6129c04
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About 6129c04
-
LEGO The Legend of Zelda - Discussion and Speculation
6129c04 replied to Karalora's topic in LEGO Licensed
It came out garbled, not enough details, my bad. The whole point with inflation is that it affects everyone as far as purchasing power goes. But when looking at TLG's profits it seems that despite inflation they are managing to get wealthier, so from our consumer perspective they aren't under the financial pressure that would justify constantly increasing the prices. From their toy maker perspective they don't care about us, they only care about money and they keep turning the knob and if the money keeps flowing they will keep turning it until they reach a plateau, that will be a point where the consumers are going to push back and their attitude will cause TLG to lower prices, pretty much an informal negotiation between parties. Coming back to us consumers, because of inflation we are not getting wealthier, quite the opposite, so our "Lego purchasing power" is diminished. If TLG would keep things constant (by adjusting prices for inflation) then we would always afford the same amount of Lego, and that is their other interest aside from profit, to maintain our "Lego purchasing power", and prevent us from affording more Lego. Now you could say (this is actually their perspective) that we shouldn't be able to afford more Lego because whatever reasons, but if I give the tech industry as an example, and ignore the current RAM crisis, we could get computers that are much more capable than ones 20 years ago for similar money (less when adjusted for inflation). So why would that industry give us high performance PC parts for reasonable money (relative to our income) while TLG gives us in the best scenario the same amount of plastic for more money (as adjusted for inflation)? My previous example (the equivalent of a $50 set from 20 years ago that would cost $80 today) was more theoretical, I can't provide a clear/definitive answer right now as I don't have all the data (all that we can access anyway), and regarding data TLG will always have more info than us, so we can't trust them that they won't go beyond the threshold (about which we don't know exactly where it is, but they do), as I said if people are still buying they will keep turning the knob. And if people keep defending TLG using inflation adjustment then no one should be surprised if they take that advice. If you don't see an issue with advertising fast food to kids it doesn't automatically mean that it's a non-issue. If I can get accused of overreacting why can't I accuse others of downplaying the matter? The criticism is for some products and some practices. As I said in the first post this Zelda set is actually nice and I had only complaint regarding its design/inventory and the other complaint was regarding price. Oh and set 60488 is excellent, aside from message, simply as a toy model for that money it's really good. It's very easy for them to ruin all sets value wise by making them all more expensive, regarding design I keep seeing more and more sets that are genuinely half-assed, some cheaper some more expensive. I want to see things get better for us consumers, wouldn't you? Maybe you should think a bit about the fact that because some people are critical and also don't pay the full price for a set that it's one of the primary reasons TLG hasn't gone full Hoopty Poopty on us. Look, it seems I've discussed this more than I should have, if your consumer attitude up until this point has benefitted you and the perspective is that it's beneficial for you to continue in this same manner (whatever that is) then keep doing it, who am I to tell you otherwise, if you are satisfied with the results? That sort of "action" type violence is no different than what you read in (classic) fairy tales, only there it's still open to interpretation on how it would actually look like because it implies imagination, whereas with Lego sets you can clearly see what they chose to represent what was previously imagined. They don't look overly violent to me generally speaking, and context is paramount, as justified/righteous violence is well exactly that. If they would do some sort of slightly futuristic but realistic warfare theme without context (no clear indication on who is good and who is bad and for what reasons), and just put out various war vehicles and soldier minifigs then it would encourage pure war, because there is nothing else you could derive from looking at those sets. Because fast food is fast food, it's primarily a lifestyle. As long as people are hooked on the lifestyle the brand doesn't specifically matter. I'm not saying they were actually paid to do it (I would need proof for that), but if they weren't and it's their own idea then it's just as bad, as it shows they don't care and consider it trivial. It's interesting how you consider action themes to be promoting violence and thus potentially having a negative influence but fast food is somehow an innocent matter. -
