Review: 42211 Lunar Outpost Moon Rover
Posted by Huw,
Lunar Outpost is a company that is "redefining our relationship with the Moon by building the robotic infrastructure for future exploration and commerce" and, as part of that, builds moon rovers.
Thus, 42211 Lunar Outpost Moon Rover is a licenced set, but it's not based on anything in particular and in fact looks nothing like the rovers the company has produced to date.
Summary
42211 Lunar Outpost Moon Rover, 1,082 pieces.
£89.99 / $99.99 / €99.99 | 8.3p/9.2c/9.2c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
This is a fun model to play with but it looks a bit messy
- Clever steering and rocker suspension mechanisms in the chassis
- White caterpillar tracks, and rare rubber inserts
- Superfluous mini rover
- Unnecessarily licenced
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Box
What's interesting about the box is the space branding which, you'll recall, was used on sets from a range of themes last year. That makes me wonder whether this set was originally slated for release in 2024 along with the other Technic space sets.
The completed model
The set comprises four separate models: the main rover, a small mining rover and a rock sample container that are transported on it, and a tiny MAPP (Mobile Autonomous Prospecting Platform) rover, which is the only thing in the set which is based on anything real.
The chassis of the main rover incorporates four-wheel steering, operated using the gear at the back, and rocker suspension which works very efficiently to ensure all four wheels are in contact with the ground when traversing obstacles.
The wheels are the most interesting part of the model from a parts perspective, made using caterpillar track links which are new in white, and rubber tread attachments which are not only new in dark azure but also extremely rare, have appeared only in Education sets until now.
The white wheel rim is also new. New Elementary has taken a good look at it, and all the other new parts in the summer Technic sets.
The rubber protrusions certainly help give the vehicle grip on hard surfaces, but the wheels tend to judder as it's pushed along, because they are like protruding teeth on a gear wheel.
The front houses a solar panel array which pops up in a rather satisfying manner when one of two levers below it is pressed downwards.
The tracked mining rover and the sample container are stowed on platforms on either side of the chassis. The rover incorporates a spring-loaded sample-collecting scoop that's opened by pressing forward the red beam at the back.
The container opens on one side to enable rock samples to be placed within. A selection of Technic ball joints and opalescent trans purple crystals are provided.
A crane on the back of the rover provides a means of unloading the mining rover and container to the lunar surface. It's operated using a couple of gear wheels, one at the back, and one on the top of the arm.
The MAPP rover is a strange inclusion in the set given that it doesn't interact or stow on the main rover, and is primarily made from System pieces. It's as if the designers had a bit of budget left after finishing the main model, so threw it together with table scraps.
Verdict
I was not really looking forward to building and reviewing 'yet another Technic space rover' but it surpassed my expectations. The rocker mechanism built into the chassis is very well implemented, and it's fun driving it over obstacles to see it in action. The crane works well and, with care and patience, it's just about possible to unload the mining rover and container without using the 'hand of God'. The colour scheme of white, dark azure and a spattering of red is attractive, although it's not a particularly good-looking display model.
The inclusion of the MAPP rover is a bit puzzling. It does not look like it belongs in the set at all, and is somewhat superfluous. It's also a mystery why this needed to be a licenced set, given that it's not based on a real vehicle, and Lunar Oupost is not exactly a household name.
The 1082-piece set costs $99.99, £89.99, €99.99 so has an about-average price per piece for Technic sets, but unlike many similarly priced models of vehicles, it offers a lot more playability.
Overall, I think it's a set that kids will enjoy more than adults.
85 likes
57 comments on this article
The colours on this one say mid-2000s to me in the best way.
The licensing of a non-existent vehicle is absolute weirdness.
The coloring is incredible and really well done, but it’s mostly “meh” otherwise. I’m still quite puzzled about the licensing as well.
Zane's Apocalypse Engine
Nice to have a set in which the azure gears actually look suited to the model!
@Formendacil said:
"The licensing of a non-existent vehicle is absolute weirdness."
Maybe it'll become an actual prototype at some point. It happened with the Volvo autonomous loader from 42081 .
@Huw The licensing might seem strange, but I can imagine LEGO may want to roll out more Lunar Outpost-based sets, and they're testing the waters by slapping the branding onto a set they might've already had in development. I also think this might be the first time a licensed set appears within any of the LEGO Space themes.
Review said:
"....and a tiny MAPP (Mobile Autonomous Prospecting Platform) rover, which is the only thing in the set which is based on anything real."
Well, I guess this just perfectly ties together both negatives. It is only here because of the license.
I wonder if the original idea was to make a big version of that MAPP as the main build and Lego thus got the license, but along the way they concluded the MAPP wouldn't result in a good set so went for something completely different.....and then had to do something to keep Lunar Outpost happy.
Apart from that all, I do quite like this thing, but €100 feels rather pricey, even more so compared to last years 42181 VTOL Heavy Cargo Spaceship which looked a lot more substantial, had alomost 300 more pieces, yet was the same price.
So they make a set that looks like 60 Euro worth of content 100 Euro RRP by slapping on an obscure licence that likely 99% percent of the population has never heard of or gives a smeg about, and it's not even based on anything that exists? That's as if they had branded 10497 Virgin Galactic and raised the RRP to 150 Euro instead of 100.
Weird indeed.
Plus to me this set looks hideously ugly.
Easy pass.
Love the wheels
The set screams for some neon orange parts.
