LEGO's Replacement Parts Site

Paperballpark

drdavewatford said:

PS. The prices are back on the site, in case anyone hadn't noticed....

That's great news, thanks for letting us know! :)

Pitfall69

I have only used the "replacement" parts feature once. I actually called and talked with someobe and placed my order. Maybe I will again.

prof1515

drdavewatford said:

Irrelevant. By any reasonable standard it's clear from the website (and @Yellowcastle's synopsis above) that LEGO are quite happy to provide buyers with parts via their Bricks & Pieces site. Might it not therefore be a good time to just acknowledge that and move on ?

It's still very relevant. While Lego doesn't appear to have a problem with the (ab)use of the site for more than replacement parts, the situation is much the same as consumers bypassing the purchase limits on new and limited-release sets. It can be done and Lego tends to turn a blind eye to it. It didn't mean it was something that they meant to see happen or approved, it was simply an example of part of the AFOL base caring only about themselves and Lego letting it happen since their bottom line is what chiefly interests them.

In my email to Lego last week I made several suggestions, one of which was to dramatically raise the prices of the replacement parts service for orders which weren't small and clearly intended as replacement parts. As the community was unlikely to change its (ab)use of the service and Lego was willing to bend, they might as well make a good profit off of it. Additionally, it would prompt some with small and mid-sized parts orders to simply purchase sets with the appropriate pieces given the price versus parts ratio. Again, it would help their bottom line while perhaps also (unlikely) stabilizing set prices a bit.

kwkw

^Can u also tell Lego to raise their prices to match TRU? Oh and while you're at it can you tell them to take away promotional freebies and free shipping from shop at home? Thank you for looking out for all the consumers who have made Lego into the number 1 toy company in the world!

You clearly don't see how Lego pissing off their most loyal consumers will hurt them in the long run.

prof1515

kwkw said:

You clearly don't see how Lego pissing off their most loyal consumers will hurt them in the long run.

I see clearly that the many of ones doing the bitching and moaning are also the ones that continue to introduce themselves as "loyal" (as well as introducing that term, please note the origin of that claim) and while they may call themselves "loyal" but they're far from it.

In the long run, the tiny fraction of people pissed off are a drop in a the bucket. Not only that but they're a lot of bluster, whining about things but still just addicted to the hobby as anyone else. In the end, even if they do quit, they represent such a small fraction of Lego's market that the effect is negligible given the constant influx of new fans. Their absence is not only compensated for quickly but without notice.

Basta

prof1515 said:

drdavewatford said:

Irrelevant. By any reasonable standard it's clear from the website (and @Yellowcastle's synopsis above) that LEGO are quite happy to provide buyers with parts via their Bricks & Pieces site. Might it not therefore be a good time to just acknowledge that and move on ?

In my email to Lego last week I made several suggestions, one of which was to dramatically raise the prices of the replacement parts service for orders which weren't small and clearly intended as replacement parts. As the community was unlikely to change its (ab)use of the service and Lego was willing to bend, they might as well make a good profit off of it. Additionally, it would prompt some with small and mid-sized parts orders to simply purchase sets with the appropriate pieces given the price versus parts ratio. Again, it would help their bottom line while perhaps also (unlikely) stabilizing set prices a bit.

Not sure if you are just trolling, but if not and you actually sent that email all as I can say is WOW!!!

prof1515

Someone in the discussion about the exclusives discount posted the link to Lego's customer feedback and encouraged people to voice their dissatisfaction with that policy change.

So, I did send the email along with some other recommendations like spacing out their Collectible Mini-Figures line a bit (not increasing production, mind you, just leaving more time on the shelves between each series), considering releasing exclusives at C2E2 and several other major conventions (at the time I thought they were still doing SDCC and NYCC though it now appears they aren't doing the latter), cutting back on releasing new remakes of models like snowspeeders and instead merely extending the production run like they did with the last X-Wing and finally telling them that I supported the limitations on the catalog coupons because as someone who's never used one I can say that my purchasing would not have increased with such a coupon nor decreased without.

Sauce for the goose.

madforLEGO

Any limited edition set piece and licensed pieces are removed from their part purchase site, so where is the abuse exactly?
You cannot buy anything SW related, Maersk related, or TMNT, TLR or any other licensed part, and it is not like I can buy a limited edition license plate sticker for 41999 on the site.

LEGO makes money selling individual pieces as they are still making money for those buying 200 1x4 brick for example instead of those not buying that brick at all via a set because they do not need the other parts for the sets.
I want miners helmets, but already have plenty of figures that I can put the helmet on. Since there is no way I would buy that many miner sets for miners helmets only, LEGO is making their money on me in another way.

Also, LEGO parts on that site ARE more expensive (at least as far as price comparison of parts that are on PaB) than those found on PaB, at least in the states it is usually that way, and they even report that in the auto email to the people ordering.

PaB IMO is the problem, they do not put enough parts up on that site and I rarely see anything that people really want on that site.. It is all Vanilla and if people are 'abusing' this buy a piece section then maybe LEGO should look to improve their PaB altogether.
I have no problem buying from PaB IF they had parts that were useful or colors that are only in sets right now, but they do not.

Also, I take exception of someone saying all of the complainers must not be loyal. I would say people buying massive quantities of nothing but LEGO fits the very definition of loyal.

I guess at the end of the day nothing is going to change opinions, but that does not stop those from trying to start dust ups.
The only way LEGO stops this site is if they actually listen to people that want to just stop something to stop it, however it will be more likely be stopped only if it costs them on their bottom dollar. I'm guessing that they must be doing pretty well with it as it has been this way for sometime now with no changes to their system.

prof1515

madforLEGO said:

Any limited edition set piece and licensed pieces are removed from their part purchase site, so where is the abuse exactly?

The abuse originated with using the replacement parts service as a means of direct purchase. Lego has apparently allowed this to happen so they don't have a problem with it but that doesn't change the fact that the initial abuse occurred.

madforLEGO said:

LEGO makes money selling individual pieces as they are still making money for those buying 200 1x4 brick for example instead of those not buying that brick at all via a set because they do not need the other parts for the sets.
I want miners helmets, but already have plenty of figures that I can put the helmet on. Since there is no way I would buy that many miner sets for miners helmets only, LEGO is making their money on me in another way.

Also, LEGO parts on that site ARE more expensive (at least as far as price comparison of parts that are on PaB) than those found on PaB, at least in the states it is usually that way, and they even report that in the auto email to the people ordering.

PaB IMO is the problem, they do not put enough parts up on that site and I rarely see anything that people really want on that site.. It is all Vanilla and if people are 'abusing' this buy a piece section then maybe LEGO should look to improve their PaB altogether.
I have no problem buying from PaB IF they had parts that were useful or colors that are only in sets right now, but they do not.