LEGO The Legend of Zelda - Discussion and Speculation
6129c04 replied to Karalora's topic in LEGO Licensed
I know of the whole part decrease/shrinkflation aspect but as I said if the decrease is less than what adjusting for inflation would produce is it really inflation? Concrete example: a set 20 years ago was $50. Adjusting for inflation says that the same or similar content should be priced at $82 today. So is it true, are we paying $80 today to get similar contents to what we got for $50 some 20 years ago? What if the math shows that it's actually less, say $65? If that difference is not proportional to inflation is it really inflation? Or just TLG trying to get more profit using inflation as a pretext? And steadily pushing up prices until eventually meeting the actual difference we would get when adjusting for inflation. Post-2020 they seized the opportunity they've been waiting for decades -> adults buying Lego like they're kids again and it's their birthday everyday. The perfect opportunity to push prices up and use inflation as an excuse. ^I don't blame them for trying I blame regular people for blindly enabling them and going like "well they gotta eat too" when a quick look at their profit reveals there isn't the slightest need for concern over their financial situation. That should end every debate, if the profit shows they are well fed then why should we accept their higher prices? Well I would argue that promoting very unhealthy foods to small children is at the very least not ethical. Sets like 60488, 60452, 60404 and their predecessors in this subtheme. I'm strictly referring to the message, design wise they're absolute bangers but that is a different matter. I don't see people getting upset with TLG for that, certainly not as upset as with me for criticizing them for some of their prices. The implications of say fast food chains paying TLG big money to promote fast food products to small children is certainly something that supposedly responsible parents should be aware of. There are parents which specifically like Lego for not promoting actual military/war/violence unlike other toy makers. I didn't say that actual word, it was perhaps implied yes but still it's different. And it's not so much about people being actually stupid but making stupid decisions instead. Because they're poorly informed, because they're misled by the influencers etc. Only when people have all the relevant information and still decide to burn the money can we objectively say that... well you know... I don't subjectively deem those sets (or others) to be overpriced the statistical analysis does, I just relay the data results, those sets are massive outliers, without any exaggeration and I'm taking every relevant aspect into account including license. -
LEGO The Legend of Zelda - Discussion and Speculation
6129c04 replied to Karalora's topic in LEGO Licensed
@Karalora Of course there is a tax but as I said the Star Wars one is where TLG goes off the rails without separating children sets vs adult ones as far as price per content goes. TLG is only profit-motivated, there is nothing else. They're clearly not like an artist that takes pride in the quality of his work, they are releasing many half baked (even slop) sets at a crazy pace. They do this because people still buy, it's only natural that they would choose the path of least resistance and what is advantageous for them. And the prices, particularly for adult marketed sets, are of the "what they are willing to pay" variety instead of "fair, reasonable even if licensed" variety. Also the hikes are done to counter the discounts, for example if one will buy the Zelda set for 100 thinking he got it for a discount he's actually paying the full fair price. It's not news that adults ruined Lego post-2020, their deeper pockets compared to children alongside their sometimes poor tastes and/or inability to properly gauge value has brought us the Lego slop age where we have landfill like 11384 (which actually has a good price per content ratio) or nice (even beautiful) sets that are (very) overpriced. A good indicator for this problem is the number of "day one buy" or "preordered" statements seen online regarding various sets. Buying at full price is signalling TLG that their methods are working so next time they'll push even more. I said it in other threads that inflation is not actually a thing, unless we are going back at least 2 decades*. Otherwise the needle doesn't really move. If it would how do we still get sets that match ones from 10 or more years ago sometimes even 20-30 years ago in every parameter (price, no. of pcs, weight, no. of minifigs etc.)? Not because of generosity. *Even if we go back several decades in order to see a clear difference, the difference is smaller than inflation so is it actually inflation that's causing the increase? It'a test, every set is a test, that's why it has to be analyzed and compared to death to its contemporaries and predecessors, because they're always trying to see if people take the bait and pay more than it's worth compared to their backlog. 