Rumours about Star Wars UCS models

legomatt

mathew said:

These are the people I don't get. Due to the inherent quality of Lego it's almost impossible to achieve a replica of the original... gaps between Technic beams... rigid slopes... Then there's the studs. Their money and time would be better invested in scale modeling. In the end we have to accept that Lego is Lego.

Well, if you don't like studs... ;o)

I'm not sure how, but it sounds like you've somehow missed a huge aspect of Lego being used as a creative/artistic medium.
It isn't just about playsets and minifigs. To many people, Lego isn't about those at all. For many the whole point of using Lego is to challenge those perceptions that "Lego is just Lego", but instead to create those very illusions and fine details which many would believe impossible, that's why they choose Lego.

In case you have somehow missed it. It all comes down to the 'scale' the parts are used at, and the ingenuity of the person using the various elements at those different scales. They can achieve completely different effects and illusions, even though it's the same exact pieces. Scale a design away from a playset (which is what the Lego-as-an-artform-display crowd would've preferred I suspect), then the achievable level of detail is far greater than is possible when scaled toward the playset fan. Scaled to a play set, the challenge and techniques change, and the 'blockiness' you speak of becomes more apparent.
Just google for lego artworks, or check brothersbrick to see what people can do when building at a non-fig/non-playset scale.

Like I say, it seems this set is straddling two building styles, and struggling to completely convince either, but at the same time we all appreciate what is there, though somewhat rue the price from our chosen perspective. The playset crowd would like more features (or a reduced price), whilst the display crowd would prefer a more detailed rendering (or reduced price).

That's what I'm seeing from the posts, anyway. You seem to be in the same camp as myself (play-set crowd wishing for a reduced price).

cavegod

Well I like it it may not be true ucs but they got most of the angles correct it looks nice too. It also doesnt take up a whole shelf and weigh 10+kg!

Legoboy

^ You like it now? You've changed your mind?

monkeyhanger

Cavegod - you must have some pretty heavy duty shelves in your place for your pieces.

I really do think that the AT-AT is screaming out for some proper UCS action, maybe not quite at the same detail and pricepoint that yours would command, but it could become the next flagship SW model. For many people it is as iconic as the ISD and the main vehicular star in their favourite battle.

cavegod

^^ unfortunately yes dam that ucs seal

streeker

there you go. If it's good enough for cavegod, it's more than good enough for me.

legomatt

Oh yes, I agree. The set is totally good enough for me too, (the video probably doesn't showcase it to it's best) and I'm sure there's some very clever engineering at work, and i'd love to build it.
My bank balance on the other hand is a different matter, and I have to listen to it, for it knows how to make me feel paaaaaaaaaain.
;oP

Legoboy

streeker said:

there you go. If it's good enough for cavegod, it's more than good enough for me.

But only because it has a UCS seal. ;-)

cavegod

Yeah i can also display it next to a proper ucs sandcrawler!

emilewski

^ You can put a caption below: "Parent and child sandcrawler at play"

Basta

I'm defenatly Display over Play, but I don't get Lego because of it's super high detail, the build is where most of the fun is for me. Part of it is probably the nostalgia from building Lego in my childhood as well. Lego just rocks!

rancorbait

Basta said:

I'm defenatly Display over Play, but I don't get Lego because of it's super high detail, the build is where most of the fun is for me. Part of it is probably the nostalgia from building Lego in my childhood as well. Lego just rocks!

You got it. I have never yet been able to keep a set sealed!

sschmotz

It's ironic how many times I've read people want a new UCS Falcon or large sized UCS AT-AT, but on the other hand how I've read this new Sandcrawler is too expensive or many can't afford it. UCS to me means it comes with an expensive price tag, whether or not it's a play set or comes with a plaque..

CaptAPJT

Basta said:

I'm defenatly Display over Play, but I don't get Lego because of it's super high detail, the build is where most of the fun is for me. Part of it is probably the nostalgia from building Lego in my childhood as well. Lego just rocks!

