LEGO DesignbyME to close January 2012

[vynsane]

I think we're talking about to different aspects of the LDD software - the 'free build' (which would be augmented by your idea) and 'Design byMe' (the next generation of which is my focus).

DbM is being closed because it wasn't profitable enough. I'm not saying that your 'sort bricks by box' mode isn't a good idea, it really is, though it somewhat already exits in DbM mode - there's a button 'filter bricks by box', but the only option presently is Hero Factory.

What I'm doing is spitballing ideas to make the next iteration of DbM profitable. Part of what I see to be a problem is the potential for the next DbM service to cut into the profits of the standard retail business unit, and the ways TLG could mitigate that issue without limiting the potential of the DbM 2.0 service the way DbM 1.0 was (parts/color selection). TLG is not going to allow one product (DbM 2.0) to potentially adversely effect another product (retail sales). I'm looking for ways that TLG could let us have our cake and eat it, too - a fully-featured DbM that will offer us a much wider selection of pieces that isn't at the same time considered a threat to retail sales. The idea behind the 'codes' is just one way to ensure that.

Ultimately, LDD is most definitely a marketing tool. The shutting down of DbM proves as much. TLG continually maintains that the 'Hardcore LEGO Maniacs' you refer to account for 10% of their sales, so DbM 2.0 will not be exclusive of 90% of their market base. If anything, DbM 2.0 will be an even easier-to-use service that caters more to children than ever before. We can only hope that TLG throws those of us in the remaining 10% a bone and gives us a more feature-rich 'DbM Power User' experience in addition.

[vexorian]

I sort of expected Universe to close, but DbM? That was unexpected. Thankfully, TLG says users will still be able to upload LDD creations to the official gallery and a replacement is coming for DbM, so this doesn't look like it will seriously impact the future of LDD. Here's hoping that if TLG is striving to let users 'design whatever they imagined', we'll see greater varieties of bricks available in the replacement.

via TBB.

I expected this because of how much of a niche Design by Me was (and admit it, we are AFOLs so we must know tons of geeks, how many non-AFOLs are excited about the idea of being able to make their own ultra expensive sets through a complicated GUI that does not even run on Linux? The only viable target for this were AFOLs, and even among us it is really not very popular. What we do have is a lot of people using LDD to make MoCs without ordering them, and that is staying.

Plus, Hero Recon team is staying, and LEGO is thinking of a different way for customization that is easier for children. Since I read between lines a lot, I am kind of seeing this as an announcement of some sort of Recon team for non-HF themes.

Edited November 20, 2011 by vexorian

[Calabar]

I understand where you're coming from but look at it from TLG's perspective - if they made all the retail sets available for you to pick and choose which pieces you wanted to order via DbM 2.0, there would be little incentive for you to buy the whole set at retail (a lot of people would have ordered a "custom" Earth Defense HQ starfighter and called it a day), unless they made the service prohibitively expensive to do it that way, which would just perpetuate the main issue with DbM 1.0.

I agree with vexorian.

From TLG perspective, using LDD to create a database of alternate models has two great advantages:

- it is a good marketing tool

- is it a powerful mean to provide a "surplus value" for each lego set. Imagine if in the page of a lego set in the LEGO site you can explore a wide gallery of extra models, and then find a model you find lovely and convince you to buy the set. Or find a great amount of good models that open your mind over the potentialities of a set.

Anyway my idea was to allow users to use the pieces of a single set (that means to expand the "filter bricks by set" mode to almost all new sets, although I'd like the database could be expanded to old sets too), and not to combine more sets.

Perhaps combine a limited number of sets could be still useful for TLG, but I think is would be difficult to manage for the goal I explained before.

Obviously the best case scenario for us will be to manage a database of pieces and import/export custom lists, but likewise, I think it will not be a useful thing for TLG.

