Blondie-Wan

The latest 10K Club interview is now up, featuring AndrewClark2, creator of the the project The Flintstones - and of previous project Doctor Who and Companions, which became the set 21304 Doctor Who in 2015. If approved, The Flintstones would make him the third person to have more than one CUUSOO / Ideas set made, and the first person to do so as a solo submitter both times (Alatariel and JK Brickworks have each had one solo project approved and one collaboration with another builder approved). _____________________________ It’s strange that the interview has gone up today, though, as it’s Sunday; usually they post the interviews on Monday.

Starting this thread is the most I did for it on the 27th, but on the 29th I bought a third Starter Pack (this one for Wii U; I already had PS3 and PS4) after finding it dirt-cheap at Best Buy, and I just opened it and assembled the Minifigures, portal, and Batmobile. There are some great parts in the Starter; I’m glad I have multiples. Hopefully I’ll have a PS4 in the not-too-distant future.

So... anyone do anything LD-related today to mark the occasion?

They’re all ambitious digital ventures LEGO has undertaken in recent years that didn’t pan out as hoped, and which were dropped before expected / hoped (or at least, before we expected / hoped; I don’t really know what their expectations were for Fusion or Life of George or whatever).

Well, huh. This sounds intriguing. I just hope it fares better than LEGO Universe, Life of George, LEGO Minifigures Online, LEGO Fusion, and LEGO Dimensions.

Going back through this thread I keep coming across things like this. If only we’d known then: That’s what I’d have thought, too, Digger - I would have though James Bond wasn’t kid-friendly enough for LEGO. But obviously, we know differently now, even if it didn’t happen within the framework of LEGO Dimensions. Actually, I still think that before recently, they probably did consider 007 not kid-friendly enough. But they’ve really loosened up over the last several years on what sorts of things they will and won’t do - I mean, The Simpsons? The Big Bang Theory? Gremlins, of all things?! Looking back at some of these licenses, it’s strange to think that in the early years of LEGO CUUSOO they considered a Firefly / Serenity project and ultimately decided it wasn’t sufficiently kid-friendly. I half think that if that project had come now rather than back then, they might actually have approved it. (But all that said, if they had given LEGO Dimensions a third year and included a new spy-type theme alongside Year 2’s Mission: Impossible, I would rather it had been LEGO’s own Agents theme rather than actually being James Bond 007. I always wanted more inherently “LEGO” stuff in the game alongside all the outside entertainment properties.)

LEGO and Warner Bros.’ ambitious, sprawling, wonderful, glorious, and ill-fated toys-to-life mega-mashup was officially released three years ago today, after six months or so of rumors, leaks, teases, and build-up. The game never performed quite as well as hoped, and within a year there’d already been some startling sales at 99 cent stores, but the game still had another great year of releases ahead of it, even if not great revenue figures. In about another year, the final wave of Year 2 released, and though by this time the rumors and rumblings of the game’s imminent cancellation were deafening, with official confirmation finally arriving a few weeks later (on October 23 2017 - less than a year ago), the game had still left its mark, with dozens of expansion packs featuring characters from a staggering array of pop-culture entertainment properties - many of which had never had official LEGO products before, and may never have any more beyond these - alongside ones from a handful of LEGO’s own homegrown themes. The game expanded the roster of characters (and chibi-esque, Tiny-Turbos-like mini vehicles) officially available in LEGO wildly beyond what anyone could have foreseen, say, three years and seven months ago (at least without insider information about LEGO’s workings), and with an amazingly entertaining (if wallet-sucking) game on top of all that. And for that, the LEGO community is all the richer (particularly those portions of LEGO fandom with an interest in screen entertainment from the 1980s). :: raises a glass :: Happy birthday, LEGO Dimensions. I’m very sorry you’re not healthy and thriving at age 3 as your makers had hoped, but you’re still amazing and fun, and left us with a truly remarkable assortment of official LEGO figures of beloved characters. I’m so glad I’ve been able to play not only the tiny sliver I’ve gotten to play of the game, but to also be able to get all the packs for myself, and I can’t wait until I finally get a PS4 and can play through everything at my leisure (I just hope I can do it before they turn the servers off!).

