The Future of Technic

[CP5670]

I really like the cars. They look great and are packed with realistic functions, even if they need some mods to work smoothly. They are much better than the big Control+ construction vehicles that are expensive and rely too much on motors. I have the Chiron and love it (including the recorded interviews of how the set was designed, which adds a lot to the building experience), but the others are too similar for me to buy.

[howitzer]

3 hours ago, CP5670 said:

I really like the cars. They look great and are packed with realistic functions, even if they need some mods to work smoothly. They are much better than the big Control+ construction vehicles that are expensive and rely too much on motors. I have the Chiron and love it (including the recorded interviews of how the set was designed, which adds a lot to the building experience), but the others are too similar for me to buy.

The way I see it, cars are pretty much repeating the same functions over and over again. There would be so much potential in cars for all kinds of features and configurations but I don't think there's ever been for example a transverse engine or FWD car in Technic. And how about convertible roof or adjustable suspension? Even four doors is something that we only saw the first time with the Raptor I think.

Now, you could argue that the same problem of repeating the same functions applies to other machinery like excavators, but there are several cars every year, while excavators are only released once in a few years so it's not quite the same.

Cars do provide us with tons of new panels though, complementing the parts palettes for various colours, so from MOC-perspective they're not at all bad. Just uninteresting on their own.

[CP5670]

I like Technic construction vehicles in general, but the big licensed ones tend to rely on motorization with not much mechanical functionality, and also cost too much. I would like to see more excavators, backhoes, etc. with manual functions or pneumatics in the sub-$150 range.

[Johnny1360]

23 hours ago, CP5670 said:

I really like the cars. They look great and are packed with realistic functions, even if they need some mods to work smoothly. They are much better than the big Control+ construction vehicles that are expensive and rely too much on motors. I have the Chiron and love it (including the recorded interviews of how the set was designed, which adds a lot to the building experience), but the others are too similar for me to buy.

And while I do agree with some of your points, I am pretty much the opposite, thankfully there is something for most of us. Whenever a set isn't exactly what I think it should be, I remind myself that regardless of what I think there are 7.9 billion people that may think differently.

[kbalage]

I don't think Technic as a theme has a specific direction, it evolves according to the sales figures and what is TLG's perception about the customers' needs. Since they see the figures and want to maximize profit, apparently what we see today sells the best. That explains the high amount of cars and licenses and the whole 18+ category with the "big and dumb" sets. TLG also tries to expand its customer base towards adults by using old themes and categories, and meanwhile they don't want to increase the number of sets released per year in the theme significantly. This means we get less traditional Technic sets and more of the things that might look impressive for casual/adult builders but have less functions. 

There are other tendencies that are probably not related directly to sales, like the shift of B models to the smaller sets. But that should also be based on stats, since TLG moved the B model instructions to their digital platform, it gives them a perfect a simple "B model instructions downloaded per sets sold" ratio that shows the interest. Apparently there was not enough interest. But this can also be affected by the huge amount of alternate models available nowadays on different other platforms. Btw I don't think that MOCs in general should be treated as a homogeneous category, there are some very high quality and impressive creations, but also tons of flashy and highly promoted builds that don't meet the average quality standards of a LEGO set from a build or instructions perspective. 

And then there are trends that TLG would like to follow, like smart toys and AR. I think this is where they are the weakest, and not only in Technic. TLG still does not seem to understand the effort and investment required for a properly delivered software solution, that's the reason why Powered Up is still hanging in the air 3 years after its debut. But meanwhile customers don't seem to complain enough to get a proper solution, most should be fine with the limited walled garden of Control+ offerings, that's also a trend that AFOLs might not like. AR could be fun as a creative addition to building and enhancing physical elements or being used as an informative addition, but it makes no sense as stupid virtual games in a virtual environment where your physical build is simply an avatar and nothing more. 

So I don't think the fun has gone, there are less sets that please AFOLs that's all. And/or we are getting older and grumpier 

[dmaclego]

17 minutes ago, kbalage said:

I don't think Technic as a theme has a specific direction, it evolves according to the sales figures and what is TLG's perception about the customers' needs. Since they see the figures and want to maximize profit, apparently what we see today sells the best. That explains the high amount of cars and licenses and the whole 18+ category with the "big and dumb" sets.

