LEGO Ideas maximum part count to increase

I'm fine with it. We've had a good mix of sizes and price points of sets on the last few years and I trust the ideas team to keep striking that balance. Will be fun to see what people can do with the larger budgets!

Largely ambivalent to this. The type of entries that would artificially inflate their piece count with the new limit were likely already doing it with the current limit (looking at you, sitcom boxes) and there might be some smarter entries that could use a few more pieces to get a mechanism working just right

It doesn't matter. After choosing a project, the Ideas team has always done what they wanted, such as increasing or reducing the number of parts.

They should increase the minimum votes, not the max part count

I think it's a great idea; it gives the creator more options, but there's no obligation to use them.

Besides, I really like the eclectic nature of Ideas sets and this may help refine some of the creators' builds a little.

@GusG said:
"They should increase the minimum votes, not the max part count"

They should also get a bigger team to moderate what gets submitted. The quality should be a lot higher for 90% of the submissions, a phone camera picture of your 200 piece race car that's 50 colors shouldn't be on there.

I'm still amazed that the Medieval Town Square (amongst other things) was unveiled at this event last year and yet remained (largely) a rumour until it's reveal. That's a lot of commitment by all these blogs.

As for IDEAS, as mentioned, the part count is largely irrelevant as the final set won't necessarily reflect that, but they've looked at these huge BDP sets and wondered if that could transfer to IDEAS. But would rather see a greater diversity of actual ideas (ie not just IPs, life-size objects, nostalgia-bait or space/castle sets) than huge expensive sets.

@classicstylecastle said:
"I'm still amazed that the Medieval Town Square (amongst other things) was unveiled at this event last year and yet remained (largely) a rumour until it's reveal. That's a lot of commitment by all these blogs.

As for IDEAS, as mentioned, the part count is largely irrelevant as the final set won't necessarily reflect that, but they've looked at these huge BDP sets and wondered if that could transfer to IDEAS. But would rather see a greater diversity of actual ideas (ie not just IPs, life-size objects, nostalgia-bait or space/castle sets) than huge expensive sets.

"

I wholeheartedly agree that much better variety in sets would be most welcome. Sadly, I suspect that this snippet of information merely reinforces my fear that LEGO will continue to churn out bigger, more expensive sets which are aimed directly at the section of the market which can best afford them (predominantly AFOLs) It, therefore, follows, should my fears be realised, that bigger, more expensive sets based on IPs or nostalgia will be the result and not the plethora of alternative subjects most of us crave.

I hope I'm wrong and TLG start creating larger sets with a much wider variety of subject matter.

It would be nice to have more offerings under $70.

Shouldve been decreased IMO

Swings both ways that one I think. Finances obviously being a concern makes it sound a bit negative. But when you consider many of us scream for accuracy and detail, then this is certainly a positive.
Perhaps it will mean we have a few tougher purchase decisions to make, but a better selection to choose from.

No sonny jim, we can’t have everything anymore.
Not necessarily a bad thing, space costs more than Lego anyway

It's nice to let people have more freedom to go nuts on huge projects, but it just ends up with yet more ideas sets I wish I could afford. (still yearning for the treehouse over here)

Ah yes, just what we need: more BIG sets. Those are so rare and especially of IPs.

/Sarcasm off

This doesn't really matter to me personally, but I'm afraid this will only increase the amount of 'this is a cool MOC but not necessary a great 'idea' for a set' submissions. To each their own I guess and there must be clearly a demand for it.

But personally I would love for the product portfolio to be more balanced instead of being more lopsided. I know we still get 'small' sets in themes like Ninjago and City but the amount of big sets is hard to keep track of now. And considering that Ideas has become mainly an IP popularity contest hat barely distinguishes itself from the individual Licensed themes and especially Icons... this doesn't give me high hopes.

Making ideas under a parts restriction is an art, and relaxing that restriction will put less pressure on honing that art.

LEGO Ideas surely has other problems than parts count. Do we really need more super large and expensive sets? I also don't think it's necessary from a creative point of view. Imposing some restrictions can foster the process as it forces you to reconsider and focus on what's really necessary and how to achieve the best solution. I think they're taking the wrong lessons from the BL Designer program here, which seems to have triggered this...

Don't think its a good idea to increase the parts count as it'll just discourage alot of people from submitting ideas as they'll assume 'only the massively elaborate sets are going to get the votes'.

