Mylenium

I don't think that's the real point here. It's probably more to do with the fact that indeed we've arrived at a point where even sets for adults sometimes only have three pieces per step, which is actually quite ridiculous. And I'm willing to argue that even in sets aimed at kids like Friends or City there is no rational reason to dumb it down to a point where plugging a flower onto its stem has become its own step in the instructions. Dunno, since I only started out with LEGO five years ago (with Technic no less) and had done a lot of nerdy stuff with mechanics and electronics before, but I can't help but feel at times that LEGO really oversimplify things where it wouldn't be necessary. You know, buying a complex, technically challenging, large set is typically not something you do on the spot without thinking about the intricacies its build may entail or where you store it. So for what it's worth, I'm not advocating that LEGO make things intentionally difficult for less experienced users, but perhaps we can get back to a level where the instructions have some level of "common sense", where not every pin or stud has its own page. You mean pennies... Printing is dirt cheap. Mylenium Nothing against those. If you 've ever built a reasonably large/ complex set, this quickly becomes a very convenient or even essential feature. Not saying that modular buildings or large T-Rex couldn't be built "the hard way" without numbered bags and everything scattered, but it's just nicer that way. It can of course be debated whether it's always necessary for a 200 piece Ninjago set or similar... Mylenium

Okay, I see now. It's visible on some pieces at the edge of the pile. I was too focused on the ones at the top that are shot straight-on where it looks like a flat print. I concede my error in judgement. ;-) Mylenium

But it's just a print?! Not sure what else you're trying to see there. No real refractive/ reflective/ diffractive optics to be seen anywhere. Mylenium

Where? All I've seen so far is a ton of new prints. Mylenium Mmh, for a completist, maybe, but otherwise I don't feel they are in any way essential. And to be honest: If the print quality was as poor as in the DOTS sets that we actually got I'm pretty sure I'd never use them anywhere just to spare the embarrassment. Mylenium

Thanks for rubbing salt in the wound! *lol* Seriously, that's another area where LEGO come across as pretty clueless at times. Perhaps that's the reason the qualifiers for GWPs have become so sky-high recently? Less people reaching the threshold disguises the shortages. Mmh... ;-) Mylenium

Agree. However, in order to do that they'd have to be much more open about their release dates and tell people in advance. Pre-ordering still would be useless if they reveal a set to day and it goes on sale next week, which is kind of their current model even with basic sets. You basically never find out what will be on shelves in January until a few days before Christmas and even on that level it feels weird... Mylenium

Well, you'd likely have to source transparent stud plates from some third-party company. LEGO hasn't produced anything of that sort in ages. The rest should be trivial. Chances are, you could even buy a pre-made light panel kit from AdaFruit or similar outlets that offer electronics solutions based on Raspberri Pi or Arduino and then customize it to your needs. Mylenium

Dunno, the counter-argument to that would have to be that currently a local German distributor called Bluebrixx who assembles custom kits from Chinese bricks as making major inroads into that scene. They're probably rubbing their hands about how much money they make. So for what it's worth, from a global perspective LEGO of course have other fish to fry, but is it really that smart to ignore a pretty strong regional user base to which you could potentially sell hundreds of thousands of sets each year? And it's not that this would go out of fashion soon, despite the model train craze being nowhere near what it was 20 years ago. That is to say there is a predictable, continuous demand, no matter what and I think it is not a smart move for LEGO to not more pro-actively serve that segment. Fair enough, but overall I don't think there's a reason to make it that complicated. Yes, there are restrictions in many places, but it's not that the trucks aren't rolling and factories aren't running. You know, just like LEGO bricks, actual plastic is produced almost fully automated. You don't need a ton of people in a chemical plant these days. I have one right where I live and it looks rather empty most of the time, yet the trains keep rolling in and out. I'm sure this analogy could be applied to other raw materials and consumables needed to produce a LEGO set as well. There's nothing mysterious or magical about it, even if things may just take that bit longer currently or require to make a few more phone calls to coordinate timing and reducing physical contacts. Mylenium

I (not so humbly) disagree. Trains are regularly the talk of the day on many German forums and LEGO no doubt is made aware of it by our Ambassadors. Rinse repeat for Switzerland, Austria, Italy or even Denmark, quite likely many other European countries. It's a considerable market and it seems to me LEGO are fools for under-serving it while competing, alternate vendors of brick-based train stuff make a good buck on it. This hasn't even anything to do with the failures of other Creator (Expert) sets or anything of that sort. You know, it's that same old discussion we have about knights, vikings and what have you. Somehow LEGO have a weird logic about these things, yet the market (as in "such stuff sells out rapidly") appears to tell a different story than what the powers to be cook up in their Billund offices... Mylenium