Bravo! And if there is anything to add to this spot-on diagnosis, it's this: LEGO products have never been and will never be addressed to adult MOC-building customers. By design, some of the sets appeal directly to children and some to their parents ('Ho, ho, ho, my boy will be over the moon if I get him that kick-megablocks Ferrari for Christmas!') but MOC-building AFOLs are NOT the target. Deal with it, my friends. By definition, our opinions about new Technic sets are not relevant because we are too deep into the subject, have way too much building experience and waaaaaay too high expectations. And annual financial reports indicate that this is exactly as it should be for the owners of the giga-company called LEGO.

 

[allanp]

@kbalage There's a lot of truth there. And it could be that any directions we see them going are only visible after the fact but in the here and now they do what they think is best from moment to moment. 

@dmaclego I don't think it's as black and white as you make out. Kids are the target audience for the most part. But no one would say that's true for the Titanic. And I always like to use the example of the movies. 

The Smurfs movie is an animated movie made for kids. It's expertly made to be kinetic and colourful in a way that keeps the child's attention distracted for 90 minutes while the parents can have a break, and it made money, half a billion at the box office. Adults and critics don't see it as being a good movie but it made lots of money so great, job done, no other kinds movies for kids needs to be made right?

But then we have Pixar's the Incredibles. Also an animated movie for kids. But where the Smurfs is a corporate tick box product, the Incredibles was universally loved by kids and praised by adults and critics alike. It also made slightly more money at the box office. But even if they made the same money, if you was a film maker, which film would you rather have under your belt, the Smurfs movie or Pixar's the Incredibles?

Again, I must say that this is NOT a dig at the designers at Lego. They are definitely talented and I'm sure they take lots of pride in their work as well. But if we take the current state of powered up as an example. I could be wrong but it feels like the product of a team of very talented people, but a team that's probability a bit too small and underfunded and restrained by higher up. I'm sure they would love to give us the cool stuff, like faster more power motors, physical remotes, powerful micro servos, pneumatic pressure sensors, better documentation/YouTube video tutorials for each code block, programmable light arrays, rechargable lithium battery packs, much better and more accurate PID control of the motors and so on and so on. But without the funding and extra man/woman power required to do that they can only just keep up with their current work load. Again I could be wrong but that's what it feels like.

And when it comes to the sets, again I often like to use the example of a gearbox because it nicely explains where I'd want to see Technic going as a whole. Right now they are far too messy, unnecessarily complex, unreliable, have too much friction and are unrealistic. But they only require one or two different clutch gears so they are cheap right? Now as an adult fan, I'm not asking that they make things more complicated for the sake of appealing to my own engineer sensibilities, I'm asking for less complexity in this particular case, with 6-8 different clutch gears to make it more realistic. Yes it's an investment in parts, but you get more authenticity and it's also simpler and easier for the target audience to build and understand. And instead of ugly colour coding which isn't fool proof, invest in moulding numbers into the gears (like the moulded numbers on the panels) to indicate the number of teeth, and have these numbers directly called out in the instructions. It looks much better and would probably be more fool proof but again, requires just that little extra investment. 

I don't think this adult fan is asking the world here. And I think Lego have many talented and driven people there. But they have to go where their ship takes them, and the captain steers the ship. And directions taken by those directors who want to make a better movie aren't the same directions made by directors who only want to tick the boxes.

But I do see some hope, with parts like the planetary reduction hubs and some that are coming this summer, that's a good sign of things to come. 

And yes they must always aim toward their target audience, but it just comes down to if you believe they can simultaneously please them whilst also pleasing us. I'm an optimist and I think they can.

[gyenesvi]

I surely find that as an adult I have higher expectations than I had as a child :) But the charm of Technic is not gone, there are many more mechanisms that I understand now and can try to replicate with lego parts. As long as I can have the required parts I can put up with the large amount of not so functional cars, and that's where I am not completely satisfied with lego. Instead of comparing it to how it was before, I usually contemplate about what it could be or become as a system now or in the future, and that's where I am not sure about the trends of the Technic line. I have already discussed this topic in other threads, about long missing generic/structural parts (such as length and color variations), that actually prevent me from building stuff I want, and these are not inherent limitations of the material or manufacturing process.