Not bad, but I think I'll stick with the excellent 42182 Lunar Rover!
I believe the chain link piece is new in white as well as the tread link. Interesting.
People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings.
@Bricktuary said:
"People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings. "
Well, that's what would be logical. A license indeed should reduce the set price, but usually it doesn't. On the contrary. See Star Wars, Disney, Harry Potter, etc.
At first, I was excited/intrigued by this. Then I read/study the instructions. This set is quite a few gears away from being good. Here is why: the gear at the back of the chassis rotates the crane. That's fine and it is a rather easy thing to do. The second gear to activate the arm is ON the arm - a big no-no. And then that's it, to lock the freight on the arm you have to use 'the hand of god'. It royally bugs me when the activating knobs/gear is right at the axis of operation(or very near - like this set) - this is lazy. There should be 3-4 gears "on the chassis" controlling rotation, lift, 'extension(optional)' and grabber.
Even 8888 can do a fully functional excavator with 3 degrees of freedom for the arm in 1980 with the very limited pieces available then.
There are no interesting new parts in the set and the recolours will most likely be used as NPUs or specialised setup because white coloured tracks and chains are hardly useful anywhere (i.e. for realistic models). Besides, this set is borderline a PHD thesis in ugliness.
Because of 'Space' I have not written it off completely yet but the rebate/discount will have to be massive (40% or more) for me to pull the trigger.
This looks like absolute junk to me. Mixing up the same colours all over makes it difficult to see what it is meant to be. I way prefer grey or black wheels, even if the rest of the colours remain on the body.
Honestly, the only bit I want is the mini MAPP. That lil rover is a heckin cutie and I fully intend to copy it eventually.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Bricktuary said:
"People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings. "
Well, that's what would be logical. A license indeed should reduce the set price, but usually it doesn't. On the contrary. See Star Wars, Disney, Harry Potter, etc. "
Why should Lego having to pay Disney a licensing fee reduce the set price? Bricktuary is suggesting an unusual arrangement that's the reverse of how it normally works.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Bricktuary said:
"People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings. "
Well, that's what would be logical. A license indeed should reduce the set price, but usually it doesn't. On the contrary. See Star Wars, Disney, Harry Potter, etc. "
It would be logical for a company that's less well known than Lego, since Lego is basically advertising for them, but all the major movie franchises are bigger brand names than Lego so it makes sense the money flows the other way for them.
Hoping to find it on sale for half off this time next year.
I'm not sure what the licensing company represents or is attempting to accomplish? The future of humankind is forever linked to the Earth. The idea we'll colonize the moon or Mars is pure fantasy.
@Andrusi said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Bricktuary said:
"People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings. "
Well, that's what would be logical. A license indeed should reduce the set price, but usually it doesn't. On the contrary. See Star Wars, Disney, Harry Potter, etc. "
Why should Lego having to pay Disney a licensing fee reduce the set price? Bricktuary is suggesting an unusual arrangement that's the reverse of how it normally works."
No, it normally works the other way. Like @infiniteimprobability said, it depends on how well known a brand is.
An unknown like that obscure space company should not be able to negotiate licensing fees from the largest and best known toy company in the world.
In the case of Star Wars or Harry Potter it could be argued that they are just as well known as LEGO, but still.
So in essence the brand with the highest brand recognition should be the one to receive the money.
I wonder why they chose Russian livery.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Bricktuary said:
"People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings. "
Well, that's what would be logical. A license indeed should reduce the set price, but usually it doesn't. On the contrary. See Star Wars, Disney, Harry Potter, etc. "
Why should Lego having to pay Disney a licensing fee reduce the set price? Bricktuary is suggesting an unusual arrangement that's the reverse of how it normally works."
No, it normally works the other way. Like @infiniteimprobability said, it depends on how well known a brand is.
An unknown like that obscure space company should not be able to negotiate licensing fees from the largest and best known toy company in the world.
In the case of Star Wars or Harry Potter it could be argued that they are just as well known as LEGO, but still.
So in essence the brand with the highest brand recognition should be the one to receive the money. "
...I'm sorry, you think Disney might be paying Lego to make Star Wars toys?
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
@Andrusi said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Bricktuary said:
"People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings. "
Well, that's what would be logical. A license indeed should reduce the set price, but usually it doesn't. On the contrary. See Star Wars, Disney, Harry Potter, etc. "
Why should Lego having to pay Disney a licensing fee reduce the set price? Bricktuary is suggesting an unusual arrangement that's the reverse of how it normally works."
No, it normally works the other way. Like @infiniteimprobability said, it depends on how well known a brand is.
An unknown like that obscure space company should not be able to negotiate licensing fees from the largest and best known toy company in the world.
In the case of Star Wars or Harry Potter it could be argued that they are just as well known as LEGO, but still.
So in essence the brand with the highest brand recognition should be the one to receive the money. "
...I'm sorry, you think Disney might be paying Lego to make Star Wars toys?
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
Like I said, in the case of Disney it might be a tie, but we came from the argument about this set, remember.
Have you ever heard of "Lunar Outpost" before?
@Formendacil said:
"The colours on this one say mid-2000s to me in the best way.
The licensing of a non-existent vehicle is absolute weirdness."
