TheNerdyOne_

Obviously from our perspective, minifigure sets would be fantastic. But the fact is that these Mario sets are still selling like hotcakes, what they're doing with it is clearly working. I'm not even sure if minifigure sets would sell as well. The most I can imagine is a CMF line, but it clearly isn't a priority even if it's a possibility so people have got to stop getting their hopes up. Like has already been pointed out, they're being smart and marketing these sets to Nintendo fans, which are much more numerous than LEGO fans. And Nintendo fans, kids and adults alike, are eating this stuff up!

Just my two cents and something I think people should keep in mind, this isn't just a poll for this one specific set. It's very likely market research. Almost any "fan vote" by a company is ultimately market research. LEGO's obviously been pushing for the adult market pretty hard recently. Now, they'll have a near-definitive popularity ranking of all of their old themes among older fans. This is likely a big part of the reason why themes like Castle and Space are split up like they are, among reasons others have already spoken to. With the votes split between different subthemes, LEGO can then ask themselves "okay why was this Castle/Space theme more popular than the others, and what can we take away from that to help drive our success in the future." The results are likely going to influence future 18+ sets for a long while. Not in the form of specific sets for each theme, but in more subtle ways. Like if the Castle themes do well across the board, LEGO knows they should be making 18+ Castle sets. Same thing if the Space themes do well, and for example the comparison between Exploriens and Spyrius in terms of popularity might tell LEGO whether or not fans want exploration-oriented space sets or conflict-oriented space sets. If Bionicle does really well, maybe that tells LEGO their 18+ audience might be interested in expansive universes with their own lore, which has already worked really well for them in the younger crowd with Ninjago. So if you're thinking "well it's really weird they included this theme, but not this other one," perhaps this list is curated to give LEGO the most useful information without overwhelming voters with too many options. Like the Model Team line was likely included to help gauge interest in similar sets for the 18+ line, not because LEGO thinks it could win. Think about LEGO Ideas. I would very much make the argument that the Ideas platform has definitely influenced LEGO sets as a whole, far beyond the individual sets. I'd even argue that all of the video game Ideas projects (especially the huge success of the Minecraft line, and the many Legend of Zelda projects) has led to LEGO lowering their barriers about video game licensing, resulting in the Overwatch and Super Mario themes. And that's just one example, Ideas has always been about market research above all. It's a limited data set, the average consumer isn't going to be participating in this, but it's still incredibly useful data. Especially if the 90th anniversary set sells well, that could even tell them that directly investing in their historic themes pays off. While the adult market has existed for a long time, LEGO's recent attempt to tap into it with the 18+ sets is pretty fresh, and they need all of the information they can get.

Oh I know, wasn't saying Disney literally dictates what is and isn't made. As I lined out earlier in my post, my reason for saying we should be blaming Disney and not the designers is licensing fees. Sorry for not making that more clear in the final paragraph. Ignoring context to further one's outrage seems pretty contradictory to me too. The LEGO sets in the $100+ range generally either have a ton of play features, or are very recognizable. Take a look at this year for example. We have the AT-AT and the Razor Crest. Two extremely recognizable vehicles, both filled to the brim with play features. But you're focusing way too much on the "play feature" aspect of what I said, and not the "niche" aspect. The fact is the TIE Bomber is more of a background ship that has proven to not be super popular, regardless of how many appearances it has technically made. A kid would much rather play with an AT-AT than a TIE Bomber. To act like the TIE Bomber is on the same level as the ARC-170 or B-wing is a bit silly. I'll say it again, attacking the designers for issues outside of their control doesn't help anything (and is really just a jerk move tbh). I've seen claims that the designers here are lying and not saying the real reason they aren't making a TIE Bomber (the real reason apparently being because they just don't want to?). The real reason is pretty clear, and pretty clearly spelled out in the interview to the extent in which they're allowed. A TIE Bomber is too big of a risk for a large price range. And it requires a large price range. Play-ability is definitely a factor in that decision, but we all know they could make it more playable if they had to (its mention here is more just saying that it's one more obstacle that needs to be overcome, in addition to others). Play-ability takes second seat to the niche aspect of the vehicle. Yes, LEGO makes niche vehicles all the time, but almost never in the price range a TIE Bomber requires (with occasional exceptions for promotion reasons, which does not apply here). That's why the context of the price range is incredibly important in that interview, and why ignoring it is simply ignoring the reality of the situation. Our best hope for another TIE Bomber in the near future is a UCS set. And the most productive thing to do right now is to campaign for that. Because frankly, AFOL opinions really don't make much difference in regards to regular sets, because those are primarily sold to children. Where AFOL opinions can matter is with UCS sets, and we've been told that the TIE Bomber is still on the table. A system-scale TIE Bomber very likely won't be happening unless it's heavily promoted in a new show/movie. Also I always think it's funny when people claim "LEGO are their own worst enemy" for not making what you want them to make, when the sales numbers clearly tell a different story. I don't see how they're acting against their own interests here.

