LEGO Ideas Discussion

[KristofBD]

But there was absolutely nothing unexpected in this. You all complain about 0/13. But they are competing for 4 or 5 production slots a year and currently have some backlog. Just looking at the rejected sets you can see why for the most part. We all knew or realized most had no chance.

1. That's a bit of an overstatement I would say. Before the review results a lot of people seemed to think that at least some of these had potential. But now that review result is in a lot of people find it obvious that none of these had potential. Mmm...

2. Even if thirteen projects manage to make it and it is 'obvious' that none of them stood a chance; it is a waste of time isn't it? In my view it simply means the rules need to be sharpened.

@Blondie-Wan: Having a piece limit is always something arbitrary, but let's be fair: in the heads of the review team there is already a piece limit. Better make this explicit then, no?

I think a piece limit for a proposal of say 1000 pieces is reasonable. People can always include bigger pieces to compensate and TLG can always change the bricks used upwards or downwards for the final model. I would see it as an initial requirement to avoid disappointment. If the production capacity is increased, they can always adjust the limit.

I work in a sector where we hand in texts with a word limit of say 8000 words. Does not mean the final versions are always below 8000 (when a reviewer wants me to add stuff, that is allowed), but it weeds out texts that are too long. Moreover, it forces people to be creative with the words and word formulations they use. And for LEGO that's a good thing: creativity is what it's all about, isn't it?

[MAB]

Lego really does need to overhaul Lego Ideas. All the good projects are left to rot under a blanket of "proud father look what my kid made" posts and only the ridiculously huge impractical ones or the ones who catch the media's eye get to 10,000. It should almost be counted as vote manipulation, nobody who voted for the Golden Girls set would have been an actual customer of Lego. This vote manipulation from an outside source is the #1 reason why so many good projects can't make it to the top. It's no different than using alt accounts on Reddit or Twitter to get your content to the top, and there needs to be something done about it. What if you had to use a Lego VIP account with purchase history to submit projects? But it's a shame the Douglas DC-3 didn't make it, that would've been an instant purchase for me.

Why would they not be a customer of lego? Maybe Lego doesn't currently make what they want. I always thought the point of cuusoo and ideas was (partly) to come up with projects different to what Lego already produces, ones that will get them new customers. Not ones that copy existing themes.

[Blondie-Wan]

Wrong, really bad strategy.

They might have been 1000000 reasons, from "human factor" to "technical/industrial strategy". But the fact is the solution retained was wrong.

Furthermore, we don't deal with an overall design issue but with a single joint. The comparison with Exo-suit is then irrelevant.

And i presume they are NOT the revised set. Wall-E is "out of stock" on Lego website.

Next time you visit a store take a pic of the boxes if you can, modification might be visible on the artbox.

If the revised Wall-E was available, i think it would have poped-up somewhere on the net.

I don't know what you mean by "wrong, really bad strategy". Also, supposedly the set was actually recalled, and the parts replaced, so any copies on shelves now (at least at LEGO Stores) should be of the revised set, but... actually, how would one tell? I haven't yet seen anything that indicates they've changed the box photography or the official piece count. Hmm.

Does anyone know how to tell unopened boxes of the in total run of the set from the revised version without opening it?

[BirdOPrey5]

Many of us that post their projects on Ideas are a tad ticked off to the point of why bother but I'm not going to stop designing and posting projects as I feel it's only way to get Lego to develop different sets or even different themes/sub-themes.

Really I couldn't understand why science adventures or international space station didn't make it since Lego have done similar sets in the Ideas world before ?

My guess is exactly because there were such similar projects they were rejected. They probably don't want LEGO Ideas to become LEGO NASA or LEGO Science... they want new and different ideas.

[Blondie-Wan]

I say "really bad strategy"...in this case the solution retained was not pertinent.

In a holistic way and not TLG only, when you start compromise the overall quality of a product or a service by downgrading it, hoping it will not be seen by customers, that's what i call really bad strategy. If a solution is too expensive, enginneers are here to conceive the same thing at a lower cost...and not simply downgrading the whole package.

Sometimes it can work for years, sometimes it's directly sanctionned by customers reaction....the first reaction from a disappointed customer is "i don't buy". It's wrong in term of sales and reputation.

But, what is good and even very good in term of reputation is to aknowledge errors and mistakes. That's what TLG has done with Wall-E.