Another trend I observed and no sure I like so much is some part design principles. I find that many special purpose parts are designed such that they try to be somewhat multipurpose, I guess for reusability, for example wheel hubs (like planetary and portal hubs). They are made such that they can be used both in steered and non-steered suspension (while older/simpler hubs differentiated steered and non-steered variants). I understand the optimization behind it, but I find that as a consequence, the resulting parts are actually not really good for either purpose, so we end up with suboptimal structures because of some cost saving.

Similarly, about stock sets, my only real complaint is if a set misses obvious opportunities to evolve the technical part selection, like that RWD Raptor or the trial Zetros. If they come out with a large scale trial truck, it better also focus on the trial aspects such as suspension, besides the looks and branding. I wish TLG lived up to the "build for real" slogan in these cases. I understand what makes these sets sell, but it would be great if at the same time experienced builders would also get what they want under the hood.

Edited April 21, 2022 by gyenesvi

[dmaclego]

12 hours ago, allanp said:

Kids are the target audience for the most part. But no one would say that's true for the Titanic.

Certainly. But writing about those who are not targeted by LEGO, I meant - maybe not clearly enough - "adult MOC-building customers", not adults in general. Those of us who actually build advanced MOCs tend to criticize the direction of Technic series (and some others, for that matter). Those who collect sets are generally satisfied and, as you mentioned, they gladly buy Titanics and Bugattis. That's perfectly fine. All I'm saying is that LEGO is a company that offers toys for kids and, occasionally, for those who have fond memories from their own childhood (plus lots of spare cash and attention span large enough to enable them to stack up some 3 thousand pieces or more). However, it is not a company catering to a relatively small group of home-grown designers who - consciously or not - play with bricks to surpass or transcend whatever they see on shelves of the LEGO store.

I consider myself one of those. I keep trying to build more realistic, more functional, more complicated models but I do not expect LEGO to accept the challenge and choose the same direction :). It wouldn't be good for business so it will never happen. And I'm OK with it. I just buy selected parts that I need for my projects and  treat myself (usually around Christmas) with only one big set that I find particularly pleasing from aesthetic point of view. For me, this is the way, as Mando would say ;).

And one more thing: what we buy as LEGO sets should not be confused with what LEGO designers are capable of. I actually have a great deal of respect and sympathy for them. Just imagine you've created a fantastic model and then you hear from your boss: "Man, we don't produce these and these elements this year. Replace them with something else." Or: "No, this year you can use them only in white or dark pink". Or: "Sorry, pal, but according to marketing department your model is 10 dollars over the budget. Forget the printed parts and shave off at least one feature." What I'm trying to say is that while we may be worried about Technic's future, it will be shaped by pure business factors.

[Toastie]

49 minutes ago, dmaclego said:

What I'm trying to say is that while we may be worried about Technic's future, it will be shaped by pure business factors.

You not only said that very well, you provided and discussed multiple "paths", eventually culminating in just your final assessment. I am all with you. In every detail.

Thank you very much - and all the very best,
Thorsten

[allanp]

@dmaclego That was very well said  I do think advanced MOC builders are getting some goodies aimed at them in the parts selection though. I see some parts that are fantastic and appear to be very driven by us, and they are the highlights of the sets in which they are included. I remember when they was first showing us 42099. The designer described the whole set but omitted the new hubs, so Markus quickly jumped in to show those off, and it felt like he was showing them off directly to us. But it would be interesting to know from everyone here, what is it that would make an entire set ( not just the parts) feel like it was aimed at you as a long time Technic fan or more advanced MOC builder? What kind of thinking is required of TLG to answer topics like this that crop up from time to time? I am genuinely curious to know.  Is it a 10000 piece monster of complexity, so challenging that it might be considered outside the skill set of younger or casual builders? Although that might be the obvious answer and although we may want such a set and build such things for ourselves, I haven't seen anyone here actually ask for, or expect that from Lego. So, if not that, what kind of set would provide an answer to topics like this? Maybe I'm too much of an optimist but pick any vehicle, any subject matter, no matter how overdone in the past, and I bet we and TLG could agree on a version of it that could please everyone, target age range, casuals and long time fans alike.

We could try it as an experiment.

You are now a designer and the boss or focus group decides we need a roughly 400 dollar control+ big red classic American fire truck as the next flagship. Fans are already complaining it'll be crap and boring with nothing but drive and steering and be overpriced.

