[HN Gopher] How Lego builds a new Lego set
___________________________________________________________________
How Lego builds a new Lego set
Author : sohkamyung
Score : 315 points
Date : 2023-12-15 12:25 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| tapland wrote:
| Fun, but I really wish I could keep reading without having to
| scroll through unknown amounts of pictures horizontally.
| cezart wrote:
| especially because on a Mac scrolling horizontally coincides
| with the back/fwd gestures. I never even realised this until
| this article...
| ensocode wrote:
| Thanks. Came here to comment exactly this. Not very UX
| interested but are there more people who are annoyed by this
| horizontal scrolling image galleries? Same with the movie
| streaming websites... For me it seems to be counter intuitive
| to go horizontally while navigating vertically.
| silverwind wrote:
| Rule #1 of web development: Don't mess with scroll.
| eagleusr wrote:
| Product pages that require 50 revolutions of the mouse wheel
| to reach the spec sheet due to some embedded animation is the
| most frustrating web experience.
| ryanjshaw wrote:
| The scrolling makes me feel uneasy; in my head the columns are
| all offset by the scroll amount and I'm reading some weird zig-
| zag layout.
| nicklecompte wrote:
| News organizations across the board have gotten into this
| bizarre arms race with "interactive" multimedia... and I
| genuinely have no idea why they think readers want it! The
| Verge in particular always has dozens of comments complaining
| about how distracting and unreadable some of their UI choices
| are.
|
| I suspect part of the answer is similar to Facebook's "pivot to
| video" - some unscrupulous company has gaslit news executives
| into thinking that "interactive content" is the future of
| journalism, and are selling frameworks / consulting services /
| etc. (Though part of the problem with The Verge is Nilay Patel
| himself. Nilay seems like a good egg, but he has been obstinate
| and arrogant about The Verge's UI changes. Can't argue with
| taste...)
| boesboes wrote:
| Ah, there was more to the article? I gave up after a few
| photo's..
| crazygringo wrote:
| Seriously. I probably in the HN minority in that I don't mind
| when vertical scroll results in animations that break up the
| text (e.g. Apple product pages or fancy NYT articles)...
|
| ...but when the animations turn into _horizontal_ scrolling
| while I 'm moving my fingers vertically on my trackpad, I
| _hate_ it. It breaks my brain and makes me angry at the
| designer.
| bluetomcat wrote:
| How Lego went from designing playthemes for creative play and
| building in adventurous imaginary worlds, to replicating real-
| world 1:1 objects like cameras, typewriters and vintage game
| consoles as collectible plastic pieces sitting on the shelves of
| bored adults...
| jacquesm wrote:
| Fortunately they also still sell the creative play and building
| blocks and not all kids built canned sets.
|
| The problem is that Lego somehow had to survive and they had
| some pretty tough times, this was their solution. On the one
| hand I'm disappointed, just like you. On the other I see my
| kids make the most fantastic stuff with regular bricks so I'll
| forgive them.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| Bionicle/Hero Factory was by far the best they had for
| creative play. They cancelled it many moons ago, and now we
| have to buy 'em used for our kids.
|
| On the whole it's a disappointing downward trajectory.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Funny, you couldn't pay my kids to play with those! But
| they never seem to have enough 2x4s...
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| Emphasis on "creative". Bionicle was was their product
| line that was simple enough for a child to have a
| complete mental model of it, and at the same time complex
| enough that they could build their own "real" adult sets,
| something that isn't obviously a throwaway pile of
| bricks.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| > Bionicle/Hero Factory was by far the best they had for
| creative play.
|
| I disagree with this premise. Play comes in countless
| forms, and I think this statement places roleplay above
| other forms of youthful creativity. For some kids, the
| roleplay of Lego action figures was a huge draw. Other kids
| play in different ways.
|
| Some kids (like me) enjoyed Bionicle at first, but got
| bored of action figures by age ~8. Bionicle's lack of
| compatibility with most other Lego products meant that I
| was left with a bunch of parts I never really played with
| much (except for the ripcord disk-launcher things. I still
| get a kick out of those!) For me, the next chapter was
| Technic, because I liked making things that move. Fast
| forward a bit, and Technic led to Mindstorms, Mindstorms
| led to FIRST Robotics and Arduino, and now I'm a firmware
| engineer.
|
| Does Technic have less creative value than Bionicle? I
| think that's an impossible question to answer. It depends
| on the kid. Any given object has as much creative power as
| a child's mind projects into it.
|
| > On the whole it's a disappointing downward trajectory.
|
| Yes and no.
|
| On one hand, today's Lego action figures are pathetic
| compared to the Bionicle/Hero Factory heyday. It's also
| easy to mock cheap, commercialized dust collectors like the
| Brickheadz series. Part of me is sad to see Mindstorms
| dying off, but I also recognize that, even at its peak
| (NXT), it was totally inaccessible to most kids.
|
| On the other hand, some things have gotten _a lot_ better
| than they were 20 years ago. Lego 's "Friends" theme is by
| far the best girl-targeted product line they've ever made.
| Belleville was the "girl" product line of my youth, and it
| was was cynical, condescending trash that was so
| thematically paper-thin that even my 6-year-old little
| sister saw straight through it.
| madarcho wrote:
| Almost identical pathway here, except with some Spybotics
| thrown in around the same time as Bionicle. I sometimes
| wish Mindstorms had that level of world building...
| seb1204 wrote:
| My kids when 7 or older played more creative with Dublplo
| blocks than their Lego sets.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Duplo is interesting, it allows kids to quickly build
| pretty massive stuff if they have enough of it. But mine
| were done with it relatively fast and we ended up donating
| it to other people.
| bombcar wrote:
| Primo and Quattro are also interesting but much more
| rare.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Modulex, that's rare!!
|
| If you find some keep it.
| dsego wrote:
| We have a large box of duplos but my three-year-old isn't
| interested at all, maybe showed some interest a while
| ago, but mostly to build the tallest tower. Now it's time
| for the real legos, but I'm not sure if we'll even get
| any if she won't play with them.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| My 2 year old daughter hasn't really shown any interest
| either.
|
| It's weird, as a kid I wasn't really into building stuff.
| Lego, wood blocks, etc. The only exception was "forts" in
| my woods. I could play with my Power Rangers toys for
| hours.
|
| As an adult, though, I'm into it.
| ochrist wrote:
| Duplo is also from Lego. It's basically just larger blocks:
| https://www.lego.com/da-dk/themes/duplo
| Tomte wrote:
| And it's compatible (2:1). So if you want to fill
| something large in a color or do some vast ice landscape,
| just get Duplo blocks and build away.
| paradox460 wrote:
| There's also quattro, which is 2x duplo, and compatible
| Cerpicio wrote:
| Side note, have you seen Magna-Tiles? My 4yo son loves
| them. They have magnets along the edges so you can easily
| stick pieces together and build structures. They are bigger
| than regular LEGOs, more along the lines of Duplo. And they
| can be pricey, but they are tons of fun for little ones!
| Especially when their favorite thing is to knock down
| whatever you build.
| manojlds wrote:
| Odd comment in the context of the thread since Duplo is
| also LEGO
| AlanYx wrote:
| Even as an adult, Duplo is underrated. It's a lot of fun to
| noodle around with creating things in Duplo because there
| are more constraints and you can build a rough simulacrum
| of something in only a few minutes.
| patwolf wrote:
| Duplo seems much more in the spirit of Lego sets from the
| '80s. Builds used fewer, but larger pieces. I enjoyed
| playing with the older sets because you could tear them
| apart and put them back together much more easily.
|
| Newer sets look nice, but IMO are much less fun to play
| with. My kids still like building Lego sets, but our Duplos
| get played with more often.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Sadly what I see is Lego producing sets, even for kids, which
| consists of an endless amount of tiny bricks which is
| impossible to build stuff with quickly. It's absolutely
| wonderful when you want to build highly detailed
| reproductions.
