Apparently Just2Good has a reliable source confirming that LEGO will be releasing a Ghostbusters HQ in the style of Haunted House (10228.) It will be released 1st January 2016 and will have 4600 pieces and cost $350.
Apparently it will NOT be replacing the 2016 Modular Building and will NOT be based on the new movie. I guess there could be a reason to not get the LEGO Dimensions packs just for the new molded hair and printed arms as well as the Slimer and Stay Puft packs.
The news that a LEGO Ghostbusters HQ is coming excites me however what I don't understand is the price and piece count; it should be halve of that unless it will have a fully detailed exterior and interior like The Simpsons House (71006) with tiled floors. This type of set should be a modular style building and cost halve the price of a Modular Building. I don't get why it needs to be twice the size.
***Photograph Shown Is NOT The Final Product; It's A MOC By Sergio512.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
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.
I hope it's true and we are geting a 4600 piece set. Obviously TLG will cram a 1000 pieces worth of fluff inside it, but the other 3600 should come together to make a very large detailed exterior which is a big win IMO.
I will believe this when I see it!
There's certainly been enough interest in the original HQ - but that's a whole lot of lolly to cough up. Does seem rather big. Will be interesting to see how this turns out.
I'm calling rumor on this one.
It is weird, seeing there no other rumors of a GB line (which then would make this building being released make sense), was this really due to an Idea, or is this another 'we had one planned this whole time' type of thing?
Even at 350 USD though I have to admit Id likely buy one, even if no discount.
This would also skyrocket the Ecto-1.
Taj Mahal is a building too, but this seems like a strange choice for something that big. Especially if it's based off the old movie. Sure the movie has cult following status, but it isn't exactly new and definitely doesn't have the status of the original Star Wars trilogy.
I'm a Ghostbusters fan and would be in at $150, even $200, but $350 might push me out. That's a lot for a subject I like, but don't obsess over like the Star Wars geek in me.
Parisian Restaurant has almost 2500 pieces for $160. At that rate, 4600 pieces would be less than $300. Obviously, the license would add some cost, but it doesn't seem that far-fetched.
That said, I'll believe this when I see it. Ghostbusters doesn't seem like a property that LEGO would risk a $350 set on.
I think a 4,600-piece version of the Ghostbusters HQ is highly unlikely for a number of reasons, but it'd be very cool if true...
Why? well, go to this URL, and see what it replaces my placeholder text with in the URL...
That's right: "Firehouse Headquarters"
Also interesting will be if and how many exclusive minifigs come with it.
75098 shows as Star-Wars-Direct-Confidential
He has several more shots on his website.
Sure, the information is ultimately publicly visible, but it does not appear to be by intention. In a similar way, exploiting an SQL injection vulnerability to steal information from a database is unquestionably illegal, even though the vulnerability effectively makes the information (unintentionally) publicly accessible.
But the most important thing to be aware of is ... there's a new Ghostbusters set confirmed!!!!! :D
While changing a URL is indeed accessing information, it obviously isn't possible for that to be changed. I can't, for example, make that URL re-direct anywhere, or anything like that.
Incidentally, there was an xkcd comic a few years ago about SQL injection. :)
Using your method to discover as-yet unrevealed set names could still amount to unauthorised access in the context of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the later Police and Justice Act 2006 and Serious Crime Act 2007.
But on the other hand, it's not like you're downloading people's passwords, so maybe nobody will mind (probably!). For starters, I doubt TLG would want bad publicity over something so trivial (see AT&T vs Weev for lolz). Either way, as web application security testing has been my profession for a couple of decades, I am very mindful of the law and this is not something I would risk trying without permission.
(ps. sorry for polluting this thread with technobabble and law. I shall say no more!)
Changing URLs however, is not interfering with their site at all - it's changing things in the web browser, which they can't control. It's the difference between server-side (their database) and client-side (the website).
I may not be quite as technical as you, but I'm pretty sure there's some kind of fundamental difference there.
The best analogy I can think of is that SQL injection is like picking the lock of a door to see what's in the house, whereas changing the URL is like having a look through the window in the door while you're knocking.
To sum it up: I'm pretty damn sure that typing URLs into a browser's address bar is not illegal. :)
Anyway, like you, I shall say no more.
(Sorry, couldn't resist pointing that out! Definitely bowing out now. See y'all at STEAM :))
i'll prolly still buy it haha ;)