You'd also struggle to play with many of the UCS sets, the SSD has a bridge hidden beneath the details, but you can hardly swoosh it around unless your recreating the famous destruction that the guys from Tested did. IS is another example, the vertical stabiliser is especially prone to wobble and breakages from my experience. I think it's the classic case of doing both jobs averagely instead of excelling at one. TLG obviously made a compromise by trying to appeal to those who want to play as well as those who want to display. Time will ultimately show whether this will pay off. Like I said earlier I'm hesitant at the advertised price, I think I might be a buyer at around €250, but if a nice display Slave 1 comes out before it hits that price it's going to be a simple decision.

Shib

its a difficult balance for them, obviously the primary goal for them has to be to make money from these things. The marketing people will say the best way to do that it to appeal to as many markets as possible. The truth is they could put higher price per piece and bigger mark ups on UCS models that are designed specifically for the display market with the UCS sticker. Downside is they'd have to spend more on design to get the detailing to get people to part with their cash for it. I thought from the pic that the sand crawler was massively overpriced, but having seen the video of it in action I'm more inclined to say its a bit overpriced but not massively so. I do think they'd be wise to put USC to meaning more than just expensive price tag, I think they'd be better off using USC to be the higher detailing, more model based than play based and have a new label of something like Premium Play set for the big sets with playability and stability being the key factor.

That said, I'm sure Lego have done their market research and no doubt they'll still make enough money off of this to justify it with a mix of people who have to have it on day one and some that hold off for a price drop.

TheLoneTensor

Shib said:

That said, I'm sure Lego have done their market research and no doubt they'll still make enough money off of this to justify it with a mix of people who have to have it on day one and some that hold off for a price drop.

On what are you basing this assumption? Rumor is that the X-Wing UCS isn't selling nearly as much as it should, then there's the UCS B-Wing. I think you're giving Lego's market research department a little too much credit.

Legoboy

cavegod said:

Yeah i can also display it next to a proper ucs sandcrawler!

In the absence of an official plaque, you can put your own together, "How to do it / How not to do it."

Shib

TheLoneTensor said:

On what are you basing this assumption? Rumor is that the X-Wing UCS isn't selling nearly as much as it should, then there's the UCS B-Wing. I think you're giving Lego's market research department a little too much credit.

on the assumption that the company want to stay afloat, I haven't looked at previous sales figures but does anyone here know how many of each set they have to sell to justify releasing it? the sales of the x-wing might not have done as well as expected and maybe thats why this is much more of a playlet...if that is the case then surely theres market research there that says they are more likely to sell bigger ticket items with more playability.
OK, I might not have perfectly worded my last comment but I think it's fair to say that Lego do their research before putting a set out, it might not give them the formula for the perfect release as all market research has its flaws but they are still making money so they must be doing something right.

mathew

legomatt said:

Well, if you don't like studs... ;o)

I'm not sure how, but it sounds like you've somehow missed a huge aspect of Lego being used as a creative/artistic medium.

No you misunderstood my post.

Drmnez

Didn't Lego state on the UCS poster they put out that 10144 was a UCS?

RJAS1972

TheLoneTensor said:

Shib said:

That said, I'm sure Lego have done their market research and no doubt they'll still make enough money off of this to justify it with a mix of people who have to have it on day one and some that hold off for a price drop.

On what are you basing this assumption? Rumor is that the X-Wing UCS isn't selling nearly as much as it should, then there's the UCS B-Wing. I think you're giving Lego's market research department a little too much credit.

How much more would they sell if:
a) Had UCS written in the box?
b) Had minifigs?
c) Had both?