|
| What you can do, as you say, is to go get sets/buckets of
| classic bricks and use those, but the sets are getting
| annoying. As a kid I have pretty large number of various Lego
| sets and I mostly mixed and matched to build rough castles,
| space stations, house whatever, but you can do that with
| modern sets, to many tiny tiny bricks and very few blocks
| suitable for a five year old who just wants to build a house.
|
| I get that Lego would have gone out of business if they had
| continued to produce the type of sets I played with in the
| 1980s, but it's barely a children's toy any more. Don't get
| me wrong, it's great that they can make things that brings
| joy to adults but I just feel that they've done it at the
| cost of the youngest children.
|
| Also, the display pieces are often terribly unstable and a
| pain to keep clean. The Lego flowers are basically junk and
| you shouldn't buy them. They aren't nearly stable enough to
| have on display and they will certainly break when you try to
| clean them.
| Tomte wrote:
| You're looking for the Minecraft sets. If you don't
| especially like Minecraft, throw away the one or two
| figures and enjoy the cool 2 by 4 bricks, just as they were
| in your childhood.
|
| Bonus: every detail is printed, no stickers anywhere.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The best way to buy Lego is just to buy bulk dumps from
| families that stopped playing with them. It's going to be
| piles of unsorted bricks of all kinds and that in itself is
| a stimulus for creativity.
|
| Just go on ebay or the local equivalent and search for
| 'pounds lego' or 'kilo lego' and you should be all set.
| threetonesun wrote:
| You can think of the advanced ones as more like puzzles you
| can display once you're done. Kids still like them. Even
| the finicky themed ones in our house get built then torn
| down to be rebuilt into fantastical mashups from my kid's
| imagination.
|
| I think a lot of adults have overly fond memories of using
| the basic blocks to build relatively basic things. Also
| kids today can (and do) that in Minecraft now.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| > On the one hand I'm disappointed, just like you
|
| What exactly is the disappointment? That they also target
| adults?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Fortunately they also still sell the creative play and
| building blocks and not all kids built canned sets.
|
| Also, after being build as canned sets, the canned sets can
| become more distinct parts for creative building.
|
| At least, that's what happens with my kids.
| loceng wrote:
| Entertained all the way to a totalitarian state.
| solids wrote:
| Absolutely agree... I think in early 2000 they found a nice
| sweet spot where you bought a set to build a particular object,
| but all of them featured a fairly common set of pieces. So
| after a while of having it in the shelve it could be
| repurposed.
| bena wrote:
| This is from the Ideas line where they take fan submissions and
| turn them into sets. Complain about what you perceive to be a
| change in direction, but unless you were buying older sets, you
| are part of the reason for that change
| gyomu wrote:
| Well yeah, you gotta grow the business, as any good visitor of
| this site knows. You can only sell so many $30 buckets of
| loosely assorted pieces intended for children.
|
| There's much more money to be made in $200 sets with the
| popular IP of the day or $500 collector sets for adults.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Well yeah, you gotta grow the business, as any good visitor
| of this site knows
|
| Well. You have to exist, which means you compete, which might
| mean you grow.
| aqsalose wrote:
| >Well. You have to exist, which means you compete, which
| might mean you grow.
|
| Why _growth_? At some point you would eventually hit
| perfect saturation anyway, the steady state where everyone
| already is buying your product to the extent anyone can buy
| it. I get that losing business is bad, and it 's better to
| "overcorrect" to growth, but as long as you compete enough
| to keep approximately same market share against other
| competitors, selling inflation adjusted $30 buckets of
| bricks to each generation of kids with profit sounds like
| perfectly good business. Owner of the business would
| receive steady income selling the inflation adjusted $30
| buckets.
|
| I'd imagine you'd hit problems when the buckets of bricks
| you are selling are ~eternal and number of kids is no
| longer growing, so nobody needs new ones.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| As long as the population is growing, if your business
| isn't you're effectively shrinking.
|
| Plus image of Megablocks did Harry Potter, Star Wars,
| etc. They'd overtake Lego in a minute.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| You'd have to grow because there are competitors that
| would do your thing and the new thing, so customers would
| go to them instead.
| em500 wrote:
| The classic brick buckets are still widely available, right
| next to all the themed sets and the replica sets (which are
| explicitly marketed to adults). Not sure what the complaint is
| here, that the general public don't share your taste?
| manojlds wrote:
| Nah it's just the usual cynical HN comment.
| bluetomcat wrote:
| Even the assortment of pieces in the Classic 1000+ piece
| buckets doesn't allow you to build interesting custom
| creations resembling buildings or vehicles. Instead of a
| large number of doors, windows, roof elements, wheels and
| sidewall elements, you get mostly purple, orange, pink, cyan
| and bright yellow 4x2s and 2x2s, and a large number of tiny
| specific pieces.
|
| The themed playsets aimed at 5+ children are leaning towards
| detailed modeling with many tiny 1x1 pieces.
|
| The one-off nostalgia-driven sets like the Lion King's
| Castle, the remake of Eldorado Fortress and the Galaxy
| Explorer are intentionally released as one-off sets with a
| time distance in the release date, and not as a part of a
| regular play theme.
| AlanYx wrote:
| There are some good, versatile Classic buckets. The
| recently announced Creative Vehicles (11036) comes with
| instructions for 8 vehicles and instructions for another 10
| vehicles will be available on the website. It'll be
| fantastic for kids who love building different types of
| cars, buses, etc.
| wharvle wrote:
| Every now and then I see a set that looks like it's
| actually for kids to play with. More exposed nubs, spaces
| big enough for kid fingers to fit into (so many feature
| only _tiny_ spaces now, even for a kid!) and builds that
| don't look so fiddly that they'd be impossible to repair
| after rough play or accidental damage without starting
| over.
|
| But yeah, even like 90% of the ones that appear to be
| marketed to kids suck for kids to play with, now. They look
| nice on the box, and on a shelf, though, and I guess that's
| what shifts units.
| watwut wrote:
| The age recommendations on lego kits are pretty accurate
| in my experience. As in, kids in that age range can
| handle the kid without trouble and it suits their
| interests.
|
| For example, they really like those tiny little inside
| thingies.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Even the assortment of pieces in the Classic 1000+ piece
| buckets doesn't allow you to build interesting custom
| creations resembling buildings
|
| One of the more interesting experimentations was Lego
| Architecture Studio.
|
| All white (well, some translucent for glass/windows), 1200+
| pieces, no instructions, but a book discussing some general
| architecture and building principles particularly with
| respect to Lego:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Architecture-Studio-Building-
| Blo...
|
| One of my favorite sets, though architecture in general is
| a particularly interest/hobby of mine.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I share part of his sentiment, there was a different culture
| with lego before. Now, afaik, LEGO cannot make enough money
| this way so they pivot into marketable sets with higher
| profits or sales figures. But this still causes a brand
| perception shift.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| The patents for their core IP expired. You can legally sell
| generic compatible lego blocks now. So to maintain
| mindshare they have to do licensed movie tie-ins, their own
| movies and other such stuff.
|
| I get why but it feels less timeless than it used to,
| perhaps with less emphasis on creativity-led play. But what
| do I know - I'm a grownup.
| wharvle wrote:
| In the age of Megabloks, Lego still had the moat of their
| pieces _actually being fit for purpose_. Megabloks were
| ass, and even a kid could instantly tell.
|
| And their directions were always a ton better, for sets--
| though they used to be more like spot-the-difference
| puzzles than they are now, which I credit with my burying
| the needle on a spatial reasoning test in high school, so
| I'm kinda sad they lost that perhaps-accidental
| pedagogical value in the shift to the you-can-follow-
| them-in-your-sleep, modern style of directions.
|
| But maybe the knockoff competitors aren't as obviously-
| shit as they were in the earlier days?
| andruby wrote:
| The knock-offs I've handled recently are still terrible.
| They don't fit well. No satisfying click. The colors feel
| off..
