Brickset ForumShopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Would re-releases be such a bad thing?
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.2K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 385 The Database
- 438 Brickset.com
- 315 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 337 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 571 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comments
Like others have observed, there's a huge market in Christmas collectibles. Lego blew it. Maybe this is an attempt at re-booting the theme...?
I mean, imagine waiting a year for the next season of Game of Thrones, and when the day finally comes, they just replay the reason you already saw, and say, "See you again NEXT year!"
Looking at the two versions, though, if I did own the original toy shop and could afford to buy this new version, I myself would see this as an opportunity to get more of the accessories that are found in this set, and expand my village. You get more trees, another bench,another lamp post and you are getting updated minifigures that are different enough yet still compatible with the originals, giving you more people to inhabit your village.
If I could afford to have two toy shops in my village, I would be happy with that.
As for re-releases in general, I'd like to get another shot at buying sets I missed the first time around without having to pay triple for them on the aftermarket. I'd like to have more of some of the sets I already have. Bring on the Harry Potter re-releases! Bring on the Monster Fighter re-releases! LOTR! Etc. etc.
You do know that the winter village line is 12+??
Now , for possible other remakes , if TLG does decide to do another UCS MF , they have a good excuse and reason to do that ,considering the ep7 version is a slightly modified version of the original. I believe that is good enough to warrant it .
I agree with re releases in general tho, provided that they are "updated" in a way that makes sense. It's not really about the look, actually, but more about the different part combinations that make up the build. As time goes on, the builds become more sophisticated. Some of the best re releases I think were found in the Harry Potter line and I wish they'd do more. Hagrid's Hut for example, I really like the last version in comparison to the first release.
Setting aside the 'remake VS no remake' aspect. The original went for 500 USD and had to be discounted to move the 'unlimited' version, which will not occur again (at least in the US). So presume LEGOs 'inflation/SW tax' and you are likely looking at a set at least 600 USD, if not 750-800 USD.
Guess what? Many people will not buy it. Only resellers and some folks with that income to burn, and not nearly as many would purchase vs those that would want to get it but cannot afford it. Then you also may miss those who bought the original, especially those who bought it in the aftermarket and are jaded by the fact another came out.
So then it is here and gone, and you have another group of people saying they would have bought it had it been out if 'only they were into LEGO at the time' and more cursing of the resellers as if they are the sole cause the price to rise.
Do not try to bring up the DS either, at 399.99 USD you are at least getting many different sets/scenes and play-ability if you really got it for a kid (never mind if a DS comes out today it would likely be 500-650 USD at least). At 600-800 USD you are getting a massive paperweight and not something a child will likely be 'whooshing' around their room. At least with a DS a child can play with it on a table and re-enact scenes from Epi 4.
Again I know there will be those that want it, and buy it, as a bragging right thing. However, I do not think LEGO would make many of a UCS Falcon (just like the original). I believe they would be better served, and will sell far more, making another 'basic' minifig type Falcon at 150 USD.
Homelite is owned by a Hong Kong company.
Dag nabbit!
(Husqvarnas are much better, anyway.)
Sort of off topic but, in line with the Winter Village collectors- only 19 in stock after I snagged mine.
Lego wins with the re-release. They got me to buy an older set to start collecting the line!
There's also a concern that having re-releases, new releases, AND the last few years' releases in expensive series like the Modular Buildings might oversaturate the market. Don't forget, the biggest reason for all the hate the Winter Toy Shop and Death Star got was the perception that they were taking the place of new releases. This year, there are already five Modular Buildings available (Pet Shop, Palace Cinema, Parisian Restaurant, Detective's Office, and Brick Bank). For those who don't count Market Street as a modular building, that's half the entire series! Is the market really big enough to sustain all of those, and older buildings like Cafe Corner or Green Grocer, and other high-dollar sets? Or would producing more sets in that category just mean selling less of each?
And of course, Jamie's post from four years ago raises some more technical concerns with re-releases, some of which might still be as relevant or more so than when he made that post (like the difficult process of determining how many changes AFOLs will tolerate to bring classic sets up-to-date with modern parts and design standards).
That said, I'm sure LEGO will be looking closely at how the Winter Toy Shop and Death Star redesigns sell so they can better evaluate how big the market for LEGO re-releases really is, how much time is enough to justify giving an old set a new lease on life, etc.
If a company is going to compete on an international basis, then it had better get is head around the idea that there are different sets of rules and that it doesn't get to pick them; if they cant cope with that, it had better get out of that market. To compete, a company has to play the opposition at their own game, using their rules - because not only do their competitors follow them, but the customers expect them to.
Does it matter? It's slightly more efficient to produce more copies of a single set, but if the market wants something different, a company can't force it to follow what it wants, especially if a competitor is willing to do so.