60449 was an example to see if people are still able to recognize when a set has great value for the price, 60478 is an example where they're testing if people are willing to pay 40 for a 30 set. Sets like 76232, 76458 and others are incredibly overpriced because they're IQ tests there is no other objective justification, when analyzing those sets nothing stands out, literally nothing. Also the increased production costs for their "questionable quality" plastic is not really a thing (they are much more skilled at this than they were 20-30-40 years ago for example). What people are actually paying for (indirectly) is the sets that TLG is gifting LANfluencers (which are quite numerous) alongside the paid trips for RLFM Days and also the R&D of unsolicited flops like the (not so) smart brick. That is things that we are not actually getting in the box for the normal sets that we buy. If people are okay with this and want to enable this who am I to argue otherwise? -
LEGO The Legend of Zelda - Discussion and Speculation
6129c04 replied to Karalora's topic in LEGO Licensed
The price is anything but fair. Analysis of this set's inventory reveals that the fair price is at most 100 $/€. Using 100 and comparing the price to content ratio to other licensed sets like 76989, 77037, 76255, 77072, 77073 this Zelda set is more expensive than all of them relatively speaking -> meaning the profit margins are more than plenty for reasonable people, but of course TLG higher-ups are anything but reasonable. The price to content ratio is almost as high as 75398 and that is Star Wars tax we're talking about. Nothing is as brutal as Star Wars tax. Not only is it overpriced but TLG saw fit to gimp the set by putting the 3x 67696 pieces in black instead of dark green even though dark green was used for set 31058 since 2022. And it could've been used for set 31151 as well if TLG didn't want people to buy the pieces separately from Overpay-A-Brick. Just as they're doing now with this Zelda set. Imagine paying more than fair and still getting an improper set that you have to spend extra to fix. Judging Lego sets emotionally instead of rationally will always produce the wrong results and effects -> such as normalizing TLG's unhinged price hikes. A real shame, another release marred by pathological greed. -
I am expecting a very noticeable difference between 60480 and 60385. The part count is pretty much double, the size will clearly be bigger (but not double of course), 60385 was admittedly a bit skinny for 20 $/€. This one I'm expecting it to be 30 $/€. I'll explain why: 60498 can be used as a starting point, and the resulting backhoe would be very similar but superficially different, sort of a recolored (in Bright Light Orange) 60498 with modified cabin (and other minor details) and with the attachments strapped to it. 60498 has 204 pcs and 60480 has 301 pcs so about a 50% increase. I don't think almost 100 pcs will go into the attachments (the front bucket will surely be the one from 60287 and 60385 and the back bucket may be the one from 60420 and 71513 although it's pretty big). So there must be something extra. Another worker minifig (like in 60385) -> also a $30 with just 1 minifig doesn't sound good at all. There's probably some side build (again like in 60385) to provide a play scenario (unlike in 60498 which relies 100% on imagination). This way I can see the set offering much more play value than 60498 but at the same time being a sort of upscaled and better polished 60385. To be honest the most economical for TLG is to reuse the tire config from 60498. Two sets being produced at the same time, that is the best approach to keep costs down. Regarding looks it also depends on the model(s) used as inspiration/reference, it's not like they're all the same. So they could get away with it. But if I'm indulging the possibility of them using other tires, I would say 56891 for the front and 55976 for the back. 56891 has smaller diameter and width than 7616 used for the tractor while 55976 has the same diameter and width as 70695 used for the tractor. The best part is that 56891 and 55976 have similar tread profiles/patterns. This way the backhoe can look different from the tractor but just as good for slightly different reasons. Because we know 60498 looks good and is also a success, and the success is 100% due to looks because there's nothing else, so the backhoe can also be successful due to its looks but on top of that provide extra value with its working attachments, side build and included play scenario.
-
@Gzynek2323 Good catch, this must've been added very recently in that reddit list as there is no mention of it in the comments, at first I thought I hadn't copied the full list but at least someone would've mentioned the set in that reddit thread. Yeah 740 pieces, sports car and off-road vehicle, August release. That's what it says, hopefully excellent value again from Mercedes like with 76924.