|
| I wanted to like the cheaper brands but none of them have
| the same Lego engineering quality. We dusted off some of
| my old lego and the bricks still fit perfectly with the
| new bricks 30+ years later!
| amatix wrote:
| Even today the LEGO-compatible knock-offs are complete
| junk, my kids occasionally end up picking up a loose bag
| for PS1 from the local charity shop. Pieces don't stick
| together properly (with each other, let alone LEGO
| pieces); legs, arms, and hands come off the minifigs;
| etc. You can instantly tell -- even ignoring the assault
| rifles that would never make it in a LEGO box.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I'm often stumped by the high level engineering that went
| into these "toys".
| wander_homer wrote:
| Nowadays there are several "knock-offs" on the market
| with higher quality and at a cheaper price.
| agumonkey wrote:
| yeah that's what i meant, we're aware of their struggle,
| but without shooting them, it also feel different
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| It bugged me 20 years ago as a kid. I just wanted more
| stuff like Rock Raiders.
|
| "They're miners... in space! They mine green Energy
| Crystals!" That's all you need. There was a K'nex mining
| set about the same time. Good stuff.
|
| Then I realized that most of the catalog was like, Lego
| Harry Potter. Yeah, I really am complaining about what
| everyone else buys. I was up to my nose in Harry Potter
| merch already, I owned all 7 books. I wanted more Rock
| Raiders and Insectoids.
| monknomo wrote:
| Same, except I wanted more m-tron. Put space rocks in a
| box, lift it up with a magnet, fly off. Great fun!
|
| Heck, my kindergarten daughter likes that formula. I'm
| pretty sure there is a marketable business somewhere in
| there, but maybe not at sufficient scale
| watwut wrote:
| Kids are playing wrong. They use lego as toy and not as
| classroom educational item.
| chongli wrote:
| These sets are not creative play toys, they're highly-detailed
| 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzles. That is their appeal, and you can
| make the same argument about a traditional wood/cardboard
| jigsaw puzzle:
|
| "Kids should be learning how to paint with oil paints or
| watercolours, not snapping together these pre-painted jigsaw
| puzzles!"
|
| I think the real difference here is that we've transitioned
| from more of a mixed/manual labour economy to a
| mental/emotional labour economy. People get off work and they
| just want to come home and do something relaxing and not
| mentally taxing. Putting together a Lego set is like that. It
| takes more thought than watching TV, but not much. Coming up
| with something interesting and creative from a bucket of random
| Legos is different, and most people lose interest.
| AmosLightnin wrote:
| I think your argument in quotes is a good one. :) Following a
| set of pre-defined instructions is not a creative act. It's
| not bad to build a puzzle, but I would argue that it's not
| nearly as meaningful of an experience as painting - or any
| other creative activity for that matter.
| bena wrote:
| No, but building sets does have other benefits.
|
| There's some zen to the act, like model or puzzle building.
| But you can also observe and learn techniques to add to
| your own builds.
|
| Knowing all the ways Bionicles are put together can help
| you turn a Porsche into a full transforming Autobot Jazz.
| chongli wrote:
| I think learning to oil paint could be a very meaningful
| experience. Relaxing to watching Bob Ross videos and paint
| along with him.
|
| I do also feel there is this sort of "cult" of self-
| improvement going around. Like if you're not spending every
| waking minute of your life learning some new skill or
| marketing yourself or trying to get a promotion, then
| you're wasting your time. It's very toxic.
|
| Doing things that you find relaxing should be accepted,
| even if they don't teach you anything or improve you in any
| way.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| It isn't even a puzzle if you've been given the
| instructions on how to build it.
| boesboes wrote:
| If only they had all kinds of different product line for
| different people!
| SteveGerencser wrote:
| My granddaughter and I build a ton of 'boring adult sets'
| together, and then she gets to take them home, tear them apart,
| and make anything she wants with the pieces. But she also loves
| Minecraft (she's 8) and we buy the Minecraft specific sets as
| well. It is quite possible to do all the things, it's not
| necessarily an either/or scenario like many people like to
| present as their argument against something.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I don't think they went from one to the other, more like they
| expanded to include sets that adults would be interested in.
| The way I look at it, the higher end collectable pieces
| subsidize the lower cost sets and "brick boxes" for the younger
| generation.
| watwut wrote:
| When kids grow up into adults, they do not always become
| massively different persons in their core. Oftentimes, creative
| kids grow up into creative adults. Their hobbies often remain
| or they still look back fondly on their old hobbies. And when
| they are bored, they sometimes go back to their old hobbies,
| due to nostalgia. You see it everywhere, in music people listen
| to, books they read, etc
|
| All of that is ok. Plus, majority of lego kits go to kids.
| toxican wrote:
| Why do you think they stopped designing sets for creative play?
| They still sell bulk lego. They still sell non-licensed play
| sets like space, city, castle, etc. And even the licensed sets
| are great for creativity because I doubt a kid's not going to
| shatter their set and start making their own damn spaceship
| because it has "Star Wars" on the box. None of that has stopped
| just because they also sell display pieces that are wildly
| popular and intended for adults.
|
| Like seriously go to any store that sells Lego and you'll see
| that a good 80% of it is bulk or play sets. There are a lot of
| things to be critical of lego for...the pricing, the over-
| reliance on licensed sets, too many god-damned stickers, etc.
| But this really isn't one of them at all.
| dakial1 wrote:
| I wonder when are we going to see a LLM to build Lego Sets out of
| a prompt. Maybe is already out there?
| codegladiator wrote:
| llm to 3d printer ?
| WillAdams wrote:
| Perhaps using something like:
|
| http://flatfab.com
| andrewfromx wrote:
| surely you've seen all the LLM generated fake lego images?
|
| https://www.core77.com/posts/126450/People-Easily-Fooled-by-...
|
| https://www.instagram.com/lego_rick_/reel/C0HaaoRLNG9/
| krisoft wrote:
| quote from the instagram you linked: "I had a LEGO employee
| tell me that they had 10 customers ask about "upcoming" LEGO
| sets that ended up being AI."
|
| Sounds like an excellent way to validate demand then?
| Feathercrown wrote:
| I would totally buy that metal press
| ensocode wrote:
| Not quite there but close :-D -> ChatGPT 3.5 Promt give me
| instructions on how to build an iPhone 15 Pro out of lego
| bricks
| RandallBrown wrote:
| There's a company that makes sports stadiums out of "brxlz"
| (brick pixels) and at first I thought they were just knockoff
| legos.
|
| After building a stadium I figured out it's basically just a
| low resolution 3d model of the stadium that you sort of 3d
| print layer by layer.
|
| https://www.foco.com/collections/brxlz
|
| Not nearly as nice as lego, but the final product is pretty
| cool.
| _giorgio_ wrote:
| I've purchased a lot of Lego Duplo for my nephew, really fun
| sets.
|
| _Duplo_ come from the latin word "duplus", which means
| _double_.
|
| Duplo bricks are double the size of lego bricks. This make the
| sets compatible.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fg...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/6m4wsm/mind_blown_30_...
| jgtrosh wrote:
| Obligatory quatro is twice bigger yet (and all are compatible
| together!)
|
| Also Wikipedia mentions duplex and not duplus, but whatever
| bendoidic wrote:
| And the short-lived LEGO Quatro brick was...you guessed
| it...four times larger than a regular LEGO brick. Still
| compatible with both other sets.
|
| https://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/QUATRO
| 123pie123 wrote:
| I think these are biggest ones you can buy (or used to) not
| sure on the size comparison - at a guess x8 to x10
|
| 45003: Soft Starter Set
| https://www.rapidonline.com/45003-lego-soft-starter-
| set-70-1...
|
| I had loads of fun playing with these in the lego centre
| (forget the kids!)
| loudmax wrote:
| That softness is critical. Not for the kids, but for the
| adults who have to clean up after them.
|
| Stepping barefoot onto a Lego brick hurts, but stepping
| barefoot onto a Duplo brick is much worse. Those things
| look innocent enough, but in the dark they turn into
| veritable caltrops!