Ah. Well, I'm absolutely certain it wasn't a "strategy" (an intentional plan) to compromise quality; I think it's just a case where they didn't realize there was a problem until they started getting customer feedback. They probably created what they though was a perfectly fine initial design, and only decided that it was inadequate when people started commenting on that aspect. Even now, I suspect there are probably customers who feel the original design is perfectly acceptable.

[Blondie-Wan]

1. That's a bit of an overstatement I would say. Before the review results a lot of people seemed to think that at least some of these had potential. But now that review result is in a lot of people find it obvious that none of these had potential. Mmm...

2. Even if thirteen projects manage to make it and it is 'obvious' that none of them stood a chance; it is a waste of time isn't it? In my view it simply means the rules need to be sharpened.

@Blondie-Wan: Having a piece limit is always something arbitrary, but let's be fair: in the heads of the review team there is already a piece limit. Better make this explicit then, no?

I think a piece limit for a proposal of say 1000 pieces is reasonable. People can always include bigger pieces to compensate and TLG can always change the bricks used upwards or downwards for the final model. I would see it as an initial requirement to avoid disappointment. If the production capacity is increased, they can always adjust the limit.

I work in a sector where we hand in texts with a word limit of say 8000 words. Does not mean the final versions are always below 8000 (when a reviewer wants me to add stuff, that is allowed), but it weeds out texts that are too long. Moreover, it forces people to be creative with the words and word formulations they use. And for LEGO that's a good thing: creativity is what it's all about, isn't it?

The thing is, though, that they surely want to be open and flexible enough to be able to do a larger set if it turns out their production capacity can accommodate it. Remember, a project that's posted today might take up to two years to reach 10,000 votes, and then face a couple more months to enter review, and then have a few more months after that to actually have its review completed. In other words, a set project that's posted today might be approved, designed and produced as long as three years from now... and a lot can change in three years. While they might not be able to produce large sets through the Ideas program right now, that could change in a couple years, and they have no reason to close off their options two or three years down the road just because of what their circumstances are today, if they can avoid having to do so.

Even if they fully intend to always allocate nearly all their production capacity to mass-market sets (as I'm sure is the case), it's always possible some unforeseen circumstance that could alter things. Perhaps a pop-culture property they've licensed for a small theme one year could become entangled in legal wrangling, and they might find themselves suddenly unable to produce the sets they've scheduled production resources for, for example. Or perhaps changing public tastes might have them decide not to offer as much material in one of their core, evergreen themes as they normally do. Whatever - for any number of reasons, they might conceivably find themselves in a position years from now where they are able to produce large Ideas sets that they don't currently foresee being able to. Maybe it's just a matter of wanting to keep open the slim possibility that some Ideas user will come up with that One Fantastic Idea, something so extraordinarily special that they will make special accommodations to produce it. It's unlikely, sure, but that doesn't mean they should take action to prevent even the slight possibility of it ever happening.

Remember, while we might think of Ideas as some sort of contest or game or award, from TLG's perspective it's part fan / customer engagement, but also largely a mine for new ideas (hence the name), and even new markets. It's a resource for coming up with ideas for new sets and products, beyond even what the fertile grounds of their imaginative but finite employee rolls might come up with. It's a way for TLG's customers - and potential customers - to tell and show the company exactly what products they want. TLG has every reason to keep it as open and accessible and accommodating of as many ideas as possible as they can, with only a few obvious limitations (i.e., nothing that compromises the brand, such as violence, sex, etc., or use of competitors' products).

[Faefrost]

1. That's a bit of an overstatement I would say. Before the review results a lot of people seemed to think that at least some of these had potential. But now that review result is in a lot of people find it obvious that none of these had potential. Mmm...

2. Even if thirteen projects manage to make it and it is 'obvious' that none of them stood a chance; it is a waste of time isn't it? In my view it simply means the rules need to be sharpened.

The people that thought that were looking at the projects and the problems from the wrong end. Something that most around here do when looking at Ideas Projects in review. They look at all the great points. All the positives. All the benefits. If you want to avoid disappointment and have a better idea of how reviews will likely turn out do this instead. Take each project in review with an as yet unknown outcome. And work through the likely failure points in a business case review. How many obvious hurdles or problems do you see right from the start? What about this project will cause a problem in review? Look for hidden licensing and prior art gotchas. This will help you spot the less obvious certain or built in points of failure. What won't make it past initial brand fit (Titanic) What is prior art (Frozen, ISS) etc. What will trigger a non compete or license partner veto (Lothlorien, Trex) etc. once you start doing that the issues start to stand out and the outcomes become more predictable.

