Hasbro making LEGO-like products again with Transformers this time

[Big Cam]

Imagine a guy with his head in his hand due to disgust.

That is how I feel about this thread. Hasbro is on my megablock list right now.

[Internets]

If those helmets on Hasbro's miniature figures (notice how I don't use the term minifigure? Since minifigure is what I reserve exclusively for LEGO ) actually fit on LEGO heads, then I might buy some of these sets; particularly Bumblebee and Optimus Prime.

I was thinking that too.

[BrickBob Studpants]

Wow, I'm shocked I know that Lego has lost their patent about 7 years ago, but Hasbro's downright stealing recent parts Shouldn't that be illegal? Does this mean everyone can now copy the set designs as well? Shameless, just shameless. Hasbro has definitely lost my respect

[5150 Lego]

Except that Hasbro doesn't license Transformers, it owns the property outright. So you'll never see Lego Transformers unless something goes seriously wrong at Hasbro.

Hasbro also owns the rights to one of TLC most popular licensed themes.. That being Star Wars. while the probability may not be likely, never say never as no one knows what the future will hold.

Imagine a guy with his head in his hand due to disgust.

That is how I feel about this thread. Hasbro is on my megablock list right now.

And why is that? I don't think its fair to pass judgment on these if you haven't seen one in person and had an opportunity to examine the quality up close. You also can't fault Hasbro for at least giving a shot at designing there own brick line. I'm not saying these are going to be flawless (i haven't seen any in person so i myself can't comment on quality), but the set designs seem to be good.

Wow, I'm shocked I know that Lego has lost their patent about 7 years ago, but Hasbro's downright stealing recent parts Shouldn't that be illegal? Does this mean everyone can now copy the set designs as well? Shameless, just shameless. Hasbro has definitely lost my respect

Oh geez.... TLC doesn't own the brick anymore. Nore to they own the rights to any similar brick designs. They do however own the rights to set designs. But in this case, that is not being copied.

After further examination of the pictures, I'm having a hard time lining up were the feet/arms etc go during transformation. They don't seem to add up when compared from vehicle to robot mode. So its looking like you might have to choose which one you build. Either robot, or vehicle. That will be a shame if true.

[Hive]

Hasbro also owns the rights to one of TLC most popular licensed themes.. That being Star Wars. while the probability may not be likely, never say never as no one knows what the future will hold.

Hasbro does not own Star Wars in any way, they license it from George Lucas in just the same way as LEGO does.

Anyway, I agree with you that people are a bit too protective of LEGO and their bricks. Yes, these bricks are heavily inspired by LEGO and are fully compatible with LEGO. But why must that be a bad thing? I'm sure LEGO will be fine financially regardless. And I think it's absolutely marvelous to have two great toylines be compatible like this, I wish there would have been cases of that when I was a child. I see these upcoming "LEGO-ish" Transformers sets as compliments to a LEGO collection, not as competitor.

[5150 Lego]

Hasbro does not own Star Wars in any way, they license it from George Lucas in just the same way as LEGO does.

True. But if its anything like how the rest of business works, there is a bidding process. This ensures that every company gets a fair and equal opportunity to make products based on their particular line. many times though if a company (in this case Lucas Arts) owns is already working with a company (Hasbro) they will give them first dibbs at creating the product they are looking for. If they can't create or are not interested, the company that owns the rights then can contact another company who is capable of meeting the criteria needed in said product, or they simply go out to bid.

(please note, this is just speculation. I don't have any hard core facts, but it does make sense since this is how alot (not all)of business works.

Anyway, I agree with you that people are a bit too protective of LEGO and their bricks. Yes, these bricks are heavily inspired by LEGO and are fully compatible with LEGO. But why must that be a bad thing? I'm sure LEGO will be fine financially regardless. And I think it's absolutely marvelous to have two great toylines be compatible like this, I wish there would have been cases of that when I was a child. I see these upcoming "LEGO-ish" Transformers sets as compliments to a LEGO collection, not as competitor.

