Would re-releases be such a bad thing?

Redbullgivesuwind

The main issue I have with rerelease is how many people who say oh I want them to rerelease x set or y set would actually buy it. Very rarely I have I seen a large amount of people all agreeing they want one previous set to be made in numbers large enough to justify it. Most of those demand old sets to be made seem to be kids on the front page. A few of whom will buy them the rest will not. I think that the Death Star will bomb badly as most people who wanted one will have bought it during its mamouth run. I don't believe the numbers of people who want it or missed out will let this set run beyond the standard two years. If that. 

Pitfall69

^I agree. Most of the sets that people want released are sets that were expensive to begin with and not aimed at children; Lego's primary target.

Aanchir

Redbullgivesuwind said:

The main issue I have with rerelease is how many people who say oh I want them to rerelease x set or y set would actually buy it. Very rarely I have I seen a large amount of people all agreeing they want one previous set to be made in numbers large enough to justify it. Most of those demand old sets to be made seem to be kids on the front page. A few of whom will buy them the rest will not. I think that the Death Star will bomb badly as most people who wanted one will have bought it during its mamouth run. I don't believe the numbers of people who want it or missed out will let this set run beyond the standard two years. If that. 

The Death Star is a special case because it wasn't really a set being retired and then brought back years later. Rather, the new one came out mere months after the old one retired. So it was more of an update (with a brief gap in availability) than a re-release.

The fact that LEGO released a new Death Star after the old one had already been available for seven years suggests to me that the Death Star's sales were fairly stable throughout its run and the market never reached saturation. So it makes sense that LEGO expects the new one to maintain that same sort of stability.

CCC

And possibly for another 7-8 years. They might not care if sales of the last peaked a little and sales of this one are a little low for year 1. 

TigerMoth

CCC said:

And possibly for another 7-8 years.

It might take that long to get rid of the stock!

Aanchir

TigerMoth said:

CCC said:

And possibly for another 7-8 years.

It might take that long to get rid of the stock!

That's definitely another valid consideration when you get to these higher price points. Probably a factor in why even the modulars tend to stay "current" much longer than, say, an average Ninjago or City set.

flord

I don't generally have a problem with re-releases. It happens often, even in UCS line. I would likely buy an updated #10179. I am also hopeful for an updated Cloud City. Why can't we get a new Lando?

Redbullgivesuwind

@Aanchir that is a good point I hadn't thought of it that way. It may well be the case that they looked at it and thought it needed an update. But if it selling that well why change? Surely a better marketing ploy would have to justify they are giving it a clean. Rather than EOL the last one and treat this new one like a completely new product? Because of the updates and increased count part and it's launch I am gonna disagree and count this as a re-release. 

Lyichir

Redbullgivesuwind said:

@Aanchir that is a good point I hadn't thought of it that way. It may well be the case that they looked at it and thought it needed an update. But if it selling that well why change? Surely a better marketing ploy would have to justify they are giving it a clean. Rather than EOL the last one and treat this new one like a completely new product? Because of the updates and increased count part and it's launch I am gonna disagree and count this as a re-release. 

Perhaps the sales were declining slowly, but Lego wagered that a refresh would improve them. Or maybe it was just a matter of perceived quality. As it was, the most expensive Lego Star Wars set had become woefully outdated, both in terms of fig design (with the figs being less detailed and accurate than those found in cheap $10 sets by the end of the old model's run) in terms of functionality (with things like the bulky rubber-tipped Technic blaster instead of the newer, more laser-like spring-loaded shooter), and just in terms of the general part selection (with a fair number of parts introduced in the many years since the Death Star's original debut that could allow for greater accuracy and detail). Even the set ID number wasn't in line with the numbering of the modern Lego Star Wars sets, and unlike other modern sets at that scale it didn't even come with a brick separator!

It's true that other sets that have been updated, such as the Tower Bridge, are changed less dramatically from the original. But then, they had not been on shelves for nearly as long as the Death Star had.

Pitfall69

flord said:

I don't generally have a problem with re-releases. It happens often, even in UCS line. I would likely buy an updated #10179. I am also hopeful for an updated Cloud City. Why can't we get a new Lando?

I think you are confusing re-releases with rehashes and updated sets. Re-Releases don't happen often.

flord

I just assumed re-releases and rehashes were the same. Why wouldn't you take the opportunity to improve something that was older? What's an example of a re-release that was unchanged from the original?

TigerMoth

flord said:

What's an example of a re-release that was unchanged from the original?

Recently? #8041 and #42041. There IS a difference, but only in the colour of a hidden part or two - and you might get something like that during the lifetime of a set anyway.