I think they paid lego for their name on the box instead of the other way around
@AustinPowers said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Bricktuary said:
"People are assuming the licence increases the cost, when it's just as likely it doesn't, maybe it even reduces it; I can see Lunar Outpost paying for the publicity and credibility a Lego set brings. "
Well, that's what would be logical. A license indeed should reduce the set price, but usually it doesn't. On the contrary. See Star Wars, Disney, Harry Potter, etc. "
Why should Lego having to pay Disney a licensing fee reduce the set price? Bricktuary is suggesting an unusual arrangement that's the reverse of how it normally works."
No, it normally works the other way. Like @infiniteimprobability said, it depends on how well known a brand is.
An unknown like that obscure space company should not be able to negotiate licensing fees from the largest and best known toy company in the world.
In the case of Star Wars or Harry Potter it could be argued that they are just as well known as LEGO, but still.
So in essence the brand with the highest brand recognition should be the one to receive the money. "
...I'm sorry, you think Disney might be paying Lego to make Star Wars toys?
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
Like I said, in the case of Disney it might be a tie, but we came from the argument about this set, remember.
Have you ever heard of "Lunar Outpost" before? "
A toy company has to pay for a license to produce products from an existing franchise. It's certainly not the other way around. The IP holder also has to approve any of the products a company makes, and in some cases they even dictate what characters or vehicles get made. A license certainly has an impact on the price of a product, as the licensor gets a percentage from the gross income a toy or other merch generates. Often the licensing fee actually gets spread across the entire product range, so products can be sold at a (somewhat) competitive price point.
With Lunar Outpost not being a household name (yet), we can imagine LEGO has a good bargaining position, so the licensing fee will probably be a lot less than in the case of Disney. However, it seems unlikely Lunar Outpost pays LEGO to have their name slapped on a box. I think this might be a soft launch of a wider range of sets with the Lunar Outpost branding, possibly to already generate interest in future sets based on IP from a(n until now) fairly obscure brand.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
"With Lunar Outpost not being a household name (yet), we can imagine LEGO has a good bargaining position, so the licensing fee will probably be a lot less than in the case of Disney. However, it seems unlikely Lunar Outpost pays LEGO to have their name slapped on a box."
Why should LEGO pay a single cent in licensing for a name with close to zero brand recognition? Especially since they don't even reproduce a specific vehicle or prototype. It would be totally stupid.
If you pay a licensing fee you do it because you hope to sell more of a certain product. (In the case of all the horrible Technic sets they have released recently, a license is now a warning sign to AVOID the set and run screaming in the opposite direction. Best example would be the new Volvo excavator - just compare to 8043).
In this thread, people confuse and conflate sponsorship ("PLEASE PROMOTE MY BRAND, HERE IS SOME MONEY") with licensing ("PLEASE ALLOW US PROMOTE YOUR BRAND, HERE IS SOME MONEY").
I was pretty impressed with this thing when it was announced, and I still like it, but it occurs to me that if you used a shade of blue that's been around longer, gave it a different ratio of blue, white, and black, and added some trans-neon orange, it might be my favorite Technic set ever.
@AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
"With Lunar Outpost not being a household name (yet), we can imagine LEGO has a good bargaining position, so the licensing fee will probably be a lot less than in the case of Disney. However, it seems unlikely Lunar Outpost pays LEGO to have their name slapped on a box."
Why should LEGO pay a single cent in licensing for a name with close to zero brand recognition? Especially since they don't even reproduce a specific vehicle or prototype. It would be totally stupid.
If you pay a licensing fee you do it because you hope to sell more of a certain product. (In the case of all the horrible Technic sets they have released recently, a license is now a warning sign to AVOID the set and run screaming in the opposite direction. Best example would be the new Volvo excavator - just compare to 8043 ). "
It doesn't really matter whether a brand is a household name or not: if you're using a trademarked name for your product, you have to have a license. Even if it generates zero extra sales, the licensor still has the rights to their name, and should thus be compensated for its usage. It could indeed be a sponsorship deal, as @Crux suggests, although I find it hard to imagine TLG at this point needs to do sponsorship deals for standard retail sets. I also don't see what would be in it for Lunar Outpost, except LEGO fans in online forums scratching their heads about this collaboration. Not ruling it out, it just seems unlikely.
I can't speak for the Technic sets, as I'm not really into those, although I see many of those nowadays are licensed sets. Trying to get into a corporate mindset, it may just be a simple numbers game: if we look at LEGO's annual stats, we see licensed LEGO sets generally outsell non-licensed sets (with a few notable exceptions), so that may lead management to assume that more licenses mean more sales. Even if we, as the customers, may not yet be familiar with a brand, that doesn't mean that such a brand may not be a powerhouse in the near future, and potential licensees already know what a licensor has planned for the upcoming years. So, it may not make sense to us yet, but it might be a smart business decision, at least in retrospect, to acquire a license early on.
Quotes went screwy when I tried to combine stuff.
@AustinPowers said:
"Like I said, in the case of Disney it might be a tie, but we came from the argument about this set, remember.
Have you ever heard of "Lunar Outpost" before? "
Have I specifically heard and retained the company name "Lunar Outpost?" I'll admit I couldn't have come up with that name. But I absolutely knew about the MAPP (in fact I'd suggest "Lego fans who have heard of the MAPP" and "target audience of a Technic moon rover" are probably groups with significant overlap), and you don't get the MAPP without the Lunar Outpost license any more than you get Optimus Prime without the Transformers license.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" It doesn't really matter whether a brand is a household name or not: if you're using a trademarked name for your product, you have to have a license. Even if it generates zero extra sales, the licensor still has the rights to their name, and should thus be compensated for its usage. It could indeed be a sponsorship deal, as @Crux suggests, although I find it hard to imagine TLG at this point needs to do sponsorship deals for standard retail sets. I also don't see what would be in it for Lunar Outpost, except LEGO fans in online forums scratching their heads about this collaboration. Not ruling it out, it just seems unlikely.
