danth

Not a million copies of a single set? 500k then? Not even that? I was expecting to be off by maybe a factor of 2 at most, but am I really off? EDIT: Brickset lists about 450 sets for 2020 if you rank them in piece count order and don't count "sets" that are just minifigs. Looks like the median piece count is somewhere around 200ish. Now, compare that to how many bricks are sold per year, which is reportedly about 75 billion. For argument's sake let's just say Lego's "typical" set is a 200 piece set. They would be selling 75 billion / 200 = three hundred seventy-five million sets. But divide that by 450 since they have that many different sets. That's .833 million or a little less than 1 million copies per set. But who knows. That's all just estimation. For sure. I had that in my head somewhere but forgot about it...yeah, 15-20 sounds reasonable to me.

You know, I've been insulted on forums, and it rolls off my back...but if someone insulted my beer? That would hurt.

Both of those conclusions sound reasonable to me. I just realized I didn't really do anything with the dollar amounts... I guess for my $30 set with 300 pieces (typical) and 1 millions sets made (guess on my part), you'd have 30 million dollars in sales. But if it consumes 20 molds at 72k each (see original comment for explanation of those numbers), that's about 1.44 million on mold costs. So molds vs revenue for my made up set are 1.44/30 or 4.8%. I have NO idea what all the other costs are. Can't begin to imagine. Besides raw materials, design costs, labor, running factories, marketing, etc. Plus not all sets are going to sell for retail price. I wish I knew the profit margins. Then you can really see how significant the mold costs are in comparison. Yeah. They look incredibly high to me. I mean...they made Hidden Side which they had to know would bomb. They made Vidiyo which is bombing. Apparently they have lots of money to throw away. On the other hand, they seem pretty tight-fisted with themes like Creator where they can't even give us an appropriate torso print with a Castle set.

Ok, here's what I think of this. We gotta realize that every set ever made "consumes" molds. In other words, it's not a question "can we make a new mold", it's "we have to make new molds, so which ones will we make? Let's do some math. The above mold, for a pretty simple and small piece, created 120 million bricks. I guess it's really 8 separate molds in one press. I don't know the exact terminology, but that's what I'm going to call it. 8 molds in one press. So each of the 8 molds made 15 million bricks before "retirement" for being worn out or out of spec or whatever. So how much does this cost? We've heard "up to $200K". That's a max. I've also heard as low as $20K. I'm sure smaller molds like the one above aren't $200K. Well, maybe for all 8. This article says the average is $72K. So let's go with $72K for now for a mold that can produce 15 million bricks. Now consider a $30 dollar Lego set that has, say 300 pieces. I don't know how many copies of such a set Lego would make. I assume they make more copies of smaller sets, and less copies of larger sets, because you can sell way more small sets than large sets. Most families don't have the money to buy large $100 playsets. So let's say Lego produces 1 million copies of this $30 set with 300 pieces. That seems reasonable -- it could be a little high or low, but I don't expect it to be much different. I could be wrong. So for that one $30 set, you have 300 million pieces produced, total. And a mold wears out after 15 million bricks. So, to produce that one set, Lego has consumed 20 molds! Those are molds that Lego will either have to build up front or replace, either way. It's 20 molds they have to pay for. Obviously, though, it's not 20 molds that are consumed -- it's the equivalent of 20 molds, spread over 300 bricks. And some copies of the same brick will be the set, for example, say there are really only 100 different kinds of brick in the set. So 100 different molds were worn down, but only partially. Maybe one special brick was only in the set once. That mold was used 1 million times, but still has 14 million usages left over! So how does Lego deal with this? What are there options? Make sure they can use that brick in other sets so they can get their money's worth/full use of the mold Eat it. They just lose the rest of the mold. Maybe worth it if it's a "loss leader" kind of brick, important for sales but not profitable on its own Buy a cheaper mold that has lower tolerances to start and can only make, say, 1 million molds to spec Now, the question is, did I just make up option 3? Or is that a real thing? If 3 is a real thing -- there is little reason for Lego not to "bring back" or recreate a certain mold for a general release set, except for some overhead costs. You'd rather pay overhead costs on every 15 million bricks produced than every 1 million bricks produced. But still, that's just overhead. I don't think making molds is as bad/expensive as some make it out to be, assuming option 3 is real. So let's take the real work example of the Goat mold from the old Mill Village Raid set. I think that was the only use of that mold. Did Lego really spend $200k on a Goat mold, then only use it in that one set, which I seriously doubt they made more than 1 million copies of, and make 2 million or less goats? And then throw away a mold that could produce 13 million more goats? If they did, it would be a ridiculous waste of money. Lego fans would be right to be annoyed when told "eh, sorry, we got rid of that mold!". Why, if it was still good? It's more likely that the goat mold was a cheaper mold that was intended to only make 2 million goats before wearing out. Which makes the "we can't bring the Goat back" answer seem dishonest. They COULD make the mold again, assuming they can sell 2 million goats. If they could make the Goat for just one set before, they can do it now. However, for something like the Medieval Blacksmith, which they're probably making only 50k copies of or less, you can't justify even one of the cheaper molds. Unless you can re-use the molds in other sets -- and soon, because I don't think Lego wants to pay for storage and upkeep of molds that aren't in use. So "we can't afford to bring back the Goat just for one limited release set" explanation is definitely legit. To review: Lego MUST make molds for each set they release. It's just a matter of which ones, spread over how many sets. I think you can justify new/resurrected molds for smaller, general release sets, but not so much for larger, limited releases, unless you KNOW you can reuse them soon.