I've found that being a "Fan boy" or brand loyal never pays off in the end. I can understand having preferences based on personal experience, (this can be related to any hobby really) but to dismiss something completely without having even seeing it is down right ignorant. I've held Mega Blocks Halo sets, and even attempted to build a couple. I can say from experience that the quality is terrible and many sets need glue to hold together if you plan on actually playing with them. But in this case many just see them as a "clone" brand and automatically dismiss them. And at this point there is no real basis for this as the designs are clearly well done. Quality has yet to be seen as no one (at least on here) has had the opportunity to see them up close. So while we can't say there better or on par with LEGO, we can't say there worse either. Competition is a good thing.

[AndyC]

True. But if its anything like how the rest of business works, there is a bidding process. This ensures that every company gets a fair and equal opportunity to make products based on their particular line. many times though if a company (in this case Lucas Arts) owns is already working with a company (Hasbro) they will give them first dibbs at creating the product they are looking for. If they can't create or are not interested, the company that owns the rights then can contact another company who is capable of meeting the criteria needed in said product, or they simply go out to bid.

Yes, licensing works like that. But as I said, Hasbro doesn't license Transformers, they made it up, it is their product. Just as Lego doesn't have to license Bionicle. All the Transformers cartoons, comics, movies license the Transformers IP from Hasbro. Which is why asking for Transformers Lego is as pointless as asking for Bionicle Playmobil. It just won't happen.

[Zarkan]

Okay, I'll be honest: these look pretty flipping cool. I mean, what's not to love about building kits based on Transformers that have good designs and, apparently, can trasform without any disasembly? These are certainly miles better than Hasbro's previous attempt at building blocks, anyway. And this does seem to prove more than any previous attempt that a Transformers theme would translate to the medium.

The biggest problem I can foresee is the actual quality of the bricks. If these pieces can't hold together well during trasnformations and heavy play, then the entire line is sunk. However, if the quality is near the level of Lego sets, than it may have a chance of actually competting with TLC.

And for those who are getting so upset about this, I need to ask you one question: why? These sets are not rip-offs of any lego themes or set designs, but are entirely new designs that just uitilize similar bricks. And since Lego doesn't have a legal copyright on the stud and coupling system or even the 2x4 anymore, can you really blame Hasbro for trying to compete with lego. If anything, having some actual competition in the building block world will be good for fans, as both companies will potentially be pushed to improve brick/set quality and lower prices. Sometimes, I really feel like people take their loyalty to Lego too far - it's a brand, nothing more, and TLC is neither infaliable or the only legitimite construction toy company in existence. Give fanboyism a rest, and evaluate toys based on their indiviual quality.

[5150 Lego]

Yes, licensing works like that. But as I said, Hasbro doesn't license Transformers, they made it up, it is their product. Just as Lego doesn't have to license Bionicle. All the Transformers cartoons, comics, movies license the Transformers IP from Hasbro. Which is why asking for Transformers Lego is as pointless as asking for Bionicle Playmobil. It just won't happen.

Why was it pointless? No one really could have guessed that Hasbro would have came up with there own brick line considering they have nothing on the market currently that would indicate a move to click tighter bricks. And if your insisting that because their there own toy line doesn't necessarily hold up.

I think a better example on my part would have been Disney. The own Pirates of the Caribbean as well as "Cars". Disney is essentially has there own toy line and if they wanted to, could have done the same thing Hasbro did and came up with there own brick line but they didn't. They gave TLS the license this time around. Point being is that just because a company owns its product out right (heck, it doesn't even need to own it out right, just a share) doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility for an outside company to come in and create product under said license.

And besides, in the end, theres nothing wrong with alittle wishful thinking.

[Plastic Nurak]

I'm the only one, here, that's beginning to hate the licences or, at least, most of them ?

(not SW, of course)

The pursuite of such goal can put on a second side the improvement of existing themes and the surviving of the LEGO spirit . Bionicle sets are genuine LEGO product, but they have licence pursuing spirit. I don't like that line, the violent core on which is based is a trahison of the traditional LEGO spirit, when the most "violent" tool were the shooting cannon and cowboys' colts in minifig scale - you know what I mean, now.

[johnsocal]

I think a better example on my part would have been Disney. The own Pirates of the Caribbean as well as "Cars". Disney is essentially has there own toy line and if they wanted to, could have done the same thing Hasbro did and came up with there own brick line but they didn't. They gave TLS the license this time around. Point being is that just because a company owns its product out right (heck, it doesn't even need to own it out right, just a share) doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility for an outside company to come in and create product under said license.