-
Right, so after thinking a bit more about the new Creator ship I am heavily leaning towards 100 $/€ as the likely price. I am going to use two very relevant examples, as it's best to counter TLG's scheming using their own examples. Two sets: 77072 and 77073 both MSRP of 100, if I do the average for the basic parameters I get the following raw content for 100 $/€: 1184 pieces, 920 g and 4.5 minifigs. 110 pieces more than the Creator ship, not a big deal but still not a great start for the ship. 4.5 very special minifigs, equivalent to these would be at least 5 regular City/Creator minifigs, or even 6 if a skeleton is added. So the range is 5 full minifigs or 6 including skeleton. The second example is 31168, which has about 300 more pieces than the ship and is also about 1100 g with 6 full minifigs. The ship would be a hard sell at the same price point while having a 300 piece deficit and also a 100-200 g deficit. In my opinion Lego is somewhat forced to use a 100 price point, otherwise the scalping would be too obvious and the fan reactions would hopefully be very negative -> and yes this can have an effect (TLG speaks money so voting with our wallets 100% works). This is the good news, that the price is likely 100, the bad news is that TLG could try and make the ship smaller, and to mask the weight deficit with a more polished look and more minifigs than the previous ship -> which would make the smaller ship appear more populated and perhaps more attractive at least in the reveal pics. What's great about math is that it shows the truth, just from these two examples above we can clearly see what is the proper content for that price, so if we get less then we know how to react towards this set and towards TLG. I would like to see this new ship return to roots and be a great toy first and foremost and also be priced like a toy, just because it's a great toy doesn't mean it's not appealing to adults, and certainly doesn't mean it can't be a good display model.
-
It wouldn't be Creator with cloth, unless they use the cloth sails as tents in the alt builds, lol. I would say 5-6 minifigs including one skeleton, probably 1 pirate is female for variety. Sort of "only the captain gets to bring his girlfriend along". I wish it was comparable in weight but I doubt it, most likely lighter but better polished/sculpted as a build -> sort of a Speed Champions approach. It would be great to have something offer excellent value, but this is surely aimed at nostalgic adults while being disguised as a children's playset. 31109 is about 970g and 31132 about 1000g, so this one would be great to be 900g realistically, the problem is that the price could likely be $120 instead of the fair $100. Fingers crossed it's just a Benjamin. Yeah I think that keeping 4 is plausible but less likely, unless they ditch the skeleton and they're four fully fledged pirates. Less than 4 is almost impossible, it's hard to move a big set like this when it's unpopulated. More than 4 is more likely, that way they can hype the set through the figs (hello 31168) and mask the less value you get regarding the build (part count, part selection -> special pieces, recolors etc., weight). I don't know about the Imperial dude, maybe keep him as a prisoner, although he has to play a role in the alt builds as well. Even with swapping torsos/legs/heads between them (like in 31139) there will still be a minifig that looks distinct.
-
Speed Champions 77260 Toyota Supra (Fast & Furious) 292 pieces June release Model of the iconic orange car. Most likely includes another Paul Walker minifigure. Convertible version! 77261 Ferrari 499P 329 pieces June release Le Mans livery. 77262 1965 Ford Mustang Hoonicorn 345 pieces June release Expected to include a Ken Block driver minifigure. 77263 BMW M3 E30 – 40th Anniversary Edition 358 pieces August release ///// Summer wave or so they say.
-
Creator 3138x Wild Animals: Majestic Lion 839 pieces June release Probably 31386 or 31388 31383 Floral Perfume Bottle 286 pieces June release 31387 Legendary Pirate Ship 1,074 pieces June release 31389 Iconic Ferris Wheel 916 pieces June release 31390 Floral Wall Art 348 pieces June release 31391 Fashion Handbag with Storage 272 pieces June release 31392 Decorative Grand Piano 486 pieces June release ///// Supposedly these are the new sets. So the lion I would guess it's actually the 2022 tiger body plan, recolored (hopefully dark tan not tan) and with the extra pieces for the mane (hopefully some dark brown mixed in not just reddish brown). And of course gimped joints, rotation only, like 31166 and 31171 have for the front legs and also the back legs. Or else rebrickable alts would pop up like AI startups. Oh yeah price $70 because why not, the giraffe got $65 instead of the fair 55. Fingers crossed for $60 though (I mean they did 71512 at $70 so one can hope). Perfume bottle and fashion handbag yeah that's definitely what I visualise when I hear "sets targeted at children aged around 8". Jesus Christ... Part count indicates $20, hopefully the weight is alright and these are at least priced fairly for glorified part packs (similar to 31380). Iconic Ferris Wheel? 2021 called and wants its ideas back, lol. Part count is very close. 2026 year of the rehashes. Pirate Ship has less pieces than the previous one and also less than the Viking one, hopefully the weight reduction is less than the part count reduction. I would be beyond pleasantly suprised if weight is comparable to those two (about 1 kilo). Minifig count probably 5-6 including another skeleton (probably 1 pirate is female for variety). Sadly I think price is likely $120 even though fair would probably be $100 considering the part count, the expected minifig count and weight most likely under 2 lbs.