I think either is possible. I’ve also wondered sometimes (even before the update) whether some folks might not fully understand what supporting a project entails - that they have to set up an account on the site, log in, answer the questions after clicking the Support button on the project, etc. I suspect there might be some people who think supporting an Ideas project is just “liking” it when it’s shared on Facebook or whatever.

The former. I’m not sure of the exact date the project was submitted, as it doesn’t show the date (didn’t it show that before the recent big update? I’d certainly appreciate being able to see a project’s date of posting), but looking at the updates (which are dated), that project was posted no later than early March of 2016. The 3,000-piece limit was instituted June 21st, 2016, more than three months later. Generally, when they have a rules update that limits what people can submit, they leave up the preexisting projects that would have been affected, rather than taking them all down (which is why all the existing projects pertaining to Star Wars, Marvel, DC, etc. didn’t disappear instantly as soon as they put in place the rule about projects based on licenses they’re already using). Of course, the fact this project wouldn’t even be accepted on the site now (both because it’s well over 3000 pieces and because it’s based on an existing license LEGO has been using continuously since 1999) does mean its chances in the review are very, very, very slim, but technically it still gets formally evaluated and considered like all the other projects. I believe what happens is that when people submit projects, the Ideas team looks at them before posting them to make sure they comply with the rules, and they reject anything that clearly, obviously exceeds 3,000 pieces. For borderline cases where a submission looks like it might exceed that part count, I think they ask the creator to verify that it doesn’t (possibly by sending an LDD file or something like that, so the Ideas team can see exactly what went into it), or ask for a redesign that is clearly under 3,000 pieces.

Meanwhile, the LEGO Ideas x LEGO House display is live, and the latest 10K Club interview (featuring the creator of the Acclamator Class Assault Ship) is now up.

I’m getting some site glitch that prevents me from seeing what’s on the front page, but they’re currently running a Voltron contest, and they just stopped accepting submissions and entered the judging phase for the 130-plus entries they’ve received. Could you be seeing the contest entries rather than product ideas?

Dinosaurs Fossils Skeletons - Natural History Collection is the first product idea to enter the Third 2018 LEGO Ideas Review batch!

I think we may just have fundamental philosophical differences in our approach to and understanding of LEGO Ideas (and, perhaps, much else). And that’s perfectly fine. I just think it might be better to let people support whatever they want to support, for whatever reason they want to support it, than to have some sort of Ideas cops demanding everyone else justify and defend their support choices according to their rigidly-defined criteria.

See, I think precisely the opposite. I find immense value in a supportive community, one which encourages us all and wants its members to succeed. I’m not talking about a kid putting three 2x4s and a minifigure on a plate and calling that a bus stop. I’m talking about substantial, enticing builds that form the basis of sets we want to buy. I’m sure that most Ideas submitters - not just the teeming multitudes with crude, blocky versions of things TLG already makes better versions of, but Ideas superstars like Alatariel, JKBrickworks, RobenAnne, AndrewClark2, etc. solicit supports from folks they know who may or may not care about LEGO, but definitely do care about Alatariel, JKBrickworks, RobenAnne, AndrewClark2, and so on. Obviously I don’t know the case about each and every one, but it seems like a given that the very first few supports most people would try to get would be from friends and family - and why not?

Quite possible, but if that’s the case it surely won’t get much farther and one doesn’t need to worry about it. OTOH, those deserving projects that have a hard enough time attracting supports might, just might, have more of a fighting chance. Remember, the whole Gathering Support phase is just one out of multiple filters. The submissions process already screens out an unknown number of flat-out unacceptable product ideas, then the Gathering Support phase as it is ensures that fewer than 1% of accepted projects even make it to the Review phase, and then the Review phase approves only a fraction of the projects that enter it. And frankly, I think most people would be happy if they approved a few more than they do. (And then, of course, you’re your own ultimate filter, in that even if something gets all the way to store shelves, you still don’t have to buy it.) The odds against Ideas projects are so great already that honestly, it just strikes me as mean-spirited to want to make the process even harder than it already is.