This just reminded me of the danger of being dependent on other companies licenses. I think it's safe to say that at some point in the future (after current contract expires) Disney will start making their own LEGO-like products with their own licenses.

[Aanchir]

I'm the only one, here, that's beginning to hate the licences or, at least, most of them ?

(not SW, of course)

The pursuite of such goal can put on a second side the improvement of existing themes and the surviving of the LEGO spirit . Bionicle sets are genuine LEGO product, but they have licence pursuing spirit. I don't like that line, the violent core on which is based is a trahison of the traditional LEGO spirit, when the most "violent" tool were the shooting cannon and cowboys' colts in minifig scale - you know what I mean, now.

What is there in BIONICLE that's any more violent than past themes? Yes, there are weapons, and LEGO has had weapons since Castle. Yes, there are firearms/launchers, and LEGO has had those since at least Pirates (in fact, if you count the catapults in Castle, since far earlier). Much of the combat involves magical elemental powers and other superpowers, and characters are killed only rarely. The idea that fantasy weapons are inherently more violent than historical real-world weapons is ludicrous (and furthermore, is as much of a reason to hate Star Wars as to hate BIONICLE).

Licensed themes did indeed lead to BIONICLE, in that Star Wars helped save LEGO in the late 90s, and BIONICLE was LEGO's first attempt to match that success with a product they didn't have to pay huge royalties on. Since it was the iconic story that caused Star Wars to be so successful, LEGO tried to match that by creating a multimedia story for the BIONICLE franchise, with unique personalities for the characters, well-defined conflicts and goals, and a linear progression of the story where each bit fed into the next. Yes, BIONICLE was revolutionary, and because of that it was a saving grace for LEGO financially. But there was nothing in it that was inherently contradictory to the LEGO spirit, nor was there anything that has detracted from mainstream LEGO sets in the meantime.

I don't even see what this has to do with the current conversation, other than that you seem to think licensing should be a "once-only" thing. As with BIONICLE, the licenses since Star Wars have not harmed mainstream LEGO themes or sets, nor have they been inherently inferior to past themes. You can dislike individual licenses, but saying that LEGO shouldn't have licenses other than Star Wars doesn't make any real sense.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Aanchir

[johnsocal]

LEGO is also going to have to compete more fiercely for attractive licenses(by paying more) since other companies are getting better at making LEGO-like bricks. Sure LEGO will most likely have the best quality and the best brand for doing MOCS, but for those who are buying toys as gifts and capping their price limit at $20-$30 a set, those LEGO-like products are going to sell very well in comparison.

Over the next decade I expect LEGO as a solitary brand will become more marginalized, but their design for the modular plastic brick will become even more prominent throughout the toy industry as a whole. There will always be a LEGO aisle at you local Target or TRU, but over the years fewer-and-fewer of those sets in that aisle will actually be made by LEGO themselves.

Edited February 15, 2011 by johnsocal

[Omicron]

LEGO is also going to have to compete more fiercely for attractive licenses(by paying more) since other companies are getting better at making LEGO-like bricks.

Look at the past years of licenses, I think Lego did a damn good job at getting what they made.

Think about it. Star Wars is still hot. People love Indy. Kids love Spongebob and Ben 10. And there is also Harry Potter and there was also Batman.

And can't forget an upcoming summer blockbuster, PoTC.

-Omi

[Corvus]

I find the idea of a Transformers building set awesome. I really do. I don't care if it's Hasbro that makes it, and I don't even mind if they borrow one or two basic concepts from LEGO, such as the gripping system.

However, I find what they did appalling- they took a massive shortcut, and pretty much directly hacked off some of LEGO's pieces. Not just basic pieces, either, but specialized pieces that LEGO developed in the past few years. I want to see what LEGO's official reaction will be. My guess is that they're going to submit to Hasbro. They've folded before on the subject of the battle packs, and I think they're going to fold again. They just don't want to duke it out with Hasbro. Moreover, I'm not sure that they could win a case- while the plagiarism is obvious to us, I don't think a court is going to care enough, or Hasbro is going to pull the same stunt that MB pulled when LEGO challenged them over their line.

