Does Lego's emphasis on minifigures change the way kids play?

[Dorayaki]

Lego has been producing minifig-only sets as long as I can remember. They were never marketed as "battle packs" just a pack of figures. If you bought a few of the sets in the theme, you probably had all those figures anyway.

I think the value and definition of "minifigure" changes from time to time. There were't diversitile minifigures in early Lego production line, so it didn't hurt to make such kind of minifigure pack. The closest version of City minifigure pack might be 9348 Community City Minifigures.

There are also some elements included that allow minifigures to use. Perhaps, for a 5yo child, they might not be bored if they just get it or avdent calendar for Xmas gifts. And recently there are also police officer, firefighter, pirate minifigure packs. They nominally don't belong to their own theme, but we can still obtain minifigures from TLC without buildings.

But when we talk about specific characters with backstory, that's a different story. City/Castle/Pirate minifigure packs were somewhat meant to be "army builder", but it's not the case for Ninjago/Chima/Movie "characters", There are seldom packs for action themes because you're not going to populate Kai or Wyldstyle, unless you plan to make MOC characters and you need lots of same clothes. There are only few examples such as 853219 Pirates of the Caribbean Battle Pack. After all, I don't think a child can get a generic trash cleaner instead if s/he didn't get the golden ninja

And we can see that even generic minifigures are getting more and more polished today. CMF series also have their own minifigure collection packs, and they're mostly not for army builder uses but specific uses.

A diffirent case could be minidolls. So far there are no real minidoll packs. Maybe it's TLC's strategy or they don't have enough generic elements.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Dorayaki

[B Rick]

To answer the question mentioned in the title: 'Does Lego's emphasis on minifigs change the way kids play?':

YES it does...

As I mentioned earlier, when I built for instance vehicles in the 80's I couldn't care less a minifig would fit in it or not. As a kid I went for building realistic proportions of the builds rather than playing a storyline with those builds. On the other hand, kids have always been different and it's only logical that there must have been kids that were playing to some sort of storyline. Made up from their own imagination or from another source like cartoons or movies...

To say nothing has changed in the world of Minifigs is far from realistic. The emphasise on the Lego Minifigures today is FAR greater, then back in the days when Miniland started and all of them had the same face/expression. Today we have many different minifigs. And I mean MAAAAAAAAAANY. Just think of the impact Lego's marketing strategy is on kids nowadays with TV-series, online-series, games, movies, clubs, websites, collectible-series, etc. All are marketing the minifig right now and 24/7... A tv-show featuring minifigs is NOT a cartoon. It's a commercial. A very BIG one. Like the Transformers (G1) series. The transformer-toys came before the tv-show... Those tv-shows and any other marketingstrategy have great influence on how kids are playing with their toys.

In the 80's we had NONE of that. Kids that played with Lego just weren't influenced by any of the marketingstrategies mentioned above. It was just that ONE single picture from the box-art. Even the box didn't mention in words how many minifigs it contained... Back then seeing those minifigs as collectibles like many of the minifigs are today is highly unthinkable.

The role of the minifig has been evolved gradually. Cause even before Miniland there were faceless 'minifigs', without movable limbs.

Another point for having a minifig play an important role is the adults being involved in Lego nowadays. With the ever increasing amount of afols using minifigs Lego isn't purely considdered just a toy anymore...

The minifig now playing such an important role compared to the the minifigs in the 80's... Is that good or bad?I think it doesn't matter. Kids making up their own stories or kids disigning their own builds. As long Lego will keep on stimulating kids to creatively devellop themselves it will keep on being the best toy on the planet for decades to come...

Edited January 5, 2014 by B Rick

[Deathleech]

I must of had a memory lapse because you guys are right, Lego has had figure packs for decades now. Heck, I even had the city one, and the pirate one when I was younger that included nothing but the minifigures and the chest full of gold. Still, I think Lego advertises them different now. They have City blisters where the figures are assembled and sitting out for you to see more like action figures where as before it was more a box of minifigure parts.

vs

[B Rick]

Nice to see a comparison like this! Thanks. Funny though to notice on this example that there is hardly any real difference between old and new. They are both packs with the intention to extend your town-sets. Just a side-dish ;-) The real difference we're discussing here would be very noticable when you compare the main sets, old and new.

[62Bricks]

In the case of licensed figures, in some cases TLG may not be allowed to sell only the minifigures. They must be included in a building set. I recall this from the Cuusoo project that proposed a bucket of only Star Wars troopers. A LEGO representative responded that it would require negotiating a new license, but that if it got enough votes it would be evaluated.

