any actual research on the subject but my gut feeling is that 18+ sets aren't generally much different from other sets as far as bang for the buck is concerned. There are still some outliers though, like Lamborghini, which are priced higher due to licensing, premium packaging etc. and on the other end the mosaics have very low price per piece for obvious reasons. The Grand Piano set doesn't actually seem that expensive even if PPP is considered with 0,093€/piece, which while more than average, is still much less than many other sets, like the aforementioned Star Destroyer or for example 42114 Volvo Hauler (which comes with lots of electronics but no 18+ tag).

PPP, weight and so on are measures that will fail for some sets and work for others. Minifigure heavy sets tend to have poor weight and price per piece, yet are highly valued due to the contents. Sets with no minifigures can have a low PPP but not be good value. Sets with large molded pieces can have good price per weight yet not be valued (unless you want those pieces and then they are valued).

In most cases, I'd prefer one adult set than the equivalent cost of 4+ sets, but then I might prefer the equivalent cost of 12+ sets. It depends what they are.

 

[howitzer]

36 minutes ago, MAB said:

PPP, weight and so on are measures that will fail for some sets and work for others. Minifigure heavy sets tend to have poor weight and price per piece, yet are highly valued due to the contents. Sets with no minifigures can have a low PPP but not be good value. Sets with large molded pieces can have good price per weight yet not be valued (unless you want those pieces and then they are valued).

In most cases, I'd prefer one adult set than the equivalent cost of 4+ sets, but then I might prefer the equivalent cost of 12+ sets. It depends what they are.

 

Yes, this is true. I'm not personally very interested in minifigures so for me minifig-heavy set are overpriced, and similar arguments can be made for electronics etc.

It's just that weight correlates better with price than piece count, but both are usable metrics if you know your sets and take into account the actual contents, as the outlier sets usually have something to explain their divergence from average.

[JintaiZ]

4 hours ago, Mylenium said:

But then again one could argue that an ART set isn't worth 120 Euro MSRP and the actual sales price should be a lot lower. That aside, the absolute price per piece is simply an unsuitable and inadequate metric. Doesn't really make sense here nor does it change the fact that we have seen a major price hike in the last two years, regardless. So even if there may not be a direct correlation, I still tend to see 18+ as a shabby, yet all too obvious attempt at an excuse to justify those prices after the fact... My 2 Cents.

Mylenium

Without the mosaics, the PPP is 9.4... not bad but not amazing.

[Mylenium]

6 hours ago, howitzer said:

Do you have some sort of analysis about the supposed price hike?

Stonewars.de had an analysis of this and of course you can always draw your own conclusions from the various sets, with the specific point mostly being that a large number of highly-priced sets with a great number of pieces seems to drag along the rest in the sense of evening out the average price, so the actual price of an expensive set isn't perceived as outrageously overpriced. You know, sales psychology.

Mylenium

4 hours ago, MAB said:

PPP, weight and so on are measures that will fail for some sets and work for others. Minifigure heavy sets tend to have poor weight and price per piece, yet are highly valued due to the contents. Sets with no minifigures can have a low PPP but not be good value. Sets with large molded pieces can have good price per weight yet not be valued (unless you want those pieces and then they are valued).

Yes/ No/ Perhaps. Point in case: You would have to develop a reliable index that is not driven by the perceived value, but by the actual production value. Even many large and complex pieces can be produced pretty cost-efficiently. That also somewhat negates your point about minifigures and other stuff: Even a "rare" minifigure only costs a bunch of cents and similarly, the difference between e.g. five minifigures vs. twelve in a Ninjago Set or whatever is just multiples of this manufacturing value, not exorbitant sums as reflected by re-sale prices on sites like Bricklink...

Mylenium

[koalayummies]

On 10/26/2020 at 1:45 AM, howitzer said:

Price per gram takes into account better stuff like electronics which are very heavy but still count as single part, or sets with lots of larger parts like UCS Imperial Star Destroyer. Still, though, PPP is not that bad measurement, it just tends to give more outliers like the Star Destroyer, or sets like 42070 which have a lot of electronics and high price but not that many parts in total.

If you use whatever method you prefer consistently.... If you prefer weight then use that. The point of bringing it up here was because of members posting that they think that the sets labeled as 18+ seem expensive (not to debate which method of cost/value is the best, if you're going to debate that then bring up the weights of these sets and lets compare the two methods directly instead of just saying your preferred method is inherently better than the other without doing an actual comparison). The point of bring it up was per posts like this:

On 10/26/2020 at 1:50 AM, Mylenium said:

But then again one could argue that an ART set isn't worth 120 Euro MSRP and the actual sales price should be a lot lower. That aside, the absolute price per piece is simply an unsuitable and inadequate metric. Doesn't really make sense here nor does it change the fact that we have seen a major price hike in the last two years, regardless. So even if there may not be a direct correlation, I still tend to see 18+ as a shabby, yet all too obvious attempt at an excuse to justify those prices after the fact... My 2 Cents.