Lego doesn't maintain an infinite stock of every piece, limited or not. The parts that they have a large stock of are easily what make it into Pick-A-Brick. Other parts which may not be licensed but which are nevertheless not in large supply run the risk of being bought out and not being available for those who seek replacement parts, the original purpose of the service.

madforLEGO said:

Also, I take exception of someone saying all of the complainers must not be loyal. I would say people buying massive quantities of nothing but LEGO fits the very definition of loyal.

I didn't say they "must not be loyal", I merely counter the claim that they *are* loyal. Some may be, some may not. Personally, I'd say that instead of the word "loyal" the words "spoiled" or "selfish" tend to be a better fit for some.

madforLEGO said:

The only way LEGO stops this site is if they actually listen to people that want to just stop something to stop it, however it will be more likely be stopped only if it costs them on their bottom dollar. I'm guessing that they must be doing pretty well with it as it has been this way for sometime now with no changes to their system.

I'm not suggesting that they stop it. It's their business and ultimately how they choose to manage it is their business. I'm merely pointing out that if there's enough (ab)use of their system to warrant changing it, they could just as easily charge more since demand is there.

Pitfall69

Anything that is used to build in LDD should at least be available in PAB for starters.

kwkw

prof1515 said:

I see clearly that the many of ones doing the bitching and moaning are also the ones that continue to introduce themselves as "loyal" (as well as introducing that term, please note the origin of that claim) and while they may call themselves "loyal" but they're far from it.

If we are bitching (i.e complaining) then what are you doing with the above quote and many other complaints that you have had against fellow AFOLs? Voicing ones opinion with valid arguments, which I will expand upon in a little bit, is different from complaining (unless you hate giving others freedom of speech).

Furthermore, loyalty is earned not given (since you love dropping the "entitled" argument). Thus, our loyalty to TLG is based on a mutually beneficial relationship. When TLG starts pissing off its customers with discount restrictions, promo restrictions, and inflated prices this will shake our loyal relationship with TLG. Loyalty is a two way street, you can't take and expect others to give when it comes to a profit making business. A companies brand is only as valuable as the perception that its consumers have. If that perception changes from positive to negative, even in a few people, that wave will be felt.

prof1515 said:

In the long run, the tiny fraction of people pissed off are a drop in a the bucket. Not only that but they're a lot of bluster, whining about things but still just addicted to the hobby as anyone else. In the end, even if they do quit, they represent such a small fraction of Lego's market that the effect is negligible given the constant influx of new fans. Their absence is not only compensated for quickly but without notice.

Your statement is invalid in regards to the long term health of TLG. Lets take the replacement parts service as an example. Lets say that TLG accepts your latest email idea and raises prices for large orders through their replacement parts site. This price increase will affect MOCers. With increased part prices MOCers will buy less parts (due to budget constraints and a sour taste left in their mouth by TLG). Even though this MOCer group is a small minority of TLG's total revenue, it will have far reaching consequences. With a negative perception of TLG, MOCers will be less likely to create amazing MOCs that they show off at the various conventions and other events. This in turn will affect kids who would have seen a cool MOC display and then ask their parents to buy them Lego so that they can create something as amazing as the MOC that they saw. If you lose a consumer when they are young you are most likely not going to get them back as an AFOL (who has deeper pockets as an adult). This loss of a young consumer and loss of the MOCer AFOL will affect others as well. 1) They will be less likely to pass their Lego hobby to their kids and 2) Kids love following the examples of their friends and parents as to the things that they like. So like a snowball rolling down a hill, the long term effect isn't just the initial loss of a few small purchases by the MOCer AFOL, but a loss of the spread of positive word of mouth, which leads to a loss of future Lego fans, which in turn leads to a loss of future sales. When a loyal and influential fan decreases or leaves the hobby all together, many others are affected. To simplify, one opinion of a brand influences many others and those many other opinions will affect many more. Do you now see the snowball effect of pissing off even one of your biggest supporters? Long story short, new fan made by old fan, with less old fans, new fans decrease, when new fans decrease, revenue decreases....etc.

Here's another example this time more personal. I've told people how amazing TLG is, not just how great their products are, but how great their customer service is. I've also helped some misinformed parents at TRU who have said "wow lego is so expensive, we are not buying any" and educated them and directed them towards amazon, wally, target, or shop at home. Maybe I started a few new lego fans with that little convo? who knows? But what if Lego pissed me off by making me jump over hoops to get a discount or a promo? My perception of their brand would decrease and I would be less likely to take the time to tell people how amazing Lego is or help those misinformed parents at TRU, who would've walked away thinking Lego is a rip off and most likely never purchase any Lego in the future.

The snowball argument has the same results when it comes to discounting exclusives, promotional restrictions and any other move that TLG makes to annoy or piss off its biggest supporters.

TLG didn't become the number 1 toy company in the world without us and they won't continue to be the number 1 toy company in the world without the support of their loyal fanbase and the positive brand image that they help spread. Why mess with a formula that has been working the last few years? This formula and mutual relationship between AFOLS and TLG took TLG from the edge of bankruptcy to becoming the top toy company in the world. Don't mess with a formula that works. Seems to me that TLG just wants to pad their bottom line some more, but with their declining quality and declining goodwill towards their consumers this will destroy the gains that they have made. TLG needs us to succeed and angering any customer, even one, will lead to a slow and steady decline of the brand and company that we all know and love.

prof1515

kwkw said:

If we are bitching (i.e complaining) then what are you doing with the above quote and many other complaints that you have had against fellow AFOLs? Voicing ones opinion with valid arguments, which I will expand upon in a little bit, is different from complaining (unless you hate giving others freedom of speech).

Sauce for the goose, as I said before. If you can bitch and moan, I can bitch and moan. I didn't start the complaining though, unless you can find a thread in which I

kwkw said:

Furthermore, loyalty is earned not given (since you love dropping the "entitled" argument). Thus, our loyalty to TLG is based on a mutually beneficial relationship. When TLG starts pissing off its customers with discount restrictions, promo restrictions, and inflated prices this will shake our loyal relationship with TLG. Loyalty is a two way street, you can't take and expect others to give when it comes to a profit making business. A companies brand is only as valuable as the perception that its consumers have. If that perception changes from positive to negative, even in a few people, that wave will be felt.

Yet there are people who do not receive these benefits that are just as loyal. Loyalty that comes with a price isn't loyalty; it's extortion.

kwkw said:

Your statement is invalid in regards to the long term health of TLG. Lets take the replacement parts service as an example. Lets say that TLG accepts your latest email idea and raises prices for large orders through their replacement parts site.

Yes, let's look at it. Lego maintains two services: one which they started as a bulk purchase service and which they promote and one which originated as replacement parts and which they do not promote. No prominent placement in the product menus along with Pick-A-Brick and the other stuff they're trying to sell. No banner rotations like Pick-A-Brick. No streamlined means of purchasing. No lower prices to draw people to use it. Lego may not mind if people use it for more than the intended purpose but they're doing nothing to promote that use. As they know some will use it, they can raise the price. If they drive off a few buyers, it's pretty much purchases that they weren't that interested in or they'd have gone a lot further to encourage them. If the higher prices don't deter purchases, and let's be honest and admit that they won't because those who want the parts will still buy them, then they'll make more off of the sales.

kwkw said:

This price increase will affect MOCers. With increased part prices MOCers will buy less parts (due to budget constraints and a sour taste left in their mouth by TLG). Even though this MOCer group is a small minority of TLG's total revenue, it will have far reaching consequences.

