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.
At that point, you would just have a huge chunk of people complaining about the release model, saying it isn't good enough, isn't what they voted for, was dumbed down, changed, etc etc. It would, in my mind, lesson the lasting perception of the MOC, and the brilliance that it is.
The absolute best MOCs, such as Cavegod's, can only exist as MOCs. That's just the reality of the limitations of productions sets.
You are certainly entitled to disagree with my opinion and mentality on this topic, but you aren't going to change my mind. I'm not going to campaign against anything, but I'm going to stick to my definition of what I think is worthy of support.
I do take the point of whether a cut down version would still be acceptable.
@dougts firstly I had no intentions or wishes to change your mind :) everyone is fully entitled to their own opinions. Secondly I do appreciate where you are coming from and you are right any cut down version wouldn't come close to Cavegod's model, BUT, if I cannot have the 'real deal' (Cavegod, fancy selling!!), then I would be seriously interested in a UCS 5000 piece model.
There is also an element of me that wishes to support these types of sets as I think it gives a message to TLG of what we as real Lego fans really want, no idea if that is a waste of time.
I can certainly see the flip side though - I'm sure if the idea got to the review stage and ultimately passed, the creator might not be terribly happy having their name attached to a model that they saw as inferior to what they posted.
Ps @dougts Ive noticed you saying it. Esp to some people :-).
Surely if it was that easy you would have your own UCS Enterprise and Bird of War you could post pictures of for us!
Lego could just release boxes of bricks.
Answer the question as to why they don't do this and you'll have the answer to the above.
Not sure if that is the best or worst of both worlds :)
If @prof1515 was arguing against a 1000-piece model in the same way he's arguing against an 8000-piece one, then you have a valid point.
In 1999 the largest Lego set had under 1800 pieces. Now we have sets with over 5000 pieces.
In fact, if you follow this trend, 8000 pieces looks entirely possible:
Largest set in 1999: 1757 pieces
largest set in 2004: 3096 pieces
largest set in 2006: 3441 pieces
largest set in 2008: 5922 pieces (Taj Mahal, which is still the largest)
If the trend continues, we're due a set of about 9000 pieces around now. I'm not saying that it will, but why rule it out.
In fact, you could look at it this way - the size roughly doubles every 5 years. I'm not saying that I think we'll get a 12000 piece set in 2013, but it's not impossible.
The boundaries are always changing. Lego produce sets which will sell, but the definition of 'what will sell' is a moving target, so it doesnt make any sense to rule anything out. The definitions of the type of sets which Lego can make money out of are not set in stone.
In some ways, Cuusoo has proven the lack of imagination on the part of many Lego fans. Some, like the designer of that western town, have demonstrated the kind of creativity I suspect Lego was looking for (though with any large model I wouldn't be surprised if Lego fears it will price out of the reach of too many consumers) while others have produced the kind of fanboi wishful thinking that may keep Cuusoo from resulting in much viable output.
Re the second bit, I also think it'll produce a lot of old nonsense amongst the good stuff.
I dont think putting it on Cussoo would do it any good. What is the likelyhood that I will even be able to claim the right for the models? I cant and I think that fact will be a nasty surprise for some people. I wonder who gets the one percent the kid who create the models for mine craft or minecraft themselves. Its minecraft and there is one really annoyed person out there. People put these I want Zelda concepts up there and think they will make a ton of money off of it and lego will do all the hard work for them. Well it wont make a lot of money and Lego should not have to make everyones demands.
I dont think, before I get shot, thats why everyone puts up their models some people genuinely want to share it with the world. But I think its why you see some stuff up there.
Im going to breathe now :-D
Please let me know what you think of either of these events.
And I'm massively underwhelmed with the EVE Online design which, like the Minecraft set, is unlikely to appeal to anyone other than EVE fanboys.
So I'm actually doubly disappointed, then....