| ofrzeta wrote:
| You think so? The Lego bricks have sharper edges and also
| I think that you put the same weight (of your body) on a
| comparatively larger area on the Duplos, so less pain.
| But, well, who am I to argue about your experience.
| (Never stepped on either of these in our living room
| although we had both systems).
| jedberg wrote:
| They have those soft ones at Legoland. They put them in the
| water park (they float!). I'm not sure they're compatible
| with regular bricks though.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| They are probably partially compatible. With Duplo for
| example, it's easy enough to stack Duplo on top of
| regular LEGO bricks, but not the other way around. For
| stacking regular bricks on top of Duplo, you need to have
| bricks of the proper multiple in each dimension -- they
| need to be full height and a multiple of 2 in the other
| dimensions. The Quatro bricks are compatible in the same
| way -- you can easily stack them on top of Duplo or
| regular bricks, but not the other way around; You
| probably also need to do a transition layer from Quatro
| to Duplo to regular bricks.
|
| I've seen people use Duplo and Quatro for space-filling
| when they needed a large amount of structural brick
| somewhere that won't be seen in the final model. Think
| having a LEGO city setup that has an underground level.
| leipert wrote:
| Checkout the compatible "Marble Run" from Hubelino. Good build
| quality and loads of fun. Not affiliated.
|
| https://www.hubelino.com/products/hubelino/marble-run/
| bluescrn wrote:
| 3D printing similar parts is a fun option too:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb1c3VqqfTE
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| As an aside, standard marbles are almost exactly 2 Lego studs
| wide, which makes it easy to build marble runs using just
| standard Lego pieces. For instance, you can build a marble
| lifting tower for the start of a marble run that uses a
| 2-stud by 2-stud hole in a 4x4 (or 6x6 for strength) tower.
| tills13 wrote:
| I mean the System in LEGO System in Play extends to the entire
| LEGO universe. Shouldn't be a surprise that they are
| compatible.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| > offering both fame and a small fortune -- 1 percent of net
| sales -- to anyone who can convince 10,000 peers and The Lego
| Group that their set deserves to exist
|
| This isn't entirely true. Plenty of LEGO Ideas designs get to the
| 10k threshold, then LEGO vetoes them for one reason or another.
| The decision process is completely opaque; more often than not,
| they basically just say "the design didn't pass internal review."
| Never mind that most Ideas sets get a significant design overhaul
| before reaching production anyway.
| bombcar wrote:
| That's why it says "and the Lego Group" - you have to do the
| 10k _and_ pass internal design review.
| nicklecompte wrote:
| "Lego is 'proud' to announce Lego McLegoface Mark XVI.
| Apparently you guys still think this joke is funny."
| ryukoposting wrote:
| "Convincing" the Lego Group implies that there's dialogue.
| fshr wrote:
| I don't think it implies that. The 10k votes, parts list,
| photos, impetus, and lore/background is the "convincing".
|
| A speech, a monologue, can be convincing.
| mcphage wrote:
| There is, but it seems like it's between Lego and the
| rightsholder.
| eloisant wrote:
| But then the 10k is meaningless.
|
| "Anyone who can convince the Lego Group", that could be said
| of any product/company!
|
| It's like saying "anyone who can convince Netflix can launch
| a new TV Show".
| The_Colonel wrote:
| It's just screening the clearly not-good-enough designs so
| that Lego employees don't have to review everything.
| em-bee wrote:
| it also shows the market potential: 10000 people would
| buy this set. sure not all of them will buy it, but it's
| certainly a useful metric.
| nkrisc wrote:
| It's not meaningless, it's just an initial filter to show
| there's at least some amount of interest in it.
|
| No sense reviewing proposals for sets that can't even get
| 10,000 people interested.
| billfor wrote:
| I'm still waiting for my Saturn V Gantry. https://ideas.lego.
| com/projects/a88109ec-9970-4fe1-98b4-9bd5...
| tills13 wrote:
| BTW: https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/design.page?idMode
| l=1603... or other, similar models there.
|
| Bricklink is perhaps secretly (or perhaps not) owned by
| LEGO itself so they can have their hand in the pocket of
| the used / resale market. People will upload full MOCs (My
| Own Creation) there and you can purchase the sets piece-
| wise. Usually even more expensive than if you wait and buy
| a set through LEGO but for stuff like this it's worth it.
| C4stor wrote:
| Bricklink has been acquired by Lego 4 years ago, I don't
| think that's a secret at all !
| jerrysievert wrote:
| which was one of the better things that could have
| happened after Daniel Jezek passed. lego has been a good
| steward of it since.
| bena wrote:
| Some of that is due to reasons they cannot say. They've
| developed a policy of "no current IP currently produced by the
| Lego Group". So even if a set gets past the 10,000 mark, if
| it's a minifig scale Death Star, it's not being made.
|
| So if it's a set they currently have IP rights for, but have
| not announced sets for, they'll generally turn it down. But
| they can't say it's because they've recently acquired the IP
| rights to Sonic the Hedgehog.
|
| They also have a loose "no contemporary war toys" policy. I say
| loose because the Indiana Jones line kind of pushes on that a
| bit. But that's right around the cutoff for them. But you
| definitely won't see an F16 fighter jet anytime soon.
| AlanYx wrote:
| They did recently produce a set loosely based on the F-35
| Lightning ("Blue Power Jet").
| bena wrote:
| Exactly. It kinda, sorta is close to one and there's no
| ordinance.
|
| Not too long ago, they yanked a V-22 Osprey set because of
| their "no military vehicles" policy.
| WillAdams wrote:
| I'm still baffled that the Coast Guard didn't go all-in
| on that --- maybe if they had, it would have been
| acceptable in that livery.
| throwanem wrote:
| Nothing baffling there. The Osprey isn't very good for
| its design use case that happened once in 1980, but it
| makes up for that by being even worse at everything else.
| cainxinth wrote:
| According to gpt-4, a minifig scale Death Star I would be
| over 2 miles in diameter
| Ringz wrote:
| Seems reasonable to me. Let's start building.
| dhosek wrote:
| The problem is that according to Science(tm)
| (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20578627) with a tower
| of 2.17miles you start to get materials failure on the
| bricks. You might be able to engineer around this, but I
| suspect that the minifig-scale deathstar would cause the
| bottom bricks to melt.
|
| Bummer.
| whythre wrote:
| Maybe in this hypothetical we could reduce weight by
| making it the 2nd Death Star? A lot of that was skeletal
| superstructure.
| thrtythreeforty wrote:
| That's true if you build the station on the planet, but I
| think the station is designed to be constructed in orbit
| in the first place. Its self-gravity should be
| negligible. Problem solved!
| thesnide wrote:
| That's no moon...
