Mylenium

But then again one could argue that an ART set isn't worth 120 Euro MSRP and the actual sales price should be a lot lower. That aside, the absolute price per piece is simply an unsuitable and inadequate metric. Doesn't really make sense here nor does it change the fact that we have seen a major price hike in the last two years, regardless. So even if there may not be a direct correlation, I still tend to see 18+ as a shabby, yet all too obvious attempt at an excuse to justify those prices after the fact... My 2 Cents. Mylenium

...by that token, though, even the Trolls and Toy Story 4+ sets were aiming at the wrong age ranges because they require assistance, which kind of is the point here. I would agree that the Sesame Street set may be too complex for a four-year-old, but at the same time I can't really see why it should not be interesting for slightly older school kids, especially when you consider the ones that are leaning more towards Friends and the like anyway (not just girls). Mylenium

Well put. Indeed the 18+ moniker just seems like a cheap excuse to ramp up pricing for some sets. Frankly, who cares? That's the old gag of LEGO seriously misjudging these things right from the outset. What does a kid even care if a stud is on the sides or upside down as long as its cognitive capabilities allow it to follow the instructions?! You know, it's not like this is rocket science and these days the instructions are so dumbed down with only a bunch of pieces per steps, most people will have no difficulty working things out. That is, of course, if those morons at LEGO wouldn't permanently screw themselves by including errors in the instructions or doing dumb stuff like not choosing a suitable perspective, but that's a topic for another time... You must be kidding?! When did LEGO ever have a "unified packaging style"? I mean even on the 18+ sets we got so far the design philosophies vary hugely from color usage to package sizes to logotype. Nope, 18+ just feels like a cheap sticker slapped on to suggest a higher value where none may actually exist. It's just pretentious. Mylenium

You would have to figure out what their "core business" actually is/ is supposed to be and so far nobody has been able to tell me that beyond talking about "the good old times" when allegedly everything was better. The rest is probably too early to tell. You can only tell if a company has spread itself too much once the bubble bursts and in that regard the next two years could be interesting when the global economic crisis hits everyone. My personal peeve with all this is that LEGO seems to have forgotten the "little man" and has moved into this somewhat deluded state of seeing itself as a premium brand, not least of all also indicated by all those licensing deals that have nothing to do with actual brick-based toys. I'm not sure if LEGO needs to be the next Louis Vuitton where the brand name is merely a hollow shell with "licensing available for everyone" and crazy prices for products that aren't even "essential" in their original context as toys... Mylenium LEGO's production quality has noticeably degraded over the last three years. It's still perfectly acceptable, but "top quality" is something different in my little universe. From noticeable errors in building instructions to way too large manufacturing tolerances on the bricks to ultimately that nonsense of replacing materials with lesser ones just to save a few cents there have crept in so many bad things lately. They may claim to be the market leader and offer a premium product, but once you look deeper this doesn't really hold up many times, even more so since competing brands have massively caught up in that same time span and quality is pretty comparable. Mylenium

Yes/ No/ Perhaps/ Maybe. Point in case: To me it seems LEGO don't know what they want strategically and are just firing sets out like crazy and entering a ton of cross-licensing schemes. As has been said in another thread lately, it appears as a desperate attempt to find the next big thing and see what sticks while in the meantime cashing in with short-lived hype cycles. The FOMO experienced by many traditional LEGO-ites is probably an undesirable side effect, but at the same time I don't think they care that much. You can really smell how a certain corporate mentality is all behind this and has taken over with the emphasis clearly not being to keep AFOLs and long-time fans happy, but rather broadening the customer base to a point where it ultimately won't matter what the products are as long as they generate some sort of revenue.... Mylenium We can agree on that. Stylistically it is unique enough and the effort behind it can be seen in many places. It just doesn't gel practically. Mylenium

Not really. I strongly disagree and in fact think that the total lack of a stringent story and world-building is a strong contributing factor to the series' demise. Well, I would argue that it's not per se an issue with those things being app-based but rather how LEGO are simply forcing it down people's throat when there often is no need to. That and of course LEGO still being rather clueless on how to even create apps that actually work reliably and are fun to use. In a world where hundreds of apps get released every day their botched attempts can only come across as laughable and amateurish... Mylenium