They are wrong. As we know, it was either WTS or no release due to design capacity constraint. Death Star apparently is an "evergreen".
I'll say there is room for a number of Modular buildings. Same for the Architecture and Expert Creator series. The way I see it, some people are only interested in these series. As far as they are concerned, the rest of the line does not exist. Suppose a person buys Big Ben and now is interested to get the rest, but they are discontinued? Lego is sending him right into the arms of resellers. I'm sure TLG has realized how foolish they have been in the past.
If the problem is discontinued parts, they can eliminate that by ensuring the parts aren't discontinued. :-)
But I do agree with Jamie that older sets often don't stand up to newer standards. Lego's current model, which is to release an improved design after a number of years, isn't that bad -- if you can wait.
When Lego did their "Legends" line and the other re-releases, I was just getting out of my "Dark Ages". I bought most of them and when I received them, I was disappointed in the packaging, especially the Black Seas Barracuda. The boxes were my favorite things back in the day. I didn't even buy "Main Street" because it was too different than I remember.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe there is a market now for re-releases, but even if there were, would Lego make any money doing so? It has been discussed many times before in the reseller thread; some people do not find it worth the time and effort to make a small profit on certain sets; maybe Lego feels the same way???
Death Star is a straight up re-release. A couple of color swaps and new figs are mainly the extent of the changes. The Tie received a new build but I honestly believe that was only done to accommodate Vader's larger helmet. The model was not improved at all really.
The idea that LEGO can "play (counterfeiters) at their own game)" is pure ignorance. LEGO knock-offs have always existed, and chances are they always WILL exist as long as LEGO remains a valuable and desirable product. Even so, that's no justification for LEGO stooping to their level, particularly when we have no idea what OTHER ethical lapses companies like Lepin are guilty of besides the obvious design theft. Even if LEGO cut costs everywhere they possibly could without reneging on their own responsibilities to their workers and their customers, counterfeiters would still be saving money by stealing the work of LEGO product and graphic designers, and could still cut their own costs even further by exploiting their workers or using unsafe materials.
I understand and agree 100%, but that doesn't negate the extreme negative feedback from AFOLs who felt that LEGO was being "lazy" and just making excuses not to release genuinely new sets. I'm hoping that this sort of feedback doesn't have a huge impact on the sales strength of these re-releases, and LEGO obviously hoped that as well, but only time will tell whether those hopes were misplaced.
But your point stands, we don't know the numbers but they're likely less than LEGO's usual runs. LEGO also have to choose which is better between a rerelease and an origignal set development. LEPIN don't have that decision as they don't do their own designs just steal LEGO's.
As regards only selling a limited number, it depends on your business model and the level of profits you expect. With regard to the latter, TLG's expectations seem rather high. If you looked at the actual costs, I suspect the number of sets you'd have to produce to break even is actually rather small. Thy fly in the ointment is whether you can get value for money for a mould that is only useful for a small number of different sets.
WV "re-release" was like telling child - hey, no new gifts for this Christmas. We give you your gift from 5 years ago. But we repainted it!
Death Star was making a fools of us.
But sets like Haunted House or Orthanc Tower are something different. They are quite modern designs, with no need to upgrade. They not interfering with any exsisting series. Releasing them will not stop any new set release (like was with WV Toy Shop).
And they are still wanted. Look for a brikset wanted lists. Haunted House - 7000 own, 4000 want. Orthanc - 4900 own, 3400 want.
Plus - they were available for quite short period.
I think that Lego realised that retiring such sets too fast is stupid. Look what happend with WV Camper Van - it is still available.
And that's pure arrogance. I've argued against clone brands that you probably wouldn't recognise well before you were even a wistful thought for the future.
TLG are a business. Up until now, they've had it easy. There have been clones, but they have always been of an inferior quality - and until relatively recently, desperately so. People who bought them knew that. That's why people say TLG have had a monopoly, although in strict terms it's not true.
LEPIN changes all that. They are the first; they probably won't be the last.
You don't like it when I say that TLG are in danger of making the same mistake as they did fifteen years ago. The point there is that you don't realise what they did - they took their eyes off the business aspects of the company. You like to focus on the details, but at the end of the day, TLG didn't pay enough attention to actually running the company, and almost sleep-walked into disaster. Well, were back. The business world isn't the children's playground that they're used to; it's hard-nosed and cut-throat - and totally and absolutely unforgiving.
There's another company out there. I don't know what it's up to and what it's aims are. However, it is clear that it is playing to different rules. TLG, and others, can stand there like a petulant child and stamp it's foot shouting "it's not fair", but that's not going to get them very far. That's all rather like King Cnut.
No. If TLG want to play in the same world as LEPIN, they have to play by those same rules. If those rules state that you're allowed to stab somebody in the back, it doesn't mean that's what you have to do even if it doesn't fit your ethics; what it means is that you have to be aware that somebody might come along and do it to you.