This isn't 100% by any means. Plenty of surprises have been approved and rejected. But it does let you get a better handle on the thought process behind it all.

From these 13 I think the biggest unknown was the Corvette. To my eye it's only obvious negative or failure point was its size, but in hindsight there may also be an unknown conflict with an existing or under negotiations Chevy license for Speed Champions.

The Star Citizen Hornet ship is an interesting case. I suspect the delay reflects more a question regarding the IP itself. Lego is looking for another Minecraft, and at first glance SC looks like a good candidate. But there have been some recent questions regarding Star Citizens developer Cloud Imperium Games. Granted it may simply be an Internet poop storm, but the questions are valid enough, the games ever increasing delays real enough, that a third party licensor might be reasonably hesitant to step into the minefield. (Personally I can't shake the sad suspicion that CIG has morphed to the extent that continuous ongoing crowdfunding is now the business model and revenue stream and the game itself is getting dangerously close to being vapor ware. Which if it's the case would result into all kinds of FTC fun shaking up crowdfunding.) regardless while the set seems a perfect fit for Lego and is well within budgets for size, theme, etc, right now there really is no game there to correspond to.

Edited November 6, 2015 by CopMike

[Faefrost]

I think a piece limit for a proposal of say 1000 pieces is reasonable. People can always include bigger pieces to compensate and TLG can always change the bricks used upwards or downwards for the final model. I would see it as an initial requirement to avoid disappointment. If the production capacity is increased, they can always adjust the limit.

I work in a sector where we hand in texts with a word limit of say 8000 words. Does not mean the final versions are always below 8000 (when a reviewer wants me to add stuff, that is allowed), but it weeds out texts that are too long. Moreover, it forces people to be creative with the words and word formulations they use. And for LEGO that's a good thing: creativity is what it's all about, isn't it?

They do have a stated loose but effective limit in their published guides for how to pass review. To paraphrase "Look at what Lego sells. Look at what is on store shelves. Be reasonable and scale your projects to match those." In short your Ideas proposal will not ever be the largest set Lego ever made.

Beyond that they don't set a piece count limit for 2 reasons. First they don't design or develop based on piece count. That is utterly meaningless marketing fluff that only has any meaning to the customer. Lego develops based on Parts Budget, which is a wholly different calculation, and factors in actual weight, not simply parts count.

Secondly they don't put a limit because ultimately the decision on how big varies depending on subject, theme, and how much prior sales data they have on similar subjects.i like to use these as examples. Both Technic and the Modular Buildings have seen succesful high parts count sets based on crowd sourced fan designs. This means Lego has good existing Data on this type of set and who the customers would be. This means they might be prone to release a set along those lines at a higher piece count than they would for something like the Exo Suit or Birds. The higher the piece count/parts budget for a set the higher the risk. But the more pre existing data they have the more that risk is reduced. So set size is very much an Apples V's Oranges thing.

With that said, there are pricing sweet spots. That $19 - $49 range will greatly increase a sets sales. As a result if your project can hit that price range you increase your chances at review. If you exceed that price range your review chances start decreasing. But it's not a binary. It's not a hard rule. It's a soft cutoff. More parts = more cost = more risk = less chance at review.

[6ix]

So, The Yellow Submarine has reached 10,000 votes. Hope this one passed the review stage. It would be an instant buy for me.

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/102950

[AndyC]

that isn't exactly the case, the rule for ideas is that the submission must not Require a new mold. Doctor Who didn't require it and the submissions even used existing parts to represent the sonic. more likely The BBC wanted the new screwdriver and forced Lego to make a new mold. the delay would have been in time required to design the part, get approval from BBC, and then put into production. the fact that there are dimensions sets that use the same part only helps justify the cost of new molds and production runs of the new part.

In all honesty I suspect that TLG and the BBC had already come to a decision on Doctor Who appearing in Dimensions before they specifically announced the Doctor Who projects would be allowed on Ideas again. They already had an idea of how popular it was and must have known that inviting submissions was bound to lead to a successful review soon enough.

[Robert8]

So, The Yellow Submarine has reached 10,000 votes. Hope this one passed the review stage. It would be an instant buy for me.

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/102950

My father would love that one!

[AndyC]

I think a piece limit for a proposal of say 1000 pieces is reasonable. People can always include bigger pieces to compensate and TLG can always change the bricks used upwards or downwards for the final model. I would see it as an initial requirement to avoid disappointment. If the production capacity is increased, they can always adjust the limit.