TLG is not cheating us on this set. It's as much UCS as Death Star and Ewok Village. A large piece count/size play set that can be played and/or displayed. I would even say it's as much UCS as Tower of Orthanc! Not as much as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner...
For me the problem with UCS is that it is too much conected with Star Wars and that results on the, almost, need for the two iconic releases of the year to be identified as that.
Is the set good, being UCS or not? Yes.
Could it be better? Yes, but wich set is perfect?
Is it overpriced? Well, it seems to be the general opinion...
Could this mean that the rumoured Millenium Falcon UCS will be a large playset? If it is at least do us all a favour and include on the set:
- 2 x 4502460: Lattice 3X28M Ø3.2
- 60 x 4226285: Mini Antenna Grey/Grey
- 1 x 4505402: Disc Ø80 "No. 3"
- ...

Shib

^ Definitely agree, UCS has been a bit unclearly defined and I think TLG have been showing that they are taking steps to amend that now.

CCC

RJAS1972 said:

Could it be better? Yes, but wich set is perfect?

#5000022 is Perfect.

RJAS1972

CCC said:

#5000022 is Perfect.

No. Chuck Norris minifigure, when released, will be perfect!

Shib

CCC said:

#5000022 is Perfect.

Needs side printing on the legs :-P

monkey_roo

^ this is an interesting look at the SW UCM. I would love to see a set by set, year on year breakdown of sales figures. Of course without the outlay costs from Lego and the break even / profit points it is still incomplete but it would make for interesting viewing.

My guess and it is just a guess, is that display only models, SW or otherwise simply don't perform as well as those with a higher play value (architecture set being the exception maybe?).

On the SW front if we take the last few UCM/Large play sets then I think it is those that offer play values that sell better.

2007 - UC Flacon, 5195 pieces, £340, 5 mini figs - I have no idea how well it sold at the time but people do seem to think it sat on shelves and has only really gained cult status since going EOL

2008 - Death Star, 3803 pieces, £275, 24 mini figs - BIG SELLER

2009 - Republic Dropship, 1758 pieces, £180, 8 mini figs - no idea, did this sell well?

2009 - Tantive IV, 1408 pieces, £122, 5 mini figs - I don't believe this was a big hit, I recall it being quite discounted before EOL

2010 - Imerial Shuttle, 2503 pieces, £245, 5 mini figs - i don't believe this was a big hit in terms of sales

2010 - Obi-Wan Shuttle, 676 pieces, £94, 0 mini figs - I believe this could be described as a flop?

2011 - SSD, 3152 pieces, £350, 5 mini figs - is this set a bit of a flop in the sales side?

2012 - R2-D2, 2127 pieces, £150, 1 mini fig - I actually believe this is a good seller, but it is also a very unique set

2012 - B-Wing, 1487 pieces, £170, 0 mini figs - total flop

2013 - Ewok Village, 1990 pieces, £199, 17 mini figs - Big seller (I believe)

2013 - Red 5, 1559 pieces, £170, 1 mini fig - maybe a slow seller but not a massive success if all is to be believed

From this I draw two conclusions:

1 - sets that don't have a high play factor and good selection of figures don't tend to sell all that well (R2 aside)

2 - that £250 for a 3296 piece set with 12 figures is not a bad price stacked against the other sets in its class, for example it does have 100 more pieces and 7 more figures than SSD and is £100 less? It has 1000+ more pieces that Ewok village and is only £50 more (5 less figures though)

I would say this is priced right for what you get and being 'playable' will make it more 'sellable'.

My second guess is that going forward lego will want to stay closer to the playset than the display model unless (like with the R2) there are unique circumstances or such strong demand. Which means what sort of Slave 1 set we get will be interesting?

rancorbait

RJAS1972 said:

CCC said:

#5000022 is Perfect.

No. Chuck Norris minifigure, when released, will be perfect!

Lol. The chuck Norris minifig didn't get molded, the mold got chuck Norrised :o)

legomatt

sschmotz said:

It's ironic how many times I've read people want a new UCS Falcon or large sized UCS AT-AT, but on the other hand how I've read this new Sandcrawler is too expensive or many can't afford it.