I can't speak for the Technic sets, as I'm not really into those, although I see many of those nowadays are licensed sets. Trying to get into a corporate mindset, it may just be a simple numbers game: if we look at LEGO's annual stats, we see licensed LEGO sets generally outsell non-licensed sets (with a few notable exceptions), so that may lead management to assume that more licenses mean more sales. Even if we, as the customers, may not yet be familiar with a brand, that doesn't mean that such a brand may not be a powerhouse in the near future, and potential licensees already know what a licensor has planned for the upcoming years. So, it may not make sense to us yet, but it might be a smart business decision, at least in retrospect, to acquire a license early on. "
Exactly. I'd guess either Lego wanted to do the MAPP and this was the result, or Lunar Outpost approached Lego and their ratio of licensing fees to promising future plans looked good enough to be worth taking a chance on them. Best case scenario, Lunar Outpost builds an actual lunar outpost and Lego already has the license locked down. Worst case scenario, it's just another short-lived licensed theme.
In any case I can only shake my head at what a POS theme Technic has become since they so massively went into licensing.
Gone are the days of awesome sets like 8043 , 42009 etc., let alone all the flagship sets from the decades before that were marvels of LEGO engineering and generally great value for money compared to the rest of the range. Let's not even mention that they offered B-models right out of the box, some of which were even better than the A-model. And if they offered powered functions, they didn't need a stupid app to work. Plus the functions didn't work in slow-motion like on the current Volvo.
Did I mention that I absolutely HATE Technic nowadays? Which is really sad, because it used to be my favourite LEGO theme for decades, only rivaled by Classic Space.
LEGO can keep their smegging overpriced underwhelming licensed sets now.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they intended to do a MAPP and ended up scrapping it for this and just throwing in a micro MAPP. If we could find out, this would be great candidate for the SECRET HISTORY OF LEGO series I keep pushing @Huw and Brickset to consider, especially since we lost the wonderful “What’s up with that?”
Can someone explain me this SPACE branding?
For example Blacktron Cruiser + Blacktron Renegade are not SPACE "theme"...
@AustinPowers said:
"In any case I can only shake my head at what a POS theme Technic has become since they so massively went into licensing.
Gone are the days of awesome sets like 8043 , 42009 etc., let alone all the flagship sets from the decades before that were marvels of LEGO engineering and generally great value for money compared to the rest of the range. Let's not even mention that they offered B-models right out of the box, some of which were even better than the A-model. And if they offered powered functions, they didn't need a stupid app to work. Plus the functions didn't work in slow-motion like on the current Volvo.
Did I mention that I absolutely HATE Technic nowadays? Which is really sad, because it used to be my favourite LEGO theme for decades, only rivaled by Classic Space.
LEGO can keep their smegging overpriced underwhelming licensed sets now."
I get the feeling you don't like this set. Not sure why...
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"In any case I can only shake my head at what a POS theme Technic has become since they so massively went into licensing.
Gone are the days of awesome sets like 8043 , 42009 etc., let alone all the flagship sets from the decades before that were marvels of LEGO engineering and generally great value for money compared to the rest of the range. Let's not even mention that they offered B-models right out of the box, some of which were even better than the A-model. And if they offered powered functions, they didn't need a stupid app to work. Plus the functions didn't work in slow-motion like on the current Volvo.
Did I mention that I absolutely HATE Technic nowadays? Which is really sad, because it used to be my favourite LEGO theme for decades, only rivaled by Classic Space.
LEGO can keep their smegging overpriced underwhelming licensed sets now."
I get the feeling you don't like this set. Not sure why..."
Forget it, Attic, It's Technictown.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"In any case I can only shake my head at what a POS theme Technic has become since they so massively went into licensing.
Gone are the days of awesome sets like 8043 , 42009 etc., let alone all the flagship sets from the decades before that were marvels of LEGO engineering and generally great value for money compared to the rest of the range. Let's not even mention that they offered B-models right out of the box, some of which were even better than the A-model. And if they offered powered functions, they didn't need a stupid app to work. Plus the functions didn't work in slow-motion like on the current Volvo.
Did I mention that I absolutely HATE Technic nowadays? Which is really sad, because it used to be my favourite LEGO theme for decades, only rivaled by Classic Space.
LEGO can keep their smegging overpriced underwhelming licensed sets now."
I get the feeling you don't like this set. Not sure why..."
This set I don't like for the unnecessary licensing driving up the cost. I don't know by how much, but seeing that a set like this which has about 60 Euro worth of value even when compared to other comparable Technic sets costs 100 doesn't bode well.
The set I really hate guts is 42215, because it's imho the worst Technic set ever when factoring in all aspects. Features (or rather lack thereof), execution, performance, price, value for money, care and attention by the designers, everything.
The entire production run of that set deserves to be dumped in front of LEGO HQ in Billund and publicly destroyed by being run over by steamrollers, like they often do with other stuff like fake watches etc.