IMO a non-argument, to be honest. There's only a handful of people maintaining the machines even during regular times and pieces are produced in long production runs, not requiring to change any molds for days or weeks even. The plastic pellets are fed via an automated tube system, anyway, so changing a color merely requires to flush out the leftovers of the previous production run. And all that aside, let's be serious: If some Chinese knock-off manufacturers can copy entire sets within days, then set-up time to produce specific parts and printing a copy of the instructions and box is even less of a consideration. If at all, tying everything together is the hold-up, but then again nobody forced LEGO to not have on-site packaging facilities in Billund for instance and having to ship out everything in bulk to Poland and Slovakia to be put in boxes. So one could argue that their lack of flexibility is their own doing, not necessarily dictated by external influences or excessive requirements of the production process. Mylenium

Still, you have to question the dumbness of not producing sufficient quantities of e.g. the Crocodile locomotive in the first place when the dumbest of morons could see that here in Europe with the LEGO train segment literally starving and people willing to pay almost any price would buy it en masse. And that remains a fact even if you leave the current pandemic out of the equation. You could even go back to previous years. There have been many such shortages for no (to the customer) apparent reasons, and while they have been resolved quicker under better conditions, they still sucked, which at least for me is the point. Anyone care to remember how last year the large Batmobile was sold out everywhere for almost two months? A company as big as LEGO with multiple facilities across the globe should not struggle so much with fulfilling demand, especially when some things are so predictable in the "My grandma, who knows nothing about LEGO, could have told you!" sense. I would maintain that LEGO still have their work cut out and there's lots of room to improve that. Mylenium

Well, then their stock system and logistics don't work well at all. That's ultimately the point. Really no way to put it differently. If car manufacturers or other companies had such fragile supply chains, they'd long have collapsed. Mylenium LEGO has no plan in that regard. I far too often find myself thinking that utter morons must run their market analyses. It's really that old "ivory tower" syndrome where some of their decisions appear so far removed from reality, it's really incomprehensible. This has happened time and again, not just with expensive Creator and Ideas sets. I wrote a whole article about the failure of Hidden Side (https://myleniumsbrickcorner.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/the-predictable-failure-of-hidden-side-a-post-mortem-analysis/) and similar things could be said for other series or some individual products. Mylenium

Both and on top LEGO did the stupid thing of releasing a ton of big sets this year that tie up lots of production capacity. Mylenium

It's one of their internal rules. Parts have to have certain metrics to fit within the system. You know, one day that shoulder armor could turn into a foot covering on a Ninjago mech or something like that... Large parts tend to be designed that they fit even steppings of full studs, meaning they are 4 x 6, 4 x 8, 6 x 8 and so on. Only smaller parts may use full or half plate height steps. Mylenium I doubt that this plays any role here. Both versions of these parts are ones that they produce continually because they are used in so many sets. To me it seems more like this is meant to be an attachment point for some extras and/ or snap on to some mount points on a vehicle. Sometimes such stuff only makes sense in a larger context when figuring in other sets from the series... Just a guess, though. Mylenium

That is just plain awesome! :-) Mylenium

Nice model, but I'd go a bit lighter on the magenta plant parts. They stand out too much and I find them rather distracting. Mylenium

I mean at the corporate level, in particular manufacturing and distribution. The sets themselves are fine. It has just become nigh on possible to even get your hands on many of them. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Mylenium The aforementioned "Lucas code" allows you to recoup any cost associated with furthering your fan project and most MOCs arguably have some of that going on like that Dutch guy that's selling thick printed booklets for his "UCS" models. All fair and square in my understanding. Of course it might be different for other properties, and technically it definitely is, but so far most rights holders seem pretty easy-going about it as long as it's in their interest and furthers their products and brands. And why not? A multi billion corporation is not going to go broke on such stuff. Just the opposite - coming down hard on your fans can damage your reputation a lot more. Again, it may not be as written in the letter of the law, but I don't think a bit of a laissez-faire attitude within certain limits hurts anyone. Mylenium

