[April Fool's] LEGO announces 999-piece maximum size for future sets
Posted by Huw,
BILLUND, DENMARK: The LEGO Group announced a new direction for its retail toy design strategy, revealing today that all sets released from 1st January 2027 will be subject to size limitations.
Speaking about the new strategy, one of the LEGO Group Heads of Design, Mette Tåbeligt, discusses what this approach can mean for the future of LEGO products, storytelling and the planet: “We feel that the introduction of a size limit to sets is a vital decision to focus our teams, from design to production to packaging, on the core values of the company. In this modern world, we strive to get back to our roots of childlike creativity, play and storytelling at a human scale”
Design teams across the LEGO themes have already been working hard within this new constraint, ready for next year’s releases. The toy giant stressed that the now-established “Adults Welcome” collection will continue and will be subject to the same restrictions. “I’ve been thrilled to enact this new direction within my teams and product lines,” says Arthur Usandt, Design Manager at the LEGO Group.
“While fans have undoubtedly enjoyed the huge sets released in recent years, our LEGO Group vision is to be a global force for Learning-Through-Play, and while some could nonetheless be played with, it feels right to restrain the expansion of these vast releases. What’s surprised many of us is how much it has also reinvigorated our joy in the design process!”
Mursten Forkert, Chief Product & Marketing Officer, the LEGO Group, commented: “At the LEGO Group, we have a proud history of making bold decisions when the time is right. Not only has this move already seen huge success in play testing and market research, but it’s also eased some technical stresses within the manufacturing process, allowing us to make production quality improvements.”
Some fans have complained about the ever-increasing size and cost of modern sets, but plenty of others have enjoyed the huge masterpieces released in recent years. More details will surely be forthcoming as fans of all ages question what this means for their favourite themes.
What do you think of this major move? Is it a welcome reduction which could bring down eye-watering prices, or will it stifle the potential of great play or display pieces?
148 likes
81 comments on this article
Check the date!
So many posts on April Fool’s day… hehe
And only 1x1 tiles can be used.
Bit of a boring one this year!
Mette Tåbeligt, Arthur Usandt & Mursten Forkert. Names that inspire confidence.
Finally a move we can all get behind!
Lego announces the emborification of all minifigures with no accessories or printing of any kind... and all sets will be $1000 regardless of size.
Lego: you're welcome, give us your money.
LAN: Everything Lego does is objectvely awesome!!! Free trips, free stuff, early unfair access to stories and releases, money, money, fake friends, towers, houses, warehouses, luxury cars, jobs for our kids.
Surely this is an April Fools joke! I hope...
The ideal size for a set if you ask me, so I wouldn't object much even if this weren't a hoax.
Why not embrace childhood further and return to vintage space, city and castle when all sets were less than 400 pieces, but it will mean bringing back large wall panels and burps (big ugly rock pieces).
This is the worse day of the calendar year
Something something check the calendar.
Not as much a joke as an actual good idea.
Is that counting the brickseperator?
(date check completed)
@meesajarjar72 said:
"Bit of a boring one this year! "
Last year there were two I think... I'm hoping there's another article to come!
Would such a limit also apply to the Bricklink Designer Program?
Hilarious! The name translations are genius too:
Mette Tåbeligt = Mette Foolishly
Arthur Usandt = Arthur Untrue
Mursten Forkert = Brick Wrong
April Fools Day bores me because we see all the bantz.
This feels like something that LEGO would do and say, down to the borderline unrelated and generic reasoning.
Bout time ;)
Oh for Fun's sake, you got me here with current events. I was almost excited, to be honest. A year of releases fully focused on sub-1000-piece-count sets would be welcome.
A funnier April Fool was offering several fantastic new sets with only a poxy £3.50 Easter Bunny as a GWP!
Y'all walked right into this one... :'-)
I know this is a joke and it should "enrage" afol, but it would be a decision that I would totally agree with
You trying to say the Rocking Plants article wasn't the April foll joke?
All jokes aside, in itself it wouldn't even be too bad.
I mean, big sets in itself aren't an issue. There's clearly a market for it, and I also have plenty of bigger sets myself. What I can see as a problem though are sets that are bigger (and thus more expensive) than they need to be, either because of stuff that only seems to be there to make the set meet a certain price point, or because things are combined into one big set that could have been separate, smaller sets just as well.
I can't believe I thought this was real for a bit.
@alLEGOry_HJB2810 said:
" @meesajarjar72 said:
"Bit of a boring one this year! "
Last year there were two I think... I'm hoping there's another article to come!"
There were two, but https://brickset.com/article/120258/minifigures-with-hair-lego-explores-the-road-not-taken still doesn't have the [April Fool's] at the top of the article.
Aside from the date, that's an idea I'd be on board with!
More of a 'humour to make a valid point' April Fool, and I like it!
I had forgotten for a few minutes the date today, and was truly stunned by the new... Excellent.
good one and my grandmother`s name is George
@TheOtherMike said:
"I can't believe I thought this was real for a bit.
@alLEGOry_HJB2810 said:
" @meesajarjar72 said:
"Bit of a boring one this year! "
Last year there were two I think... I'm hoping there's another article to come!"
There were two, but https://brickset.com/article/120258/minifigures-with-hair-lego-explores-the-road-not-taken still doesn't have the [April Fool's] at the top of the article."