Seriously, can you name one single aspect that makes that set a worthy purchase. Especially when comparing it to 8043, which is basically the same type of vehicle, or even just 42030, which is a similar kind of vehicle even with the same licence, if you absolutely want a Volvo. Or compared with licensed (42043) or unlicensed (42082) sets that offer much more at about half the price.
@TurtleFinland said:
"Can someone explain me this SPACE branding?
For example Blacktron Cruiser + Blacktron Renegade are not SPACE "theme"..."
They’ve been experimenting with multi-theme subthemes - last year and this year a whole bunch of kits across City, Technic, Duplo, Friends. Miscellaneous and possibly something I’ve forgotten all have the pretty unifying SPACE side banner on the box. Also this year, the Formula 1 sets across multiple themes have shared an F1 side banner. I thought it worked rather better with Space than F1, since space is more flexible and easily adjusted to reflect different themes, but as a general thing I like the idea. It’s neat to see how the overarching subtheme gets tackled by different teams.
I don’t know why none of the Icons kits got the Space side banner. It wasn’t just the two Blacktron kits - the NASA ones didn’t either.
@Hiratha said:
" @TurtleFinland said:
"Can someone explain me this SPACE branding?
For example Blacktron Cruiser + Blacktron Renegade are not SPACE "theme"..."
They’ve been experimenting with multi-theme subthemes - last year and this year a whole bunch of kits across City, Technic, Duplo, Friends. Miscellaneous and possibly something I’ve forgotten all have the pretty unifying SPACE side banner on the box. Also this year, the Formula 1 sets across multiple themes have shared an F1 side banner. I thought it worked rather better with Space than F1, since space is more flexible and easily adjusted to reflect different themes, but as a general thing I like the idea. It’s neat to see how the overarching subtheme gets tackled by different teams.
I don’t know why none of the Icons kits got the Space side banner. It wasn’t just the two Blacktron kits - the NASA ones didn’t either."
The answer is obvious: Blacktron will be a supertheme unto itself. It started off as Space-Blacktron, the retro-sets are Icons-Blacktron. The yellow canopies have started to leak into Star Wars, which will shortly be rebranded as SW-Blacktron.
Soon after, we will begin to see Technic-Blacktron, Creator-Blacktron, Ninjago-Blacktron, Castle-Blacktron, Pirates-Blacktron, Friends-Blacktron, Dots-Blacktron and somehow, Botanicals-Blacktron. And once you go Blacktron, you don't go backtron.
@AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"In any case I can only shake my head at what a POS theme Technic has become since they so massively went into licensing.
Gone are the days of awesome sets like 8043 , 42009 etc., let alone all the flagship sets from the decades before that were marvels of LEGO engineering and generally great value for money compared to the rest of the range. Let's not even mention that they offered B-models right out of the box, some of which were even better than the A-model. And if they offered powered functions, they didn't need a stupid app to work. Plus the functions didn't work in slow-motion like on the current Volvo.
Did I mention that I absolutely HATE Technic nowadays? Which is really sad, because it used to be my favourite LEGO theme for decades, only rivaled by Classic Space.
LEGO can keep their smegging overpriced underwhelming licensed sets now."
I get the feeling you don't like this set. Not sure why..."
This set I don't like for the unnecessary licensing driving up the cost. I don't know by how much, but seeing that a set like this which has about 60 Euro worth of value even when compared to other comparable Technic sets costs 100 doesn't bode well.
The set I really hate guts is 42215, because it's imho the worst Technic set ever when factoring in all aspects. Features (or rather lack thereof), execution, performance, price, value for money, care and attention by the designers, everything.
The entire production run of that set deserves to be dumped in front of LEGO HQ in Billund and publicly destroyed by being run over by steamrollers, like they often do with other stuff like fake watches etc.
Seriously, can you name one single aspect that makes that set a worthy purchase. Especially when comparing it to 8043, which is basically the same type of vehicle, or even just 42030, which is a similar kind of vehicle even with the same licence, if you absolutely want a Volvo. Or compared with licensed (42043) or unlicensed (42082) sets that offer much more at about half the price. "
I'm not a big Technic fan in general. I used to like it for a while as a kid, and I still think some models are impressive, but for me aesthetics were always more important than functionality, so I've never bought a Technic set in my adult life, apart from some of those polybags. If your main gripe with modern Technic sets is that they cost too much because of the licensing, I can understand, but it's easy enough not to invest any of your time into those sets. Life's too short and too precious to hate on a children's toy.
@ToysFromTheAttic : quite right, of course. The thing is, Technic used to be my favourite theme right behind (Classic) Space. That's why I care about it more than about say what has become of Star Wars or Harry Potter or so.
I am in the lucky position though to have been into Technic both in my childhood/adolescence in the Eighties and Nineties, when "Classic" Technic was at its best, and emerged from my dark ages right at the time when the "liftarm Technic" sets had their greatest offerings.
I just would have liked to continue with new awesome Technic sets from LEGO, but since about 2017/2018 I have started to lose interest "thanks" to the turn the theme has taken.
Thankfully these days there are alternatives like CaDa, whose sets are leaps and bounds ahead of what LEGO has on offer in that regard.
@AustinPowers I can understand, but when it comes to LEGO, there are always stretches of time when certain themes are less appealing than they used to be -- or appealing to a different audience than before. At some point, I'm sure new sets will emerge that you'll love again.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
"-- or appealing to a different audience than before."