And now you've stretched credibility....

kwkw said:

With a negative perception of TLG, MOCers will be less likely to create amazing MOCs that they show off at the various conventions and other events. This in turn will affect kids who would have seen a cool MOC display and then ask their parents to buy them Lego so that they can create something as amazing as the MOC that they saw. If you lose a consumer when they are young you are most likely not going to get them back as an AFOL (who has deeper pockets as an adult). This loss of a young consumer and loss of the MOCer AFOL will affect others as well. 1) They will be less likely to pass their Lego hobby to their kids and 2) Kids love following the examples of their friends and parents as to the things that they like. So like a snowball rolling down a hill, the long term effect isn't just the initial loss of a few small purchases by the MOCer AFOL, but a loss of the spread of positive word of mouth, which leads to a loss of future Lego fans, which in turn leads to a loss of future sales. When a loyal and influential fan decreases or leaves the hobby all together, many others are affected. To simplify, one opinion of a brand influences many others and those many other opinions will affect many more. Do you now see the snowball effect of pissing off even one of your biggest supporters? Long story short, new fan made by old fan, with less old fans, new fans decrease, when new fans decrease, revenue decreases....etc.

I see the slippery slope argument being used. Most Lego fans are not drawn in via MOCers or displays at conventions or other events. They're drawn in because they like the toys and their encounter with the toys is not via MOCs displays. Box art, placement on shelves and the appeal of themes, characters and licensing are what catch their eye and draw them into Lego. They're not going to be thinking higher prices as kids. Their parents may but the nature of our consumer society is such that people still buy. Kids who want more will wait until they're adults and then buy. Nostalgia and making up for what they didn't have as a child are big motivating factors for adult toy collectors. Therefore the LACK OF LEGO as a child becomes a major motivational factor to spending more as an adult. I know I've spent more in any given year in the last five years than the previous 34 combined and that was without ever once seeing convention displays or MOCs.

Additionally, as more and more fans are drawn into Lego, the influence of those who remember lower prices, etc. becomes less and less. Outside of small communities like this, there is no institutional memory. With each influx of new and returning fans, older fans of Lego become more and more irrelevant as both our percentage of the Lego community and our percentage of money spent are less and less.

kwkw said:

I've told people how amazing TLG is, not just how great their products are, but how great their customer service is. I've also helped some misinformed parents at TRU who have said "wow lego is so expensive, we are not buying any" and educated them and directed them towards amazon, wally, target, or shop at home. Maybe I started a few new lego fans with that little convo? who knows? But what if Lego pissed me off by making me jump over hoops to get a discount or a promo? My perception of their brand would decrease and I would be less likely to take the time to tell people how amazing Lego is or help those misinformed parents at TRU, who would've walked away thinking Lego is a rip off and most likely never purchase any Lego in the future.

And while we're using wild hypotheticals which are in no way representative of a significant portion of Lego sales or attitudes toward the product let's say that the parent you didn't convince eventually bought their child the toy because their child wanted it and they love them and want them to be happy. Or how about the parent who stood there politely while you told them the merits of Lego but ultimately thought you're just a nosey person who ought to mind your own business since it's not your wallet that the money's coming from.

kwkw said:

The snowball argument has the same results when it comes to discounting exclusives, promotional restrictions and any other move that TLG makes to annoy or piss off its biggest supporters.

Again, "biggest supporters", "loyal" fans, etc. are a perception, one which is not supported by the facts. Children and the parents who buy for them are the biggest supporters of Lego because they constitute the greatest revenue. Further, not every "biggest supporter" AFOL gives a rat's arse about discounting exclusives, promotional restrictions or the other stuff that pisses off some. They're still out there purchasing, promoting and praising the product, only minus the perks that the small vocal minority are complaining about.

Paperballpark

prof1515 said:

the situation is much the same as consumers bypassing the purchase limits on new and limited-release sets.

No it isn't. Purchase limits are clearly set - 'limit of 3 per customer' or whatever. NOWHERE on the site does it say 'this parts service is not to be used for anything other than replacement parts'

prof1515 said:

In my email to Lego last week I made several suggestions, one of which was to dramatically raise the prices of the replacement parts service for orders which weren't small and clearly intended as replacement parts.

What?

I'm sorry, but are you a moron? Seriously, are you actually a complete moron?

Please be aware that is not abuse, I am actually asking a serious question. Because what you are saying is that you wrote to TLG and asked them to massively increase their prices on a service that AFOLs find incredibly useful.

Others above have already set out how your actions could seriously harm MOCers, so all I will add is that right now I am absolutely furious with you. In my opinion doing something as obviously destructive to AFOLs as that should get you banned from every AFOL community there is.

I don't know whereabouts you're from, but I really really hope that you don't live in the UK.

prof1515

Paperballpark said:

No it isn't. Purchase limits are clearly set - 'limit of 3 per customer' or whatever. NOWHERE on the site does it say 'this parts service is not to be used for anything other than replacement parts'

Already covered this. Pay attention.

prof1515 said:

What?

I'm sorry, but are you a moron? Seriously, are you actually a complete moron?

Please be aware that is not abuse, I am actually asking a serious question. Because what you are saying is that you wrote to TLG and asked them to massively increase their prices on a service that AFOLs find incredibly useful.

1. It is abusive. Fortunately, I hold your opinion of me in absolutely no regard whatsoever.
2. As Lego is clearly not interested in this service being (ab)used as it is (as noted above, if they wanted it used for such purposes they wouldn't maintain and promote Pick-A-Brick and would place it in a visible and easily-located location), raising the prices would be both advantageous toward their bottom line and dissuade some from (ab)using the service.

Paperballpark said:

Others above have already set out how your actions could seriously harm MOCers, so all I will add is that right now I am absolutely furious with you.

It won't harm MOCers as the parts are still available. As for your anger, see the latter half of 1. above.

Paperballpark said:

I don't know whereabouts you're from, but I really reallyhope that you don't live in the UK.

Is that a threat?

Paperballpark

Oh and having read your reply to @kwkw above, I'm surprised you didn't also suggest to TLG the removal of all benefits for AFOLs, because that seems to be what you want.

Seriously, why are you so intent of getting things AFOLs benefit from removed? Answer me that question at least.

Oh and I note you flagged my above post as abuse. I can cope with that - I expected you would, but I wanted to make as clear as possible the extent of my annoyance with you. In fact had I said exactly what I really feel then, well...

prof1515

Paperballpark said:

Oh and having read your reply to @kwkw above, I'm surprised you didn't also suggest to TLG the removal of all benefits for AFOLs, because that seems to be what you want.