-
@Lyichir I don't have a problem in general with visible studs here and there, sometimes they are used for texturing which for certain models is completely understandable and sometimes they are present because they come from underlying pieces which are partially covered, pieces which have a structural role (various SNOT pieces) and thus studs cannot be avoided unless you tile them over which in some cases creates a visible step between those tiles and the adjacent ones which are a plate lower. But in this case it is beyond obvious that a studless form could've been achieved effortlessly. And yes I'm convinced that any designer would be proud to achieve a studless model without mind-bending and possibly fragile techniques/connections. Why would someone ruin his achievement like this? Because this opens the door for criticism and negates the possibility of praise given for studless. Also the scale can be pretty easily deduced by looking at the pieces and the lines that separate them, the proportions, the notches in the curved pieces used for the headlights, the antistuds on the spoiler. Okay less obvious than gauging size using studs but what's an extra minute or so?
-
@BrickMonkeyMOCs Good job! The front definitely looks better as the orange goes lower to meet the bottom edge of the fender, the color continuation is very eye pleasing. Also the effort to address the stud fest of the original. It goes to show what happens when someone passionate about the subject matter gives it a try. The Lego model is a hard sell at 25 let alone at 28. ///// On another note only now I realized that set 77255 is nuked. It has two 3023 on the front hood which are there solely for the studs, even though there are four red tiles in the set's inventory. So this is pretty much a statement that TLG is actively nuking sets to uphold their BS principle that models should not be studless else they're not "legos" anymore. I'm genuinely surprised that the designer (same guy who did 77237) basically conformed to what the greedy suits and talentless bean counters barked at him.
-
@Ptchnk I did not know of that MOC. Thank you kindly, all the best!
-
@Yoggington I don't want to derail the thread so apologies beforehand, but I will say the following: [spoiler]Yes inflation is a thing and no one is immune, not even TLG. However as years go by it is increasingly easier for them to manufacture their sewer pipe toxic waste plastic, even at the same quality. The labor costs, paying the designers and such is increasingly cheaper because of the increasingly larger backlog of sets -> which constitute a pool of knowledge and potential inspiration for future sets, especially ones with recycled ideas (the dino in 31379 was "designed" in basically one afternoon by modifying the one in 31058, the portion of the set which actually required some effort was the nest). The whole designer cost is something that will soon be irrelevant given that AI will take their place, make no mistake it will happen eventually. The new parts added yearly make the design process easier than before when designers had to struggle to work with sticks and stones basically. The implied cost of designing new parts is not that significant as TLG now steals from the Chinese knock-off brand which have had some cool parts for years before TLG copied them. If this cost (and also the cost of new molds) would be a thing Chinese brands wouldn't be able to sell sets at much lower price. Also "new" parts which represent the halving or doubling of an existing piece (like going from 37352 to 7126 or from 50950 to 24309) have no special engineering requirements as everything is already accounted for in the original design. So they just halve it or double it without some special additional testing as there is no need for it. It's not easy identifying inflation creeping up in sets, as it should be a gentle downward trend, where year after year you get progressively less for the same price. But when it's an obscene abrupt price hike that is in no way because of inflation. In 2020 the 8-wide SC line debuted at price parity: 20 $/€ for single cars. In 2021 the single cars (except 76902) were increased to 25 €, that's not inflation, 25% after one year? And still same price for US? It's just EU market scalping. Only in 2023 the US price was raised to achieve the new price parity at 25. Then in 2024 another increase at 27. Because they could. And now in 2026 a new threshold at 28 in order to spread out the costs of their unsolicited "Hollywood Champions" sets. Another example both from 2024, 60431 for 35 $/30 € and 71811 for 50 $/€. If that isn't an IQ test I don't know what is. 71774 from 2022 vs 71822 from 2024 -> reverse inflation pretty much. Also if inflation were that bad for TLG how are they able to keep things at the same ratio (price to content) after 10 years or so? 31376 & 31377 are comparable to 31029 and 31030. 31160 & 31173 are comparable to 31031 & 31032. 31146 & 31147 are comparable to 31019 & 31021. 