I do wonder though if there actually exists an audience that absolutely insists that every set is licensed, overpriced and lacking in functions.....you'd almost get the impression some sets are designed to fail, just to give them an excuse to kill the theme.
I have ALL CITY/Space sets. Should I buy now ALL Technic/Space sets? Then combine them... there is something weird going on...
I want full space theme back! Now space is all over different themes... very sad :/
@WizardOfOss said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
"-- or appealing to a different audience than before."
I do wonder though if there actually exists an audience that absolutely insists that every set is licensed, overpriced and lacking in functions.....you'd almost get the impression some sets are designed to fail, just to give them an excuse to kill the theme."
My thoughts exactly. I can't imagine Technic sets getting better again. They have been on a gradual decline in quality for years, and as long as there are still people who are willing to accept it and still buy the sets even at those prices and with that kind of "quality" I don't see why LEGO would have any incentive to go back to the quality they used to offer.
@AustinPowers said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
"-- or appealing to a different audience than before."
I do wonder though if there actually exists an audience that absolutely insists that every set is licensed, overpriced and lacking in functions.....you'd almost get the impression some sets are designed to fail, just to give them an excuse to kill the theme."
My thoughts exactly. I can't imagine Technic sets getting better again. They have been on a gradual decline in quality for years, and as long as there are still people who are willing to accept it and still buy the sets even at those prices and with that kind of "quality" I don't see why LEGO would have any incentive to go back to the quality they used to offer. "
In the end, they're a business, so money is their main incentive. If these types of licensed sets pay their bills, because people keep buying them, they will continue to produce them. And there must be an audience for them. I can very well imagine licensed sets sell better purely because of the brand recognition with the audience, and maybe even appeal to people who otherwise wouldn't have bought a Technic set -- so they might be unaware of the theme's full potential. Long-time fans of a theme might think they're the ones that keep it going, while in reality they're only a vocal minority.
It's similar to how fans of Classic Castle and Space keep clamouring for a revamp of those themes, but they're not getting it because those themes were outsold by licensed sets that are sort of similar to those (Harry Potter and Star Wars), so why spend resources on it? Leave it to AFOLs over on Bricklink to create something for adult LEGO fans, and then issue a 7+ Creator 3-in-1 set and maybe a related Ideas or Icons set every five years or so, so at least there's something on the shelves for those who desperately want it. That new Creator 3-in-1 castle gets a lot of praise, mostly because of those desirable minifigs, but as a build it's pretty lacklustre, IMO. But it's the only non-licensed non-unicorn-populated LEGO castle at retail right now, so most folks are happy to just have anything that's not a collectible priced at 300 bucks.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
"I can very well imagine licensed sets sell better purely because of the brand recognition with the audience"
In itself this sure is a valid argument. I mean, I can totally see people being more interested in a Star Wars space ship than a no-name space ship. Or in a Ferrari sports car rather than something made up. That said, I do have a hard time believing people prefer a €400 Volvo Ecavator with poorly implemtented functions over a, say, a €300 no-name excavator with full remote controll. But still, brand recognition is a absolutely thing.
But if I go out on the streets, and ask 100 random people of varying ages about Lunar Outpost, how many would have ever heard of the brand? Even if anyone would know, I wouldn't be surprised that's only because of this very Lego set.....
@WizardOfOss said:
"But if I go out on the streets, and ask 100 random people of varying ages about Lunar Outpost, how many would have ever heard of the brand? Even if anyone would know, I wouldn't be surprised that's only because of this very Lego set....."
There is a non-zero chance that I might end up being one of those 100 people, and even then I would have assumed you were talking about 60350 which, yeah, I really quite liked a lot. It's a good set! I own multiple copies of it! How do you know this, random person on the streets? How much do you know?! Who else knows of this?!
@Vesperas said:
"I'm not sure what the licensing company represents or is attempting to accomplish? The future of humankind is forever linked to the Earth. The idea we'll colonize the moon or Mars is pure fantasy."
They are among the millions that drink the MElon-flavored Kool-Aid.
@WizardOfOss said:
"In itself this sure is a valid argument. I mean, I can totally see people being more interested in a Star Wars space ship than a no-name space ship. Or in a Ferrari sports car rather than something made up. That said, I do have a hard time believing people prefer a €400 Volvo Ecavator with poorly implemtented functions over a, say, a €300 no-name excavator with full remote controll. But still, brand recognition is absolutely a thing."
I think it's not a matter of what people prefer, but what's available to them and how well it is marketed. I mean, there are other toy brands besides LEGO that make (great) alternatives of similar products at a lower price -- and they still might be licensed sets. But why does LEGO sell outsell those brands with sometimes inferior products? Exactly -- brand recognition and marketing.
@WizardOfOss said:
"But if I go out on the streets, and ask 100 random people of varying ages about Lunar Outpost, how many would have ever heard of the brand? Even if anyone would know, I wouldn't be surprised that's only because of this very Lego set....."
Probably, but as I said before: licensees know way more than we do. Lunar Outpost may just be the new SpaceX in a few years, or something with the same brand recognition, so it's smart to acquire a license early, even if just to test the waters. I'm convinced it's not as random as many folks here seem to think it is. Companies don't just slap trademarked names on their products for funsies or to confuse people on the internet.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
"I think it's not a matter of what people prefer, but what's available to them and how well it is marketed. I mean, there are other toy brands besides LEGO that make (great) alternatives of similar products at a lower price -- and they still might be licensed sets. But why does LEGO sell outsell those brands with sometimes inferior products? Exactly -- brand recognition and marketing."