I still think that's too arbitrary. Even two pieces of the same size may have vastly different effects on pricing and production capacity depending on how molds are currently in use, the colours required, whether they already have surplus parts produced and/or whether existing production runs could be slightly extended to produce parts etc. Trying to second guess the effects on production capacity (particularly when you have no idea when a project might reach review stage) is a bit pointless. It's better to let people be as creative as possible, attempt to manage the expectations of review success and del with the occasional disappointment than to restrict things to the point good ideas are never submitted in the first place.

[Blondie-Wan]

So, The Yellow Submarine has reached 10,000 votes. Hope this one passed the review stage. It would be an instant buy for me.

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/102950

Same here. That's actually one of a handful of Ideas ideas I've had myself but hadn't gotten around to posting before someone else did. It would be nice to be the one responsible for it, but I can't fault that creator for doing such a good job with the idea as well as doing it first. I supported that one myself, and I really hope it makes it.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[x105Black]

Medieval Market - was a MOC not a set proposal. It was a big honking MOC that had no chance as a set ever.

Zelda - the definition of insanity is forever repeating the same failing action expecting a different outcome.

Daft Punk - was a minifigs set. That's a nope.

These are the 3 I was hoping to buy when made available.

Medieval Market - I'd like to think that the reason was that they have something similar in the pipeline, but my understanding is that Nexo Knights will be replacing the Castle theme for a few years, so that can't be true. It may have been a bit large in scope, but projects are always ultimately changed by LEGO, so I don't see that as an issue. It could have been edited a bit to be more reasonable in piece count.

Zelda - Not my favorite Zelda game, by far, but I would imagine a Zelda theme would need some new parts and LEGO Ideas does not accept such projects. But it could be done in the way that they did Doctor Who, by obtaining the license and releasing some new molds in other sets (Dimensions) earlier. I'm guessing they couldn't get the license, which is unfortunate. Maybe Nintendo doesn't want their game characters to appear on other consoles (if used in Dimensions).

Daft Punk - Basically a minifigure set, but it was supported by Daft Punk themselves. It's a shame another Daft Punk set with an actual build didn't reach the vote limit. I would suggest another attempt at this one. Then again, it may have been licensing, as Daft Punk typically commands a large sum.

Either way, I'm very disappointed not to see these getting made.

[legoman19892]

These are the 3 I was hoping to buy when made available.

Medieval Market - I'd like to think that the reason was that they have something similar in the pipeline, but my understanding is that Nexo Knights will be replacing the Castle theme for a few years, so that can't be true. It may have been a bit large in scope, but projects are always ultimately changed by LEGO, so I don't see that as an issue. It could have been edited a bit to be more reasonable in piece count.

This is something LEGO meantioned before. You are voting for that exact set, not the general idea. This is why you cant edit submisions. If I make an "awesome cars" set, get 5000 votes, and then I change my idea to "awesome planes" and get another 5000 votes, only 5000 people voted for the planes idea. The same goes for a 10000 moc. Your vote said you wanted to buy a 10000 piece set, not a 1000 piece set.

Edited November 6, 2015 by CopMike

[x105Black]

This is something LEGO meantioned before. You are voting for that exact set, not the general idea. This is why you cant edit submisions. If I make an "awesome cars" set, get 5000 votes, and then I change my idea to "awesome planes" and get another 5000 votes, only 5000 people voted for the planes idea. The same goes for a 10000 moc. Your vote said you wanted to buy a 10000 piece set, not a 1000 piece set.

Well if 10,000 people are willing to buy a 10,000 piece set, I don't see how the size is an issue. And my vote was for the set as it was. But LEGO routinely changes the sets when they put them into production, so I don't really see why they couldn't have done that in this instance to make it work. I would still love to buy it.

[legoman19892]

Well if 10,000 people are willing to buy a 10,000 piece set, I don't see how the size is an issue. And my vote was for the set as it was. But LEGO routinely changes the sets when they put them into production, so I don't really see why they couldn't have done that in this instance to make it work. I would still love to buy it.

The changes for the ones that needed it were "we need to make this fit our build standards" not "lets cut the piece count to half".

Again. This could have been rejected for other reasons.

[jonwil]

Nintendo would never allow their characters to appear in a video game not created by them.