Perfect. Not too big as to be unrealistic, has tons of windscreens in the colors I want, and has all the ground vehicles and even mechs covered. Supported!

Spectacular. It's great how many little pieces we have now to make tiny mechanical joints. How did you join the two pieces of the upper arm?

🤣🤣🤣

True. I know I'm getting tired.

Something to keep in mind during conversations like this. It was written about antisemitism, but applies to pretty much any debate like this. ― Jean-Paul Sartre

No he's right. All the trans people who have actually been assaulted or murdered in hate crimes, all the ones who have committed suicide to end the bullying and gender dysphoria -- see, they aren't the real victims in all this. The real victim is Fuppylodders , because he can't think of the right word sometimes. Let's all forget about this whole Everybody is Awesome thing and have a big pity party for Fuppylodders. Yay Fuppylodders!

Sounds like you're crashing this whole party to make it about you. Maybe go start a thread in the off topic section about your issues. There are many victims in the struggle for trans acceptance and rights, but YOU are not one of them. Don't try to make yourself out to be.

Yeah this whole "clinical psychologist" who is part of the "LGBTQ community" shtick while advancing anti-LGBTQ talking points. I'm just not sure I believe it, dawg. Anyone can toss out unverifiable claims to authority on the internet. I really care more about the arguments. And yours have not been convincing. Especially when you say stuff like this: This is some teen edgelord "LoGiC aNd ReAsOn" stuff right here. No dude, people are tired of the BS, bad faith, intentional ignorance, all out onslaught. There's only so much talking to a wall that people can take. As a "clinical psychologist" you should know that. Oh wait: BWAHAHA! So you can leave the conversation when you're drained, but it's TOTALLY NOT A DEFEAT GUYS! See, this is the kind of bad faith hypocrisy that people get tired of. But you do keep repeating it. The trans kid you keep talking about, over and over, and how it's okay for people to misgender him and he's a good transgender person for letting people misgender him: That is frankly sick. That you don't stick up for your kid and you let people misgender him. And that you put all the onus on him to take it. And that by being a good little trans -- essentially by not offending you by complaining too much -- he has "converted you". One, you should stick up for your kid, dude. Two, things are definitely not adding up...

Ah, the old "I'm rubber you're glue defense."