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I think we can get support for a 2 mile large Lego Death
| Star hauled up by NASA and assembled in orbit - write
| your congressman now !
| mcv wrote:
| I'm really starting to run out of space in my home for
| these big Lego sets.
| monknomo wrote:
| a 2 mile deathstar gives you the chance to flip this
| around - get space for your home in a big lego set
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I had the same thoughts when I was thinking of "how can I
| make myself an Enterprise 2 years back. I hope that a Lego
| AI* will help me get the individual parts needed AND the
| manual to build it myself, and to work around the IP issues
| name it "Green Spaceship" (and I will simply order the Grey
| pieces instead of the Green.
|
| I see on my bookmarks I got a https://ideas.lego.com/projects
| /a056ebf2-163e-4aa0-b005-02b0.... I remember finding out who
| that C3Brix is and contacted him, but never got a response.
|
| People will have better chance coming up with their own
| generic design than an IP-owned.
|
| > But you definitely won't see an F16 fighter jet anytime
| soon.
|
| Considering some Lego AI* that will be 'smart' enough when
| fed the full library of Lego bricks dimensions, it should be
| able to build ANY 3D design or using 'many' 2D
| (photos/drawings) of a 'thing' and generate the 'shopping
| list' and the manual.
|
| I don't know how happy would Lego be then (as Lego bricks
| must be somehow their IP), but it would be GREAT if someone
| built that.. I would happily pay $100 to generate stuff some
| some Star Trek iconic designs (Dyson sphere, all the
| Enterprises, the Voyager, etc.)
|
| Space Fights are good, but Space Trips are better!!!
| (https://xkcd.com/1563/)
|
| *ACTUALLY, now that I'm thinking about it I will try with
| Bard and ChatGPT and see what comes out
|
| EDIT: I saw others had the same idea in other comments.. I'll
| add a reminder on my Calendar in 6 months from now to see
| what's been going on for this topic
|
| EDIT2: I just asked Bard and it came up with 5 suggestions,
| listed below:
|
| _1. Mecabricks Mecabricks is a web-based software that
| allows you to create LEGO models from scratch or import
| photos and dimensions. It has a large library of LEGO bricks
| and pieces, and it can generate step-by-step instructions for
| your models. Image of Mecabricks website Opens in a new
| window www.stonewars.de Mecabricks website
|
| 2. Rebrickable Rebrickable is another web-based software that
| can help you create LEGO models from photos. It has a similar
| interface to Mecabricks, but it also has a feature that
| allows you to search for existing LEGO models that match your
| photo. Image of Rebrickable website Opens in a new window
| www.reddit.com Rebrickable website
|
| 3. Brick-A-Pic Brick-A-Pic is a web app that converts photos
| into LEGO mosaics. It can be used to create custom LEGO
| artwork or to recreate logos, portraits, and other images.
| Image of BrickAPic website Opens in a new window wired.jp
| BrickAPic website
|
| 4. Art4Bricks Art4Bricks is a company that specializes in
| creating custom LEGO mosaics. You can upload a photo to their
| website and they will create a custom design for you. They
| will also sell you the LEGO bricks and instructions you need
| to build the mosaic.
|
| 5. LEGO Mosaic Maker The LEGO Mosaic Maker is an official
| LEGO product that allows you to create LEGO mosaics from
| photos. It comes with a set of 4,702 LEGO bricks in 5 colors,
| and it includes instructions for creating 15 different mosaic
| designs._
|
| I will start checking them out later today..
| eriktrautman wrote:
| The idea of a Lego AI sounds amazing... just thought of
| what might happen if you took a photo of your pieces then
| said "I like original Star Wars, make me a series of
| spaceships from that" and it outputted step by step
| instructions to create them. So cool. Sure, something seems
| a bit lost in the creative flailing that is the growth path
| of young Lego-ists, but it would be really cool.
| dhosek wrote:
| As for the IP around lego bricks, an instruction set would
| be copyrightable, the brick system is patentable (but the
| patents on most of the bricks would be expired now which is
| why there are generic brick sets available), and they can
| do a trademark that would provide limited protection, but
| mostly for the brand, not for the bricks themselves (I
| remember being at the Lakland workshop back in the 90s and
| they were talking about how the Fender lawyers came and
| told them how they needed to redesign their headstock as to
| not violate Fender's trademarks/design patents on the
| headstock shape, and there would be some similar protection
| potentially available to Lego, but again, the existence of
| generic bricks tells me that it doesn't apply to the
| bricks).
|
| So the bottom line is that Lego cannot keep you from
| publishing plans and parts lists for your own Lego sets.
| Heck, you could even, if you were sufficiently funded,
| manufacture the set yourself. You just couldn't use the
| Lego brandname at all.
| myspy wrote:
| I don't know if you're interested but this company makes
| Star Trek sets
|
| https://www.bluebrixx.com/de/sets/star_trek?gad_source=1
| hinkley wrote:
| I assume they don't have infinite capacity either. So even
| without rights conflicts, if they can only ramp up say 10
| sets at a time, and they're working on eight for a new
| campaign, they're going to be pickier about the final two.
|
| Lego may sell a hundred different sets at the same time, but
| if they run out of one they aren't going to get more
| tomorrow. It's on a manufacturing schedule. They may have all
| of the yellow 1x6 bricks you could ever need, but they still
| have to fire up the part picker, the bag sealers, and order
| new boxes and booklets from the printers. Plus there's that
| weird part that is only in three current sets, they have to
| make more of them, and the first gap in the schedule is next
| Thursday.
| greenpizza13 wrote:
| I think it's possible you did not continue reading the article.
| This is all covered.
| jk_i_am_a_robot wrote:
| "Never mind that most Ideas sets get a significant design
| overhaul before reaching production anyway."
|
| You've answered your own question -- selection criteria extend
| beyond physical design.
| mcv wrote:
| > most Ideas sets get a significant design overhaul before
| reaching production anyway.
|
| Often it's an improvement, but lots of people are disappointed
| that the new Orient Express[0] is nothing like the original
| Ideas design[1].
|
| [0] https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-orient-express-
| train-...
|
| [1]
| https://ideas.lego.com/projects/568ee861-3b62-413a-9432-ce1d...
| ItsMattyG wrote:
| This is literally what the whole article was about. Not only
| does the quote itself contain that context "and the lego
| group", but the very next paragraph is "And then... nothing.
| The Tintin votes dried up, and Lego rejected both his fan-
| favorite Avatar and Polar Express ideas. The company never says
| why it rejects an Ideas submission, only that deciding factors
| include everything from "playability" and "brand fit" to the
| difficulties in licensing another company's IP."
| panzi wrote:
| Also the final product often looks very different (usually a
| lot smaller) then the submission.
| jesperlang wrote:
| Why aren't we building "products" from lego rather than seeing
| them as toys? The promise of 3D-printers haven't really played
| out, but it would be interesting if we had a material like lego
| to build some of the things we need. Lego is infinitely
| customizable and each brick would be potentially useful in any
| product that you would build. Of course there are some obvious
| downsides but I think the idea of an ecosystem of standardized,
| "open" and adaptable materials is super interesting.
| AmosLightnin wrote:
| Me too! There have been a few experiments in this but none have
| caught on. Here's a nice article that explores the idea:
| https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/12/how-to-make-everyt...
| jesperlang wrote:
| Thanks, this was exactly what I was looking for!
| spockz wrote:
| The concrete walls of my house already resemble a 4x2 block,
| although slightly higher in the body relative to the "pins" on
| top.
|
| Or are you referring to something else? Lego is plastic. Houses
| need wood or concrete and all kinds of isolation etc.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| I would guess the commenter is referring to prototyping.
| cush wrote:
| Lego is heavy, bulky, expensive, and falls apart when you move
| it. What are you thinking we'd manufacture from it?
| amelius wrote:
| > The promise of 3D-printers haven't really played out
|
| Huh?
| vGPU wrote:
| I assume he means in the idea of printing daily household
| items instead of buying them, printing houses, etc.
| amelius wrote:
| 3D printing is much more versatile than LEGO. Take just a
| random example: a cup holder for in the car. Using 3D
| printing, it would look and work similar to the ones you
| can buy in a store. Using LEGO would make it very bulky,
| aesthetically not so great, and also it would fall apart
| easily.
|
| I think the original commenter above has simply never used
| a 3D printer for anything practical.
| internet101010 wrote:
| Which doesn't make sense, either. 3d printers are the
| ultimate bracket makers. I've used mine numerous times for
| things like broken sliding light switches or really
| anything small and made of plastic that breaks.
| krisoft wrote:
| > The promise of 3D-printers haven't really played out
|
| I don't know what you think the "promise of 3D-printers" was
| but if you think it hasn't played out then probably you had
| unreasonable expectations.
|
| > Why aren't we building "products" from lego rather than
| seeing them as toys?
|
| Would you buy such a product? They would be much larger than
| the same thing not made out of lego. They would shatter in your
| bag during transportation. They would be more awkward to use
| because of the rectangular shape of the bricks. They would
| collect dirt in all the crevices/studs.
