MAB

Small sets weren't particularly popular when they did them a decade ago. I imagine that is still in the LEGO corporate mind. And since then adult LEGO has become a thing, and all-inclusive big sets seem to be working well for LOTR. Plus they will probably find if they release small sets - especially if they duplicate minifigures from big sets - then sales of the bigger sets will suffer. And if they don't duplicate the (main) figures, then there is little incentive for people without the big sets to buy the small sets.

Is it though, when you consider the number and size of batteries whether from phones, laptops, and many consumer electronics, etc that are thrown away every year? If a rechargeable battery lasts 10+ years in a toy then I imagine the manufacturer decides it has done its job. That wouldn't need to be removable / replaceable for the vast majority of consumers that buy it for its intended purpose. Chances are the correct batteries are not readily available for consumers and are hard wired too. To make them replaceable, then that would mean the brick needs to be easily openable (exposing the insides to damage unless they are protected) and have a battery cradle so that it can be removed and replaced. And if the majority of consumers will never need to replace the battery during normal use, it makes little sense to do this. If it is anything like other electronics, chances are there will be a way for (experienced) people to open it if they really want to get inside and change the power options, whether that is to put a new battery in it or wire it to a power adapter or similar.

I imagine the battery will last 12-15 years. I have plenty of rechargeable batteries of that age that have been used relatively frequently but still charge and work. Not as well as when they were new, but they still work. I expect that LEGO see that as lasting long enough even though it is not forever. Presumably there is only so much internal case studies can tell them, and so at some stage they need to test it on real people that buy products rather than selected testers that get given the products to test and comment on.

The unreleased future set did not even exist as a rumour when they priced them though, so irrelevant. Pricing of anything is dynamic depending on supply and demand so the price will presumably drop as the leak spreads and definitely when the new set is released. I don't think anyone is swindled though, as they can buy the complete set themselves just like the reseller. Nobody is forced to buy from a reseller.

Let's do an experiment. Here are the current and recent sold BL prices for Sauron, just taken today. First image worldwide, second image UK / GBP only. It should help see what happens to the price of a Sauron minifigure both as sellers (and buyers) find out about the new Helmet set and then again at the time of release. I dread to think what a $10 LOTR set would like like. It is now 14 years on from the original series and the cheapest sets (Gandalf Arrives and The Wizard Battle) in that range were $13. So $10 now would probably get you a single figure and a few parts.

One of the joys of being a bit older is that I bought a lot of now popular sets from around that time and the following year at clearance prices, and had the sense to keep them together rather than mix them into general parts. I've even got a few still sealed.

Do they need to change? No. However, they do need to keep current and there are always some people wanting modern tech in their play. So long as they don't start putting these bricks into all their sets (which they won't) then I'm fine with it and it might even produce some interestng parts that can be hacked. It is a little gimmick to help sell sets to kids (and maybe adults) that want interactive features aside from building. I don't think the point of them is to change LEGO, but just enhance a few sets for those that like this sort of thing. When the IR controllers were reverse engineered, I built a little arduino based kit that had an IR beam across a train track and when broken by a passing train it sent another IR signal to the train to slow then stop at the station, play some sounds, change some LED display boards, pause the train for a few seconds then start off again. It was a fun way to add some functions to LEGO without changing what it was. I think this is similar but much easier for a non-electronics hobbyist to get into, a bit like using Mindstorms compared to buying bare boards and sensors. I also think many of the examples you quote did change LEGO, at least a little. Pretty much every city style display at a convention I see has a train. Whether it is Power Functions, older 12V or newer stuff, that changed LEGO _a little_. Similarly Boost, Spike, Mindstorms, etc changed LEGO _a little_ for those that enjoy that type of thing. There is loads of creativity that come from the latter in terms of GBC or other moving creations. For those people, those sets/parts were important. But of course nothing will change LEGO as much as (i) the minifigure and (ii) licensed sets, both of which have led to the popularity of it today. And possibly a third, ICONS/18+ sets. I also think they are making more diverse sets than ever. At affordable prices, possibly not. But that is the state of LEGO today. So incredibly popular with casual fans or new fans that weren't around even just ten years ago.

Indeed. Anyone with a Sauron for sale is not a scalper but a reseller. Scalpers would have sold all theirs months ago, or just sold the set.

Yeah, I don't see those as just old children's toys. They are nostalgic vintage collectables. I sell quite a lot of minifigures, old and new, and it is funny how people view prices. I often get comments along the line of you want how much for that, it is just an old child's toy. It is nearly always described as a "child's toy" by a buyer even though it is for themselves. So I tell them if they want just an old child's toy they can buy these ones at 10% of the price. But of course they want the vintage collectables and not the generic City figures.

