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.
"CUUSOOOOOOOOO long review that you forgot about it."
It's true that LEGO Cuusoo is starting to lag a bit in terms of the timeliness of its review results. But I saw a panel with Tim Courtney at Brickfair VA that helped me to fully understand the span of time that passes between the announcement of the review results and the final product release.
Basically, a typical LEGO Cuusoo set takes almost exactly as much development time as any other LEGO set. The only difference is that with regular LEGO sets, the majority of that development takes place long before fans even know what kind of products to expect, whereas with LEGO Cuusoo sets, LEGO fans know the concept behind the product that's being developed even before development on the product actually starts.
Anyway, so far there hasn't been a single project where the lag has severely cut into its profitability. Once there is such an example there might be reason to worry about whether Cuusoo needs to be more efficient.
That said, I think it is undeniable that the lag has hurt perception pretty notably. In this day and age of instant everything, waiting a year for review results and another 6 to 12 months for product release is deemed by most people to be unacceptable. I know for a fact it has soured people on the Cuusoo experience, and it's always something that is being talked about - and almost always in a negative light. All that does indeed matter.
There are a lot of crowd sourcing models out there that turn stuff around much faster. I'm not saying LEGO should be churning out the sets a month after they hit the review deadline, but for anyone to say there is no room for significant improvement in both the timeliness of review results and in the time to market is, quite frankly, just being dishonest.
But I would also put this down to teething troubles, Cuusoo strikes me as being a work-in-progress, it's doing well so far, but still has some refinements to go before it becomes a slick operation.
Time (capacity to capitalize on the 'buzz') is definitely an issue. If it takes an age to get votes, another age to be scrutinized, and a third age to go into design and production if accepted... then yeeesh. Those people who wanted the thing might have died of boredom, and moved onto something else.
Similarly if they only manage to release one or two sets per year from an ever-increasing list of backed projects, the whole thing is in danger of becoming viewed as an exercise in futility by both voters and project designers.
1) The initial offering, depending if they EOL Minecraft 1, or keep trying to sell it in line with the other two
2) If that eats into any other CUUSOO release
3) Having more than one CUUSOO set out at one time, with BTTF
4) Dropping the CUUSOO label from any susequent set offering.
5) Future BTTF set offers.
It'll be pretty interesting to watch.
At Brickfair, Tim Courtney confirmed that the new sets were being developed separately from the LEGO Cuusoo line, so they should not influence the release schedule for LEGO Cuusoo sets. I doubt the original set would impact Cuusoo release schedules either, considering it doesn't need the same development time as they do.
The possibility of future BTTF sets, or of ANY LEGO Cuusoo product becoming an ongoing product line, will be the most interesting consequence of these new Minecraft sets. It raises some questions: for instance, in the case of a non-licensed project, will the project creator be owed any royalties or acknowledgments for the concept, and might that be a roadblock for further product development? In some cases, where a project's concept inspires a whole theme or product line, it might seem the creator would be owed some acknowledgement. But in others it's a bit fuzzier: if the first modular building had been fan-created, it's hard to swallow the idea that the creator would be owed royalties for all subsequent modular buildings. Likewise for the Winter Village series or any other product line released as individual single-product installments.
The Minecraft project had a unique feature working in its favor, in that the project creator WAS the rightsholder for the IP. Other projects don't have that advantage. And I hardly think the LEGO Group is going to pay royalties to two separate entities for product lines inspired by a license agreement, even if it got its start through LEGO Cuusoo.
We've got Witch and Scarecrow... all we need is scaredy-lion, kansas farmgirl (with red slippers & pet dog), and metal-(axe)man... and maybe a little-person with yellow bricks.
Not gonna happen but I'd love this.
A system that automatically removes projects that don't receive a certain number of votes over a certain amount of time could work to clean everything up.
Even (what you or I or someone else thinks are) crap projects on cuusoo can be used to spark ideas, which may lead to a better suggestion being made.
Just look at minecraft's original project and what came out.
That Python I mentioned is not a mastery of design, but it got some classic scenes from the movie right. When I see a project, I think about what MAY come out as a set and what the project is as an idea, not the project itself.
Still, projects should have some requirements to be allowed, but I don't see how that can be properly implemented.
I might also point out that you're assuming that voting something down would result in it being removed. Voting down could counter fanboi voting. I seem to recall many being critical of some model that had a lot of votes from a specific group that rallied for it (was it a particle accelorator or something? I didn't pay attention to it). Well, voting down could counter a special interest group like Apple drones or similar ilk.
My comment was in effect a criticism of all the crap, be it intellectual property theft or just sh*tty design. People like to suggest stuff they'd vote for and vote for that which they like so I'd like to vote down the stuff I wouldn't just refrain from voting for but actively dislike. Cuusoo isn't a gallery to display little Timmy's first connection of two bricks or little Suzy's demonstration of her colorblindness or little Billy's lack of artistic ability. That stuff belongs on a refrigerator somewhere, not clogging up Cuusoo.
It's stated in their rules that Cuusoo is not a gallery, they should remove projects like the ones you mentioned. Same goes for projects that were uploaded 2-3 months ago and have less than 10 votes or something. Another annoying thing is the amount of duplicate projects...
Small technic carousel...
A grand carousel is also under development.
James Cameron's Avatar
That VTOL is really cool, about the right size for a suitable model, has a good fit with LEGO (vehicles vs animals) and well designed.
The Twist N Whirl Carnival Ride
I think this is another cool model, in the size range of a realistic product and fit with LEGO (Creator).
Again another nice design and execution, I would like to see more Disney Park rides, and this would be one of the best to start with.
King's Castle Keep
although I think Lego will not sign another contract....
Not my design but I would love to see more train support especially for this!
E.T. phone home.....
Initially staff just deleted my comments...then someone finally looked in to why I kept saying this show is absurd and overly sexualizes girls.
Anyone else not surprised at all?
I'm going to say it for the first time ever - well done Cuusoo.
It will be interesting to see how LEGO packages and promotes the Exo Suit as the first CUUSOO model not based on a real-world object or third-party IP.
Congrats to the Exo-Suit! I'm excited to see what the final product will look like.