Hmm... different people? Those hoping for a UCS MF & UCS AT-AT can afford/will likely buy. Whereas those who can't afford the Sandcrawler probably aren't part of the crowd asking for those UCS models.
Or if they are, then it could be a further indication that the sandcrawler itself doesn't represent true value to them as a UCS (whatever ucs means to that instance)... or this model is simply too expensive for what it represents to everyone, regardless of tag.

I suppose people might save for an iconic £350 MF and happily pass on a £250 SdCwlr.

sschmotz said:

UCS to me means it comes with an expensive price tag, whether or not it's a play set or comes with a plaque.

Yes, true. But it is only because UCS sets justify the price by representing the (at the time) pinnacle of design excellence and/or model size.

It does appear some people are questioning whether the by-extension cost association the UCS logo comes with has been somewhat cynically applied here for the cost-association alone, and when evaluating the model and price together, are taking issue with the validity of the appellation i.e. which came first? Was the set really so fantastic it achieved iconic 'UCS'-like status amongst all TLG staff who beheld its glory, or did TLG just want an easy excuse to push the price and decide one simple solution was slap a 'UCS' on the box?

There is a danger for TLG that fans now evaluate this set under extra 'pinnacle of design excellence' scrutiny, find it lacking in their preferred hobby aspect, and consequently give rise to the impression that far from representing excellence, this bit of cheap print on a box just come to represent TLG's 'award of expense'.

--

Of course, I'm sure the set does justify the price somehow, it's just not helped by falling between two aspects of the hobby. The result is it rests in an awkward/difficult spot to appraise for each camp's collection. If money were no object, it's an easy buy for us all. But when money is a factor, it appears to be dangerously close to being passed by a lot of people, each for a different reason.

We're probably reading too much into it, and lego have simply misjudged the price (seems to be the consensus).

RJAS1972

monkey_roo said:

Which means what sort of Slave 1 set we get will be interesting?

I bet Slave I will be a display set. If you look at the more playable sets we have:
- Death Star: Not swoshable
- R2-D2: Well... You could swosh it a little bit but it wasn't meant to.
- Ewok Village: Trees don't fly...
- Sandcrawler: It crawls... in the sand.

I don't think Slave I is bulky enough to have a playset treatment like DS or Sandcrawler.

cavegod

Slave-1 will be epic rest assured!

Bumblepants

cavegod said:

Slave-1 will be epic rest assured!

Anything you can divulge as far as price point or size? The stellar packaging for the Sandcrawler has me in a fit to see what the Slave 1 will look like.

cavegod

no idea

Drmnez

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting is that Lego is a toy. It is designed mainly for children (ages... Whatever is on the box). Playsets sell way more than the UCS sets with a "plaque" that sit around for display. Most parents can't justify spending money like that on a toy display piece and the only adults that really want ones are the die-hard collectors.
Lego stands to make more money one playsets.

LegoFanTexas

sschmotz said:

It's ironic how many times I've read people want a new UCS Falcon or large sized UCS AT-AT, but on the other hand how I've read this new Sandcrawler is too expensive or many can't afford it. UCS to me means it comes with an expensive price tag, whether or not it's a play set or comes with a plaque..

That is because this mode isn't really very ultimate.... In my view...

I would pay $600 or more for a proper Falcon or AT-AT done up right in a heartbeat.

The Sandcrawler featured on Cuusoo? I'd consider it at $1,000, it was epic. This one? Meh... Doesn't interest me.

LegoFanTexas

Drmnez said:

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting is that Lego is a toy. It is designed mainly for children (ages... Whatever is on the box). Playsets sell way more than the UCS sets with a "plaque" that sit around for display. Most parents can't justify spending money like that on a toy display piece and the only adults that really want ones are the die-hard collectors.
Lego stands to make more money one playsets.

Quite true... I wonder if there is a market for a limited run of 10,000 copies of the Cuusoo UCS Sandcrawler numbered editions for $1,000 each. I'd buy one.