A lot of people here are ignoring a very crucial part of that interview answer. They never said that the TIE Bomber was simply too niche, or not playable enough. They said that the TIE Bomber was too niche and not playable enough for the price range it would require. The price range required for a figure-scale TIE Bomber is one that is almost exclusively reserved for highly recognizable vehicles with a ton of play value. AFOLs might love a TIE Bomber regardless of the price range, but kids/parents don't want a giant expensive set with play features limited to dropping bombs and firing spring-loaded projectiles. That price range is almost exclusively reserved for big play sets like locations or Star Destroyers or giant walkers. Notice how the examples of "niche" vehicles LEGO has made are mostly all well below $100 (the main exception being the Resistance I-TS Transport, which is nothing more than an obvious order from Disney so that they have expensive Galaxy's Edge merchandise to sell). The $100+ price range is one that not even highly recognizable and playable ships like the Invisible Hand or Home One have been able to get in to, and those have way more screen time. Expecting a TIE Bomber of that size is simply unrealistic, and that's all the interview answer was saying. It's out of their control. As for the size of TIE Fighters, the 2012 set is the exact same size as modern versions, simply less detailed. The TIE scale has remained unchanged since that 2012 set, the current scale is a necessity thanks to the cockpit size needing to comfortably fit minifigures and be playable. In fact, the TIE cockpit size has remained unchanged in general size since the very beginning. The only thing that has really changed in regards to TIE Fighter size is the wings, in order to make them better proportioned. And you know that if they went back to the smaller, badly proportioned wings (or cut back on the detail) the same people now complaining about the size of the TIEs would be the first to complain about that too. The problem isn't the size of a TIE Bomber, the problem is the cost. Disney's licensing fees are insane. If we go by the $0.17 price/part ratio of the TIE Dagger, an 800 piece TIE Bomber would cost $140. A TIE Bomber would have a chance under normal circumstances, LEGO just never really had a chance or reason to make another one prior to 2012. But with those licensing fees we have now there is simply no way it will ever happen unless it's highly featured in a new movie and Disney really wants to push it on everyone. I know nobody likes to hear that, but the designers in this interview were simply explaining that reality to the extent in which they're allowed to. Let's not go blaming the set designers for everything simply because they're easy scapegoats. The real problem here is the higher ups, primarily at Disney. Set designers don't get much real say in sets they produce, it's been well known for years that LucasArts/Disney always got/gets final say on set production. Don't blame set designers for things like what is/isn't getting made, or whether or not the AT-AT has any companion sets to go with. Blame the Disney (and to a smaller extent LEGO) executives who are actually making these decisions, and then putting set designers front and center to shield themselves from blame. Shooting the messengers does nothing to help anything.

We know that the LEGO Mario line has been in development for four years, this was likely developed around then, but held back when the main line of sets changed direction. I'm so excited to pick this up regardless of the delayed release!

We're still waiting on seven sets! So quite a few! The $4 set you mentioned, two $20 sets, two $30 sets, a $50 set, and a $70 set. We've only actually see three of the "standard" sets so far, with six left to be revealed.

I just stumbled upon all this progress and I just have to say that I'm amazed at what's been accomplished in such a short time! Thank you to everyone who's putting in the time and effort to do this! I've been doing my best to make do without the new parts in LDD for so long, but this just made it so much easier to actually utilize the new pieces!

Is Monkey Kid not simply LEGO's attempt at capturing the Chinese market? I imagine the only coffin it would nail shut is LEGO expanding to other markets, and even then given that this is their first real attempt I doubt they would give up so easily. I also don't think western prices are indicative of how successful the theme will be in its native market, LEGO probably doesn't really care if these sale in western markets all that much. They may even be on the pricier side specifically because LEGO didn't intend these to be sold much outside of China, and are only really making them available worldwide to satisfy fan demands after the first couple China-exclusive sets.