I doubt it will change LEGO forever, and I don't think LEGO needs to be changed. The accelerometer may make them a little more interesting for AFOLs although that tech already exists in fairly miniature form if you don't mind a little bit of electronics tinkering.

Modern minifigures, especially fairly generic City ones, are dirt cheap. Even for nostalgic themes many figures are still reasonably cheap, even if some hard to get ones are expensive. Vintage ones in good condition are expensive because so many nostalgic people want them so they are really collectables rather than just an old toy and so are priced differently to unwanted old stuff.

Very. I bet the hat will be expensive though.

The problems I have with them are (1) not being able to switch arms, (2) not being able to pose legs and (3) even worse not be able to move wrists. Every castle soldier having to hold a sword or bow at the same angle is not good.

You've probably made a mistake when building it.

Kids do that with licenses too. There really isn't much difference between making up a story involving Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader compared to making up a story about a generic forest man in green (called Robin in some locations) stealing treasure from the rich, or pirates hiding treasure on a deserted island, and so on. Classic sets were essentially unlicensed versions of common and well known stories that kids already knew how to play with, and knew the character types. I think that is partly why it is hard these days to come up with something truly imaginative without having associated media. Without a storyline from LEGO, whether from cartoons or comics, games or online media, I imagine kids have a much harder time playing Dreamzzz, Nexo Knights or Chima than Classic Castle, Space and Pirates. And then there is little difference between unlicensed and licensed when it comes to story telling and imagination.

Speed Champions Simpsons car, and The Homer. :-) Personally I hope for a decent CMF line again, especially if they can fill in some of the missing characters.

More to the point, why should they get into in-house themes? If a kid or adult likes a particular license and they buy a licensed set, it is no different to when they buy an in-house set. They build it, they play with it, they make up stories based on others they have previously experienced.

Presumably they wanted the logo on the wheel hub and as there is space for a stud, why not use it and keep the uniform design of a stud with logo. Plus keeping the compatibility means those wheels can now be enhanced with a stud with a hole with a knife stuck in it if you want to make post-apolcalyse type vehicles, even if not at the time.

Barad-Dur is a tower, and I expect there to be rooms inside. The scale is different and they make it feel like Barad-Dur is smaller than it is by including figures and a few rooms inside but it still kind of works. Whereas Minas Tirith has buildings on the mountain and I don't expect a secret lair hidden inside a hollowed out mountain. That is why combining both scales in this case doesn't work for me. The minifigure scenes I want to see for Minas Tirith are pretty much all outside. Very little of interest happens inside the buildings, and definitely not inside the mountain. Whereas Barad-Dur is only seen from a distance in the movies so the interior is unknown and they are relatively free to make stuff up. Very little happens just outside either so they don't miss anything. I dontbthink Minas Turuth and Barad-Dur are really comparable when it comes to creating LEGO sets. Rivendell and Minas Tirith are more comparable.

I would. GBC are one popular fan creation especially at exhibitions that LEGO hasn't made 'theirs'. I like that they are all purely fan creations and not official. As soon as LEGO decide to release their own, these displays will become less interesting as official modules start to replace fan creations. Also I don't think they make very good home displays, as even a few units take up a lot of space. Displaying a whole circuit would surely be impossible for most people.

Indeed. If they want a microscale city, then do a microscale city. If they want minifigures then either do them on a display stand or do minifigure scale instead of microscale. Adding in minifigure scale play features to the back of a microscale set will end up the worst of both worlds.

Magnificent Maleficent.

If the exterior is shaped as the city but the interior is a room, then it will be poor compared to a minifigure based set without the constraint that it has to fit into an upturned cone.

This is my worry too. But also that a mnifigure scale interior won't work in this case as there are not rooms inside the city. If they have to go microscale for the city, I'd prefer minifigures on a display stand like the Star Trek set rather than using a lot more pieces to create a poor minifigure scale interior in the mountain.

I'm hoping the Witch King is left out to appear in another set, as a microscale Minas Tirith is not interesting for me especially if it is hollow and turns into an interior play set by rotating it. If they are doing that, it also makes sense to include minimal Gondor soldiers in Minas Tirith if the minifigure scale side is interior and keep them instead for a Battle of Pelennor Fields set. Although chances are, they will leave the Witch King out, minimise the number of soldiers and not do a Battle set. I'm glad there are already decent third party options for both. I doubt the helmets or armour would be available on PAB unless they use generic parts, and if they use generic parts then we already have them.