If this was an original line, I'd have full support. If they were quality plastic, I'd buy one or two. But as it is, all I can think of is just how much of a waste it was that Hasbro did these, and that Hasbro is a piece of hypocritical crap.

[vexorian]

fbtb comments and high res pics of them. Optimus looks very cool, but no, they don't transform, and I don't like the minifigs either (it does not even make sense that they are there...).

http://www.fbtb.net/2011/02/16/kre-o-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/

But in this case many just see them as a "clone" brand and automatically dismiss them. And at this point there is no real basis for this as the designs are clearly well done. Quality has yet to be seen as no one (at least on here) has had the opportunity to see them up close.

It is a LEGO clone, by clone we do not mean bootleg, but it is a product that mimics what LEGO have been selling for years and even use the same brick sizes, and even rod sizes touting compatibility.

At least two people in this thread have seen Hasbro bricks before and we agreed they were megabloks quality. Unless they surprisingly did something to their plastic, then it is safe to assume that they had sticked to megabloks quality, specially seeing the prices. fbtb also confirmed that the blocks in the new sets have that sort of look...

It would be suicidal for Lucas Arts to stop giving LEGO their license unless Hasbro bricks somehow manage to magically capture most of LEGO's marketshare (and I mean worldwide) as opposed to just making GI-Joe / Transformers sets that little to nobody has heard of. Until then, Lucas Arts giving the SW construction license to anyone other than LEGO might even cause lawsuits from stockholders. In fact, it seems like Hasbro are not interested in that and are just doing these sets because they noticed that there is a demand for them and they do not feel like every licensing any other toy brand with them.

However' date=' I find what they did appalling- they took a massive shortcut, and pretty much directly hacked off some of LEGO's pieces. Not just basic pieces, either, but specialized pieces that LEGO developed in the past few years. [/quote']

Edit: Oh, I have just seen :

Yeah, those seem to be very similar to things LEGO has started using just recently

LEGO is also going to have to compete more fiercely for attractive licenses(by paying more) since other companies are getting better at making LEGO-like bricks.

I've seen no evidence of that.

I think the clone brands alone already do a great job scaring licenses away from them. Take Disney as an example.

--

Anyway... Lower quality bricks don't complete a collection, it makes it worse.

Edited February 17, 2011 by vexorian

[johnsocal]

And can't forget an upcoming summer blockbuster, PoTC.

POTC is already past it's prime and I doubt the new movie will perform as well as 1,2,3, did in the box office. With that being said the new POTC LEGO do look really cool and should sell well.

[Hive]

At least two people in this thread have seen Hasbro bricks before and we agreed they were megabloks quality. Unless they surprisingly did something to their plastic, then it is safe to assume that they had sticked to megabloks quality, specially seeing the prices. fbtb also confirmed that the blocks in the new sets have that sort of look...

For what it's worth, I read an interview with a Hasbro guy who said that they were aware that their previous line bombed in part due to poor plastic quality. So one should from that assume that means they have improved it.

[Bricks2000]

they don't transform.

So, i have to rebuild the set to transform it? pathetic.

[5150 Lego]

I find the idea of a Transformers building set awesome. I really do. I don't care if it's Hasbro that makes it, and I don't even mind if they borrow one or two basic concepts from LEGO, such as the gripping system.

However, I find what they did appalling- they took a massive shortcut, and pretty much directly hacked off some of LEGO's pieces. Not just basic pieces, either, but specialized pieces that LEGO developed in the past few years.

I hear this alot concerning the subject of clone brands bricks they use. But my question is why? Why does it up set or in this case "appall" you that Hasbro has made a duplicate brick? What is Lego doing specifically for you that would make you feel such a way? There are only so many ways you can make a slope piece.

I want to see what LEGO's official reaction will be. My guess is that they're going to submit to Hasbro. They've folded before on the subject of the battle packs, and I think they're going to fold again. They just don't want to duke it out with Hasbro. Moreover, I'm not sure that they could win a case- while the plagiarism is obvious to us, I don't think a court is going to care enough, or Hasbro is going to pull the same stunt that MB pulled when LEGO challenged them over their line.

Though it really doesn't concern me, I am curious to see if TLC does in fact have a case. I know that anyone can make the standard brick, but i am curious to see if a patent can (or has for that matter) be put on any specialized pieces.