Outstanding! Congratulations, Bricked1980! That’s a terrific accomplishment.

I never said anything about you being pedantic. You can be as pedantic as you like; I’m not going to stop you. So by the same token, submitters shouldn’t get their friends and family to vote for them? I mean, presumably even most AFOLs have plenty of folks in their lives who aren’t AFOLs, and do not buy LEGO, but it seems frankly inconceivable that someone might toil over a project and submit it, and begin gathering votes, yet not solicit support from the closest people in one’s life. Moreover, my lack of interest in a set concept is hardly any more an indicator I won’t buy a set than my interest in it is an indicator that I will. I buy sets all the time, for numerous reasons, even when they weren’t initially of any particular interest, and at the same time, I often miss sets I really, really want. It happens. The upshot is that there’s a certain amount of chaos and unpredictability - and not just for me, but to some extent for everyone. If we all supported only those projects we’re absolutely sure we’d get, hardly anyone would support anything, and the whole endeavor would collapse. General interest in and support for an Ideas project is still a useful (imperfect, but useful) indicator of the likely commercial interest in a resulting set. If I support a project, there is something about it I like that increases the likelihood I’d buy a set from it over one I didn’t support, and I’m sure that’s true for most people. They look at the results in aggregate, and make decisions based (in part) upon that. How? Why? Kickstarter is likely a non-starter for LEGO (at least as a replacement for Ideas goes), as the business case is just one consideration out of several that go into determining whether an Ideas product idea can be made into a set. There’s licensing. There’s safety. They’re not going to take money in advance for a set it turns out they can’t produce. Heck, even the build difference between a product idea and a final set could be a problem if backers don’t like how a set turns out. To be honest, I think this solution causes vastly more problems than the “issue” it seeks to remedy. Just my opinion, of course. Right, but it does elevate them above the 10,000 or 20,000 projects with a hundred votes or fewer. At that point, it becomes much easier for others to sift through them and decide which ones they want to support. (Note also that the actual numbers aren’t nearly as high as in your example, or in my response to it, which for the sake of argument takes your numbers as given. There are, as of this writing, just 1724 product ideas currently gathering support; that includes everything, from things with over 9000 supports that might cross the finish line any day now, to things that were just posted and have single-digit numbers of posts. There aren’t, and almost certainly will never be, anywhere close to 1000 people in the mutual support thread. It’s not out of the question, though, that it might get a hundred, which is enough to get that initial deadline extension that’s pretty important.)

Except that it is possible to want to buy a set without thinking it's good, simply for the parts it offers. I’m sure many of us have bought sets specifically for the parts assortment, not because we were particularly interested in the model. I’m not sure I’ve supported any projects that interested me only because of the parts, but the parts that would likely be included have been a factor in at least some of my support selections, and I can easily envision cases in which they’d be the whole grounds (for example, someone who misses the old single-color bulk parts pack LEGO used to offer, who chose to support Nathan Sawaya’s Small Yellow from a few years ago hoping it would be a more economical way of getting lots of yellow bricks than a trip to Pick-a-Brick or Bricklink). More importantly, the support questions actually don’t ask how many you would buy; they ask how many you think “most people” would buy (with the obvious assumption it refers only to people who would get it at all, since even the most popular LEGO sets surely sell to a small minority of the world population), and how much you would expect to pay - and yes, I get the wording of that, but it’s clearly meant as a way of asking what we think the price would be (or should be), as opposed to how much we personally anticipate paying. And as icm notes, the overall Ideas experience takes some pains to note there’s no requirement or obligation to buy (honestly, it’s hard enough gathering support without it; the whole endeavor would probably be unworkable with it in place). While I’m not sure whether I’ve supported projects that interested me only because of the parts, I can say I’ve supported lots of projects that weren’t necessarily something that interested me at all, but which I thought had commercial potential and large followings, or which were so well-done I wanted to reward them (for example, I know I at least once supported a Harry Potter project even though I’m not really a Harry Potter fan, simply because I thought it was a really beautiful build).