For long time fans: New PU programmable lighting array, new American truck style wheels that are thin but with a deep offset that can be pinned back to back for dually setups, white pneumatics to lift/extend the white ladder, all black hoses, powerful micro servo motors for the valves, metal leaf spring suspension, authentic drop link steering. And why not throw in the 90s style box, with the lift up lid see we can stare through the cellophane at all the lovely pieces we can take home and play with! Surely if a chocolate Eater egg can have such nice and alluring packaging then a 400 dollar Lego set can, and is deserving of it too! 

For casual builders: Chrome! Lots of external details that capture the gorgeous look of a classic American fire truck and flashing lights and siren. Slide up doors that reveal lots of authentic tools and hoses that can be opened for display.

For target age range builders: Lego mostly have them covered but flashing lights and siren, parts are tastefully colour coded. Sticker sheet also includes long thin coloured/numbered strips (say 20mm X 4mm) in pairs to wrap round each end of the pneumatic hoses before installation to clearly identify each hose better than three different hose colours.  

The penny pinchers: Making the sticker sheet a little bigger to more clearly label the hoses probably gonna be cheaper than including three different coloured hoses and might reduce complaints from customers who built it wrong. Lots of sales! 

Please be honest, critique like you would an official set, would a set like that, with that kind of thinking behind it be an effective answer to threads like this? Would this please the advanced MOC builders out there whilst also being accessible to the target age range and look good on display on the shelves of casual builders? If you was a designer tasked with making  the next flagship be a control+ yellow construction vehicle for example, what things do you think you could include (presuming that the bosses let you) in an attempt to please everyone here as well as the target age range? Do you think that's even possible?

[howitzer]

3 hours ago, allanp said:

But it would be interesting to know from everyone here, what is it that would make an entire set ( not just the parts) feel like it was aimed at you as a long time Technic fan or more advanced MOC builder? What kind of thinking is required of TLG to answer topics like this that crop up from time to time? I am genuinely curious to know.

I think some sets of the past are pretty good examples of what you're thinking here, like 42043 Arocs and 42055 BWE. They're of course not without flaws, but they offered lots of interesting and complex functionality, with interesting subjects. I think 2016 was the peak of the last decade, and current decade is yet to catch up to that.

The 10000 part monster of complexity makes me think of Akiyuki Ball Factory v3 by @Berthil, as I have built it (but not tuned it into working order yet). While it doesn't have anywhere near 10k parts, it's still a huge, complex and impressive machine but there's no way TLG could ever release anything like that, as it's just too hard to build and to make work for anyone but skilled enthusiasts, even if the instructions are of superb quality. Too many moving parts with too much non-obvious places for small errors to build up and make it inoperable. I'm not really surprised that the upcoming Liebherr crane is delayed, considering the hugeness of the machine, and all the complexities in the wiring and rigging, so it makes me think we've reached the limits of how big and complex official sets can be.

3 hours ago, allanp said:

The penny pinchers: Making the sticker sheet a little bigger to more clearly label the hoses probably gonna be cheaper than including three different coloured hoses and might reduce complaints from customers who built it wrong. Lots of sales! 

Everything else in your idea sounds great, but this kind of labeling can't work. The stickers will just fall off as the tubes are bent and twisted. So I'm afraid we're stuck with colour coding. (Also, isn't that just another form of colour coding?)

[Maaboo the Witch]

8 minutes ago, howitzer said:

I think 2016 was the peak of the last decade

I do think the 2018 lineup was just as good. But you're right about this decade so far.

[Erik Leppen]

5 hours ago, allanp said:

You are now a designer and the boss or focus group decides we need a roughly 400 dollar control+ big red classic American fire truck as the next flagship.

What you describe is a fun experiment, but if this is the outline then I'm out. I'm simply not going to spend 400 dollars on any Lego set, period. I'd much rather see four well-designed, fun and diverse manual 100-dollar sets of somewhere around 1000 parts each and then I can decide to buy one or two of my choice.

If the "boss" - or whoever - wants a 400 dollar fire truck, my opinion would be that that's the wrong goal to set. What I think he should say is, if we do a fire truck, then what should it do, technic-wise, and then, if we want to put all that in a set, what price point would we end up getting?

What should a Lego Technic fire truck do?