This restriction is understandable because other toy companies have the license to sell Star Wars action figures as stand-alone items. I suppose the same is true of Marvel and DC characters. So TLG can only sell them in "battle packs" that include a small model.

[Lyichir]

In the case of licensed figures, in some cases TLG may not be allowed to sell only the minifigures. They must be included in a building set. I recall this from the Cuusoo project that proposed a bucket of only Star Wars troopers. A LEGO representative responded that it would require negotiating a new license, but that if it got enough votes it would be evaluated.

This restriction is understandable because other toy companies have the license to sell Star Wars action figures as stand-alone items. I suppose the same is true of Marvel and DC characters. So TLG can only sell them in "battle packs" that include a small model.

In general, that depends on the license. The Star Wars figures, for instance, can't be sold on their own because Hasbro has an exclusive license for Star Wars articulated figures (from when they acquired Kenner). The Super Heroes line is more vague. Certainly, no company has exclusive rights to Batman articulated figures; just a walk down the toy aisle will show you ones from various companies (and Lego themselves even made one in their "Ultrabuild" Constraction line). But because superheroes span such a wide range of media, a company COULD potentially have exclusive rights to articulated figures from "The Dark Knight" or "Beware the Batman". This isn't saying they necessarily do, mind you; I haven't done enough research to suggest that. But it is a possibility inherent to the roles of superheroes as cross-media properties.

[Deathleech]

In the case of licensed figures, in some cases TLG may not be allowed to sell only the minifigures. They must be included in a building set. I recall this from the Cuusoo project that proposed a bucket of only Star Wars troopers. A LEGO representative responded that it would require negotiating a new license, but that if it got enough votes it would be evaluated.

This restriction is understandable because other toy companies have the license to sell Star Wars action figures as stand-alone items. I suppose the same is true of Marvel and DC characters. So TLG can only sell them in "battle packs" that include a small model.

Actually this was one of the comments from Lego on the Star Wars Dark Bucket Cussoo project:

"This is a (very) fun concept, but since we have the construction toy license and not the action figure license for Star Wars, it will not be possible to release a set consisting solely of minifigures. If the Dark Bucket concept were to go further, it would need to include some significant brick-based model component to be considered a construction toy for licensing purposes."

That was at the 5000 votes mark. As you can see, Lego had no intention of acquiring the action figure license or selling this project as it existed. They recommended adding some brick built components and when the project hit 10,000 votes they didn't even put it through review as they already knew it wouldn't pass.

[62Bricks]

Actually this was one of the comments from Lego on the Star Wars Dark Bucket Cussoo project:

"This is a (very) fun concept, but since we have the construction toy license and not the action figure license for Star Wars, it will not be possible to release a set consisting solely of minifigures. If the Dark Bucket concept were to go further, it would need to include some significant brick-based model component to be considered a construction toy for licensing purposes."

That was at the 5000 votes mark. As you can see, Lego had no intention of acquiring the action figure license or selling this project as it existed. They recommended adding some brick built components and when the project hit 10,000 votes they didn't even put it through review as they already knew it wouldn't pass.

Thanks for looking that up - I was remembering it slightly differently. It does confirm what we thought about the Star Wars license.

[TheLazyChicken]

Yes it does.

My 11 year old child gets excited about both, the minifigs and the structure while my 8 year old son gets interested in what pieces come in the set and if they are useful for mocing. My 2 sons use the minifigs as citizens in their town and thats it. The two of them always HAVE to finish the whole set before playing with it and don't care that much for the minifigs. The only reason they get the minifigs is to populate their town or to just collect them.

But from what I have seen with other kids they always play with the minifigures and leave the build half-way done, so the answer to the question is yes.

Anyway a set similar to the minifigure packs is this one.

[Dorayaki]

The Star Wars Dark Bucket was obviously an army builder. I'm not sure it can be used for sole uses, though it is indeed a minifigure pack product.

Regradless of any possible license limitation, the major reason why Cuusoo project banned minifigure-only project is to focus on buildings more than minifigures, this is what I could agree. However, CMF Simpsons created a weird situation since Lego themeselves forbid Cuusoo users to ask for licensed minifigure pack but they do it by themselves. Almost like one may steal a horse, while another may not look over a hedge.

In Simpsons' rumor, for now we've known that there would be Simpsons' house but other regular sets are still unknown. If that's what the first wave is, most CMF characters would have no place to go and we can only play them solely (if we don't put them in other uses).

Anyway a set similar to the minifigure packs is this one.