You don't know what I want or don't want so I'll thank you to not attribute things to me for which I have not said.

Paperballpark said:

Seriously, why are you so intent of getting things AFOLs benefit from removed? Answer me that question at least.

Again with the straw man. First, I don't owe you an answer and, second, I definitely don't owe you an answer to something that you've fabricated.

Paperballpark said:

Oh and I note you flagged my above post as abuse. I can cope with that - I expected you would, but I wanted to make as clear as possible the extent of my annoyance with you. In fact had I said exactly what I really feel then, well...

Again, see 1. above.

Paperballpark

I can't be bothered to quote you again, as I'm on my phone here and it takes a while - the fact I did so in my first post shows how passionately I feel about this.

Firstly, it must be nice not to care about people's opinion of you. I'm almost jealous of your friends. Almost.

Secondly, don't patronise me. You're clearly trying to argue the parts service shouldn't be used by AFOLs, and what I'm telling you is that there is nothing on the site telling people they can't (unlike set limits). Your refusal to accept this bald fact clearly shows you're incapable of admitting you're wrong.

Thirdly, claiming it won't harm MOCers because the parts are still available? Seriously? How about they triple the prices of all the sets too? By your argument, it won't harm customers because the sets are still available. I don't think I've read a more tenuous argument, and you're so obviously wrong I'm almost laughing. You may be a millionaire with no money worries, but most AFOLs have a budget, and if something goes up in price, they'll not be able to afford as much of it, so it will clearly affect them.

And finally, no it isn't a threat, because I've checked your profile, and you don't live in the UK. I'm one of the most mild-mannered people you could meet, but I think if we ever met I'd end up having a blazing argument with you.

Paperballpark

Hahahaha I see you've flagged my second post as abuse too. Now I can understand you flagging my first, but the second? No-where in that post is there anything even mildly abusive, so I can only conclude you're using it as a 'dislike' button, and falsely flagging non-abusive posts as abusive.

That, in my opinion, is rather childish.

prof1515

Paperballpark said:

Firstly, it must be nice not to care about people's opinion of you. I'm almost jealous of your friends. Almost.

I showed this discussion to two of my friends. They shared my assessment.

Paperballpark said:

Secondly, don't patronise me. You're clearly trying to argue the parts service shouldn't be used by AFOLs, and what I'm telling you is that there is nothing on the site telling people they can't (unlike set limits). Your refusal to accept this bald fact clearly shows you're incapable of admitting you're wrong.

No, what it shows is that you're incapable of understanding the English language or deliberately creating straw man arguments to argue against. I'm arguing that Lego doesn't really want the service (ab)used as many are or else they'd make a greater effort to promote it. They clearly want Pick-A-Brick to be the source for parts. Hence, I suggested to them that if they don't want people (ab)using the service, making the prices higher might dissuade some while increasing returns for Lego from those who are intent on continuing to (ab)use it.

Paperballpark said:

Thirdly, claiming it won't harm MOCers because the parts are still available? Seriously? How about they triple the prices of all the sets too?

Did I suggest raising the prices of sets? No, I didn't.

Lego isn't in the business of selling parts. Their primary business has always been sets. They do offer some parts but in a limited capacity. The draw of many sets is the parts that they include in them so selling the parts affordably undercuts their own business. Why buy a $75 set with ten of a particular part when you can get ten of the part for $2 each? Lego gets $20 for ten parts but not the $75 for the set. That's not good business for them given the amount of time and money that they put into developing, producing and marketing the sets.

Paperballpark said:

You may be a millionaire with no money worries, but most AFOLs have a budget, and if something goes up in price, they'll not be able to afford as much of it, so it will clearly affect them.

See? This is another example of you talking out your arse and attributing things to me or others for which you have no supporting evidence. I'm not a millionaire without money worries. I have a budget and I work within it. That's the key though. I work within my budget and adjust it accordingly.

Paperballpark said:

And finally, no it isn't a threat, because I've checked your profile, and you don't live in the UK.

So it was a threat if I did live in the UK?

Paperballpark said:

I'm one of the most mild-mannered people you could meet, but I think if we ever met I'd end up having a blazing argument with you.

I'm a fairly mild-mannered person too unless you bring up a subject like politics.

kwkw

Thank you @Paperballpark for saying what everyone else is thinking :)

CCC

Using bricks and pieces to buy parts is not the same as circumventing limits. Lego ask if you want to buy a piece, or if you are requesting a missing piece. I always select buy.

Lego also impose buying limits on bricks and pieces - each part is limited to 200 per order. I have in the past wanted more than that, and asked if I can order more and the CS rep has been fine with it so long as it is done over the phone. So there are limits, although not strict if you ask if you can obtain more. Although if you want to do it online and just confirm by phone without entering a discussion with them, then limits are imposed.

If company A wants to sell an individual part and user B wants to buy it at the full RRP, then it has nothing to do with collector C. Pretty much the same as on the reseller thread - just because someone chooses to purchase in a different way to someone else and the company is happy to make the sale that way, then there is no problem.

CCC

As to selling 10 parts at $2 each rather than a set at $75, Lego still make money selling those parts. Not every part made goes into a set. This gives them another route to sell.

Often the alternative is not selling the $75 set, but selling nothing at all. They chose to make the $20 parts sale rather than nothing.

Fortunately Lego realises that what they sell can be used for creative building, and that some users are able to build without instructions. They allow those in the know about bricks and pieces to buy this way. Real fans know about the programme and benefit. Much like real fans know about release dates of specific limited edition models and benefit from it.

CCC

If someone waits for double points, I assume they are also (ab)using the system. This is not advertised on the site until the promotion starts, so knowing about it beforehand and waiting to place an order at a strategic time rather than placing an order straight away should also be classed as abuse as it is playing the system to advantage, even though the company are perfectly happy for you to wait to place an order during the promotion.

No doubt downloading instructions is also abuse if you don't own the set. In fact, you have to go through similar steps to download them as for buying from bricks and pieces.

And as for abusing Lego sets, building models that are not specified in the official instructions, I guess we better not go there.

Paperballpark

Right, I want to try and break out of the cycle of animosity that is going round and round in this thread.

Before I do so though, I just want to clarify a few points I made earlier. Writing messages on my phone (I'm on my desktop now) means I may not have been as clear with some of the things I wrote as I would have wished.

prof1515 said:

Did I suggest raising the prices of sets? No, I didn't.

I never said you were suggesting that, I was merely saying that taking the specific argument you made ('It won't harm MOCers as the parts are still available') to its logical conclusion (that people aren't bothered about price when buying LEGO) would mean that TLG could raise set prices without it affecting people buying them. Obviously this is complete rubbish, and therefore by the same token, your argument that raising prices won't harm MOCers is also rubbish. That is what I meant.

prof1515 said:

I'm not a millionaire without money worries.