Which takes me to what @GusG and @Rowia have said. They should be upping the required number of votes to get approved. Thats a given seeing at times how many sets get approved, but then never picked/made, or that do get picked that end up being shelf warmers. Plus, why isn't the mod team removing submissions that'll never have a chance earlier? Those they won't get the IP for or break other terms of being picked.

Lego should be going for quality, not quantity. So how about we get division brackets for builds? Say 1000 parts or less, 1001-2000 parts, then the 2000-3000 bracket? In my mind that would encourage more variety of build and also get cheaper submission that are more affordable to the average buyer.

More bricks in a box means more expensive sets, especially when it's another existing IP. Brace yourselves for a slew of huge sets only a select few can afford and house. Ridiculously large LEGO sets are fun as a novelty, but they appear to become a standard asset in LEGO's catalog. Good for promo, though, I guess.

I'd rather see a split where ideas which fully rely on IPs or are models of real people/things have a higher threshold or a shorter window to meet review. I used to enjoy flicking through Ideas, and whilst the number of very low quality sets seems to have reduced, I feel it's mostly IPs - looking at the current most supported, 7/10 are IPs or models of household items.

A $500 Ideas set coming soon to us?

I don’t know if we’re ready for that.

I’m sick of every adult set costing as much as a game console. It’s really turned me off from the hobby.

As a kid I got the Tron Ideas set as a gift once, and it was really cool to get something so different from other sets available from Lego. It’s sad to think that Ideas now is more and more just massive displays, and less something kids will be able to experience.

Dreadful idea. Ideas sets rarely price under $100. This just gives an excuse for even more bloated designs and price tags.

But as always, this will fall on deaf ears because the vast majority of Lego's customers simply don't care.

While I do love my 21311, I think that more Ideas sets should be like 21109, and not because it's a cool mech based on a Pete Reid design. It's big enough to be a nice display piece, but not big enough to either break the bank or make finding a place to display it a problem. 21345 is more expensive, but still affordable and definitely hits my other point. I'd also like to see more Ideas sets that weren't IP sets (Obviously, I don't have a problem with them, but I wish they weren't so prominent) and weren't GWPs.

@PixelTheDragon said:
"I’m sick of every adult set costing as much as a game console. It’s really turned me off from the hobby. "

That is a REALLY good way to visualise whats gone wrong with LEGO pricing!

I would rather buy two or three of a set like 31120 and have a nice selection of optional designs with repeating fun character designs that can mix or match. Increasing parts per model, and ultimately the price they increase per set, eliminates my ability, and desire, to play, design, build, and create with the product.

Ah, the literal worst possible case scenario for LEGO Ideas, glad I'm going to continue to not be able to buy new sets in my former favorite theme. Thanks guys, great idea.

The problem I have with Ideas is hardly anyone's building anything for real anymore. It's all just CAD, with no regard to proper construction or the real cost of the final results. Worst of all are people offering up 'functional' designs that they've never tried out and don't have a hope of ever actually working. Piece count, particularly large numbers, just seem to encourage it.

Capping the part count *lower* to 1,500 or something would probably be a net good thing for the Ideas community, encouraging efficient concepts and proper competition between lower-end and higher-end members. Right now Ideas contestants are at a "make the most impressive Instagrammable MOC" race in contrast to the early days where a compact and to-the-point concept could be made into a reality... Back to the Future, Tron Legacy, WALL-E, Doctor Who - all sub-$70 sets that were appealing to kids, teens, and adults all at once at a fair price point. Opening up the door for $500 Ideas sets right after the Jabba's Sail Barge backlash just suggests a bigger MOC showcase race for extreme collectors instead of actually opening opportunities for the Lego audience.

Ideas sets inherently becoming black-box sets is a very bad thing and I'm glad people are saying it.

I see this having no meaningful effect. The vote threshold has been too low for multiple years now, and that is what ought to change. Pools of 27 projects or more when the majority have no chance just because only one or two are ever chosen is ridiculous.

Honestly the piece count should be lowered and the vote threshold increased significantly.

Like others, I would agree that I don't think we need more prohibitively expensive LEGO sets, but we need less.