• The basics
  • suspension
  • steering
  • fake engine
• the specifics for the subject matter
  • turntable with raisable extendable ladder
  • 2 outriggers
  • and of course, lights (if one set should have lights, it's a fire truck).
• the details
  • tiltable cabin
  • openable doors
  • a winch or a hose reel

I think all of that should be perfectly doable within a 150 dollar set, without requiring any new moulds. Of course, you can extend endlessly, but then the set will get out of reach for increasingly many people.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Erik Leppen

[allanp]

@howitzer the idea with the labels for pneumatic tubes is that they would be a thin sticker long enough to wrap around the pipe a couple of times so it can't come off, and yes it is a form of colour coding, one that allows for far more colours and even numbers to be used to better identify hoses whilst having the majority of the hose be all black. All the hoses would be black with just a 3mm wide strip of colour near each end of the pipe. So it's colour coding, but more tasteful and with less room for error.

[howitzer]

5 minutes ago, allanp said:

@howitzer the idea with the labels for pneumatic tubes is that they would be a thin sticker long enough to wrap around the pipe a couple of times so it can't come off, and yes it is a form of colour coding, one that allows for far more colours and even numbers to be used to better identify hoses whilst having the majority of the hose be all black. All the hoses would be black with just a 3mm wide strip of colour near each end of the pipe. So it's colour coding, but more tasteful and with less room for error.

But it does come off. The sticker unsticks, then breaks and falls off, no matter how many times it has been wrapped around the tube. Or at least it would start peeling off from the ends. Maybe it could work a while if the sticker material itself was something really stretchy, but I don't see this kind of solution happening. I'd rather take the current black/grey/blue colour coding (like in the Arocs for example).

[thekoRngear]

I think [to "save" Technic] a balance between large scale solidly performing Mechanical sets and large scale Electronic sets every year can do. The worrying about Technic mostly arose from two factors:

• Display-oriented empty shells or display-oriented good-for-nothing-sets [the owners have every right to go for them and MOC/MOD them out or just have fun building the set. The owners are happy and smarter, no offence]
• Current electronics system [C(rap) Plus] and their hard-to-accept-yet-harsh-reality pricing

Yes, the 2010 decade started greatly, but the problems and concerns discussed here are originated from the same decade's later points. These days a C+ 42129 Zetros or a C+ 42131 Cat are advertised and pushed with great efforts where the 42108 made the crane concept cartoonish, the 42128 Tow Truck definitely got less pushes from TLG.

The 42139 is one of the few great exceptions for this still fresh decade, but poor fella was the only solid purely mechanical and proper Technic set for the FIRST HALF of 2022

Edited April 22, 2022 by thekoRngear

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

What you describe is a fun experiment, but if this is the outline then I'm out. I'm simply not going to spend 400 dollars on any Lego set, period. I'd much rather see four well-designed, fun and diverse manual 100-dollar sets of somewhere around 1000 parts each and then I can decide to buy one or two of my choice.

If the "boss" - or whoever - wants a 400 dollar fire truck, my opinion would be that that's the wrong goal to set. What I think he should say is, if we do a fire truck, then what should it do, technic-wise, and then, if we want to put all that in a set, what price point would we end up getting?

What should a Lego Technic fire truck do?

• The basics
  • suspension
  • steering
  • fake engine
• the specifics for the subject matter
  • turntable with raisable extendable ladder
  • 2 outriggers
  • and of course, lights (if one set should have lights, it's a fire truck).
• the details
  • tiltable cabin
  • openable doors
  • a winch or a hose reel

I think all of that should be perfectly doable within a 150 dollar set, without requiring any new moulds. Of course, you can extend endlessly, but then the set will get out of reach for increasingly many people.

You're correct that all of this (except lights) should be doable in a 150 dollar fully manual/pneumatic set, similar in complexity to the 42128 Tow Truck. But if you want to make it somewhat bigger (maybe Arocs scale) and motorize the main functions and also include those lights, you're probably looking for a much more expensive set, perhaps $250-300 or even more, if we include stuff from @allanp's dreams like small servos for pneumatic switches and so on.

[Jundis]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

3mm wide strip

Or just the face-ends of the hoses with colours :-)

2 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

I'd much rather see four well-designed, fun and diverse manual 100-dollar sets of somewhere around 1000 parts each and then I can decide to buy one or two of my choice.

Was about to say the same thing. If it hadn't been for a big discount, I'd never bought the 42100.