I think TLG has no such a need to sell lego sets through their site to do that using LDD. Children love to torment their parents in toy stores, while adult fans usually knows where to buy at a better price. Moreover if TLG wanted to make their website a massive distribution channel surely will not adopt the present policy with higher prices and even more higher shipping costs.

About the codes to unlock LDD, I think it would be not a good idea. That's the reasons:

- LDD has not so many users, so I think a limit such this will kill it.

- The limit is not much useful, because soon will appear on the net pages with codes for the great part of the sets. So the limit will simply became something of uncomfortable, and unuseful for the supposed lego purpose (push LEGO customer to buy sets).

- Last but not least, limits and locks like this are not a good promotional mean. The risk is that LDD users could be feel a bit frustrated if the feel theirself forced to buy all physical sets they like to experiment with LDD.

[Superkalle]

My main concern is that the TLG top executives don't fully understand what a gem they have in LDD and that they only see it as a cost that needs to be tied in a immediate revenue business model (like DbM was). For me it's now doubt that digital design (the way it's been done by TLG themselves with LDD - easy to use, snap functionality etc) is here to stay, and that it actually drive building physical LEGO models.

[vynsane]

I agree with vexorian.

From TLG perspective, using LDD to create a database of alternate models has two great advantages:

- it is a good marketing tool

- is it a powerful mean to provide a "surplus value" for each lego set. Imagine if in the page of a lego set in the LEGO site you can explore a wide gallery of extra models, and then find a model you find lovely and convince you to buy the set. Or find a great amount of good models that open your mind over the potentialities of a set.

Anyway my idea was to allow users to use the pieces of a single set (that means to expand the "filter bricks by set" mode to almost all new sets, although I'd like the database could be expanded to old sets too), and not to combine more sets.

Perhaps combine a limited number of sets could be still useful for TLG, but I think is would be difficult to manage for the goal I explained before.

Obviously the best case scenario for us will be to manage a database of pieces and import/export custom lists, but likewise, I think it will not be a useful thing for TLG.

I don't think the 'filter bricks by box' would be all that useful to users unless you could fill your palette with the pieces from multiple boxes - like "what can I build if I combine the pieces of all the World Racers sets?" The "unofficial alternate builds" idea is really cool, though.

About the codes to unlock LDD, I think it would be not a good idea. That's the reasons:

- LDD has not so many users, so I think a limit such this will kill it.

If there were inserts in each box about LEGO Digital Designer (including the 'secret codes' that would definitely intrigue kids) it would bring it to the consciousness of many more people that haven't necessarily heard about it before.

- The limit is not much useful, because soon will appear on the net pages with codes for the great part of the sets. So the limit will simply became something of uncomfortable, and unuseful for the supposed lego purpose (push LEGO customer to buy sets).

The 'codes' would have to be unique for each box sold to avoid them being shared over the internet. Or perhaps you would 'register' your set online and receive a unique code - that would save a lot more paper and printing time.

- Last but not least, limits and locks like this are not a good promotional mean. The risk is that LDD users could be feel a bit frustrated if the feel theirself forced to buy all physical sets they like to experiment with LDD.

In my theory, the codes don't effect the bricks in LDD's 'free building' modes, they JUST effect those that can be ordered in Design byMe 2.0. Think about how "Extended Mode" offers almost all the pieces you could think of in any color you want, but the Design byMe building mode only displays the pieces you can order from. I'm just looking for ways that TLG can use to enhance the DbM 2.0 experience without stifling it the way they did with DbM 1.0. My main theory on why DbM 1.0 was so limited was that they didn't want it to compete with retail sales, that's the only reason I can think of as to why we didn't see more pieces from currently-available themes in the DbM palette, and when we DID see it, it was a half-hearted attempt (the addition of some Atlantis pieces).

The 'free building' modes would be untouched, I'm ONLY talking about ways to make the next iteration of Design byMe profitable for TLG and feature-rich for us, not limiting the pieces available in other modes. Why would I want to do that? I LOVE LDD Extended Mode, I just want DbM to be more useful.