EVE looks terrible and really only appeals to fans of EVE
And as far as the Winchester goes, any negative backlash for cancelling it will be far less than the potential bad press and angry parents calling for Lego boycotts and the like that undoubtedly would have happened. If the Friends line can cause a media stir, this would have 10x more the controversy.
The solution is simple. Model it like Kickstarter. To 'vote' for the model, you have to pony up the cash for it, which commits you to buying it if it hits 10,000 votes (or whatever magic number they would come up with). If it doesn't, you get your money back. That will bring 'shill'/publicity votes down to zero. It will be harder to reach 10,000 votes for sure, but only the cream of the crop models would get there. I don't know why they didn't do this in the first place.
With this model in place, the Winchester never would have even come close to 10,000 votes.
I've only recently learned of Kickstarter. I like the model, and agree it could work here as well. Good idea.
They know what the total production cost of doing a set is, so once a set is given primary approval, it could be given a monetary figure it needs to reach to go into production. Then you could either pledge the estimated price of the set at a minimum (or maybe all early adopters get a discount), or they could allow extra 'levels' like kickstarter does where you can pledge more and get more.
It doesn't really matter either way -- if a set were given primary approval and received enough support to cover production costs (or some minimum number Lego came up with), it would go into production. Everyone who made initial pledges would get their copies, and then whatever they sell over and above that after the fact is gravy.
Then there will be far fewer possible sets you'd be able to tie your money up in, they'd be more likely to succeed (after having passed one round), and you'd have a better idea of what you were actually going to get -- being able to see the more fully realized/designed model.
This will also let them be able to directly correlate numbers between the 1st and 2nd tier -- ie. people putting money where their mouth is. 10,000 votes for My Little Pony, but only 17 people willing to pay for it? Yeah - fail.
Take minecraft for example. It's core audience is obviously not 6-11 year olds, yet is unlikely to offend or contradict TLGs brand values, so it has passed. I think TLG need to clarify what they expect from the site, and potential projects (and get rid of the non-starters).
These are all super exclusive (so far) sets that won't see mass market distribution. I don't see the majority, if any, of them being made for the 'core 6-11' demographic anyway. How many 10 year olds are going to buy a Back to the Future or EVE Online set? Zero.
If it's the overall model you think is nuts, you obviously haven't seen the massive success that is Kickstarter.
Cuusoo is owned by LEGO. You want them to spin it off just so you can have "lego" sets of gory movies?
This might be the only way TLG can abandon all restrictions and go for the forbidden fruits, such as warfare based sets.
Even "Toyota" is not synonymous with "car" the way "LEGO" is with "plastic toy brick".
What then becomes the differentiator between "LEGO but not called LEGO" modern military sets and those crappy knockoff brand sets they sell at TRU, I don't even know the name. (I'm not being a snob here, I own and am happy with some of the old Megabloks military sets, but there is some other company making really terrible ones right now.) You see, in a way LEGO would be contributing to the erosion of their own brand dominance because a thing would exist with the quality of LEGO (since LEGO would make it) but not labeled LEGO, and then the consumer becomes less trained to respond to that single, iconic brand...
Not saying it couldn't happen or couldn't work, but it would take some serious brass to roll the dice like that with the jewel in the crown.
Cuusoo is an independent organisation, and is a social-media-like platform for members to come up with ideas for things they would like to see created; it's been running for around 10 years in Japan, with multiple different products having been developed in that time. It certainly isn't exclusive to Lego-based products.
They describe their business as: Lego may have partnered with Cuusoo, but it isn't true to say that 'Cuusoo is owned by Lego'.
Companies they have worked with include:
However, I do think a second brand for LEGO is unlikely...
This'll be at 10,000 within the next hour.
Or different vote thresholds for models extending ranges already available. For example there's a Leaning Tower of Pisa fits in the Architecture line. Does this really need 10,000 votes for it to be considered? Or is 10,000 votes in this case just used as a mechanism to stop Architecture models having to be considered too often?