If LEGO wants to increase their piece-count for IDEAS set, that's their prerogative, but I think they ought to commit to at least putting out a range of IDEAS sets, in a variety of piece-count sizes (much as they do with other themes, with $5-25 sets, $25-50 sets, $50-100 sets, and $100+ sets; a bit like Huw and company's annual recap of favorite sets of the year, I suppose). Gone are the days, it seems, when we got that awesome IDEAS Tron Legacy lightcycles set (21314), and at a lower price than typical IDEAS sets, too.

But, then again, is that solely LEGO IDEAS' fault? No. Users submit IDEAS ideas, voters vote on them, and LEGO reviews the top vote-getters and, often, ends up selecting large sets that end up getting purchased by some anyway, regardless of price.

I don't have the time to look at Ideas all the time. I would prefer something like BLD does, rounds of a CURATED selection I can vote on. Or stimulate media to feature highlights.

I don't need to see this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/49f81af8-2233-4baa-958f-b1ab24c17878

There have been small (Women of NASA, Tron, etc) and medium (Flintstones, Dr. Who, Yellow Submarine, etc) sets previously in the Ideas line. Lately, the sets have been bigger and more expensive. If the part limit is increased, it will be used, leading to even bigger and more expensive sets. I'd rather more emphasis be put on creating smaller sets.

What if Ideas had separate part count brackets and there'd be at least one selection per bracket and brackets don't compete against each other? $35 used to be a fairly consistent Ideas set price, how about review brackets for 400pc, 600pc, 1000pc, and 3000pc and encourage submissions and voters to branch out? It'd also make iterations on certain recurring licensed concepts more strategic beyond "I want a Shrek hut, a Hyrule Castle, and a Bionicle throwback" where a concept being passed on in one bracket could be made more compelling or feasible to Lego inside a different bracket, actually having fan designers and their communities think and learn from failure instead of reuploading basically the same set for another review.

Honestly, more $500+ sets (and that's a low estimate if it's a licensed IP, which Ideas often trends toward) just means more sets I won't own. I'd much rather see more clever techniques applied at a smaller, more affordable scale like we see in so many smaller Ideas sets.

I just see: "LEGO Ideas maximum PRICE to increase"

IMO we need Ideas sets to get smaller, not bigger. Sets like the Research Institute, Women of NASA, Mars Rover, Tron bikes, Exo Suit and even things like the Ecto-1 Flintstones and Dr Who were great and at least somewhat reasonable in price.

@AustinPowers said:
" @CCC said:
"I've lost all interest in IDEAS, so couldn't really care one way or the other."
Same here. "

That's too bad. I love that IDEAS and BLDP gives the fan community an "opportunity" to have a seat at the table for what types of sets we get. There's clearly a lot more submitted than gets approved and the approval process is likely too vague and confusing. But I'm still very happy we have this option, as submitters, supporters, and potentially consumers.

I treat IDEAS and BLDP just like any other theme. Show me the finished product at the finalized price and I'll then decide if it goes on my list and if so, how high. IDEAS sets have been some of my favorite sets ever, including 21301 Birds, 21309 Saturn V, 21310 Old Fishing Store, 21311 Voltron, 21320 Dinosaur Fossils, 21322 Pirates of Barracuda Bay, 21332 Globe, 21344 Jazz Quartet, 21335 Lighthouse, and 21350 Jaws. And many of the other ones I didn't mention are great as well.

Relatedly, I am in love with some of the BLDP sets starting with 91006 Sheriff's Safe, 910028 Pursuit of Flight, 910002 Studgate and 910013 Bowling Alley. My son just built the 910029 Mountain Fortress and it is simply fantastic. I can't believe I didn't save that one for myself. :o)

I'm not sure "increasing the number of votes" would have the outcome some of you think it would.

Increasing the required votes, would likely only stifle originality in the theme further. The projects most likely to hit a higher vote threshold are the IP based ones that can pull votes from those fan bases outside the LEGO community via social media campaigns. A good half or more of the last couple rounds have already been IP based.

In other words . . . you want more BTS sets? Cause that's how you get more BTS sets.

Personally I think there should be piece count categories. Might allow for a bit of innovation/smaller, reasonably priced sets to have a better shot against eye candy.

Piece count categories sound helpful, plus maybe a requirement to get some number of votes to qualify for the next piece count level. Especially starting out, new designers need constraints to encourage creative and effective part use. Ideas is full of very bloated builds IMO.