With the current amount of models (about 15 per year), I think Lego can please everybody and, as already been discussed, they sell well.

[Seasider]

Sorry I haven’t read through all the comments here but I wanted to give my thoughts. I’m in agreement with what @Jim said in his second post here.

we all often look back on “the good old days” for lots of things, I’m knocking on the door of my half century and to me lots of things were better years ago. I still prefer to listen to music from the late 80s and early 90s. The car I enjoy driving is from 94, I also have a company car which some would think is better.

in terms of your 3 points

1. I don’t think Technic has taken a step back … it’s evolved like everything has to evolve with the times. I like the original studded era. But I also love the modern studless. I have to admit I don’t have many recent flagship construction sets as that’s not my thing, I’ve got the Volvo loader, but I appreciate them for what they are. I do collect the Ultimate cars but that’s because I’m a car nut. I enjoy the build of them and displaying them and accept them for what they are … large expensive display models. I think licences were inevitable. Without licences Lego probably wouldn’t exist today (Star Wars, Marvel, etc) and selling a model of a vehicle/thing people can identify with is easy. I agree the lack of B-models is frustrating but then I also remember the day when you had C-models too.

2. MOCs are never going to compete against an official set. Just look over this forum in ALL themes and you’ll see the same thing where an MOC is far more detailed and pleasing to the adult eye over a TLG creation. Using a car analogy why would you compare a car that’s been heavily modified against something stock ? I’ve had modified cars that outperformed far more expensive road cars but it still didn’t stop me from wanting one of them myself.

3. I disagree on this, but it depends on your view of “fun”. My most recent Technic purchase was the BMW bike and I have to say I loved the build process on it. I’m amazed at some of the subassemblies TLG comes up with to create some of the shapes and structures in a model. I remember the same for the Sian. But i also remember really enjoying building 42094 Tracked Loader, which has a great A and B model.

 

My final point is remember that TLG is a business and that us AFOLs on here are the extreme (and minority) of who they sell to, even for the 18+ sets (which is just a marketing / branding ploy). We should be happy that TLG is going strong and still creating lots of new sets for us to spend our hard earned cash on each year … I dread to think how much I’ll spend this year between City (space sets), Star Wars (helmets and ucs) and Technic (BMW and Ultimate Supercar). To put this into further context my 10yr old nephew is now starting to embrace Technic and at the moment he’s still after something that looks cool more than functions. He loves the pullback Monster Trucks … which is surprising as I’m sure he’s never seen monster truck racing!

[langko]

Interesting discussion going on and good to hear peoples opinions in a respectful way.

To answer your questions first...

1. The 'good old days' are going to be different to everyone. I'm personally on the younger end of the AFOL, I've never owned or even seen a studded technic set. The technic sets I had as a kid were actually the Racer branded sets, the first technic branded set I ever bought was the Porsche GT3 RS in my early 20's. I was actually blown away by how much further lego had come since I was a kid. When I compare the Porsche to supercar models now days it's not that great, which for me shows how much the standard has improved in the past 5 years. Like other people have mentioned, Lego make models based on what brings in profit. They are a business after all. What they are doing currently must be working for them. You cannot make one thing that pleases everybody (is true for everything in life), but I think Lego do a good job offering enough variety that everyone that's interested in the hobby would find something they like. If you truly don't like anything that lego puts out then go design something you like instead, Lego definitely hasn't taken a step back with the parts on offer. Its never better in terms of being able to create your own MOCs. 

The things that do frustrate me though... Its hard to take the "build for real" slogan seriously when they consistently put out models that don't live up to that... 1 wheel drive Senna, The flexari, Porsche with incorrect gear sequence, Bugatti without working front suspension, Osprey that shreads the gears and gets cancelled, Raptor without AWD, + whatever else fits. On the flip side its also hard to take display focused models seriously when they are covered in blue pins, have stickers that don't quite match the colour of the part its being applied too, have pieces with inconsistent colouring, or in the case of the Mclaren F1 car - a model that doesn't even look like what its representing. All of that I would not consider to be taking a step forward.

2. I think MOC's will always have the potential to be better than what ever Lego puts out. As a designer in my own living room I'm not restricted by: total part count, part efficiency, colour vomit, how expensive it is, who its marketed too, how complicated it is to actually assemble and make instructions for, what functions it does or doesn't have etc... On the flip side MOC's have the potential to be much worse that Lego sets as well, when designing from your own living room there is no company standards, building techniques etc that you have to meet. Truly exceptional MOCs aren't common, and for every excellent one there are many more that would get absolutely torn to shreds with criticism if they were an official set. 