As for the yellow submarine, Beetles licensing can be a nightmare (although whether that would apply to the looks of the guys and the look of the submarine or just to the Beetles music I dont know). Not so sure its going to sell to the target market either.

[fred67]

Well if 10,000 people are willing to buy a 10,000 piece set, I don't see how the size is an issue. And my vote was for the set as it was. But LEGO routinely changes the sets when they put them into production, so I don't really see why they couldn't have done that in this instance to make it work. I would still love to buy it.

You don't see the issue? Did those 10k voters commit to buying?

I've had this argument before and been summarily shot down by a lot of people - I don't vote for sets I wouldn't actually buy and, I think, for example, The Golden Girls set would not have gotten 10k votes if voters were obligated to buy it. Neither would a lot of these huge sets whose cost would be several hundreds of dollars. Based on average prices, a 10k piece set would be in the neighborhood of $1000. How many people would vote for it if they were required to put 10% down on the estimated cost of the set? You could get it back if the set fails to reach 10k and be accepted, but you'd lose it if you didn't buy the set if it was made.

Now how many 10k sets are viable?

How do you think TLG looks at it? Small sets, small runs, not really worth while. Huge sets, even in small runs, potential loss. Medium sets, small runs, potentially worthwhile, smaller risk of loss.

Medium sets win.

[x105Black]

You don't see the issue? Did those 10k voters commit to buying?

I've had this argument before and been summarily shot down by a lot of people - I don't vote for sets I wouldn't actually buy and, I think, for example, The Golden Girls set would not have gotten 10k votes if voters were obligated to buy it. Neither would a lot of these huge sets whose cost would be several hundreds of dollars. Based on average prices, a 10k piece set would be in the neighborhood of $1000. How many people would vote for it if they were required to put 10% down on the estimated cost of the set? You could get it back if the set fails to reach 10k and be accepted, but you'd lose it if you didn't buy the set if it was made.

Now how many 10k sets are viable?

How do you think TLG looks at it? Small sets, small runs, not really worth while. Huge sets, even in small runs, potential loss. Medium sets, small runs, potentially worthwhile, smaller risk of loss.

Medium sets win.

Good points. Nobody really made any sort of commitment. I also only vote on sets I would buy. I think that the piece count on that set was a bit high to begin with, but I expected the project to change once LEGO got their hands on it. $1000 is a bit pricey. I was hoping for a similar set in the $200 range, comparable to Creator Expert Modulars.

I can see why medium sets have more a chance of being successful, but I still think a large set in that $200 range could do very well. Hopefully people will start submitting more of those rather than the 10,000 piece monsters.

[Blondie-Wan]

Also, even if you leave aside the question of whether people would buy it and just assume they would, there's still the question of all the resources put into it. A 10,000-piece monstrosity is going to take up a lot of design time, and then the biggie - production capacity. It's one thing for the Ideas line to get its little niches of factory time carved out for a 500-piece set; it's another for a set 20 times as large. That would require a huge allocation of their production resources. How much is this one set going to bite into their capacity to make all the other sets they're making?

[Faefrost]

These are the 3 I was hoping to buy when made available.

Medieval Market - I'd like to think that the reason was that they have something similar in the pipeline, but my understanding is that Nexo Knights will be replacing the Castle theme for a few years, so that can't be true. It may have been a bit large in scope, but projects are always ultimately changed by LEGO, so I don't see that as an issue. It could have been edited a bit to be more reasonable in piece count.

Zelda - Not my favorite Zelda game, by far, but I would imagine a Zelda theme would need some new parts and LEGO Ideas does not accept such projects. But it could be done in the way that they did Doctor Who, by obtaining the license and releasing some new molds in other sets (Dimensions) earlier. I'm guessing they couldn't get the license, which is unfortunate. Maybe Nintendo doesn't want their game characters to appear on other consoles (if used in Dimensions).

Daft Punk - Basically a minifigure set, but it was supported by Daft Punk themselves. It's a shame another Daft Punk set with an actual build didn't reach the vote limit. I would suggest another attempt at this one. Then again, it may have been licensing, as Daft Punk typically commands a large sum.

Either way, I'm very disappointed not to see these getting made.

Medieval Market - How far could they scale that back before it is no longer the project being voted on? Some proposals sort of allow for that. Such as Ghostbusters, the MWT etc, and everyone was on the same page about doing a partial project as the final set. Other changes are to improve engineering and meet build standards. But there was just no chance of that with this one. It was clearly designed as a huge display MOC. It is wonderful as that. But it was not and likely never would be viable as a set. At least not until they scaled it down to be pretty precisely the MMV.