I never meant to directly imply you're a millionaire. I was meaning that by making the argument that increased prices won't harm MOCers, you seem to be suggesting that you're not bothered about how much you pay for LEGO (or LEGO parts anyway), and therefore you seemed to have no money worries. As you've stated that you do have a budget, I can only conclude that you're not a MOCer. If you are, then the only other conclusion I can come to is that you want TLG to raise prices on things that you buy, but that can't be right, surely?

prof1515 said:

So it was a threat if I did live in the UK?

No. I clearly stated that 'I think if we ever met I'd end up having a blazing argument with you'. That is not a threat.



Right, now I've got all that cleared up, I'll move onto more positive things.

I have, this morning, sent an email to LEGO customer service, as below:

Dear LEGO Group,

I just wanted to send an email to thank you for re-instating the prices on your 'Bricks and Pieces' service.

This service is one which I and many other AFOLs use to purchase bricks for building our creations; it is a real benefit to us, and an invaluable service. It is especially useful when the Pick-A-Brick service doesn't have the particular pieces we need, and I know that a lot of people would be lost without it.

Having the prices showing for each brick allows me and others to see how much we are spending, without having to 'buy blind', and I am very grateful to you for re-instating the prices for individual bricks.

It occurred to me that you might not get many emails praising you for providing the Bricks and Pieces service, so I want to thank you not only for re-instating the prices, but also for providing the service in the first place. It is a great way to obtain pieces for building our own creations, and I hope it continues for a long time.

With best wishes

It struck me that this was a positive thing to do, rather than hunkering down and spreading an argument out over pages and pages of this thread.

prof1515

CCC said:

If someone waits for double points, I assume they are also (ab)using the system. This is not advertised on the site until the promotion starts, so knowing about it beforehand and waiting to place an order at a strategic time rather than placing an order straight away should also be classed as abuse as it is playing the system to advantage, even though the company are perfectly happy for you to wait to place an order during the promotion.

That's a very poor argument. You aren't abusing the system by waiting to purchase. Lego wants you to purchase which is why they do promote the double VIP points (they also promote these things beforehand via email notifications, etc). They don't offer double VIP points on their products via customer service while promoting their products via the regular Shop-At-Home listings for normal VIP totals only.

CCC said:

No doubt downloading instructions is also abuse if you don't own the set. In fact, you have to go through similar steps to download them as for buying from bricks and pieces.

Instructions without parts are worthless. If you've got the parts, you've done it via purchases.

CCC said:

And as for abusing Lego sets, building models that are not specified in the official instructions, I guess we better not go there.

No, we shouldn't go there because it's both an irrational argument and a pathetic one at that.

You're not abusing sets or instructions or parts. What's being abused is the system Lego put in place for obtaining replacement parts. The parts obtained through this system are not abused, the service is.

kwkw

prof1515 said:

Sauce for the goose, as I said before. If you can bitch and moan, I can bitch and moan. I didn't start the complaining though, unless you can find a thread in which I

So if I jumped off a bridge you would follow? I thought you were more mature than that.

prof1515 said:

Yet there are people who do not receive these benefits that are just as loyal. Loyalty that comes with a price isn't loyalty; it's extortion.

So unquestioned/blind loyalty is the way that everyone should live their lives?...hmm let's take a look throughout human history and see how that type of behavior has turned out...

prof1515 said:

Yes, let's look at it. Lego maintains two services: one which they started as a bulk purchase service and which they promote and one which originated as replacement parts and which they do not promote. No prominent placement in the product menus along with Pick-A-Brick and the other stuff they're trying to sell. No banner rotations like Pick-A-Brick. No streamlined means of purchasing. No lower prices to draw people to use it. Lego may not mind if people use it for more than the intended purpose but they're doing nothing to promote that use. As they know some will use it, they can raise the price. If they drive off a few buyers, it's pretty much purchases that they weren't that interested in or they'd have gone a lot further to encourage them. If the higher prices don't deter purchases, and let's be honest and admit that they won't because those who want the parts will still buy them, then they'll make more off of the sales.

Lego doesn't promote the sales of their sticker sets, notebooks, pens, accessories...etc. correct? That doesn't mean that they don't want people to buy them. It's not like replacement parts are free, consumers are paying for the parts. It is a service that Lego generates revenue and profit from. If it was unprofitable then why don't they shut it down like how they shut down unpopular themes?

prof1515 said:

kwkw said:

This price increase will affect MOCers. With increased part prices MOCers will buy less parts (due to budget constraints and a sour taste left in their mouth by TLG). Even though this MOCer group is a small minority of TLG's total revenue, it will have far reaching consequences.

And now you've stretched credibility....

So if a company left a sour taste in your mouth you would continue to view them in the same light as before? Or would your thoughts and behaviors toward them change?

prof1515 said:

I see the slippery slope argument being used. Most Lego fans are not drawn in via MOCers or displays at conventions or other events. They're drawn in because they like the toys and their encounter with the toys is not via MOCs displays. Box art, placement on shelves and the appeal of themes, characters and licensing are what catch their eye and draw them into Lego. They're not going to be thinking higher prices as kids. Their parents may but the nature of our consumer society is such that people still buy. Kids who want more will wait until they're adults and then buy. Nostalgia and making up for what they didn't have as a child are big motivating factors for adult toy collectors. Therefore the LACK OF LEGO as a child becomes a major motivational factor to spending more as an adult. I know I've spent more in any given year in the last five years than the previous 34 combined and that was without ever once seeing convention displays or MOCs.

Additionally, as more and more fans are drawn into Lego, the influence of those who remember lower prices, etc. becomes less and less. Outside of small communities like this, there is no institutional memory. With each influx of new and returning fans, older fans of Lego become more and more irrelevant as both our percentage of the Lego community and our percentage of money spent are less and less.

So what you're saying is that all future AFOLS are not price conscience at all? What a great world you live in where all of humanity has plenty of disposable income! Furthermore, what you're saying is that when Lego prices keep going up and up, new consumers who have never seen discounts won't be price conscious? I also like how you are using the phrase "our money spent is less and less." I thought you were going to keep buying lego no matter what the cost? hmmm thanks for giving TLG ideas on how to make this happen.

prof1515 said:

And while we're using wild hypotheticals which are in no way representative of a significant portion of Lego sales or attitudes toward the product let's say that the parent you didn't convince eventually bought their child the toy because their child wanted it and they love them and want them to be happy. Or how about the parent who stood there politely while you told them the merits of Lego but ultimately thought you're just a nosey person who ought to mind your own business since it's not your wallet that the money's coming from.