3. I do not think the fun is gone. There are many sets that I think would be fun to build, I just don't buy them. The recent 42128 tow truck is a great example. Would I like to and enjoy building it? - Yes. Am I actually interested though in having a tow truck on my shelf? - No. Is the model useful as a parts pack for my MOCs? - No. So  just because I won't buy it, doesn't mean its a bad model. I'm sure it'll bring lots of enjoyment to the target audience. And for me, the most fun is when I make my own MOC's. As mentioned above I personally think the parts on offer are fantastic and there's been many cool new panels/frames etc released recently that make things better and better. 

To comment on some other things...

On 4/22/2022 at 8:19 AM, dmaclego said:

And one more thing: what we buy as LEGO sets should not be confused with what LEGO designers are capable of. I actually have a great deal of respect and sympathy for them. Just imagine you've created a fantastic model and then you hear from your boss: "Man, we don't produce these and these elements this year. Replace them with something else." Or: "No, this year you can use them only in white or dark pink". Or: "Sorry, pal, but according to marketing department your model is 10 dollars over the budget. Forget the printed parts and shave off at least one feature." 

This is an excellent point! You have to remember too that even if a designer designs something bad, its still getting approved by whoever higher up that makes the final decisions. For me they are equally to blame for approving something that is no good. Take the failing suspension on the front of the Bugatti for example. Yes the designer did a bad job, but his superiors have still declared it fit for market. Even the people at Bugatti had to approve the model. If I hypothetically was the person at Bugatti overseeing the co-operation and Lego comes to me with that? I'd be saying 'sorry that's not good enough, come back with something better". Even with the upcoming UCS SP3, what's to say the designer doesn't want to create an awesome front engined Ferrari 812 competizione instead? I doubt he has much control over what is given to him to design. Part of making a great model is great source material and it's not the designers fault if he is given bad source material. I will wait until I see the final model for further judgement, but from first opinions its not the best car to be dumping on a designer. It's doesn't really offer the chance to do anything new compared to existing lineup, different type of doors and a small removable roof but not much else. Even from a visual point things like the shape of the windscreen are not very good, and the position of the front mirrors are terrible too. Take away the actually 'screen' from the windscreen and your not left with much, and what should we expect for the front mirrors? The same little panels again somehow hanging of the front wheel arch? 

15 hours ago, allanp said:

We could try it as an experiment.

You are now a designer and the boss or focus group decides we need a roughly 400 dollar control+ big red classic American fire truck as the next flagship. Fans are already complaining it'll be crap and boring with nothing but drive and steering and be overpriced.

Please be honest, critique like you would an official set, would a set like that, with that kind of thinking behind it be an effective answer to threads like this? 

You lost me at $400 dollars and fire truck. Why? Because both of those things already won't appeal to everyone. Even if the set is absolutely amazing and includes everything you said, some people just won't have the budget for that and other people won't buy it because they simply don't like fire trucks. Like I mentioned above one thing will never appeal to everyone. They key is making a range of stuff that something there will appeal to everyone. Has Lego got that range right? that's for each individual to decide. I personally don't care if something I really really like only comes around every few years, I understand not everything is for everyone and that's ok. I personally spend much more money on bricklink than I do on offical sets.

[J159753]

One aspect I don't understand about modern official Technic is the ideological avoidance of studded beams at all costs. It's not that TLG aren't still producing the studded beams and using them other lines. There are times when studded beams would clearly add design flexibility or structural rigidity, but TLG insists on going for all studless technic nonetheless decorated with system pieces. Why? I'd love it if they went back to a more pragmatic, hybrid approach - still primarily studless but using studded beams where it was helpful and not a significant visual impact.

[howitzer]

7 hours ago, langko said:

You lost me at $400 dollars and fire truck. Why? Because both of those things already won't appeal to everyone. Even if the set is absolutely amazing and includes everything you said, some people just won't have the budget for that and other people won't buy it because they simply don't like fire trucks. Like I mentioned above one thing will never appeal to everyone. They key is making a range of stuff that something there will appeal to everyone. Has Lego got that range right? that's for each individual to decide. I personally don't care if something I really really like only comes around every few years, I understand not everything is for everyone and that's ok. I personally spend much more money on bricklink than I do on offical sets.