That was the whole point of bringing it up PPP! The heck? You say it's irrelevant to bring up PPP here and then in the same paragraph state that you think the prices are high across this "theme". That was the entire point of bringing PPP comparisons into this. I demonstrated that the 18+ theme is a bit on the higher side of a price metric and you respond to that with "don't bring this into this discussion its not relevant" while saying the same exact thing that what I said, proved? The heck is going on here.

Edited January 13, 2021 by koalayummies

[MAB]

3 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Yes/ No/ Perhaps. Point in case: You would have to develop a reliable index that is not driven by the perceived value, but by the actual production value. Even many large and complex pieces can be produced pretty cost-efficiently. That also somewhat negates your point about minifigures and other stuff: Even a "rare" minifigure only costs a bunch of cents and similarly, the difference between e.g. five minifigures vs. twelve in a Ninjago Set or whatever is just multiples of this manufacturing value, not exorbitant sums as reflected by re-sale prices on sites like Bricklink...

Mylenium

Well you are talking about value to them to produce. I am talking about the value to me as a consumer. For example, otherwise identical parts that differ only in colours should cost them roughly the same to produce. Whereas to me some are highly valuable yet others are almost worthless, depending on whether I use them a lot or little. Similarly, some minifigures are valuable to me if they have a particular print, yet worth next to nothing with a different print even though they probably cost LEGO the same. 

I don't really care what it costs them to produce, I care about the price I pay and whether I feel it is worth it. That goes for LEGO and also for just about everything I buy. I don't know how much it costs for a producer to grow an apple or tin a can of tuna. But I know what I will pay in relation to similar foodstuffs. I am not a fan of lychees, so whatever they cost to produce they are useless to me, and worthless if included in a box of mixed fruit. Whereas to others they may be a delicacy.

 

If you want to discuss their profit then you need full operating costs that go into each set vs price sold for. If you want to discuss value to a consumer, then perceived value is important. And that will vary across consumers. The art range is great value to some, and poor value to others.

Edited October 26, 2020 by MAB

[Lyichir]

I don't see anybody who has mentioned this but I wanted to point out that in an early interview about the new 18+ branding (I forget which specific site had it), one of the reasons they mentioned for the change was that in testing not only did sets branded as 18+ make it clearer to adults which sets were aimed more at them, but it also increased demand for those sets from 14- to 16-year-olds (who previously occupied the two highest age brackets Lego sets were marked with. Despite seeming perhaps a bit counterintuitive, this is a common phenomenon in media and marketing—for kids and teens, an age bracket slightly above that of their actual age feels aspirational compared to something that is marked "for" them specifically.

And since the 18+ mark, unlike the 2+ mark for Duplo or the 4+ mark for early-age Lego sets, has more to do with the level of complexity than with any necessary safety regulations, there's little barring younger age groups from buying a set marked for older builders. Some parents or gift-givers might avoid it but in those cases it likely stems from either a genuine concern that they haven't reached an adequate building level, or just as an excuse for not purchasing a high-dollar set, for which there would already be plenty regardless of the age mark on the boxes.

[JintaiZ]

45 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

I don't see anybody who has mentioned this but I wanted to point out that in an early interview about the new 18+ branding (I forget which specific site had it), one of the reasons they mentioned for the change was that in testing not only did sets branded as 18+ make it clearer to adults which sets were aimed more at them, but it also increased demand for those sets from 14- to 16-year-olds (who previously occupied the two highest age brackets Lego sets were marked with. Despite seeming perhaps a bit counterintuitive, this is a common phenomenon in media and marketing—for kids and teens, an age bracket slightly above that of their actual age feels aspirational compared to something that is marked "for" them specifically.

And since the 18+ mark, unlike the 2+ mark for Duplo or the 4+ mark for early-age Lego sets, has more to do with the level of complexity than with any necessary safety regulations, there's little barring younger age groups from buying a set marked for older builders. Some parents or gift-givers might avoid it but in those cases it likely stems from either a genuine concern that they haven't reached an adequate building level, or just as an excuse for not purchasing a high-dollar set, for which there would already be plenty regardless of the age mark on the boxes.

And adults could buy those sets without thinking about their kids... 

[Another Brick In The Wall]

On 10/25/2020 at 2:07 AM, JintaiZ said:

Well... I'm not someone who cares about age ratings on boxes.

I don't care that they're doing 18+ sets, but it does not feel necessary.

The age ratings were even mocked in the first The Lego Movie.  I