Sure, but that's a different discussion. And as you said yourself: People buy what's available to them. Now walk into the nearest Intertoys, and I bet they have a large and prominent part of the store dedicated to Lego, and you'll have to search well to find anything else. Is that because of a lack of demand, or is there no demand because of a lack of availability? What was first, the chicken or the egg?
"Probably, but as I said before: licensees know way more than we do. Lunar Outpost may just be the new SpaceX in a few years, or something with the same brand recognition, so it's smart to acquire a license early, even if just to test the waters. I'm convinced it's not as random as many folks here seem to think it is. Companies don't just slap trademarked names on their products for funsies or to confuse people on the internet."
But that's the weird thing: about every other license Lego has is for pretty big brands, usually from other multi-billion dollar companies. At least I can't remember when was the last time Lego made a set for some arthouse movie that just become the next Pulp Fiction. Same with all of the cars, only big names. Pagani and Koenigsegg are probably the smallest ones when it comes to revenue, but those are still brands every car enthousiast knows very well. And both still bigger than Lunar Outpost. Yet no set of the Devel Sixteen, one of the most viral (or vaporare?) new brands.....
And sure, Lunar Outpost might become the next SpaceX.....but is SpaceX, with a revenue over 300 times higher than Lunar Outpost, even a houshold name? And the sole reason SpaceX got so big so quick was because it's the hobby project of the richest guy in the world. So indeed I don't know what Lego knows, but it seems like a massive gamble to me. Which even makes me think: What percentage of the revenue of Lunar Outpost comes from licensing? And more particularly, how much from Lego?
Don't get me wrong: In itself I don't mind a Lunar Outpost set from Lego. I can only hope they don't pay much for that license. In the end it is us who are paying for it, and I can't help but feel that this set would have been a much more attractive proposition without a license but at a lower RRP. Even if it's just 10 bucks or so.
@WizardOfOss said:
"Sure, but that's a different discussion. And as you said yourself: People buy what's available to them. Now walk into the nearest Intertoys, and I bet they have a large and prominent part of the store dedicated to Lego, and you'll have to search well to find anything else. Is that because of a lack of demand, or is there no demand because of a lack of availability? What was first, the chicken or the egg?"
The egg, because eggs predate chickens as a species by millions of years. :-)
Supply and demand aren't a one-way street, obviously There's no shortage of toys, but most toy stores will serve you the things that sell best anyway. Or at least those products get the best spots in the store. It's easier to sell products that are already getting loads of marketing, because marketing and PR (ideally, in the eyes of marketeers) help to create demand. Smaller companies don't have that luxury, so the likelihood of finding them at a retail store is decidedly smaller than an A-name brand. But that goes for retail in general.
@WizardOfOss said:
"But that's the weird thing: about every other license Lego has is for pretty big brands, usually from other multi-billion dollar companies. At least I can't remember when was the last time Lego made a set for some arthouse movie that just become the next Pulp Fiction. Same with all of the cars, only big names. Pagani and Koenigsegg are probably the smallest ones when it comes to revenue, but those are still brands every car enthousiast knows very well. And both still bigger than Lunar Outpost. Yet no set of the Devel Sixteen, one of the most viral (or vaporare?) new brands.....
And sure, Lunar Outpost might become the next SpaceX.....but is SpaceX, with a revenue over 300 times higher than Lunar Outpost, even a houshold name? And the sole reason SpaceX got so big so quick was because it's the hobby project of the richest guy in the world. So indeed I don't know what Lego knows, but it seems like a massive gamble to me. Which even makes me think: What percentage of the revenue of Lunar Outpost comes from licensing? And more particularly, how much from Lego?"
At this point, we can only speculate. I don't know if Lunar Outpost happens to be owned by an even bigger company that holds IP that TLG might be interested in, and this is just the first thing they get out of that deal. Like how LEGO also makes products of Marvel movies that they probably know aren't going to sell well, but the licensor wants product of their latest CGI crap fest anyway in order for LEGO to make more Spider-Man toys.
@WizardOfOss said:
"Don't get me wrong: In itself I don't mind a Lunar Outpost set from Lego. I can only hope they don't pay much for that license. In the end it is us who are paying for it, and I can't help but feel that this set would have been a much more attractive proposition without a license but at a lower RRP. Even if it's just 10 bucks or so."
In all likelihood you're already paying for license fees you don't care for, because companies tend to spread out license fees more multiple product groups. That might be the case for LEGO too. You're also not paying more for this product than you otherwise would've. Major retailers decide the what the RSP should be for products to be in their stores, so LEGO than has to make sets at the price point. If there's a hefty license involved, that means you're just getting less stuff I the box. So, this Technic set would've been the exact same price otherwise, but with a few more pieces for a more substantial side build.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
"The egg, because eggs predate chickens as a species by millions of years. :-)"
That's.....a matter of definition ;-)
"Supply and demand aren't a one-way street, obviously There's no shortage of toys, but most toy stores will serve you the things that sell best anyway. Or at least those products get the best spots in the store. It's easier to sell products that are already getting loads of marketing, because marketing and PR (ideally, in the eyes of marketeers) help to create demand. Smaller companies don't have that luxury, so the likelihood of finding them at a retail store is decidedly smaller than an A-name brand. But that goes for retail in general."
Agreed, and unless shops can make a bigger margin on other brands, there's very little incentive for them to change the status quo.