Kids will always have toy interests that are all over the place, if they can't have Lego they will just ask for something else and due to their short attention spans they will forget about what they originally asked for and be happy with what they have. btw I hear that Megabloks and Kreo are cheaper....
I can tell when someone is open to speaking with me and when someone wants me to shut up...unlike someone else around here....

prof1515 said:

Again, "biggest supporters", "loyal" fans, etc. are a perception, one which is not supported by the facts. Children and the parents who buy for them are the biggest supporters of Lego because they constitute the greatest revenue. Further, not every "biggest supporter" AFOL gives a rat's arse about discounting exclusives, promotional restrictions or the other stuff that pisses off some. They're still out there purchasing, promoting and praising the product, only minus the perks that the small vocal minority are complaining about.

So every major business should ignore a minority group of their consumers. That sounds like great business sense! Yes, not every AFOL cares about the discounts and promos, but most do, you saying that we are a small vocal minority who are complaining is simply not true. It's more like you are the small vocal minority who is complaining. And if you think that resellers and the AFOL community have very little to do with TLG's current success then you are clearly in a world of unicorns and glitter.

prof1515

CCC said:

Using bricks and pieces to buy parts is not the same as circumventing limits. Lego ask if you want to buy a piece, or if you are requesting a missing piece. I always select buy.

I'm not arguing that. I've pointed out from early on that the replacement parts system was being abused. Lego has apparently been ok with this abuse though clearly prefer that the system not be promoted as the primary means of acquiring Lego. So, there's nothing wrong with purchasing parts *now* and though Lego still doesn't appear to want you to, they aren't going to stop you from doing it.

I simply suggest that if they don't really want people to do so, they could just raise the price.

CCC said:

Lego also impose buying limits on bricks and pieces - each part is limited to 200 per order. I have in the past wanted more than that, and asked if I can order more and the CS rep has been fine with it so long as it is done over the phone. So there are limits, although not strict if you ask if you can obtain more. Although if you want to do it online and just confirm by phone without entering a discussion with them, then limits are imposed.

In other words, if you want to jump through the hoops, they'll let you but they will still put the hoops out there. Raising the price is just one more hoop, a hoop which would benefit Lego as well.

CCC

Why are instructions without sets useless? You can learn a lot about building using official techniques by "reading" them.

In fact they are similar to students using text books. Although doing experiments (and building) is important, learning theory and understanding how/why something works is just as important.

I will often build a small part of an official set using existing bricks. I can learn from that.

Alternatively if I want a bright pink FB I can download the instructions and buy the parts from bricks and pieces. If Lego is perfectly happy for me to do that, then why would you insist I am wrong to do it? Not everyone only wants to have official sets build in the official way, or never opened and stored in their original box. Some people like to be creative through their building. Lego bricks and pieces allows them to do that. It also allows Lego to sell parts to someone that might otherwise not use or buy lego.

drdavewatford

drdavewatford said:

prof1515 said:

And that's comparable to the process by which they normally sell their product?

Might it not therefore be a good time to just acknowledge that and move on ?

Clearly not....

The Bricks and Pieces service has menu options for individuals who just want to buy pieces rather than replace broken or lost ones - for reasons best known to themselves, LEGO broadened the scope of the replacement parts service. To argue that people using this service are guilty of abusing the system is utterly absurd.

prof1515

Learning building techniques is just as useless without application. You're still using "existing bricks" and Lego knows that those who do so might be prompted to buy the set itself having gotten a preview of what the design is like.

CCC said:

Alternatively if I want a bright pink FB I can download the instructions and buy the parts from bricks and pieces. If Lego is perfectly happy for me to do that, then why would you insist I am wrong to do it?

As I've said over and over, if Lego really wanted this program used in such a manner, they would be promoting it and eliminating the redundancy with Pick-a-Brick. As such, it's likely that not enough are (ab)using it in such a manner to prompt Lego to act upon it; they're willing to let it go. Maybe they'll start promoting it but for now they haven't. Perhaps they'll combine Pick-a-Brick and this service but, again, they haven't yet. However, if at some point in the future Lego instead puts greater restrictions on it, don't say I didn't tell you so. Unfortunately, such restrictions might also affect those using the service as it was originally intended to purchase replacement parts.

Legoboy said:

Not everyone only wants to have official sets build in the official way, or never opened and stored in their original box. Some people like to be creative through their building. Lego bricks and pieces allows them to do that. It also allows Lego to sell parts to someone that might otherwise not use or buy lego.

Again, they already do that via sets and Pick-a-Brick. The existence of the latter and the total absence of any marketing around this service is proof that at present this isn't their preferred means of selling their product.

Paperballpark

prof1515 said:

if at some point in the future Lego instead puts greater restrictions on it, don't say I didn't tell you so.

Such as an increase in the prices of bricks from it? If they do that then I for one will be blaming YOU.

prof1515

Blame yourself for abusing the service in the first place. If Lego takes my suggestion, it proves that they don't want you abusing the service. Any way you look at it, it comes back to YOU.

SilentMode

...

I've used the site to place an order for parts to complete my display. I'm not a fan of the agonising wait for confirmation, but it seems very useful.

Basta

@prof1515 not sure why you continue to say "abusing the service" about Bricks & Pieces, as clearly it isn't. If I contact B&P and say that all my ringing peices from my 5 x UCS Mellenium Falcons have broken can you send me replacements for free, even though I don't own any and I'm just going to sell them for a profit. This would be abusing the service. Contacting them and asking to purchase 200 of a particular element for my MOC is not.

I understand what you are getting at about the origional purpose of B&P but you can't be 100% certin that when they launched the B&P service that they did not take into account people using the service for MOC's or building retired sets etc, your making an assumption.

From what I can tell PAB has mostly common elements that they are probably producing on a regular basis, where as B&P also has the less used elements which may only be made every now and again, and as this is the case they choose not to offer these as PAB, this is probably why they don't advertise the service to the same level as PAB as well. It doesn't mean they are not perfectly happy to sell them in bulk (max 200 pieces) to those who ask.

You seem very black and white and are not willing to see the shades of grey that most of us, including TLG see.

Chang405

prof1515 said:

Blame yourself for abusing the service in the first place. If Lego takes my suggestion, it proves that they don't want you abusing the service. Any way you look at it, it comes back to YOU.

And if Lego doesn't take your suggestion, does it PROVE that they don't think its abuse?

Its funny you keep throwing around the word "abuse", yet I can't find any writing on that site which states that its sole intended purpose is for replacing 1 or 2 parts.

Yellowcastle

In most cases, we would be removing the personal attacks above. But since these have been replied to a number of times already, we'll likely just leave them be.

That being said, some of you are out of line. If 99.99% of people disagree with the .01%, then usually the best course of action for the majority is to not belabor the argument and instead just let it go. We as a group don't have to agree and arguin the same points over and over has gotten old.

As to writing to LEGO and giving them our opinions (all opinions) on something, I don't see the harm to anyone or anything. The onus is on LEGO to decide how they want to run their business and I'm glad they seem to want our input. If LEGO were to put some change into effect due to a single letter, then frustration should be aimed at LEGO not the author of said letter.

prof1515

Chang405 said:

And if Lego doesn't take your suggestion, does it PROVE that they don't think its abuse?