8401 City Minifigure Collection was somewhat a "sample" of City. However, most City citizens have no place to go (that means they don't star in any regular set) since City focus on making some kinds of stations. The real sample of City might be 60023 Starter Set.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Aanchir]

Actually this was one of the comments from Lego on the Star Wars Dark Bucket Cussoo project:

"This is a (very) fun concept, but since we have the construction toy license and not the action figure license for Star Wars, it will not be possible to release a set consisting solely of minifigures. If the Dark Bucket concept were to go further, it would need to include some significant brick-based model component to be considered a construction toy for licensing purposes."

That was at the 5000 votes mark. As you can see, Lego had no intention of acquiring the action figure license or selling this project as it existed. They recommended adding some brick built components and when the project hit 10,000 votes they didn't even put it through review as they already knew it wouldn't pass.

I don't think it's that they had no intention of getting it so much as that they've already looked into and ruled out the possibility. The exclusive Star Wars action figure license that Hasbro obtained when they acquired Kenner has been extremely profitable for both them and LucasArts, so there's not much likelihood of them giving it up. They have multiple times challenged the LEGO Group's right to sell individual Star Wars minifigures, whether in packs like this or in "gear" like magnet packs (which is the reason those changed from loose figs on magnetic bricks to figs glued together and to the magnetic base, and most recently to figs glued together and screwed onto a magnetic base).

Hasbro and the LEGO Group are fierce competitors, and with good reason — Hasbro is the only toy company with stronger sales than the LEGO Group now that the LEGO Group has surpassed major toy manufacturer Mattel. So Hasbro doesn't want the LEGO Group encroaching on what they perceive as THEIR business.

[Deathleech]

I don't think it's that they had no intention of getting it so much as that they've already looked into and ruled out the possibility.

They might have looked into it, but I am pretty sure Lego was aware it would be near impossible to obtain since, like you said, Hasbro owns the action figure license and is fiercely protective of it.

[62Bricks]

They might have looked into it, but I am pretty sure Lego was aware it would be near impossible to obtain since, like you said, Hasbro owns the action figure license and is fiercely protective of it.

The Star Wars license is "owned" by Disney and granted by them to Hasbro. These license deals usually include language about exclusivitiy - that Disney agrees not to allow anyone else to license Star Wars action figures while the license with Hasbro is in effect, for example. But license deals expire and are renegotiated, and if LEGO wanted to offer Disney more money for the license to action figures it would be Disney who made the decision, not Hasbro. The current license deal between Hasbro and Disney for the Star Wars and Marvel characters expires in 2020.

[Sarah]

Lego has been producing minifig-only sets as long as I can remember. They were never marketed as "battle packs" just a pack of figures. If you bought a few of the sets in the theme, you probably had all those figures anyway.

Agreed, very early on (early 80s) I can remember my main item on my Christmas wish list was "More minifigs" so my parents went out and looked for a Lego set and got me one with a bunch of Castle figures in it.

I think it was this one (which is a 1981 set): I've got the instructions for it. But would have to dig to verify if this is it or not.

[Navy Trooper Fenson]

I must of had a memory lapse because you guys are right, Lego has had figure packs for decades now. Heck, I even had the city one, and the pirate one when I was younger that included nothing but the minifigures and the chest full of gold. Still, I think Lego advertises them different now. They have City blisters where the figures are assembled and sitting out for you to see more like action figures where as before it was more a box of minifigure parts.

PIC vs PIC

I am pretty sure there were also some blister packages in the 80s/90s. At least a box with a transparent window.

Regradless of any possible license limitation, the major reason why Cuusoo project banned minifigure-only project is to focus on buildings more than minifigures, this is what I could agree. However, CMF Simpsons created a weird situation since Lego themeselves forbid Cuusoo users to ask for licensed minifigure pack but they do it by themselves. Almost like one may steal a horse, while another may not look over a hedge.

In Simpsons' rumor, for now we've known that there would be Simpsons' house but other regular sets are still unknown. If that's what the first wave is, most CMF characters would have no place to go and we can only play them solely (if we don't put them in other uses).

The exact nature of licenses is different with each licensor and the product being sold. In a completely righteous world minifigs would be classified as figurines on the same level as joint less 2cm "statues" that you get in gumball machines. 4 joints plus head and hands isn´t exactly ACTION. If Hasbro wouldn´t be so overprotective of their license there would be no problem.

Fox probably doesn´t even make distinctions like action figures and building toys. I don´t know exactly about Simpsons toys but there are at least 3 different kinds of figures from varying manufacturers with varying levels of movement.