I am the last two pages. That presupposes no one likes those projects, and that a project in that thread can not be one anyone would consider good otherwise, which is not the case. I think what you mean to say is that it doesn’t raise projects specifically because they’re good. That is true, but that’s not the same thing as it raising projects that are inherently, automatically not good. Moreover, I hardly need point out (but will anyway) that goodness (of an Ideas project) is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, there are actually a number of perfectly valid, legitimate reasons for supporting a project, some of which transcend whether it’s “good” or not. As you yourself pointed out previously, this thread alone isn’t going to get anyone to 10k; at most, if say 1000 people sign up (which is wildly unlikely), it’ll get everyone 1000 supports. That’s not nearly enough to get to review (though it was in the earliest, Japan-only era of LEGO CUUSOO)... ... but it can be enough to get a project’s “foot in the door”, so to speak - and if nothing else, help it past the initial deadline hurdle, so that it has enough time to be more fully evaluated by the teeming multitudes. This can be crucial. I have seen more than a few projects I considered not merely good but outright great, yet which never made it to 10k, given how difficult it can be to attract attention; some I consider outstanding never even made it to a thousand. Getting to ten times that is clearly difficult enough that it just doesn’t happen unless a lot of people really like a project; the initial boost merely increases a product idea’s chances of surviving long enough to be noticed. At least, that’s my thinking. Certainly I don’t see anything wrong with a mutual support thread to increase support for all participants. But perhaps I’m wrong, and the Ideas team would indeed see it your way. I’ve therefore gone ahead and asked them for a ruling.

And supporting other people’s projects is bad because... ... ???

Well, I don’t think so, but MAB and Artanis I seem to disagree. Actually, I think the ones to ask would be the LEGO Ideas team, who can offer a definitive ruling on whether it’s acceptable, and the staff of EB, who can offer a definitive ruling on whether it’s acceptable here.

I don’t even consider CMF to be CMF (i.e., “CMF” isn’t an official term), so no. That said, though LEGO uses the term “minifigure” in a pretty specific, precise way, it’s not as though it’s an official term or anything; there are other toy companies entirely that use the term “minifigure” for other, totally different types of small figures. Hasbro uses it for the little 2-inches-or-so molded PVC My Little Pony figures. If other companies that aren’t even LEGO can describe their miniature figures as “minifigures”, then I think it’s really up to us whether we want to call the Unikitty figures minifigures or not.

Oh, and with another Monday comes another 10K Club interview, this time with the creator of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 project.

That still gives anyone posting in the thread the opportunity to see what’s been posted already and choose whether or not to support it. Moreover, here’s what’s posted in the actual thread, which is a bit different: As you can see, the final realization isn’t so rigid. Beyond that, I’m still mystified as to why you think it’s somehow bad for people to pledge to support one another’s projects. Yes, obviously getting a project fully supported and into review carries an implicit assumption of worthiness, but it’s also a given (if unstated) that folks will corral support from wherever they can. For example, I think it’s expected that project creators will try to elicit support from friends and family, even though in most cases that means people who would otherwise have zero interest in LEGO and would never look at the Ideas site will set up accounts and give support to their loved ones. Is that wrong? (Apologies for the weird shifts in text size.)

I think you’re misunderstanding the endeavor (well, either that, or I am, which I fully concede is possible). I don’t think the purpose is to get one another to support projects they outright dislike and would refuse to support otherwise; I think there’s an underlying assumption on the part of these participants that most or all of them will find most or all of the projects worth supporting, and this group is merely a way to ensure that they all know of one another’s projects, since it can be hard to find everything worthwhile on the site. It is a mutual support group for EBers’ projects, to be sure, but just something to ensure worthwhile projects don’t slip through the cracks and go unnoticed (as many have before), rather than a means of filling the review batch with undeserving garbage (which would be pointless, since the hope is to get something ultimately approved to become a set, and obviously that means getting support for projects that LEGO will hopefully consider genuinely good, not just dreck that got inexplicably lucky). And I don’t think anyone is intent on policing the group and ensuring everyone in it votes for everything. Oh, I’m sure some posters will check, but I don’t think it’s that kind of group.