My main concern is that the TLG top executives don't fully understand what a gem they have in LDD and that they only see it as a cost that needs to be tied in a immediate revenue business model (like DbM was). For me it's now doubt that digital design (the way it's been done by TLG themselves with LDD - easy to use, snap functionality etc) is here to stay, and that it actually drive building physical LEGO models.

I fully agree, and that's why I'm making suggestions that they would want to see, because if they don't see it as a directly profitable business wing in and of itself, LDD is eventually going to go the way of LEGO Universe and Design byMe 1.0. It's hard to justify to the 'top brass' an entire business wing that doesn't directly bring any profit into the company. They're not going to "fully understand what a gem they have in LDD" until there is an aspect of it bringing in more direct profits than DbM 1.0 did.

[Whiteagle]

I don't think the 'filter bricks by box' would be all that useful to users unless you could fill your palette with the pieces from multiple boxes - like "what can I build if I combine the pieces of all the World Racers sets?" The "unofficial alternate builds" idea is really cool, though.

That's exactly what I was talking about!

If there were inserts in each box about LEGO Digital Designer (including the 'secret codes' that would definitely intrigue kids) it would bring it to the consciousness of many more people that haven't necessarily heard about it before.

The 'codes' would have to be unique for each box sold to avoid them being shared over the internet. Or perhaps you would 'register' your set online and receive a unique code - that would save a lot more paper and printing time.

In my theory, the codes don't effect the bricks in LDD's 'free building' modes, they JUST effect those that can be ordered in Design byMe 2.0. Think about how "Extended Mode" offers almost all the pieces you could think of in any color you want, but the Design byMe building mode only displays the pieces you can order from. I'm just looking for ways that TLG can use to enhance the DbM 2.0 experience without stifling it the way they did with DbM 1.0. My main theory on why DbM 1.0 was so limited was that they didn't want it to compete with retail sales, that's the only reason I can think of as to why we didn't see more pieces from currently-available themes in the DbM palette, and when we DID see it, it was a half-hearted attempt (the addition of some Atlantis pieces).

The 'free building' modes would be untouched, I'm ONLY talking about ways to make the next iteration of Design byMe profitable for TLG and feature-rich for us, not limiting the pieces available in other modes. Why would I want to do that? I LOVE LDD Extended Mode, I just want DbM to be more useful.

I fully agree, and that's why I'm making suggestions that they would want to see, because if they don't see it as a directly profitable business wing in and of itself, LDD is eventually going to go the way of LEGO Universe and Design byMe 1.0. It's hard to justify to the 'top brass' an entire business wing that doesn't directly bring any profit into the company. They're not going to "fully understand what a gem they have in LDD" until there is an aspect of it bringing in more direct profits than DbM 1.0 did.

Dude, this code idea doesn't work...

Secret Codes are just a promotional gimmick to get kids to buy every set of a given theme, another example of "Gotta Catch'em All".

LDD is already a promotional tool for Lego, since even though you can build anything in it, you still need the physical bricks to bring those creations to life.

I see the next iteration of Design by Me going one of two ways, ether becoming a tool for more serious Lego enthusiast to have a means to bring their dream builds into reality or somehow being simplified and streamlined for younger consumers.

Hopefully it will be the former instead of the latter.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Whiteagle

[vynsane]

That's exactly what I was talking about!

I know! I'm agreeing with you!

Dude, this code idea doesn't work...

Secret Codes are just a promotional gimmick to get kids to buy every set of a given theme, another example of "Gotta Catch'em All".

Yeah, you're right, promotional gimmicks never work... oh, wait, I meant always. They always work. You even referenced Pokemon, which is arguably the most successful marketing gimmick ever conceived. I'm not saying that you have a blank palette in DbM 2.0 mode until you start entering codes, just a limited one (hopefully not AS limited as the DbM 1.0 palette). The 'secret codes' are a theory about how to tie retail sales into promoting DbM 2.0 while at the same time enhancing the brick palette with special pieces that are only available after buying certain sets - and this is all just wild theory and conjecture, here.