_

To get back to the main topic: It was always a mixed bag for me. Star Wars was my main line and while I got multiple sets mainly for characters the vehicles still played large roles if the set cost more than 20. In the beginning when I was around 5 I also only got small sets with barely anything to build with so of course the main aspect of a set like 6094 http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=6094-1 always were the minifigs.

Also interesting to note: I live in Germany and apparently action figures don´t sell that well over here which is why they are barely available. They had a wave of figures during the release of Star Wars episode 1 in my supermarket and a small rack from 2003 to 2005 in a bigger store with a crappy selection between a handful of characters that barely changed. It either meant only playing with Bespin Luke and Vader as the only TESB characters or getting 10123 Cloud City with Vader, Luke, the rest of the maincast from that sequence AND a very good scenery with play functions. Getting an army of stormtroopers through 14€ sets with 4 figs each is also much cheaper than 10 to 12 per actionfigure, assuming you even find stormtroopers so even when getting the special LEGO figs only from Ebay with some mark-up was still cheaper than buying anything else. The only real alternative were paper cutouts.

[62Bricks]

The exact nature of licenses is different with each licensor and the product being sold. In a completely righteous world minifigs would be classified as figurines on the same level as joint less 2cm "statues" that you get in gumball machines. 4 joints plus head and hands isn´t exactly ACTION. If Hasbro wouldn´t be so overprotective of their license there would be no problem.

Fox probably doesn´t even make distinctions like action figures and building toys. I don´t know exactly about Simpsons toys but there are at least 3 different kinds of figures from varying manufacturers with varying levels of movement.

Again, it isn't Hasbro that owns the right to license Star Wars, it's Disney. If someone else started making Star Wars action figures without a license, it isn't Hasbro who would go after them, it would be Disney. Disney owns the characters and has the responsibility to protect them.

[Cult_Of_Skaro]

At least some kids have played with story lines for years. My Dad told me what he did with his LEGO back in the day. His blacksmith (The original, 80s one) was actually a genius, who helped the Black Knights develop space travel. The Apollo missions happened in medieval Scotland, centuries early. Then they flew off in their ship the Claymore (piloted by a Blacktron minifigure) and fought British Space Marines. Character based playing is always going to happen, whether it's LEGO's characters, or the kids playing with them.

[Aanchir]

I am pretty sure there were also some blister packages in the 80s/90s. At least a box with a transparent window.

You're correct! I never saw them myself in real life, but several pre-assembled minifigure blister packages from 1979 are on Brickset:

http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=0011-2

http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=0012-1

http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=0013-1

http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=0014-1

http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=0015-1

http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=0016-1

The last of these doesn't show the package, but I did a Google image search and it's the same general principle.

[Dorayaki]

At least some kids have played with story lines for years. My Dad told me what he did with his LEGO back in the day. His blacksmith (The original, 80s one) was actually a genius, who helped the Black Knights develop space travel. The Apollo missions happened in medieval Scotland, centuries early. Then they flew off in their ship the Claymore (piloted by a Blacktron minifigure) and fought British Space Marines. Character based playing is always going to happen, whether it's LEGO's characters, or the kids playing with them.

The difference between the old and the new Lego products is TLC now have done a more schematic plot with TV animation. One reason could be marketing, generic toys aren't competitive enough in its market. Also TLG need a story to based on and design more sophisticated vehicles, weapons and enemies. If there's no story, there's no such micromanager or nindroid.

The Lego Movie is a showcase that how licensed, action, Space, City, Friends and the other themes can be combined together with imagination, which is similar with your statement. Still, it could be a problem that most kids would just follow the existed stories instead of imaging their own story, and the characters (minifigures) are still what they are in the original story.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Dorayaki

[naf]

In the 80's we had NONE of that. Kids that played with Lego just weren't influenced by any of the marketingstrategies mentioned above. It was just that ONE single picture from the box-art. Even the box didn't mention in words how many minifigs it contained... Back then seeing those minifigs as collectibles like many of the minifigs are today is highly unthinkable.

The marketing strategy that did influence me was Lego's inclusion of product catalogues in most of their sets. I would stare at those things for hours, and circle the sets that I wanted for birthdays or christmas. I still have them all, it's fun to look through them every now and then.

The minifig now playing such an important role compared to the the minifigs in the 80's... Is that good or bad?I think it doesn't matter. Kids making up their own stories or kids disigning their own builds. As long Lego will keep on stimulating kids to creatively devellop themselves it will keep on being the best toy on the planet for decades to come...