If this was an original line, I'd have full support. If they were quality plastic, I'd buy one or two. But as it is, all I can think of is just how much of a waste it was that Hasbro did these, and that Hasbro is a piece of hypocritical crap.

I don't understand this statement. How is Hasbro being hypocritical? Did they at some point say they would never make a building type toy?

fbtb comments and high res pics of them. Optimus looks very cool, but no, they don't transform,

Well this confirms my one of my concerns. Thats a big disappointment. The whole point of Transformers is for them to...Transform. I might still pick up as i do like there vehicle forms, but i have to admit, they are alittle less appealing to me now.

At least two people in this thread have seen Hasbro bricks before and we agreed they were megabloks quality. Unless they surprisingly did something to their plastic, then it is safe to assume that they had sticked to megabloks quality, specially seeing the prices. fbtb also confirmed that the blocks in the new sets have that sort of look...

The fact that two people in this thread didn't care for the quality of a competitor brick line was over 10 yrs old doesn't concern me. Thats more than enough time to improve on brick quality. Anyhow, i don't believe going on the visual looks of the bricks is completely fair. LEGO has had quality control problems with there colors for years now (anyone who has built Café' Corner can confirms this). Would you judge LEGO's whole line based on a couple bricks not having the exact same shade of red? Or Blue?

It would be suicidal for Lucas Arts to stop giving LEGO their license unless Hasbro bricks somehow manage to magically capture most of LEGO's marketshare (and I mean worldwide) as opposed to just making GI-Joe / Transformers sets that little to nobody has heard of. Until then, Lucas Arts giving the SW construction license to anyone other than LEGO might even cause lawsuits from stockholders. In fact, it seems like Hasbro are not interested in that and are just doing these sets because they noticed that there is a demand for them and they do not feel like every licensing any other toy brand with them.

Agreed.

[Brickdoctor]

Does Hasbro even need a new license for this? They have the action figure license already, so they couldn't just brand them as action figures with the building blocks as 'accessories', the same way that TLG brands them as building toys with minifigs as 'accessories'?

[Omicron]

POTC is already past it's prime and I doubt the new movie will perform as well as 1,2,3, did in the box office. With that being said the new POTC LEGO do look really cool and should sell well.

So was Indiana Jones, and it still happened.

-Omi

[Hive]

Does Hasbro even need a new license for this? They have the action figure license already, so they couldn't just brand them as action figures with the building blocks as 'accessories', the same way that TLG brands them as building toys with minifigs as 'accessories'?

No, they don't need a new license as they already own the entire brand. They don't pay for Transformers licenses from someone else, they *own* the licenses themselves. Hasbro created Transformers and can sell Transformers toys in any way they like.

[BrickBucket]

These licensed themes have been financially lucrative for Lego, but is there anyone here who had wished Lego would have stuck with and expanded with their classic themes and sub-themes of system?

If you look at a company like Playmobil, although not a construction toy they have similar themes to Lego (castle, city, agents, pirates, ect..) and they have never relied on licences and are still around today.

I don't want to knock the licensed themes for people who like them, but they do take focus, energy and consumer dollars away from the core Lego themes. I think at some point depending on what franchise get's picked Lego will actually loose out on some profits, that could have gone to unlicensed products.

I have see more recently a lot licensed sets on clearance at Walmart (mainly Toy story, POP) than I do core sets and this makes me wonder.

Anyone have any idea what Lego pays for something POTC, POP, Toy Story, Sponge Bob and Star Wars?

Edited February 18, 2011 by meatbucket

[johnsocal]

The Star Wars license was a brilliant move on the part of LEGO, even though it wasn't fully realized until 2005 with ROTS and SW LEGO video game tie-ins. I think it's safe to say that the huge boom of SW LEGOs helped revive The LEGO Group which was financially floundering (at best) before then.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05806aa4-f819-11df-8875-00144feab49a.html#axzz1EI5zr8zc

The story: For almost 70 years, Lego experienced steady growth. But in 1998 the company started losing money. By 2003, sales had dropped by 26 per cent and in 2004 by a further 20 per cent; these two years represented the biggest losses in Lego history.

Edited February 18, 2011 by johnsocal