And a few more! A long-overdue Imperial ship and some more obscure Separatist ones. Never been a huge fan of the Carrack-class honestly, but at this point it's kind of a necessity. The Diamond-class is a ship that I think deserves a lot more attention, so I gave it some. And finally got all of the Gozanti variants out of the way (well, aside from the new one in TROS, but that will come later). Carrack-class Light Cruiser Diamon-class Cruiser Gozanti-class Transport Fleet shots Also added instructions for the pirate ships I posted previously. And, while I'm here, might as well show off a couple WIP images of ships I'm working on (some may be done sooner than others).

LEGO obviously knows the risks, I think the only people who have tried to argue otherwise are those who have said LEGO doesn't know what they're doing and will fail (something which you and I have been discussing since the theme's unveiling). However, I don't really think it's that massive of one. The argument of whether or not it will sell is a very tired one, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. In order for there to be a massive risk here, there has to be potential for massive consequences. I don't see any, and so far nobody's really pointed out any realistic ones. Like you said, the worst that will happen is that they'll try again. Future sets are more than likely already being designed given the usual production timeline, not to mention that LEGO is seemingly pretty confident that the partnership will continue regardless of sales. I just honestly don't see what all the hubbub is about, or why all these predictions of failure and drawing of conclusions has been necessary. Especially when many of those conclusions have been proven wrong already. I've been saying it for a while now, but patience would be helpful here.

I mean, not really. I'm obviously as excited for LEGO Nintendo anything just as anyone else, but these sets aren't quite my cup of tea and I've never claimed them to be. It's a cool concept, but I'm not the target market and don't plan to play through my own levels. Might pick up one or maybe two depending on what the sets themselves look like for display, but my budget is pretty small for extra purchases so they'd have to be really good looking. The thing is, the opinions of AFOLs have absolutely no bearing on the success of this particular product, because it is not for us in any way. Nintendo fans are super excited across all social media platforms, it worked out well in the focus groups, and it's Mario. The notion that the theme will be a complete failure to the point where it will be a one-off product line, especially when LEGO has already confirmed otherwise, has some clear roots in bias. And that's not directed at anyone in particular, but it's a sentiment seen not only in this thread, but in other AFOL communities as well. And many others have already pointed out the silliness of it.

My bad, tried to search for the context but this thread has been moving pretty fast lately and seems I missed that! Still though, it's probably best to avoid the doomsday predictions just based on that like many have been doing (not that that's anything new in this thread, it seems some have decided that just because they don't like the theme it must fail). Miscommunications happen, still entirely possible that there are other ways to get Mario other than the starter set, and even if that does end up being the case it's not the end of the world.

There is zero confirmation that Mario is only in the $60 set, that idea is based purely on speculation. Let's not go spreading false rumors without any basis. It's just as likely given the part counts/price per part ratios that the $10 sets each contain a Mario, possibly different versions. But that's merely speculation as well, we've learned no new info about the sets since the part counts were revealed.

It's been made pretty clear that this is more a collaboration than anything. It's as much a Nintendo product as it is a LEGO one. Sales could be absolutely horrible (which we have no evidence to believe they will be besides the opinions of a few AFOLs, which has no bearing on sales; the response from pretty much everybody else has been pretty great so far), and it's still pretty likely we'd see more sets. Even if Mario somehow fails, it's pretty clear that there's interest from both parties in making more sets from various Nintendo IPs. I mean, it's been a while since LEGO has really failed at anything. Pretty much all of their themes the past like 5 years have been simply mediocre at the absolute worst, and big hits in the majority of cases. Any one-off themes were designed that way, usually to promote an upcoming movie. I think it's safe to assume that they know how to get accurate focus group results better than any of us here. They've been working on this for 4 years, I'd imagine they'd have tested its viability over a longer period of time than 60 minutes. The $10 sets being different versions of Mario is a very good idea! Definitely seems possible. Even if the overalls aren't removable, it would theoretically be easy to just change the colors of the piece. Would definitely qualify as the "exciting news" that was mentioned.

Nintendo actually won that lawsuit. They stopped making N&B bricks later, for unrelated reasons. Personally I'm also rather skeptical of the idea that Nintendo just wanted normal sets. Until we get a quote, I'd assume it's a simple misunderstanding. It was a 4 year collaboration, and Nintendo absolutely loves doing weird stuff. Also kinds contradicts how other interviews have talked about the design process. Also Nintendo has all the power here, if they really wanted minifig sets we would have gotten them.