No, it suggests that they don't oppose the use of the service for more than replacement parts. Lack of opposition doesn't imply consent though. They might simply feel that the level of (ab)use may not be of a large enough scale to trigger a response. If Lego doesn't care to take stronger measures, that's their choice.

If they do raise the prices it's also not a guarantee that they're doing so purely out of the motivation to dissuade abuse of the service. There could be an across-the-board increase in production costs which could lead to a price increase. However, coupled with the dual services of this and Pick-A-Brick and the complete emphasis on promoting the latter, increasing prices on this service and not Pick-A-Brick would be a pretty good sign that Lego isn't keen on going into the retail parts business.

Chang405 said:

Its funny you keep throwing around the word "abuse", yet I can't find any writing on that site which states that its sole intended purpose is for replacing 1 or 2 parts.

Egad, will you people try reading the entire thread for a change? It's already been covered. There's another thread in the forum from some time back as well.

madforLEGO

I'm seeing a pattern when someone gets to the point where they are essentially being stubborn to be stubborn, and that is their right, but seeing as many people as I have seen get baited into this is just astounding.
I'm still waiting for the 'I am rubber you are glue' response.

I believe LEGO also endorsed part buying for inventorying old sets with their release of the new winter village saying that the 1 x 8 x 2 Dk Blue arches are back in to also help satisfy the aftermarket demand for that archway... Does LEGO think that people are going to buy a 100 dollar set for 2 archways? I doubt it.

I'm guessing, and only guessing here, that while a part is available and is being produced, or has a mold, then you should be able to get the 200 limit for that part as I believe they are still then able to produce those parts. This and I have seen this with 'part is out of stock until 'x' date', then it is available again.
Maybe they should limit the non-brick and plate parts to only x.. whatever x would be

If something is EOL then perhaps LEGO should stop selling parts for those sets due to needing the remainder for replacement parts (that is, if LEGO is not already doing that by noting some parts are not available for purchase any longer).

If LEGO deems this system as 'abused', then they will constrict purchases and also have system to be in place to stop those from abusing the system. As for upping the price of parts? That is just a reckless action to suggest IMO and one I really hope LEGO chooses to ignore and really smacks of sour grapes. One has to think one's dog was kicked by someone who was ordering parts in this fashion at the time of said 'dog kicking'.

Again, the facts are this:
LEGO has had this system in place like this for about 6 months (maybe longer)
In that time, I have not seen them make restrictions to their system, like saying that 'buying a piece' really is for buying a replacement part and that you should only do this if you have the set, etc etc, or adding a hard restriction that people cannot get around.

prof1515

kwkw said:

So if I jumped off a bridge you would follow? I thought you were more mature than that.

So freedom of speech is something you're only entitled to?

kwkw said:

So unquestioned/blind loyalty is the way that everyone should live their lives?...hmm let's take a look throughout human history and see how that type of behavior has turned out...

If you have to try and twist what I'm saying, it's clear you know your position is weak.

prof1515 said:

Yes, let's look at it. Lego maintains two services: one which they started as a bulk purchase service and which they promote and one which originated as replacement parts and which they do not promote. No prominent placement in the product menus along with Pick-A-Brick and the other stuff they're trying to sell. No banner rotations like Pick-A-Brick. No streamlined means of purchasing. No lower prices to draw people to use it. Lego may not mind if people use it for more than the intended purpose but they're doing nothing to promote that use. As they know some will use it, they can raise the price. If they drive off a few buyers, it's pretty much purchases that they weren't that interested in or they'd have gone a lot further to encourage them. If the higher prices don't deter purchases, and let's be honest and admit that they won't because those who want the parts will still buy them, then they'll make more off of the sales.

kwkw said:

Lego doesn't promote the sales of their sticker sets, notebooks, pens, accessories...etc. correct?

False. They promote their sale because they're found in their product lists. Buying them is done the same as a set or Pick-A-Brick.

kwkw said:

That doesn't mean that they don't want people to buy them. It's not like replacement parts are free, consumers are paying for the parts. It is a service that Lego generates revenue and profit from. If it was unprofitable then why don't they shut it down like how they shut down unpopular themes?

It's unlikely that they maintain a huge supply of every piece that they produce. It would be cost and space prohibitive. It was started as a service for replacement parts, which means they likely don't have huge stocks of every piece nor the intent to produce more. The parts that they do that with are found in Pick-a-Brick. It's not a matter of profit; that's why it's not found in the sales listings alongside all of their products.

kwkw said:

So if a company left a sour taste in your mouth you would continue to view them in the same light as before? Or would your thoughts and behaviors toward them change?

That depends if the source of the problem started with me or them. Abuse of a system, even if Lego has been willing to tolerate it to a degree, would be the prompt. If I'd engaged in such behavior I would place the blame upon myself. That's why I have not made any purchase of parts through this service. I like to keep myself free of such hypocritical situations so I can maintain an objective viewpoint, not one clouded by self interest.

kwkw said:

So what you're saying is that all future AFOLS are not price conscience at all? What a great world you live in where all of humanity has plenty of disposable income! Furthermore, what you're saying is that when Lego prices keep going up and up, new consumers who have never seen discounts won't be price conscious?

You continue to argue against straw men.

Where did I give absolutes that "all future AFOLs are not price conscience [sic] at all?" Being price conscious is dependent upon context. Inflation, rising costs of production and a variety of factors mean that the standards of pricing today are not the standards of tomorrow any more than the standards of thirty years ago are consistent with today. Sets that sold in 1983 for $20 would cost a lot more today and assuming otherwise is ridiculous.

kwkw said:

I also like how you are using the phrase "our money spent is less and less."

No, I didn't use that. You should learn how to accurately quote someone unless your intent is another straw man (which I suspect it probably is). I said, "With each influx of new and returning fans, older fans of Lego become more and more irrelevant as both our percentage of the Lego community and our percentage of money spent are less and less." We could be spending the same or even more money but it becomes a smaller percentage of the whole as the whole increases. I'm not going to go into a basic math lesson but it's not that hard to understand.

kwkw said:

I thought you were going to keep buying lego no matter what the cost? hmmm thanks for giving TLG ideas on how to make this happen.

As your argument stems from a misquote and (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what I said, this statement is largely irrelevant. However, when did I say I'd keep buying Lego no matter the cost? I said if I want a particular set, I'll pay what it takes to acquire it. If I don't want it enough, I won't buy it. $300 for a SDCC exclusive? Nope, don't care to pay that much and won't whine that it's too expensive either. MSRP for a set I like? Sure because if I want it that's not unreasonable and waiting could cause me to miss my chance.

prof1515 said:

Kids will always have toy interests that are all over the place, if they can't have Lego they will just ask for something else and due to their short attention spans they will forget about what they originally asked for and be happy with what they have. btw I hear that Megabloks and Kreo are cheaper....