Designing a single set that has wide appeal isn't that hard, the fire truck idea was obviously meant as a flagship, which are always out of budget for many people, and of course firetrucks aren't interesting to everyone, same as supercars or helicopters.

It would be more interesting to see proposals for the entire lineup of a single year, from the little entry sets and pullbacks to the flagship. Which themes get applied, and to which scales? What features to include and what to exclude in each scale? How does it fit into the continuum of sets from previous years?

28 minutes ago, J159753 said:

One aspect I don't understand about modern official Technic is the ideological avoidance of studded beams at all costs. It's not that TLG aren't still producing the studded beams and using them other lines. There are times when studded beams would clearly add design flexibility or structural rigidity, but TLG insists on going for all studless technic nonetheless decorated with system pieces. Why? I'd love it if they went back to a more pragmatic, hybrid approach - still primarily studless but using studded beams where it was helpful and not a significant visual impact.

I believe they want to avoid them because it's often kinda hard to fit studded bricks into studless construction (not impossible by any means though), and most of the time there's just no need. On the other hand, they do use those when it's necessary, for example the boom of the 42082 RTC would be much bulkier and in need of a complete redesign without bricks. 

[langko]

1 hour ago, howitzer said:

Designing a single set that has wide appeal isn't that hard, the fire truck idea was obviously meant as a flagship, which are always out of budget for many people, and of course firetrucks aren't interesting to everyone, same as supercars or helicopters.

It would be more interesting to see proposals for the entire lineup of a single year, from the little entry sets and pullbacks to the flagship. Which themes get applied, and to which scales? What features to include and what to exclude in each scale? How does it fit into the continuum of sets from previous years?

I understand that example was meant as a flagship. But the idea that fire trucks, super cars, helicopters etc aren’t interesting to everyone can be applied to any model of any subject at any price point. For example I won’t buy a fire truck if the price is $40, $400, or anywhere in between. 
Out of curiosity do you have an idea for a single set that would have wide appeal? 
I agree with you it would be more interesting to see an idea for an entires year lineup, you can make a better judgement. But I wouldn’t blame any one on here for not wanting to put the effort in to think of that. 

[allanp]

@howitzer is correct, the fire truck was a thought experiment. Of course we have a whole range of sets and different price points to choose from which is great. But it helps to understand the scale of the challenge faced by the designers when given those kinds of restraints, where it has to hit a certain size and price point, and be an impressively huge shelf queen in this example. If these size sets are a given, as dictated by market forces bigger than us, then how can their appeal be widened to include the most amount of people, including those long time fans that feel Technic is losing its way? Some say they would never spend that much on one set, but they do spend more than that on Lego as a whole, so....I mean what if we go crazy and say the thing introduced actual working hugely powerful hydraulics, and a physical remote with lots of joy sticks, buttons, D-pads and a built in 5 inch touch screen for programming and WiFi and Bluetooth (completely removing the need for a smart phone, and greatly improving PU as a whole), things that couldn't be included in 4 100-150 dollar sets. Some say 400 dollars is too big and unjustified, and for some large sets I completely agree. The bulldozer didn't have to be that big or expensive for example. I want to know, given the market forces beyond our control, what would it take to make it something you actually would want to buy? 

I guess I'm so focused on the flagship because....it's the flagship! I guess I find it difficult to accept that one huge set couldn't possibly be more exciting than 4 smaller sets, and that there's absolutely nothing they could possibly do to bridge the gap between what they would like their flagship product to be as a business and what we'd like them to be. But I guess I should keep in mind that, while you can please everyone when you have a few dozen sets to offer, you can't please everyone with every set.

@J159753 Regarding studded Technic, I do think there's definitely room (and possibly even a need for) a new hybrid theme that bridges the gap between regular Lego and Technic. Right now it's a huge difference between the two with no bridge from one to the other. But with a new Studded Technic based sub theme, maybe we could call it "Lego Motive" or something, but it would basically be a return of small-mid sized studded universal sets. Very easy to build but each set introduces some mechanical fundamental (motors, pneumatic, linkages, etc) so now there's a bridge between regular Lego and Technic. All the studded beams and plates are still in production so why not?!