|
| Look around your home or recent purchase history, which
| products would be improved by making them out of lego?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Could you give some examples of things you envision being built
| this way?
|
| And could you give some examples of where 3D printing isn't
| working for you?
|
| It's hard for me to figure out what's motivating this
| suggestion without specific examples.
| WillAdams wrote:
| The expense.
|
| That said, I have made a couple of things as prototypes, mostly
| for archery:
|
| - spine testing jig (had to use a bunch of washers on a bolt
| for the two-pound weight though)
|
| - fletching jig
|
| Also some small desk accessories --- a tablet stand w/ pen
| holder, a rack for a CD-player --- the two stacks of bricks
| holding up a wooden shelf are still on place though.
| wmeredith wrote:
| There are tons of plans available online for LEGO "products".
| Stands for smartphones and tablets and headphones are the first
| thing that comes to mind and I've seen a lot of those. Pencil
| holders and such are popular as well.
| wtracy wrote:
| Jekca dabbles with this idea. They sell Lego-like parts that
| lock together with a tiny wrench:
|
| https://www.jekca.us/
|
| At one point they sold a set around building toddler-sized
| furniture that could be disassembled and repurposed as the kids
| grow up. Now it looks like the closest thing they offer is desk
| organizers (which is still cool).
| pimlottc wrote:
| > Jekca dabbles with this idea. They sell Lego-like parts
| that lock together with a tiny wrench:
|
| Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. This page has an
| illustration of how the locking system works:
|
| https://www.jekca.us/pages/introduction-of-jekca
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I actually toyed with the idea with the Technic "bricks" that
| give much much more flexibility.
|
| I can vouch for the versatility, it kinda works for a headphone
| hanger, or a cup holder, small foldable desk racks etc. But
| then these components are too light and don't have enough
| strength to keep shape for months. Many of the parts bent over
| time, some broke under abuse.
|
| Also for these kind of use pieces are big and finding a compact
| build is really a chalenge. I ended up using a ton of custom
| built third party pieces.
|
| I'd definitely try with a 3d printing next, it will allow for
| smaller parts at least, and probably cost way less in materials
| (Lego are overpriced for that)
| notjes wrote:
| The article is fine, but the image implementation on this website
| did dampen the experience somewhat.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| The scroll-jacking images are disorienting. Kind of reminds me
| of some of the more egregious scrolly-telling visualizations.
| mkoryak wrote:
| I couldnt figure out how to scroll them the first time around
| snoutie wrote:
| I am confused by the statement about "frames", where each design
| team gets a limited amount of "new" bricks they are able to
| introduce. Yet all of the internaly come in all colors available.
|
| This, the colourful internals, are what defines lego for me
| nowadays. I wonder: had they kept the system of gray and black
| axels, one for even length unit one for odd, and the standardized
| blue and black pins while keeping every other part the default
| black, would they have more frames available for "custom" parts?
|
| In my mind having two blue bricks where there should only be one
| is unacceptable for the price that lego is inevitably going to
| charge.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Yet all of the internaly come in all colors available
|
| Since those already exist, they probably don't count as new
| frames. It seems like you "spend" frames on _new_ pieces you
| want to introduce, but there 's a large stock of evergreen
| pieces you can pick from.
| flutas wrote:
| Yeah, I think the best way to think about the frames is "do
| we already have a mold for this piece / have we done the
| engineering for it" if so then it's not new, just a new
| colorway.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| According to the article, a new color requires spending a
| frame:
|
| > Want a part in a different color? That costs designers a
| frame. A new piece? Spend some frames. Bring back an old
| out-of-print piece? That's a frame, too.
|
| This makes sense, since a new color requires dedicated
| storage space (which frames are intended to control).
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| > I am confused by the statement about "frames", where each
| design team gets a limited amount of "new" bricks they are able
| to introduce. Yet all of the internaly come in all colors
| available.
|
| LEGO has a large part catalog -- a lot of different molds that
| define the shapes. They also have each part available in some
| selection of colors. If you need an existing part in a new
| color, it's not terribly expensive to spin up a production line
| for it because the molds are ready. There may need to be
| adjustments to the color chemistry for the specific part (some
| colors are more brittle/fragile, others may require different
| processes -- transparent parts for example.)
|
| If you need to spin up a new mold, that's where it gets
| complicated and expensive.
|
| As for the internals, they largely come from the existing
| part:existing color matrix. Over the years LEGO has created a
| lot of colors, but in reality not every part is available in
| every color, and if you buy enough LEGO sets you notice that a
| lot of the internals tend to actually use similar color
| schemes. Technic axles and pins are now even largely
| standardized to specific colors. High friction 2x pins are
| always black, low friction 2x pins are beige..etc.
|
| > In my mind having two blue bricks where there should only be
| one is unacceptable for the price that lego is inevitably going
| to charge.
|
| LEGO used to do a lot more custom one-off pieces for sets in
| the 90's and early 2000's, and it was one of the factors in
| them nearly being bankrupted. Reducing their part catalog and
| going to using more small pieces to build up assemblies instead
| of just molding them as a single piece helped them get out of
| that predicament. And as an AFOL, I prefer that they use more
| pieces to 'brick build' things -- not only do you see some
| really cool building techniques, but there's also so much more
| that you could possibly use them for. There's also a large
| spectrum of complexity in the sets. Smaller sets for younger
| children will use larger simpler parts and less complicated
| building techniques. The sets that really go all out on details
| with tiny pieces are usually designed for adults (and a few
| very lucky kids.)
|
| > This, the colourful internals, are what defines lego for me
| nowadays
|
| The internals used to be much more monochrome, but one of the
| things LEGO tries to improve is the build experience. It's much
| easier to tell which pieces is supposed to go exactly where
| when they're all different sizes and colors. Heck, it's still a
| problem sometimes with sets that heavily use a single color,
| like some of the batman ones in recent years. There are places
| in the instructions manual where it's almost impossible to tell
| the placement of pieces because it's just one big nearly-black
| mass of bricks both on the table in front of you, and in the
| pictures in the instructions.
| jerrysievert wrote:
| > LEGO used to do a lot more custom one-off pieces for sets
| in the 90's and early 2000's, and it was one of the factors
| in them nearly being bankrupted. Reducing their part catalog
| and going to using more small pieces to build up assemblies
| instead of just molding them as a single piece helped them
| get out of that predicament.
|
| it was hard to collect and build through that period,
| especially as so many specialty parts just kept appearing
| with every set. the intervening years, except for the
| constant changes of motors and electrification, seemed to put
| this into check and make for some fun and interesting builds.
|
| unfortunately, from the perspective of someone who puts
| together 10-12 sets/year, it appears that we are heading back
| into that specialized time again; maybe not as bad with
| intricate specialty parts, but the number of new (2023) parts
| in the last two sets that I've put together has been quite
| high. those sets were the bat cave shadow box and the orient
| express.
|
| I understand the appeal of SNOT, but the sheer number of new
| SNOT elements is craziness.
|
| > The internals used to be much more monochrome, but one of
| the things LEGO tries to improve is the build experience.
| It's much easier to tell which pieces is supposed to go
| exactly where when they're all different sizes and colors.
|
| they've also improved the printing of the instructions over
| the years, as well as better differentiation through outlines
| of what is new. that was very obvious when my father and I
| put together 7 holiday sets I had collected over 20 years
| last holiday season. each newer set was a good improvement.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| > they've also improved the printing of the instructions
| over the years, as well as better differentiation through
| outlines of what is new. that was very obvious when my
| father and I put together 7 holiday sets I had collected
| over 20 years last holiday season. each newer set was a
| good improvement.
|
| They have, but they still have problems with sets that have
| large chunks of the same color, especially when it comes to
| stuff like tiling or greebling, like the UCS Batman
| Tumbler. And certain colors still seem problematic. The old
| UCS Sandcrawler set is the one that stands out in my mind,
| that reddish-brown color made a lot of the instructions
| very difficult to read; That was like 10 years ago now, but
| even the more recent Bonsai tree also had that problem.