CCC

Lyichir said:

Redbullgivesuwind said:

@Aanchir that is a good point I hadn't thought of it that way. It may well be the case that they looked at it and thought it needed an update. But if it selling that well why change? Surely a better marketing ploy would have to justify they are giving it a clean. Rather than EOL the last one and treat this new one like a completely new product? Because of the updates and increased count part and it's launch I am gonna disagree and count this as a re-release. 

Perhaps the sales were declining slowly, but Lego wagered that a refresh would improve them. Or maybe it was just a matter of perceived quality. As it was, the most expensive Lego Star Wars set had become woefully outdated, both in terms of fig design (with the figs being less detailed and accurate than those found in cheap $10 sets by the end of the old model's run) in terms of functionality (with things like the bulky rubber-tipped Technic blaster instead of the newer, more laser-like spring-loaded shooter), and just in terms of the general part selection (with a fair number of parts introduced in the many years since the Death Star's original debut that could allow for greater accuracy and detail). Even the set ID number wasn't in line with the numbering of the modern Lego Star Wars sets, and unlike other modern sets at that scale it didn't even come with a brick separator!

It's true that other sets that have been updated, such as the Tower Bridge, are changed less dramatically from the original. But then, they had not been on shelves for nearly as long as the Death Star had.

The changes are fairly substantial between the old and new Death Star. The design may be familiar, but as there are more than just a few minor changes that might not be noticed by the average consumer, I think it right to give it a new product number. It is clearly a different set.

dougts

flord said:

I just assumed re-releases and rehashes were the same. Why wouldn't you take the opportunity to improve something that was older? What's an example of a re-release that was unchanged from the original?

Re-Release:  releasing the same basic *design* with a new set number and/or packaging.  Minor part substitutions or recolors.  #10249 is a recent prime example of a re-release of #10199.  Death Star.  Re-releases are relatively rare.

Re-Hash:  releasing a new set with a new *design*, but based on the same source material. This generally only happens much within the Star Wars theme.  #7191 vs #10240, #7166 vs #75094, Sail Barge, MTT, Landspeeders, etc.  You might also classify each new "City Police station" as a functional rehash, but it's not quite the same thing, since they aren't bound to specific source material, and thus have more creative freedom

Lyichir

dougts said:

flord said:

I just assumed re-releases and rehashes were the same. Why wouldn't you take the opportunity to improve something that was older? What's an example of a re-release that was unchanged from the original?

Re-Release:  releasing the same basic *design* with a new set number and/or packaging.  Minor part substitutions or recolors.  #10249 is a recent prime example of a re-release of #10199.  Death Star.  Re-releases are relatively rare.

Re-Hash:  releasing a new set with a new *design*, but based on the same source material. This generally only happens much within the Star Wars theme.  #7191 vs #10240, #7166 vs #75094, Sail Barge, MTT, Landspeeders, etc.  You might also classify each new "City Police station" as a functional rehash, but it's not quite the same thing, since they aren't bound to specific source material, and thus have more creative freedom

Arguably "rehash" by that definition applies to a few other themes as well, especially long-running themes. Examples include the multiple Hogwarts Castles and Hogwarts Expresses in the Harry Potter theme, the multiple versions of Spongebob's house and the Krusty Krab in the Spongebob theme, and the many takes on the Batcave, Batmobile and Arkham Asylum in the Super Heroes theme. Even Ninjago has had "rehashes" to a certain extent, with last year's Final Flight of Destiny's Bounty and this year's Ultra Stealth Raider both being new takes on vehicles introduced in the 2012 sets and story.

Of course, the Star Wars theme is the most obvious because it still revisits specific old chapters of the story in their original context more frequently than many of those other themes. For instance, Super Heroes sets tend to have much more creative liberty even when depicting the same setting or vehicle thanks the mythic, evolving nature of superhero comics and adaptations, while the Harry Potter theme takes advantage of Hogwarts' shifting structure and it's tendency to be expanded upon in each movie/book.

Bobflip

And again the conversation turns to semantics... ;-)

TigerMoth

dougts said:

Re-Release:  releasing the same basic *design* with a new set number and/or packaging.  Minor part substitutions or recolors.  #10249 is a recent prime example of a re-release of #10199.  Death Star.  Re-releases are relatively rare.

I imagine that there are people who disagree with that, and say it's not close enough.

That's the problem with re-releases. If nothing else, parts evolve over time, so re-releases are quite likely not 100% identical to the original.  As I said, that can affect a single set during it's production run. Whether it's a re-release or not becomes subjective, and different people will have different thresholds.

Race Truck? Maersk Line / Sealand Container Ship? Toy Shop? Shuttle Adventure / Expedition? Death Star?

MrShinyAndNew

Weirdly, in the early run of the Star Wars line they also re-released a few sets that were essentially identical but had different part numbers. e.g. #7140 and #7142. It seems odd to me that they didn't change anything yet they gave those re-releases new numbers.