Perhaps TLG have a plan. If they do, they haven't shown any signs of it, and it's starting to get a bit overdue. However, the impression is very much of continuing as before.
Should that mean re-releases? Maybe. Maybe not. There are pros and cons either way. It's been debated before, along with near-miss re-releases. But now things are different. There isn't much point in considering somebody else's ethical lapses because all they do is give you the feeling of having the moral high ground, not change anything. You have to work out what you can do yourself to make a difference - within that new set of rules.
Here is a current screeenshot when searching for Cafe Corner on aliexpress.
55 orders, 19 orders, 136 orders, 74 orders, (--- mini sets), 124 orders, ...
From the feedback, they are over mainly 2-3 months in most cases. And there have been many other listings that get removed when there is no more stock from that seller.
The bad thing for lego is not just the number of orders, but the feedback. Nearly all of it is 5 stars. Any 1 star ones seem to be about getting caught out for customs charges or not receiving the product, not actually about the product itself.
And looking at the countries for buyers that leave feedback - Aus (lots), Germany, USA, UK, ...
I think AE is used much more than taobao by Westerners though, and taobao by Chinese. It shows when looking at who is leaving feedback, most on AE are Europe, US and Aus.
Also, speaking more close to home to my favorite theme - Pirates - if TLG re-released El Dorado? Or Rock Island Refuge? I'd snag them up in a heartbeat, yeah not the "original" but still nice shiny new bricks displaying a copy of the "original".
I know I am all over the place in this post, but hope you get the point I am trying to make :)
A COA is "a different part"; that's sufficient to add value for those that are interested. That's probably a bit sad if you think about it.
Or if lego wanted to make a new version / updated CC all the parts used could easily be regular long term production parts that will be around for years to come. I doubt lego designers would have a hard time finding perfectly acceptable alternative parts from the current production catalogue to fit in the gaps where they no longer produce the parts from the original version.
I tried something a few days back. A test so to speak. Bought an Architecture set from LEGO, and the bootleg set that stole its core design produced by BlockTECH. I then built both. The LEGO version was mid 30 dollars on eBay, I got lucky. The BT version was FIVE DOLLARS at a local Dollar General store.
The LEGO version was quality across the board. Loved it. The BT version was going well and when I got to a certain level everything was wrong. Structurally unsound. Totally began throwing everything off. In addition, the plastics were inferior. I just know this because I worked in the toy industry for years. But...anyone can just SEE the difference by looking at the way light penetrates the plastics. I also know that BT does not safety test their bricks. Doesn't indicate it on the packaging, and examining the bricks reveals a lot of small safetly issues that LEGO does not have, especially sharp point issues.
Testing properly costs a TON of money I might add. A TON.
Anyway...as I was reading all of the above, I was thinking...how might someone react who wasn't me to either product? Probably the same way a lot of people around here and on the main site react. Complaints about the high costs of LEGO compared to so-called "brands" like LEPIN, etc. But you need to understand...LEPIN is not a brand...it is nothing more than a more organized version of a Chinese factory worker grabbing a bunch of samples off the assembly line and selling them on eBay from Hong Kong once he or she crosses the border (back when there was absolutely positively NO Internet allowed in Southern China).
That kind of BS happened all of the time to products I worked on and to other friends of mine, it was just outrageous. This is just that multiplied by a factor of You Gotta Be Kidding Me.
But does John Q. I Don't-Give-A-Sh#t really care, as long as he can get a UCS Tumbler for a reasonable price? Nah...why get bent out of shape if a lot of it falls apart or if half of the parts are sharp and dangerous to the younger kids in the house or that the whole thing is likely toxic? Hey man...It didn't cost nearly as much as LEGO does! WOOHOO! Five stars baby!
My opinions...and these are just mine.
1. LEGO pricing is likely done to a very rigid standard of percentages like every other company.
2. Their product is not overpriced at all, it is actually a LOT of plastic parts, with lots of different colors, and kids are involved here no way around that so safety testing is required and is very, very expensive.
3. Speaking of a lot of plastic parts, plastic has gone up in price like you would not believe. So has gas. All that comes from petroleum. And its all interconnected. Remember when action figures were, I dunno, five bucks? They cost around 20 now.
4. LEGO is experimenting with evergreen product and re-releasing previously retired product in an effort to engage new customers but more importantly, and I stress this...make profit. If these experiments make profit, they will do more of them. Period end of sentence. Every company has that goal. LEGO dreams and lollipops aside, it is still a business like every other toy company.
Wow, OK I'll stop now...sorry!
As far as different parts; there is an actual part or two that is different. The COA is not the different part.
Thanks. All those acronyms...
Oh, I know. What I meant was that something trite like the COA is all you need to make a "limited edition", and is something that anybody with a printer could produce.