Overwatch ended last year already. It was a complete fail sales-wise, which is of course not surprising, given how rudimentary the sets were. And Hidden Side has suffered from poor sales right out of the gate, so likewise it's not at all surprising it is getting nixed as well. Mylenium

Could be perfectly legal in China or wherever this is hailing from if it falls under some sort of "artistic interpretation" rule. The illegal part then merely would be selling it outside the country... Mylenium Not just that... It's also a cultural thing. We Germans are a lot more direct and not as burdened by some formalities. Had many such clashes over misunderstandings simply because my wording came across as rude when around here it would be just normal... Mylenium

Some call it being a dick, others call it reality check. It's pretty much up to POV and we could exchange niceties about it all day, but I'm not going there. Have a pleasant day! Mylenium

No, it isn't. Least of all given the folly that is submitting a license-based IP to LEGO Ideas is. Let's review the facts: You latched on to an IP that is not owned by LEGO nor yet licensed in any official capacity whatsoever. Said IP is a game played by millions of users every day. Aforementioned users get to see "Nook's Cranny" regularly. Now here's your homework: Draw a Venn diagram of the numbers of AC players and LEGO aficionados. Calculate the statistical probabilities of one single person of the intersecting crowd being able to a) deduce and transfer the design into bricks as you did and b) making a buck of it by selling the design. We are literally done at this point and there really is nothing more to say. The mere supposition that someone would need to "steal" your MOC to create a similar or even identical design makes no sense from here on. Does it suck that you got shafted and now your fifteen minutes of fame fall of the precipice? Sure. But seriously, move on, just forget it and create your own designs. Maybe one of those might make it big on Ideas. Mylenium

Just another of those pointless "Uh-ah, someone stole my precious MOC!" *sob,sob* discussions. As long as LEGO haven't even approved your design, what should they even do about this? You know, the deed hasn't even been done and there is no such thing as pre-crime in the real world. At worst they can simply eliminate your entry from Ideas. Everything else is up to Nintendo, if they even care. Beyond that there is nothing to see here. Mylenium

What else is new? *lol* Mylenium

What an exercise in bad taste... Mylenium

Depends on how you use them, I guess? Since I only have them for decorative purposes it always kinda riles me up when stuff falls off just because the baseplate is bending a little when moving things around during dustbusting. I could totalyl go for conventional plates, even with raised sidewalks, parking bays and other stuff you could do then. Mylenium

It may be popular, but Star Trek frankly is a mess, given how it's currently being handled. That has always kind of been the problem with it, anyway. The IP is spread across so many publishers, TV stations and streaming services, it would be nearly impossible to produce a consistent toy line due to everyone having a piece of the cake and trying to retain their exclusive rights. Currently it's also still in the hands of Oxford and Mega as far as brick-based toys are concerned, so I'm not sure if there is even a chance for LEGO to snatch up a license nor whether they would actually be willing, given the circumstances. I also tend to think it would also be quite an investment from a technical side, as LEGO would have to produce a bunch of new pieces to capture those sleek shapes a lot of Trek vessels have. It's almost funny that some old Mega slopes are more suitable for this than anything LEGO currently has. So personally I don't think it will ever happen. If it does, I would be more than happy, assuming it isn't a half-assed effort to just cash in with some crude simplified sets and a minifigure series... Mylenium

I don't care much in either direction, but indeed it's odd that they opted to make them "realistic". But who knows? They could have the ghosts in there as minifigs in fancy colors (similar to Moaning Myrtle in Harry Potter) and it might make sense then. Hard to tell just from the single package shot I've seen. Mylenium

No, there is no such thing. Whatever you want to do will require a different approach, which may necessitate rebuilding the surroundings around whatever hole you need. If you need specific advise, show people an image of the area in question. Mylenium

To the insurance it very likely has no value beyond the original purchase price. IMO no point to make a fuss about it beyond that unless you have a dedicated "art" insurance that would account for actual market value. They're not gonna pay you extra money just so you can re-buy a UCS Star Destroyer from ten years ago for a few thousand bucks, anyway. The rest will depend on the specifics of your insurance contract(s), naturally. Here in Germany insurances up to certain amounts of money usually won't care much and simply consider it a lump sum payment. Things only tend to get hairy when you want a full reimbursement to the last penny. You could probably claim 2000 Euro worth of "various LEGO" with no issues, but would have to prove every last detail if you exceed this limit. A sufficient amount of photos certainly helps and having original receipts is never a bad thing. You might also want to generate an overview list when each set was released at what price. Mylenium