I agree. It'll be interesting to see how their play evolves as they get older, if they start to go for the builds, or even MOCs, instead of the sole emphasis on the minifigs. I'm just glad my kids enjoy Lego so I can build them

[B Rick]

The marketing strategy that did influence me was Lego's inclusion of product catalogues in most of their sets. I would stare at those things for hours, and circle the sets that I wanted for birthdays or christmas. I still have them all, it's fun to look through them every now and then.

I agree. It'll be interesting to see how their play evolves as they get older, if they start to go for the builds, or even MOCs, instead of the sole emphasis on the minifigs. I'm just glad my kids enjoy Lego so I can build them

To have those catalogues from your childhood is awesome! I wish I had mine... (and my matchboxcars catalogues, and the december toystorecatalogues...) But you know what? To see the difference in Lego pushing their minifigs towards kids today to how they've KINDA did in the early days is just compare an old to a new catalogue.

I guess it'll be lots of work to scan or photograph all of the pages of an old catalogue..? Hint hint...

On a sidenote... I think of starting to produce kids in the near future just to justify possible Lego-purchases... ;-)

Edited January 7, 2014 by B Rick

[Wodanis]

I think the mini-figures do affect how children play. Just not to exclusivity. Kids will build and play the the set its just that the mini figures do allow for kids to imagine stories and act them out. Growing up with Lego in the 80s and 90s I used to do epic battles for hours. Never worried over characters as I made my own if at all.

In the 80s they lifted a ban on promotional cartoons and advertising on children's toys (fast food toys promotion and what not). This is how transformers and GI Joe cartoons were able to exist and the toys that went with them. As for Lego they didn't have any licensed sets so the way mini figures existed didn't rely on 'characters' rather the generic for play/role playing. Is it any wonder then with Ninjago characters a child will play with them first before building. Obviously this is not absolute. I'm sure there are many children who build in addition to playing with the mini-figures. Also to note the style of the Ninjago sets are not the same type of building as say in Lego City.

The difference with licensing is that (Star Wars etc) the sets are targeting adults more so than the kids, hence the extra mini-figures.

I appreciate a lot of the thoughts on this thread they make for a good read and I do share much of the same sentiments.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Wodanis

[JoashColbat]

Of course Lego's emphasis on minifigures changes the way kids (and AFOLs even) interact with lego. I really only purchase the LOTR and Hobbit line just for the minifigures, because the builds don't really interest me, but that's just me. From my experience, kids view their Lego sets as "playsets", which their minifigs play on. And Lego encourages this by intergrating play features into the set, and lots of these features involve the minifigs! In short, Lego has changed over the years. The minifigures are no longer complements to the actual buildings in the set, rather the build is just a complement to the minifigures.

[Erathor Pridenar]

I honestly think that children are drawn to the figures more than they are to the set itself, as with the figures they can pretend they're a character and can use the set to do the things or have the adventures that their character has. LEGO have clearly noticed this and now really advertise the figures (the CMF line has shown this). Personally, I love the minifigure aspect of sets as much as I love building them.

[Lyichir]

Of course Lego's emphasis on minifigures changes the way kids (and AFOLs even) interact with lego. I really only purchase the LOTR and Hobbit line just for the minifigures, because the builds don't really interest me, but that's just me. From my experience, kids view their Lego sets as "playsets", which their minifigs play on. And Lego encourages this by intergrating play features into the set, and lots of these features involve the minifigs! In short, Lego has changed over the years. The minifigures are no longer complements to the actual buildings in the set, rather the build is just a complement to the minifigures.

I would disagree with that. Just because you personally aren't interested in the builds of themes like LOTR doesn't mean it's the same way for everyone. For example, I got the recent Podracer set last year primarily because the build was so superior to the one I had in my childhood. Did I like the updated minifigures? Sure, but I certainly didn't get the set for them—I have very few fleshie figs so the ones in that set aren't really useful to me at all outside the context of that set.

The same applies to most of the sets I get. I absolutely DO take figs into account when purchasing from my preferred themes like Ninjago, but that's primarily because I have a finite budget and would rather get a set that offers me a great build AND unique figs than one that offers me a great build but only duplicates of figures I already have. The build is still important to me, and if a set wows me enough I'll get it regardless of what figs are included.

I'm sure there are a lot of kids who think like you do, but I'm sure there are a lot of kids who think like I do as well, and there are probably even kids who don't care at all which figures they get, and just buy the sets they want to build. That's the wonderful thing about Lego: there's no one "right" way to play with it.