"At this point, we can only speculate. I don't know if Lunar Outpost happens to be owned by an even bigger company that holds IP that TLG might be interested in, and this is just the first thing they get out of that deal. Like how LEGO also makes products of Marvel movies that they probably know aren't going to sell well, but the licensor wants product of their latest CGI crap fest anyway in order for LEGO to make more Spider-Man toys."
Who knows.......nothing on their website or wiki that suggests anything, and when I google the founder Justin Cyrus, all I get is stuff about Justin Timberlake and Miley Cyrus....
Still, I bet even the worst Marvel stuff will do way better than some obscure space tech company.
"In all likelihood you're already paying for license fees you don't care for, because companies tend to spread out license fees more multiple product groups. That might be the case for LEGO too. You're also not paying more for this product than you otherwise would've."
Depends how you look at it. Sure, it's a big numbers game with a bit of give and take over the entire portfolio. But still, whatever the license fee is, that is a cost component they wouldn't have had without that license. And we know all too well how much Lego watches the pennies while designing a set. If they can cut corners to save a few cents, they absolutely will, even at the cost of quality.
"Major retailers decide the what the RSP should be for products to be in their stores, so LEGO than has to make sets at the price point."That's an interesting one.....retailers don't come much more major than Amazon, yet they continuously have big discounts... are you telling me Lego's own shop is so expensive by Amazon demand?
"If there's a hefty license involved, that means you're just getting less stuff I the box. So, this Technic set would've been the exact same price otherwise, but with a few more pieces for a more substantial side build."
In the end that's the same: Same product at lower price or more product at the same price. You pay more for less. I still think 99% of buyers would have preferred a no-name product with a few hundred more pieces (and not wasted on that that silly MAPP) at the same price.
@Crux said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"But if I go out on the streets, and ask 100 random people of varying ages about Lunar Outpost, how many would have ever heard of the brand? Even if anyone would know, I wouldn't be surprised that's only because of this very Lego set....."
There is a non-zero chance that I might end up being one of those 100 people, and even then I would have assumed you were talking about 60350 which, yeah, I really quite liked a lot. It's a good set! I own multiple copies of it! How do you know this, random person on the streets? How much do you know?! Who else knows of this?!"
They're a wizard, it says it right there in their username. That's how they know.
@WizardOfOss said:
"That's.....a matter of definition ;-)"
It's a matter of science!
"Agreed, and unless shops can make a bigger margin on other brands, there's very little incentive for them to change the status quo."
Exactly.
"Still, I bet even the worst Marvel stuff will do way better than some obscure space tech company."
The discounts suggest otherwise, but we'll have to wait and see how well this set does.
"Depends how you look at it. Sure, it's a big numbers game with a bit of give and take over the entire portfolio. But still, whatever the license fee is, that is a cost component they wouldn't have had without that license. And we know all too well how much Lego watches the pennies while designing a set. If they can cut corners to save a few cents, they absolutely will, even at the cost of quality."
LEGO may cut corners here and there, which every company of this magnitude tends to do, but they know how precious licenses are, or at least can be. They also have to please stockholders, so it's far more complicated than 'licensed products are more expensive. booooh!'... It's a tough balancing act for a company at this level, but I'm sure someone over in Billund is working magic with spreadsheets, so it will all make sense on paper.
"That's an interesting one.....retailers don't come much more major than Amazon, yet they continuously have big discounts... are you telling me Lego's own shop is so expensive by Amazon demand?"
I meant traditional retailers, like toy shops and big box stores. I'm not even sure if Amazon technically is a retailer, rather than a platform for retailers. There is this theory, although I don't know if it holds true, that LEGO (slightly) overprices its products with the intention of them going on sale, therefore incentivising customers to buy them. The reason that LEGO isn't offering their products cheaper in their own shops, while they very easily could, is not to upset other retailers. If LEGO is offering the same discount or sale as other retailers, those retailers wouldn't have the advantage of a sale. That's why LEGO needs an Insiders program to entice customers to buy products at their stores, even if you have to pay more than elsewhere. As with the licensing deals, you see that business relations are important to the company, even if it may not always make sense to the customers.
"In the end that's the same: Same product at lower price or more product at the same price. You pay more for less. I still think 99% of buyers would have preferred a no-name product with a few hundred more pieces (and not wasted on that that silly MAPP) at the same price."
It's not exactly the same, but it's true that the PPP ends up being more and the perceived value being less. But LEGO can get away with that, especially given the discount strategy laid out above. In the end, customers always want products to be cheaper, but LEGO has always been expensive. In fact, if you take inflation into account, which you really should, LEGO products are actually cheaper on a PPP ratio than they were twenty to forty years ago. So, for those complaining that everything gets more expensive, you must realise that's because money becomes less valuable over time. That's just how an economy works.
The wheels are similar to the MAPP rover which landed on the moon in March, but this was the first prototype while the above is a futuristic concept with robotic arm to make playable (but needs extendable boom). So the licensing cost is probably tiny as the promotional exposure is far more important to Lunar Output. If I was TLG I would be more concerned that the Lunar Outpost logo is not too dissimilar to the vintage space logo.
I'm a great fan of those new wheels, as they'd make great rose windows in a medieval build.
@ambr said:
"If I was TLG I would be more concerned that the Lunar Outpost logo is not too dissimilar to the vintage space logo. "
That just shows how prescient Lego was, back in the day!