RJAS1972

^Although I don't disagree with you, we also have to think that lego is also a puzzle. I don't have a table to build a 6.000 piece puzzle, but I have in a small table half a dozen sets totalizing more than 10.000 pieces waiting for a display stand.
And the older you get the bigger puzzle you want.

rancorbait

RJAS1972 said:

And the older you get the bigger puzzle you want.

True! I remember when I got #4500 back in 2004 I saw #4483 on the back of the instructions and I thought to myself "Wow that is HUGE!" Look, it doesn't seem that big anymore lol.

hoyatables

LEGO playsets in the last 5 years:
Death Star
Endor Bunker
Hoth / Echo Base
Jabba's Palace
Ewok Village
Mos Eisley
Sandcrawler

There's really only two sets left . . . ! C'mon Cloud City and Dagobah in 2015!! Give TESB some love.

Shib

Unless they do stuff from prequel trilogy next, just to upset you :-P

CaptAPJT

Drmnez said:

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting is that Lego is a toy. It is designed mainly for children (ages... Whatever is on the box). Playsets sell way more than the UCS sets with a "plaque" that sit around for display. Most parents can't justify spending money like that on a toy display piece and the only adults that really want ones are the die-hard collectors.
Lego stands to make more money one playsets.

Age on the box... At what age do Children become AFOLs? Of the Lego Star Wars sets presently on sale the recommended ages are.

SSD 16+
DS 14+
R2 16+
Ewok Village 12+
Red Five 16+

The Sandcrawler rolls in at a 14+ If we're to believe all the stuff regarding lego marketing then why try and sell a playset to teens/young adults? How many parents are going to be spending that sum of money on Lego for their children? it's not an insignificant amount! If I had children who wanted a lot of brown lego in a Star Wars theme (and it was of no interest to me) I'd buy them a sail barge!

So to re-iterate, if it's a children's toy, make it appealing to the parents who might be buying it in terms of price. If it's for Adults, and clearly those aimed at 16+ are, then make it something an Adult would want to have in their collection. What TLG have done is made something mostly acceptable to everyone, I appreciate some love it others hate it, but most, like me, are waiting for a sale.

y2josh

^^I don't know if this has carried over to LEGO sets, but Disney has mandated that Hasbro only produce OT and Rebels figures until the sequel trilogy comes out.

Drmnez said:

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting is that Lego is a toy. It is designed mainly for children (ages... Whatever is on the box). Playsets sell way more than the UCS sets with a "plaque" that sit around for display.

This is another reason I point to the Sandcrawler as an odd choice. I'm having a hard time imaging the kid version of me being excited about this set next to the Death Star or Ewok Village. The iconic status of the scene isn't going to sell this to kids, and a big box on treads isn't the most exciting thing available.

So if I'm a kid and my parents are going to spend $300 on LEGO... I can get this relatively boring set... or I can get five or six SW ships... or, jumping themes, I can get ALL of the new Super Hero sets. I may be wildly misjudging the average child's interest, of course, but I think that's how it would have gone for me.

TheLoneTensor

Drmnez said:

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting is that Lego is a toy. It is designed mainly for children (ages... Whatever is on the box).

Don't lump me into that "everyone" generalization you just tossed out. I didn't forget it, and I challenge it. Call me "the man upstairs," but the age is a suggestion based on the marketed use of the item. I consider Lego to be a toy and I consider it to be one of many creative mediums that people of any age can choose to use in exhibiting their artistic and/or technical talents and abilities.

prevere

y2josh said:

^^I don't know if this has carried over to LEGO sets, but Disney has mandated that Hasbro only produce OT and Rebels figures until the sequel trilogy comes out.

Drmnez said:

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting is that Lego is a toy. It is designed mainly for children (ages... Whatever is on the box). Playsets sell way more than the UCS sets with a "plaque" that sit around for display.

This is another reason I point to the Sandcrawler as an odd choice. I'm having a hard time imaging the kid version of me being excited about this set next to the Death Star or Ewok Village. The iconic status of the scene isn't going to sell this to kids, and a big box on treads isn't the most exciting thing available.