Kids will also be quite insistent on particular things. If a kid likes Star Wars, buying them a Kre-O Star Trek set isn't remotely the same thing.

kwkw said:

I can tell when someone is open to speaking with me and when someone wants me to shut up...unlike someone else around here....

You're assuming that you're worth paying attention to. You are not.

Paperballpark

prof1515 said:

kwkw said:

I can tell when someone is open to speaking with me and when someone wants me to shut up...unlike someone else around here....

You're assuming that you're worth paying attention to. You are not.

That has to be the funniest thing in this thread. You've just spent goodness-knows how long arguing against every single point he made, then at the end say he's not worth paying attention to!

prof1515

Basta said:

@prof1515 not sure why you continue to say "abusing the service" about Bricks & Pieces, as clearly it isn't.

Technically, I usually say (ab)using since Lego's intent for this service is far from clear. While they're clearly willing to let it be used beyond its original scope at the present, there's no indication that they fully intend to expand its scope.

Basta said:

I understand what you are getting at about the origional purpose of B&P but you can't be 100% certin that when they launched the B&P service that they did not take into account people using the service for MOC's or building retired sets etc, your making an assumption.

Yes, it is an assumption but it's also one based on evidence which doesn't support the opposing assumption.

Basta said:

From what I can tell PAB has mostly common elements that they are probably producing on a regular basis, where as B&P also has the less used elements which may only be made every now and again, and as this is the case they choose not to offer these as PAB, this is probably why they don't advertise the service to the same level as PAB as well. It doesn't mean they are not perfectly happy to sell them in bulk (max 200 pieces) to those who ask.

Correct, they are offering parts which are not well-stocked by them. As a replacement service these smaller stocks were adequate. However, if the service is (ab)used for non-replacement purchases, that leaves those who legitimately need that service sh*t outta luck.

I know for certain that they don't maintain massive amounts of some parts. Though I had no intention of placing an actual order, I tested out this system (so I wouldn't be speaking out of ignorance regarding its setup) back when it first came out. I put together an order of pieces for pricing. I was told that one part was no longer available; that they'd run out of stock. This is similar to what a customer service agent told me many years ago about another piece from an old set that I needed to replace. They only maintain a small stock of pieces for replacement purposes and unless those parts are scheduled to be reused in new models, their stock is finite and once gone that's it. Hence every order that (ab)uses the service for non-replacement purposes diminishes the ability of Lego to address replacement of actual lost, broken or missing parts from purchased sets.

prof1515

@Basta My concern over this issue really stems from the potential problem listed in my post above and the attitude that was expressed by several when this program was made known on these forums. It was a "let's see what all we can do" attitude without question as to whether or not they should to begin with.

As I mentioned above in one of my responses, Lego's failure to prevent potential abuse of the service did not imply that they gave their consent. If I don't have a "DO NOT DUMP" sign in my front yard that doesn't imply that I want you to dump your trash in front of my house. A lack of opposition does not imply consent.

However, such thoughts regarding this service didn't seem present in the reaction by many here and still don't by quite a few. Few asked, "Should I?" and instead merely said, "Can I?" or, worse, "I will." When the question of intent of this service was brought up, some considered it but still others said that they didn't care. Just as some feel that purchase limits on sets don't apply to them, they didn't care what the purpose of this program was. It was, and is, an immature, irresponsible, selfish attitude that I can neither respect nor leave unchallenged.

My involvement in this particular thread came about when someone asked why this service doesn't list prices. I pointed out that its origins as a replacement parts service rather than part of their product line meant it wasn't set up the same. It is only the initial abuse, whether obstructed by Lego or not, that has led to its regular (ab)use beyond that initial purpose. I answered a question. Not everyone may like the answer but that doesn't alter anything. The "I will because I want to" attitude isn't justification regardless of how popular it may be. I've never been one to take a position based on its popularity rather than the ethical considerations which is why I've refused pressure to go into politics (that and I'm atheist which means in the U.S. that I'd have less chance than a rapist of gaining the support of many voters).

drdavewatford

Chang405 said:

Its funny you keep throwing around the word "abuse"....[SNIP]

Don't knock it - we're making progress here ! We've gone from "abuse" to "(ab)use" so far; if we keep going, maybe there might eventually be a grudging acceptance that it's just "use" of a system which LEGO have put in place and, as evidenced by the menu option for "I want to buy a piece", are happy for us to use to, um, buy a piece.

;-)

CCC

It may well be that Lego can learn from what people buy. They may use the data they collect on orders to know which parts to make available through PAB. Thus only offering more really popular parts more widely available.

They might want to think about offering bulk packs of parts and again orders like this will give them valuable data for both parts and numbers. I've seen a few people saying they order plant parts. Wouldn't it be great if our behaviour actually led to Lego realising they are missing a trick. That there is a demand for trees and foliage parts. They could use that data to offer a new set, and probably make a significant sum from it, not just from people that would order through BNP but from many afols and older kids buying them as a mainstream set.

Knowing what people want is a huge deal. They can do as many surveys as they like but actual sales data will show them what they are missing.

I reckon the reason they don't publicise this wider is simply a scale issue. To offer it would mean significant investment, whereas they can probably get by fine on current staff at the moment. If they are not sure whether it would scale then they probably won't make the investment. It is a bit like a bricklink store deciding whether or not to go from hobby store to one with staff, only on a much larger scale. But by keeping it relatively small, they can still get useful data on purchasing at the same time as keeping it manageable.

If they want to stop it, all they need to do is say it is for replacement parts only and that you must own the set. Just like they say parts and sets are for personal use and nit for business purposes. That would stop me from using it. And they should also impose limits up to the number of items in the set if they go that route. Until they do that, I will continue to use it.

jdylak

Is there a place to compare color names from Lego site to Bricklink colors? I am looking for a handful of medium and drk blue but not 100% sure of the names on the Lego site.

dougts

Dark blue is earth blue

Matthew

^^ This might help
http://forums.ldraw.org/read.php?19,305,309
I'm not aware of anywhere with an up to date full comparison chart unfortunately.

drdavewatford

I use this one :

http://www.peeron.com/inv/colors

I don't think it's bang up to date, but it usually does the job.

Pitfall69

drdavewatford said:

Chang405 said:

Its funny you keep throwing around the word "abuse"....[SNIP]

Don't knock it - we're making progress here ! We've gone from "abuse" to "(ab)use" so far; if we keep going, maybe there might eventually be a grudging acceptance that it's just "use" of a system which LEGO have put in place and, as evidenced by the menu option for "I want to buy a piece", are happy for us to use to, um, buy a piece.

;-)

I just want "PEACE"

dimefield

Built #8001 Battle Droid out of a tub of used Lego I picked up but all the elastics are missing. I tried looking through both PaB and the parts replacement but couldn't find Rubber bands. Does anyone know if they are available from Lego? I have looked at Bricklink, new looks expensive and used Rubber bands.. I don't think would be a good idea. Or has anyone had any luck with store bought ones?