| jerrysievert wrote:
| > They have, but they still have problems with sets that
| have large chunks of the same color, especially when it
| comes to stuff like tiling or greebling, like the UCS
| Batman Tumbler.
|
| the batcave shadow box definitely suffered with it a bit,
| but at least it was an interesting and challenging build.
| unlike the new orient express train, which was ... not
| what I'd expect from lego.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| > unlike the new orient express train, which was ... not
| what I'd expect from lego.
|
| Incidentally, this is how I've felt about a lot of the
| bigger sets from LEGO recently. A decade or so ago, I
| used to basically buy every >$100 set LEGO put out every
| year, sans a few themes -- I've got a few large storage
| bins filled with just the instructions from these sets.
| But some of the massive sets LEGO has been putting out
| recently, like the Coliseum or the new Eiffel Tower set
| just don't seem like particularly fun builds. I think the
| first time I noticed this was putting together the 10253
| Big Ben set. It just didn't feel like fun stacking those
| tiny pieces together, repeated like 30-40x for each
| little subassembly. But since then, there has definitely
| been a creep of the builds for larger sets being a little
| less fun and more tedious. It can be a good way to relax
| if you just want to kind of zone out for a while and do
| stuff with your hands, but that's not my style.
|
| Of course, then they put out something like the Concorde
| which looks like a very fun build, so at least some of
| the LEGO designers got their heads on straight.
| jerrysievert wrote:
| I have mostly built the modular sets (and designed my
| own), but missed a couple in the 2010's. also a big train
| fan (have built many of my own train cars), or have built
| more fun things like the ghostbusters fire station and
| car. I never got into the architecture sets though.
|
| I plan on taking some time one of these weekends to build
| a large outdoor track layout to run on, but am waiting on
| some more after-market track to arrive.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| By outdoor track, I assume you mean still a LEGO one?
| What after-market track are you using?
| Tomte wrote:
| Those extremely expensive sets depicting famous things
| are all beginner sets, building-wise.
|
| If some regular person just had their first and only trip
| on the Orient Express, or has always dreamed about making
| that trip: this is the target market. You cannot in
| general expect these people to have build a single Lego
| set, yet, so they are huge, sprawling, expensive, but
| totally uninteresting if you've ever built more than "put
| this 2 by 4 brick on that 2 by 4 brick".
| lordfrito wrote:
| Lego nearly went bankrupt in the early 2000s. Part of the
| problem is that they had way too many colors of way too many
| bricks (and way too many patterned bricks). Each unique
| brick/color/pattern had to be binned/stored separately. So the
| inventory took up a lot of space, all those warehouses cost
| $$$.
|
| So Lego re-tooled to reduce the overall number of bricks in
| inventory. Instead of building bricks in many colors and
| patterns, they now build bricks in a fewer colors and even
| fewer patterns.
|
| A big part of what they do to plan for the year is figure out
| what bricks/colors/patterns will be used. The designers are
| then told "design sets using these color bricks". If you pay
| attention, you'll notice that the colors of the Modular City
| sets change yearly, mainly to keep up with the colors being
| chosen for the other new Lego sets.
|
| This is why there are so many stickers in the newers sets. Lego
| can't afford to make every part in a printed pattern -- it's a
| lot cheaper for them to keep sheets of stickers on the shelf
| than full bins of printed bricks.
|
| This is where the idea of "frames" comes from -- it's their
| internal credit system that lets the designers budget for what
| bricks/colors they really need, and at what expense to the
| other sets they're making.
|
| The designers likely spend big on special parts for the new
| Star Wars or Marvel set. As I said before, this comes at the
| price that the other sets have to be designed using the bricks
| that are on hand.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's part of the great "brick reduction" done in the early
| 2000s because the number of simultaneous parts was getting too
| high. So they hand out "chits" called frames to the teams that
| they can "spend" to get a part in a color that isn't available
| yet, etc.
|
| The teams can swap and barter frames if they convince another
| team it would be useful. There was a good description of it in
| https://unbound.com/books/lego - the Secret Life of Lego
| Bricks.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| Lego have stated that they have to keep using oil based plastic
| (ABS) because their attempt at "sustainable" plastics has failed.
| Specifically they've said they need Lego to "last generations".
| That sentence should set off alarm bells for environmentalists,
| it's not recycling if Lego is mostly dumped after a kid grows up.
|
| Lasting generations sounds like BS to me given the arguments
| against fossil fuel plastic production, banning forever plastics
| from the environment, and sea and environmental pollution caused
| by items like bricks or bags.
|
| Why should Lego last generations? A PLA type plastic would be non
| toxic, break down easier and importantly for Lego, also encourage
| replacement purchases.
|
| Lego that lasts 10-15 years, with a discount replacement
| programme, to my mind, is better than 100+ year old Lego killing
| animals that eat it, or taking up space in landfills.
|
| Anecdotally, most kids don't want old Lego, (just look online at
| the moms selling old unwanted Lego cheap without instructions or
| boxes) they want the latest sets, so the justification isn't
| there either.
| altairTF wrote:
| Because they build a reputation of good quality plastic pieces
| that fit very snug together for, like they said, generations.
| New type os plastic seens to not be like that and the final
| product was not really good. If its really true or not, i don't
| know, but that was their justification.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| Further context:
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/6cad1883-f87a-471d-9688-c1a3c5a0b...
|
| The footprint over the lifetime is higher. Seems like an
| entirely reasonable decision.
| marvinblum wrote:
| Bricks also do get worse with time. I remember getting some old
| Lego as a child and finding the pieces barely stuck together.
| Having old bricks mixed with new ones, my designs would often
| "fail" at older pieces first.
| avalys wrote:
| Lego is basically irrelevant when it comes to fossil fuel
| consumption or environmental plastic pollution. I'm glad they
| decided not to make their product worse for no point.
|
| I wish "environmentalists" would keep their focus on things
| that will actually make a difference, as opposed to insisting
| on these performative sacrifices that make our world poorer,
| duller or less capable without meaningfully helping the
| environment.
| Spivak wrote:
| The fact that Lego is making a decision that is directly
| against their own financial interest should unring the bell.
| Making quality things that last forever is the Reduce and Reuse
| of the recycle triangle. _All_ of my childhood Legos are now
| owned by my nieces and nephews.
|
| > But Lego has now revealed that after more than two years of
| testing, it had found that using recycled PET didn't reduce
| carbon emissions.
|
| > It said the reason for that was because extra steps were
| required in the production process, which meant it needed to
| use more energy.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66910573
| cush wrote:
| Exactly. Reduce and Reuse Are the only valid paths for
| plastic and Lego is the most reusable. Recycling plastic is
| bullshit and single-use plastics should be banned.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| That's a really good point, it had crossed my mind. I do
| wonder if at some point Lego will change to some sort of
| subscriber model to keep shareholders happy. The Lego company
| seems to be one of the last "good" companies to not want to
| fleece customers, and that would be down to their part family
| ownership I suppose. Pessimistically I think "all good
| things...".
| eichin wrote:
| Fortunately, the "shareholders" are a couple of the
| grandchildren of the founder; it is entirely family owned,
| not publicly traded.
| arcade79 wrote:
| Oh wow. Not often I get as triggered by a comment where someone
| is _wrong_ on the Internet as this. This has to be some of the
| dumbest drivel I 've ever read in a comment about Lego.
|
| The Lego sets I got as a kid in the 80s, have been built and
| has been (and is!) being played with by my ten year old
| daugher. Classics such as 6080 and 40567. Or lego space stuff
| such as 6980, 6940, 6783 or a variety of the others she's been
| playing with.
|
| One of the big appeals of LEGO is that it's generational. It is
| that the plastics produced 30, 40, 50 years ago is just as good
| today in 2023, as it was in 1986. The utter baloney you're
| coughing up would ruin one of the main great points about LEGO.
| It would render it not generational toys but yet another bunch
| of bollocks that expires after a few years.