"Calling out my bigotry is the real bigotry. Being a bigot is just who I am! How dare you make me feel bad about it!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

Sounds like you need to stay out of this topic them. "If you don't like it...don't read it!" To be fair, I'm not totally opposed to the idea that any arguments about whether Lego should or shouldn't do whatever set be moved to some separate thread in a different sub-forum. But until then, this is the topic for it. It's just more easily visible to people who aren't interested in that aspect of the discussion, for good or ill.

Intolerance of intolerance is not only justified, it is required for a functioning society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance It's just like self defense: violence is wrong, unless it's done to stop someone from doing violence.

Question: Are different things different?

Guys, he just advocates the truth -- like liberals thinking it's okay to murder children. I mean, as a liberal myself, I try to murder at least a few children a day, preferably five- or six-year-olds who are somehow "unborn" and still in their mothers womb's, because blastocysts/zygotes/embryos just isn't evil-sounding enough, and "unborn children" totally isn't an oxymoron.

People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego puts stud-shooters and guns and swords in almost every set they make, and centers their main in-house theme around violence (named after an actual martial arts that focused on assassination), and their biggest licensed theme has "Wars" in the title and the movies feature people dismembering each other with swords -- after decades of being so anti-violence that Space sets weren't even allowed to have laser guns and had to make them look like "sensors or lights" to get designs approved: People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego removed alt build pictures from their sets, and now make sets from movie licenses or in-house themes with named characters almost exclusively, after decades of claiming to be about creativity, and about children creating their own stories and adventures, and building their own worlds: People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego makes the second Lando Calrissian out of brown plastic, because it's obvious yellow didn't look right on the first one, after years of LEGO claiming "yElLoW iS RaCiAlLy NeUtRaL": People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego throws a bone to gay and trans people: It's almost like there's a pattern of not really caring about "corporate policy" at all, and there's some other, mystery reason why they might be upset?

If the "perspective" they disagree with is that gay people should be treated as equal, then yes, absolutely they are a bigot and trying to hide it.

Guys. Guys! GUYS! I have this totally new concept for you. Are you ready to have your mind's blown? IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.... DON'T BUY IT. 😏😏😏😏😏 Same for this set. It's just minifigs in monochrome colors. If you see anything gay or trans, that's on you.

He also...you know...sliced up little kids with a light saber. I mean, you can't really do anything more evil than that. And yet, tons of SW sets, and nobody complaining about morality.

Nice! It looks like a super-compact B-Wing, but in better colors. The canopy piece intrigues me. Really want to use it for something like this mecha from Gall Force. It also reminds me of the canopy on Daniel's suit from Transformers the movie. Wow, this is awesome. Perfect use of the trans-green helicopter canopy as an inverted rover windscreen. Also love the treads.

Because the people complaining about this set have no problem with the police. Something is only "political" if it makes them uncomfortable. Your example about the police is perfect. If BLM is political, then police sets are also political. Likewise, if sexual orientation is political, then every set ever released with a mom and dad is political. Every licensed set with characters who had a heterosexual love interest is political. You can't have it both ways: if gay is political, then straight is political. Anyone complaining about this being political, but never complained about sets with straight people, is admitting that gay people make them uncomfortable. Bingo. Yep, pretending gay people don't exist is also political. I see a lot of posts on social media where people line up all their different colored space men, and they usually get a lot of likes/upotes. I also see many that aren't space, just minifigs of some kind. Space or not, people seem to really like monochrome lineups of minifigs. I think this set is going to be popular as heck! I'd kill for a Space version of this, but Lego seems to really hate us Space fans, so it'll never happen. There are quite a few sets that have obviously heterosexual couples, many times with kids as well. Whatever you "decide", it's quite clear what Lego decided when designing those sets: they intended to depict straight couples. You can decide to ignore it, but the idea that "there’s zero distinction that X person is straight" is simply not true. This goes double for, say, Hermione and Ron minifigures who depict characters in heterosexual relationships.

Man if you think gay pride sets are pandering, just wait till you see how they've been pandering to the straights! This has been going on since the 70's! Look at this set simply called "Family": A man, woman, and children. Implying that the man and woman had heterosexual relations! Totally disgusting.