60448 & 60486 are comparable to 60053 & 60054. I could go on and on. 31163 from 2025 has a very good price to content ratio at 25, 31382 from 2026 has a worse price to content ratio at 30 because it has less pieces and slightly less mass than 31163, so even at 25 it would score slightly worse. Does this make sense? Inflation was present in 2025 relative to previous years so why would TLG be generous with 31163 only to be stingy with 31382 a year later??? It seems that big sets, like Ninjago dragons and mechs are getting more expensive than before, admittedly these sets even if cheaper by about 10-15-20 $/€ would still realistically be out of the reach of most children so while some are disguised as playsets they're likely aimed at adults who have more money. So the question now is are these sets getting more expensive because of inflation or because TLG is scalping adult fans? The SC line is clearly not aimed at children, in this case TLG is constantly pushing prices higher because if an adult has 25 to spare for a toy car he surely has 28 as well. 71846 is 20% higher in price compared to 71834 and 71821 (all three have comparable content, except minifig count) simply because it's the most "adult" oriented one. They are using the adult angle to dupe people like never before, look at 21588, it says 10+ on the box, ahahah what, for that pile of trash? It's mostly classic bricks, plates and a lot of tiles built studs on top and only after that some segments connected sideways, can we compare that to the sideways built stripes on the 31129 tiger which was 9+? Or the acrobatic build for 77237 also 9+? That pile of garbage is really 7+ and overpriced in the EU. The US price is closer to the correct one which should've been 35 for both markets. TLG got bigger than ever starting with 2020, it's because of adult fans, they are the reason for higher prices not inflation, the sets aimed at kids are spared most of the time, if adults would drop Lego, then prices would drop as well. Their post-2020 profits are at a completely different level than before. The best Lego sets we would get are if TLG got another close call with bankruptcy, only when they will be forced to put in real effort to keep the business running that's when they will give 100% because their existence would depend on it, that's when we would see microscopic sprue/mold marks, outstanding color consistency and jaw dropping designs made from the heart. But that is behind us, what lies ahead is single-use bio-degradable printed plastic, AI-generated derivative designs and premium prices because "big brand tax". What we need to always remember is that TLG is always selling at a profit, maybe sometimes just big instead of huge, but even the set with the best price to content ratio is sold for a big profit. So my verdict remains, even if TLG is not immune to inflation, most price increases are not because of it, but because of the deeper pockets of adult fans.[/spoiler] @Hive The large panel pieces are indicative of the cash grab intention and also sabotaging the part selection when it comes to alt builds. Also not a single masonry brick. The brick-built horses are nicely done and true to Creator spirit. They do look surprisingly good for what they are but obviously most people would've preferred molded horses -> they had no issue putting them in set 31175. The thing is people most likely have whatever structures/buildings from past sets, but they need more people and animals to populate those structures in order to create a more lively playset or a better looking/more organic display piece. And that is what TLG is furiously gatekeeping, the elements needed to give life to the sea of gray walls. At least for Spaceballs they have the overpriced battlepacks which are a way to get minifigs, droids and guns.
-
Hello there! Perhaps some of you came across this a while back: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegoNewsAndRumors/comments/1p7be38/possible_look_at_new_lego_city_set_source_eu_lego/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1oxyp0w/new_mech_for_city_space/ I was wondering if there is anyone interested in this design and actively working to get this sorted out/recreated, I realize identifying parts will work up to a point then it will be a matter of improvisation as we're missing a 360° view of the model. I did a spreadsheet of what I was able to identify/guess, right now I don't have the possibility of 3D building as that would greatly help so the next step is to try and build with pieces and see how far I can get. My goal is to get a plausible version ready and then order the parts as it would fit perfectly with my other City Space sets. When I say "plausible" I'm referring to the back and other parts which we can't see clearly or at all, I want to achieve a design that looks like it could be the actual one even if it differs slightly. Oh yeah, there is the theoretical possibility of asking the designers to cough up the parts list, would that have any chance of success? Because 99% I don't expect TLG to actually make this an official set unfortunately. Any thoughts?