So if I'm a kid and my parents are going to spend $300 on LEGO... I can get this relatively boring set... or I can get five or six SW ships... or, jumping themes, I can get ALL of the new Super Hero sets. I may be wildly misjudging the average child's interest, of course, but I think that's how it would have gone for me.

I think the initial WOW factor of the Sandcrawler is really intriguing to some kids. They are happy to build it and let it absorb dust for a decade. It's really more about which parents care enough to be involved in the child's imaginative play, to know WHAT they will play with.

Drmnez

Age is a suggestion. It pertains to the age Lego feels is appropriate for the build difficulty. Obviously there is give n take with that.

Generalizing is what marketing is about. Out of all the people who buy Lego, if only a 3,000 really really want Lego to make a set that is all minifigures and clear and chrome pieces, if the general consumer doesn't like something like that its not going to happen.

We are all kids at heart that's why we love Lego. It never hurts to wish for things, but we need to understand that while the way UCS sets use to be is what we may like now the marketing may show that this playset type direction is the way to go. Personally I do not see an issue with it. The MOC community is fantastic. If I really want a plaque I can always ask/buy one from someone that wants to make one.

I am not trying to start a fuss, I am just sharing my POV.

legomatt

RJAS1972 said:

Death Star: Not swooshable

You can give it a swoosh... and then watch as it slips from your hands and explode across the floor.

It's a play feature!
Recreate the finalé, by attempting a deadly swoosh against the hidden rebel base... just remember to say 'Stand By... Staaaaand By' as you lift it up.

monkeyhanger

I'm surprised TLG hasn't milked the "Limited edition" boxed numbers angle (a la #41999). Take this set at £250/$300 and everyone is saying "way overpriced", then the box art comes along and all of a sudden, it has been defined as a UCS and it goes to "a little overpriced" and people are saying "i'll buy it, but i'll wait for a discount".

Make it a limited edition run with 20,000 units and it'll be OOS in a few days, make it a 50,000 run and it might be OOS in a month (although most buyers will be resellers).

Would they ever do that with a SW set? Would Disney let them?

Shib

Assuming TLG showed them it was worthwhile I don't see why not, I don't know if they still do but in the past Disney have done limited edition stuff mainly for sale through Disney stores.

CCC

They could always stick an extra exclusive figure in, do a 50,000 limited edition run for $100 more and sell out in a month. Then do a regular edition without the exclusive figure for $100 cheaper and sell another 500,000.

mressin

For a big brown box, I think the model looks pretty good. ;) From the pictures, it seems to be an absolutely plausible playset to me. There seem to be a few nice details, e.g. C3PO on the screen in the cockpit area. The large interior, without a doubt with many nooks and crannies, the many openings and the cranes etc. should make for a fun time to play with. If you're still a kid.
From the images, I see a few interesting building techniques as well, e.g. the staggered sideplates of the cockpit area, apparently held in place by the new small ball-and-joint elements. That also is the one main drawback I can identify: eventually, (some) kids will want to take this apart and build something else with it. (I always did.) Now this sandcrawler, unlike its previous incarnation, seems to be mostly build from plates and technic elements. I suspect it will be quite challenging to build anything else out of it.

monkeyhanger

CCC said:

They could always stick an extra exclusive figure in, do a 50,000 limited edition run for $100 more and sell out in a month. Then do a regular edition without the exclusive figure for $100 cheaper and sell another 500,000.

I think that would be a slippery slope for us consumers. Would you feel cheated by TLG if they did that? I would. Most of us feel we are already paying enough for our Lego, and this set feels slightly overpriced to begin with. If you choose to pay way over RRP for a set in the aftermarket because you missed it then fair enough, you spend what you are willing to just to get it.

I could put up with the limited edition tag to be used as a tool for TLG to sell an exclusive quickly, but not for upping the price and wringing out my wallet even more than they already do. I'd also hope they'd do it responsibly - 1 purchase per VIP account.