Are they, though? I feel many of those alternate companies have genuine structural problems to actually make a dent. That's one of my eternal frustrations with Mega for instance and lately it seems Cobi are also in trouble with not being able to keep up with demand. And the other side is of course that the companies are playing silly games over patents/ trademarks. If LEGO even offered such a thing as FRAND licensing or there was an overarching coalition/ association that maintained brick designs and quality standards like it is common in some industries, we'd live in a whole different world... Mylenium

Bad example. As much as Disney are control freaks of their Star Wars IP, it still falls under the "(George) Lucas code", making almost any fan art or other derivative use fair game (fair use) and to the specific case of MOCs you also have to add on top that the MOC itself is a new piece of art falling under its own regulations. And the latter extends to other properties as well. No point in trying to take a RIAA stance here and trying to squeeze licensing fees out of everything. Some uses of other people's IP are perfectly legal within certain limits, with the specifics being determined by the respective local laws. Mylenium

I can't see any way how this would ever become a reality. The cost you save on the sorting and logistics is easily eaten up by actual production cost for the resins, long printing times and cleanup. It's hard to imagine even a set with a mere hundred bricks being produced on order this way. Mylenium

Aside from the cost factor the others already mentioned, this is simply yet again another case of the AFOL bubble reflecting in on itself. You know, it's perhaps three percent who even are aware of brick CAD tools, graphics programs and so on to be able to create those custom sets, but of those only yet another fraction would actually be interested in doing it. It's just not relevant to their business in the bigger picture, especially now that they are far beyond being a reasonably small company and have many ways to make money much easier. Mylenium A lot of that could already be mitigated if LEGO were actually producing parts consistently in sufficient quantities instead of once every blue moon manufacturing a handful of seldom used pieces in a rare color which you can't then even order on Pick a Brick/ Bricks & Pieces because supplies are so thin. This also opens up the old can of worms of e.g. the Classic sets not serving their function as bulk brick sources and similar discussions. If people had easier ways of obtaining the materials to easily rebrick their models you could kill half the counterfeiters and on top of it fix some of the craziness on the secondary markets for LEGO sets and parts... Mylenium

Update/ repair your system's graphics driver, reinstall the program after deleting all its previous configuration data. Mylenium

Just a few random thoughts: inconsistent/ unpredictable pricing for the same pieces across different sets weight/ volume/ bulk per set complexity (or lack thereof) of a set whacked up pricing compared to sets with similar numbers of pieces and complexity Granted, still hard to pin down, but I'm just not clear-minded enough ATM to give you a better explanation. Mylenium

You misunderstand. Certainly you will concede that a 1x1 tile in an ART set has a value of about 0.003 Cents whereas e.g. a large arch in the Grand Piano may have a value of 35 Cents a piece, or would you?! What am I getting at? Calculating an average part count and based on that an average price per piece is just methodically completely wrong when you can't even reasonably compare those factors. That's all I'm saying and it probably even furthers my point, at least in my own internal logic: A bunch of bags of 1x1 tiles that literally may be worth 7 Euro in a 120 Euro set makes this a terrible value, no matter how you skin it whereas a large number of clearly more costly parts in a 350 piano set, including electronics components, represents a different, possibly better value. Sorry if this still sounds confusing, but I'm struggling with words here to explain my jumbled thoughts on the matter properly.... Mylenium But then we can never have an "honest" discussion about price developments in the first place. You know, I e.g. don't care for sneaker shoes, either, but at this point it is clear to everybody & their mum that most of them are overpriced, which is kinda what I'm getting at in the LEGO universe as well. Well, whatever. This is getting too complex and it seems like every thought I have on the subject unravels a ton of others, so I'm going to stop here. My brain just isn't working that well at the moment and I can't seem to get my message across, so no point to add to the confusion... Mylenium

Stonewars.de had an analysis of this and of course you can always draw your own conclusions from the various sets, with the specific point mostly being that a large number of highly-priced sets with a great number of pieces seems to drag along the rest in the sense of evening out the average price, so the actual price of an expensive set isn't perceived as outrageously overpriced. You know, sales psychology. Mylenium Yes/ No/ Perhaps. Point in case: You would have to develop a reliable index that is not driven by the perceived value, but by the actual production value. Even many large and complex pieces can be produced pretty cost-efficiently. That also somewhat negates your point about minifigures and other stuff: Even a "rare" minifigure only costs a bunch of cents and similarly, the difference between e.g. five minifigures vs. twelve in a Ninjago Set or whatever is just multiples of this manufacturing value, not exorbitant sums as reflected by re-sale prices on sites like Bricklink... Mylenium