Exactly the point. LEGO couldn't care less if you put your expensive Siàn box on fire and throw it into the dumpster five minutes after you bought it. They got their deal out of it. Capitalism is about selling stuff, not how it's actually being used. Mylenium

But that's only a fraction of the demographic, honestly. Harping on nostalgia is probably also not a stable long-term strategy, given how different everyone's previous experience with and relation to LEGO is. It's too unpredictable and volatile. It's also becoming pretty clear that LEGO doesn't really address that crowd specifically. It's at best coincidental while their primary focus is still reeling in new customers and ones that ideally have lots of cash to spend. Mylenium

Not really. That's a myth. One bears no relation to the other. You know, you can't build airplanes from home and aeronautical engineers are among the best-paid jobs across the board, just to give an example. Even representatives from Google, Uber, Amazon, Netflix and so on keep repeating that they can't have people working from their home office for forever for simple practical reasons. That and Uber for instance navigating hard on the verge of total collapse. You can certainly spin this in a million ways, and there will always be winners and losers, but regardless, I think the target demographic for 200+ dollar sets is significantly going to shrink in the coming two or three years at least, not accounting for any long-term effects of the current crisis... Mylenium ...but someone who has just been evicted isn't even going to buy a 50 dollar set. What was the number? 4.3 million under thread of eviction in the US in the next six months alone...? The numbers are staggering and you can find similar statistics elsewhere. And not to put too fine a point to it, but the UK has created its own extra big pile of poop with all the Brexit nonsense, which clearly is also going to hit some people where it hurts... Mylenium

Don't be naive! Of course even people from upper middle to high-income ranges will lose jobs. Companies are culling jobs left and right already here in Germany and things will get much worse when protections on bankruptcy and all that run out. And the situation elsewhere in the world is even more severe, including the US. People are already fleeing NY because they no longer can't afford to live there and I would predict that things get a lot worse still. I doubt this will completely pass by LEGO then. Of course there will always be a very narrow margin of people who couldn't give a care in the world, but a bunch of billionaires isn't going to make up for all those middle-class people not being able to afford much... Mylenium

Will they make up for potential losses due to other people not being able to afford stuff? That is quite literally the 100 million question. The simple truth of the matter is that CoViD-19 will have some ugly long-term repercussions and no matter how you spin it, a lot of companies are going to feel the impact. Will LEGO be among those? Hard to tell, but to me it seems certain that they need to change things up. Selling people a 400 Euro Diagon Alley, a 350 Euro Lambo, several expensive Star Wars sets and on top of it a 250 Euro pair of co-branded Adidas sneakers may not prove a viable strategy in 2021 and they may need to go back to frying smaller fish, meaning sell more smaller, more affordable sets in larger quantities rather than relying on short income peaks based on hype cycles for luxurious products. Mylenium

It never was. That's a general misconception people seem to have. Arguable anything can become a valuable collector's item, but ultimately very rarely does it happen in the LEGO world. People are blinding themselves about the economics in so many ways... Mylenium

Nothing magic here. LEGO operates with a "rolling production system", meaning they're always several weeks or months even ahead. After all, it takes time to get stuff from the factory to your little corner shop, anyway. Also there was a lot of stock already in the pipeline, so for a while at least retailers had reserves to fall back on. Additionally you have to keep in mind that production is highly automated. A robot doesn't care moving from a two-shift to a three-shift around the clock production scheme and compared to other kinds of products they started out with limited personnel to begin with, allowing them to maneuver around certain restrictions. It's easy to uphold distancing rules when there's only two operators/ mechanics taking care of a hundred injection molding machines even under normal conditions. Their biggest hurdle likely was when borders were shut and they couldn't move stuff around from their production facilities e.g. in Billund or Bratislava to their packaging facility in Poland, which luckily resolved itself relatively quickly. Had this lasted longer, they sure would have felt it. Everything else is more or less a side-effect of the whole CoViD 19 crisis - prices are relatively stable, stuff is in high demand and there were a lot of expensive sets. Again, how substantial and sustainable this growth is will have to prove itself next year once all the negative factors of the current economy really will show. Mylenium