|
| And shove your anecdotes. I doubt you've got kids.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yeah, my kids visited their great-grandmother in Australia a
| few years back, and out came the 1960s legos. Great fun was
| had.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| How mature. I doubt you're older than 15 with a response like
| that.
|
| 15 years is not "bunch of bollocks that expires" - that's a
| pretty good lifetime for any modern plastic toy, and if the
| plastic is something like PLA, will just break down to
| sugars.
|
| What you fail to understand is the ABS plastic is just adding
| to the pool of what will all become trash eventually, in 100
| years we'll have a larger pile of this junk, whereas using a
| biodegradable plastic the total amount may remain the same or
| have declined.
|
| You do you though, continue to buy new plastic bags at the
| supermarket, favour plastic packaging, plastic cup straws,
| all because you can "re-use" them. Oh wait, they've banned
| them for a reason.
| arcade79 wrote:
| I'm 44.
|
| Since '86, I've noticed that I've lost a 3 gray 2x1 full
| size bricks for the Castle, two bricks for one of the
| spaceships. Every single other model has all their bricks.
|
| I despise the "planned obsolesce" bollocks some folks are
| hell bent on pushing into everything. I cheer on lego not
| to subscribe to it. I, and lots and lots of other
| brickheads would probably abandon them in an instant if
| they did.
| pjc50 wrote:
| ? It's the one toy that does have a substantial long term
| resale market. Not everything needs to be ephemeral. It's just
| ABS, it's not asbestos.
| dudul wrote:
| Your anecdote is not an anecdote, it's a made up fact.
|
| My son is way more excited by my old sets with pirates,
| astronauts and castles than he is by the latest franchised crap
| like marvel, Harry Potter and all.
|
| Here, at least mine is a real anecdote.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| My son is not. He'd prefer the Batman and Spiderman sets as
| opposed to the random old pieces his grand parents keep
| offering him. Any kid who tells you they'd prefer old stuff
| to new is lying, otherwise Lego'd be selling that old stuff
| rather than the cross franchising they do today.
| dudul wrote:
| Maybe you should then question your parenting. I would be
| so distressed if my kid was incapable of creating original
| play without the support of a franchised movie.
|
| Also, no my son is not lying to me.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > He'd prefer the Batman and Spiderman sets as opposed to
| the random old pieces his grand parents keep offering him.
|
| Good for him.
|
| > Any kid who tells you they'd prefer old stuff to new is
| lying,
|
| The issue isn't preferring old stuff to new as much as
| preferring what Lego used to make more of vs. what they
| currently make more of, but, no, neither of those
| preferences is nonexistent in individuals.
|
| > otherwise Lego'd be selling that old stuff rather than
| the cross franchising they do today.
|
| No, _aggregate_ market demand, weighted by who has money to
| spend (and people who aren 't even kids), doesn't indicate
| any kid with contrary stated preference is lying. Humans
| aren't mental carbon copy clones in slightly different
| fleshsuits.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _...if Lego is mostly dumped after a kid grows up...
| Anecdotally, most kids don 't want old Lego_
|
| This is entirely wrong.
|
| Nearly all the toys from my own childhood wound up in the
| garbage or Goodwill at one point or another... except the
| Legos. Kids want to build gigantic castles and spaceports of
| their own -- 20x larger than any sets Lego sells -- and those
| gigantic environments require having a ton of random assorted
| pieces.
|
| Legos seem to be the one toy that _doesn 't_ get dumped.
|
| > _just look online at the moms selling old unwanted Lego
| cheap_
|
| That actually shows the opposite of what you're trying to say.
| They're not tossing them in the garbage, they _are_ selling
| them, because they 're still perfectly desirable. (Because not
| everyone winds up with grandkids to give them to, or wants to
| hold onto them until then.)
| cush wrote:
| It's true that on environmental timescales, all plastic is bad.
| But Lego is probably the most durable and reusable use of
| plastic for entertainment we have today.
|
| Whatever logic brought you to the conclusion that reselling a
| thing means it's no longer wanted is completely backwards. The
| fact you are seeing tons of Lego for sale online is because
| it's so damn desired and valuable. Landfills are not filled
| with Lego. They're filled with textiles from the fast-fashion
| industry and single-use plastics.
| fleeno wrote:
| Lego has got to be the lowest on the list for me as far as
| concern about plastic use. Who throws away Lego? Post a couple
| pounds of Lego on FB marketplace and see how fast it sells.
|
| Some of our Lego is from the 1950s, and my daughter is the
| third generation playing with it. Surely 60+ years of use is a
| pretty good run for something made of plastic.
| 303uru wrote:
| They'll get there, the first stab just wasn't great. That said,
| LEGO truly is multi-generational. My kids are playing with my
| childhood LEGO and it looks close to new.
| andruby wrote:
| I've put my old lego in the dishwasher (you can use a "net")
| and it comes out like new.
| gaogao wrote:
| I remembering learning about Polaroids from Lego Magazine's "no
| Polaroid pictures" for submissions back in the day, so really
| neat to see it as a set now.
| dhosek wrote:
| This is so odd to me as someone who grew up in what was perhaps
| peak Polaroid era. I remember house-shopping in the early 90s
| and taking a Polaroid camera with me to take pictures of the
| houses I saw. The other place it was really wonderful was when
| I traveled to Chiapas and Guatemala at about that same time
| with a Polaroid and was able to give family pictures to
| Guatemalan refugees on the spot as a way of providing some
| small joy for them.
| nimajneb wrote:
| Interesting read.
|
| I guess I'm out $90 Jan 1st, lol. This set is amazing.
| CodeNest wrote:
| Verge article on Lego Polaroid stuff? Yeah, it's got details but
| kinda skips the tough bits. Marc, the dude who made it, got lots
| of no before this one clicked. They ain't show much how tough it
| is to kick off your Lego idea. Sort a paints a wonky picture for
| peeps thinkin' 'bout jumping into Lego design.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| The use of colourful bricks in areas that won't be seen is an
| amazing improvement I discovered when my kids began getting Lego.
|
| Last week I rebuilt two of my most cherished childhood sets[1]
| and oh my goodness how did I ever do this as an 8-year-old? Every
| step in the booklet is a minigame of "figure out what changed"
| and then an eye exam of determining precisely where each piece
| went.
|
| [1]: https://imgur.com/v0fL4Xz
| andruby wrote:
| Oh my. I remember those sets! They were glorious indeed.
|
| Do you have the lego number of those sets? Or the name?
|
| Ps: I'm now taking a picture of every lego box I buy for my
| kids. That way I have an archive with all the numbers. That way
| we can always download the booklets years later, or catalogue
| the collection with rebrickable
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Behold in all their glory: https://www.toysperiod.com/lego-
| set-reference/space/ice-plan...
|
| And: https://www.toysperiod.com/lego-set-
| reference/space/space-po...
| cide1 wrote:
| I agree, the instructions have improved greatly over the years.
| I just rebuilt some of my childhood sets from the late 80's and
| early 90's (mostly Town theme) and I was struggling at times.
| My 6 year old son does well with pretty much all the modern
| instructions regardless of the age (City, Batman, Speed,
| Technic, Jurassic Park themes).
| monknomo wrote:
| love the snow space lego sets, I had that one too
| andersrs wrote:
| I detest what Lego has become. I cringe when I see most of the
| sets are a movie themed fad which won't fit well with the rest of
| your Lego. It's very clear Lego profits more when the planet is
| filled up with more plastic crap. So I stick to the classic ones
| which are timeless and versatile. I guess the themed sets are
| designed for man-children collectors.
| philips wrote:
| Have you seen the "space" theme for next year?
|
| It is the closest thing to a return to form I have seen in
| recent years with focus on play features and story telling
| without media tie in.
|
| https://ramblingbrick.com/2023/12/03/there-is-space-for-ever...
| grammers wrote:
| Lego is so simple, and yet so genius.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-15 23:00 UTC)