But you're looking at the promotional gimmick backwards - it's not about making kids buy every set of a given theme, it's about making kids aware of Design byMe and giving them even more of an incentive to use the service after unlocking the ability to order 'special' pieces that aren't available by default, thus promoting Design byMe.

LDD 'free build' will allow you to use all those pieces from the start. In my theory, it's the ability to order those pieces that is 'locked' until you enter the code.

LDD is already a promotional tool for Lego, since even though you can build anything in it, you still need the physical bricks to bring those creations to life.

It's really not, though. It's software that they develop at a cost and release for free that doesn't guarantee any direct profits. What if I were to design things in LDD solely out of pieces already in my collection? I'm not going to be buying any more sets that way. And that's the question the 'top brass' at TLG are continually asking of all business units: "Does it directly generate money for us?" If the answer is "no", the program has a short life expectancy. This is just good business sense, even for a business as ethical as TLG.

I see the next iteration of Design by Me going one of two ways, ether becoming a tool for more serious Lego enthusiast to have a means to bring their dream builds into reality or somehow being simplified and streamlined for younger consumers.

Hopefully it will be the former instead of the latter.

It WILL be the latter. The press release about shutting down DbM all but spells that out.

We believe in the future of customization, but the service we offer has to be right for our consumers and Design byME has proven to be too complex for children.

The above, translated to future tense, reads "The next iteration of Design byMe will be simplified and streamlined for younger consumers". We can only hope that there is a 'power user' option in DbM 2.0 for those of us who want a greater amount of freedom.

[nemo]

Where is the value?

What is the value in some new set that Lego want to sell? Is it in the mid grey 2x1s and the bright red 4x2s? Is it in the instructions that will be available as PDFs from the Lego site? Is it in the box that gets thrown away?

There is some value in brand new untouched virgin bricks. There is a little value in printed instructions. There is also the convenience of having all the necessary parts (and only those parts) to hand. Is that all?

I think a major source of “value” are unique or rare items. Often these can be new bricks, but usually they are existing bricks in new colours, or printed parts. Printed parts are much more valuable than unprinted. New sets have often taken advantage of this, and it is a great pity that DbM and PaB have not leveraged this aspect more strongly. It may be symptomatic: Lego’s attempts at economisation by relying more and more on stickers has undermined this traditional approach.

I note with disappointment that the 2012 City range of vehicles is using stickers for vehicle grills:

Have they forgotten how they used to do it?

Feast your eyes on what the humble 3010 has featured over the years, and tell me Lego are still adding value in this way.

[Aanchir]

Where is the value?

What is the value in some new set that Lego want to sell? Is it in the mid grey 2x1s and the bright red 4x2s? Is it in the instructions that will be available as PDFs from the Lego site? Is it in the box that gets thrown away?

There is some value in brand new untouched virgin bricks. There is a little value in printed instructions. There is also the convenience of having all the necessary parts (and only those parts) to hand. Is that all?

I think a major source of “value” are unique or rare items. Often these can be new bricks, but usually they are existing bricks in new colours, or printed parts. Printed parts are much more valuable than unprinted. New sets have often taken advantage of this, and it is a great pity that DbM and PaB have not leveraged this aspect more strongly. It may be symptomatic: Lego’s attempts at economisation by relying more and more on stickers has undermined this traditional approach.

I note with disappointment that the 2012 City range of vehicles is using stickers for vehicle grills:

Have they forgotten how they used to do it?

Feast your eyes on what the humble 3010 has featured over the years, and tell me Lego are still adding value in this way.