Zelda - a reminder, we do not know why sets fail review. Just that they do. So many Zelda sets have been cycled through review that it is likely there is a core failure somewhere in the business case. Be it Nintendo, be it insufficient installed fan base to support a set release when they do the actual math (and yes I have in the past looked at the Zelda sales numbers accross all versions and done enough rough calculations to come to an easy conclusion that it would need a much higher conversion ratio of game purchaser to Lego set purchaser in order to be succesful. Normally you have a high chance of success if you can be profitable or sell out with a less than 1% conversion of fans from the original media. Zelda would require about 3% just to hit Ideas sales minimums. Zelda is well known, but is niche. It doesn't do Call of Duty numbers.)

Daft Punk - Minifigure set. Very narrow target audience, one that hits neither the older classic AFOLS nor the younger primary Lego consumers. High license cost. Far more likely failure points than actual positives.

[lightningtiger]

I'm developing the opinion that Lego are using Ideas as a launch pad for their so-called OWN ideas for sets and themes !

And if things don't get to 10K or they get rejected one way.......then they'll take it another without having to pay a red cent to the original designer/idea provider.

[Blondie-Wan]

I'm developing the opinion that Lego are using Ideas as a launch pad for their so-called OWN ideas for sets and themes !

And if things don't get to 10K or they get rejected one way.......then they'll take it another without having to pay a red cent to the original designer/idea provider.

Well, yeah, they say that outright - they can develop a theme that springs up from a single Ideas set. That's what they did with Minecraft, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But I gather you're talking about more than that, and about things like the Avengers S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier and the Ghostbusters Firehouse Headquarters. But both of those sets were obvious candidates for large sets, based on franchises to which LEGO already had the rights, and they surely had both sets in development before the Ideas projects entered review, and quite possibly before they were even posted. Is LEGO just supposed to give a royalty and five free copies of a set to every fan who proposes the same obvious idea that they're working on already anyway?

Edited November 8, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[x105Black]

Medieval Market - How far could they scale that back before it is no longer the project being voted on? Some proposals sort of allow for that. Such as Ghostbusters, the MWT etc, and everyone was on the same page about doing a partial project as the final set. Other changes are to improve engineering and meet build standards. But there was just no chance of that with this one. It was clearly designed as a huge display MOC. It is wonderful as that. But it was not and likely never would be viable as a set. At least not until they scaled it down to be pretty precisely the MMV.

Zelda - a reminder, we do not know why sets fail review. Just that they do. So many Zelda sets have been cycled through review that it is likely there is a core failure somewhere in the business case. Be it Nintendo, be it insufficient installed fan base to support a set release when they do the actual math (and yes I have in the past looked at the Zelda sales numbers accross all versions and done enough rough calculations to come to an easy conclusion that it would need a much higher conversion ratio of game purchaser to Lego set purchaser in order to be succesful. Normally you have a high chance of success if you can be profitable or sell out with a less than 1% conversion of fans from the original media. Zelda would require about 3% just to hit Ideas sales minimums. Zelda is well known, but is niche. It doesn't do Call of Duty numbers.)

Daft Punk - Minifigure set. Very narrow target audience, one that hits neither the older classic AFOLS nor the younger primary Lego consumers. High license cost. Far more likely failure points than actual positives.

It's true that the Medieval Market Street was just too huge to work as a set. I acknowledge that. I wish we could get something similar. That's pretty much all I really want from LEGO, great expert level medieval builds and minifigures.

I still think a Zelda theme could be successful. Zelda games don't sell as well as they used to, but as someone who is a huge fan of the series, I don't think they're making the games as good as they used to be. I'm more a fan of the games that came before Wind Waker (my favorite being a Link to the Past), and I think sets based on Ocarina of Time would be very well received. Also, there is a community of LEGO fans that are very much into medieval fantasy sets that would add to the group of purchasers beyond the initial Zelda fans.

And I understand that Daft Punk was just minifigures with quite possibly an expensive license, but I think a really nice small set done right could be very successful. Daft Punk has a legion of fans, many of them also fans of things like LEGO. And it could very easily be purchased by other fans of science fiction.

Anyways, I just want to see sets that follow these themes: Medieval, Zelda, and Daft Punk. Those are 3 great ideas that could work if done well and within the guidelines of Ideas (or as their own themes).