Personally, I see more value in that well-designed sticker sheet than in those rather lackluster printed grills (even using printing for the headlights!) that remind me of the Town Jr. era. I'm sure other people feel differently, but personally if I had to choose between using a printed grille in a MOC and using that lovely stickered one, I'd choose the stickered one hands-down.

Meanwhile, even when stuff is available for free in a digital format, there's still value for some people in having a hard copy. Even though I pretty much only listen to music using my iPod, I have yet to actually purchase music in a digital format, preferring to have a CD with the full liner notes and plastic jewel case. For kids in particular, some might find it easier to read instructions from a hard copy that they can flip through physically than on a computer, although this could change as technology continues to increase its presence in our lives.

Clearly this didn't really work out for Design byME, but your post makes it seem as though without unique elements LEGO sets have almost no value, and frankly I disagree. In my case, when I buy a set I feel I'm investing in the quality design, not just the parts. Even if the design can easily be built from existing parts and visualized in photos and digital renders, I feel paying for a hard-copy product is a good way of showing my appreciation. Perhaps this is just sentimental on my part, and I do sometimes buy sets for the parts, but if unique parts were all there was to a set's "value", then so-called "<insert that tiresome argument>" and overspecialized parts would be TLG's most reliable means of success, and we as AFOLs probably agree that's not true.

[King of Nynrah]

This doesn't really bother me... I never ordered off DbM, it wasn't worth it in my opinion. As long as I can still use the program, I'm happy.

[primitiv]

I would like to add a few words to these sad news. First of all, I really hope that LDD will continue to exist, and I agree with this comment:

What we do have is a lot of people using LDD to make MoCs without ordering them, and that is staying.

That is to 99% how I use LDD; create my own things, or download instructions to build existing LEGO models and thereby I don´t have to buy them. Occasionally I do buy one of my creations, but not through DbM but through Pick A Brick. As long as these two exist, I don´t see any reason for why we, the true hardcore fans of LDD/LEGO, should be too devastated.

Also, having read wishes from users about what they want from LDD5, how they want CAD compatibility and so on, this sort of highlights the problem pointed out by TLG: kids cant get their heads around that; only us hardcore fans who are not necesarily the prime LEGO age target group anymore will appreciate the program fully. I do think that it is important that TLG keeps LDD in action, because surely there must be some revenue coming from us buying models made in LDD and also, they would lose a big group of LEGO fans if LDD was cancelled.

[nemo]

Clearly this didn't really work out for Design byME, but your post makes it seem as though without unique elements LEGO sets have almost no value, and frankly I disagree. In my case, when I buy a set I feel I'm investing in the quality design, not just the parts.

We are talking about DesignByMe, not the Lego designed sets. If DbM & PaB are just an expensive way of buying bright red 4x2s then of course they won't be profitable. If they can deliver parts that cannot be got any other way, then there may be additional value there. Clearly Brickforge, Brickarms etc believe so - that's their business model!

Ultimately though, it turns out that not enough kids have the imagination and determination to design and build things with LDD and buy them from DbM. Lego would probably make more money from a BUY button on every asset in every TT Lego video game. Was there a "buy for real" option in LU? If not, why not?!

[Aanchir]

We are talking about DesignByMe, not the Lego designed sets. If DbM & PaB are just an expensive way of buying bright red 4x2s then of course they won't be profitable. If they can deliver parts that cannot be got any other way, then there may be additional value there. Clearly Brickforge, Brickarms etc believe so - that's their business model!

Ultimately though, it turns out that not enough kids have the imagination and determination to design and build things with LDD and buy them from DbM. Lego would probably make more money from a BUY button on every asset in every TT Lego video game. Was there a "buy for real" option in LU? If not, why not?!

Well, Design byMe orders were picked by hand, which means that the larger the parts palette had been, the more inefficient (and thus, the more expensive) packing an order would have been. In LEGO Universe mode in particular, buying a model would have been impossible because you were able to use parts in colors that didn't exist in real life.