There are two this year: the parts maximum which is Brickset’s and the Rocking Plants which is LEGO Group’s.
if this isn't in one area i think this is the worst Lego decision yet
Feels a bit too similar to Rebrickable’s April Fools post last year imo. Not a big stress, it’s all good fun on April 1st!
That's great! I'm so annoyed putting too many pieces together......
“Adults Welcome”? - I would say “Wallets Welcome”!
Pity that this is just a joke.
I'd be totally behind this.
Haha, Mette Tåbeligt, Arthur Usandt and Mursten Forkert. I got you
(Translate last names)
It does sound a bit like Scandinavian surnames
Too bad the smart brick released so early on in the year. It would have been a better bit if the April Fool's joke was that the whole project was scrapped when in reality it would still be releasing later on in the year.
Congrats to the authors. This article caught me off-guard and I actually believed it. I started researching the sets and the piece count to get an idea of what is coming :-D
Man, you actually got me for a minute there! I started thinking about sets that aren't insanely huge but still are over the 999-piece count that I have bought and would be sad to see no more of. Trains you could get around that by going back to selling pieces individually and... d'oh! April fools. I'm way to gullible.
Wish it was true! Occasionally they could produce a second 999 bricks set to enlarge the first one. Would be a nice design challenge as well!
@greycat said:
"good one and my grandmother`s name is George"
Ah, she was in the Famous Five?
A shrinking in set sizes? Perhaps it could be a good thing. Realistically, many of the larger sets will no longer be able to be made. I am somewhat sad about that aspect of it. Losing the potential for sets like the millennium falcon will be sad to see.
Forging a new path, I think Lego has a chance to make this into a good opportunity. Often, many sets include extra pieces just to inflate the price. Or the other thing that they do is design sets for these higher price ranges. Luxury toys may have been a big part of their past, but I'm hopeful to see them go in a new direction. Soon, a lot of customers will be able to afford Lego to the extent we've never seen before.
@ajcopus said:
"Check the date!"
haha, almost fell for it. actually did .... whatever
@ELbricker said:
"Too bad the smart brick released so early on in the year. It would have been a better bit if the April Fool's joke was that the whole project was scrapped when in reality it would still be releasing later on in the year."
It's already been released; I've seen them on store shelves.
I was going to make a bad joke about the size, but I won't. So let's just say, I still have fun with smaller sets of yesteryear and still build oldschool MOCs.
Wow, April Fools and passive aggressive commentary all in one!
I definitely wasn’t thinking about the day when I read the headline and had several thoughts flash through my head, but as I processed the 999 it seemed too low and then it clicked. Like others, having a maximum actually doesn’t seem like a terrible idea, but that’s too few pieces.
This will save me a lot of money. Now sets should all cost under $100. Or $300 if it’s Star Wars.
there's a typo, they meant a maximum size of 999999 pieces
I am an idiot (...or you could say 'a fool') I very-nearly fell for it.
@Fauch said:
"there's a typo, they meant a maximum size of 999999 pieces"
Nah, they just confused maximum and minimum.
Looks at the date, I think you got me for a second.
surely this also means a maximum price of $99.99 and they just thought it was so obvious that they didn't say it... right? ;)
Awesome! Maybe I can afford more sets now. :)
Out of all the april fools day stuff, this is the first one I’d be semi-fine with, so long as the price is decent.
@Bri3k_b01 said:
"Out of all the april fools day stuff, this is the first one I’d be semi-fine with, so long as the price is decent."
NVM, I got the headline flipped. It’s less about the price and the details.
I wouldn’t be mad at this one. It would cut down on the amount of 1x1’s & using one part where they would use two, 1x8 instead of two 1x4’s.
But...what about their profitability and targeted marketing LOL
Back to the 80's. I'm in (sadly it's only a joke, and the tendency is the opposite...)
It is down to production capacity issues due to the robots striking.
Maybe they should introduce ration books, allowing you to only buy 9999 parts a year across all purchases.
Awesome, glad I'll be able to afford sets now
"But what about...?"
*Checks date*
"Damn..."
Well played, Huw. :)
Even though this is an April Fools joke, it wouldn't be a bad idea to set a limit on SOME of the sets.
THe Barad Dur set had many many places in it that the designers intentionally use many small plates instead of longer ones, tiles too, thus increasing the parts count. Unfair and unjust. and no, it had nothing to do with the integrity of the build, in fact it made it weaker at places because of the use of smaller plates bricks and tiles.
I'd believe it if they had said all sets will be 12, 123, 1234, or 12345 pieces.
Missed opportunity to reduce the max age limit at the same time
Unfunny
@CJSchaff said:
"Even though this is an April Fools joke, it wouldn't be a bad idea to set a limit on SOME of the sets."
Presumably they do have a limit on some sets, as they aim to cover a range of price points within some themes.
@MLF said:
"I'd believe it if they had said all sets will be 12, 123, 1234, or 12345 pieces."
"1, 2, 3, 4, 5! That's the kind of combination an idiot puts on his luggage!"
Thank you for keeping this fun tradition going. In this day/age it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to identify hyperbole.
While I enjoyed writing the return of 10179 and the uproar it caused (before we had likes!)…
https://brickset.com/article/2887/lego-to-rerelease-ultimate-collector-s-millennium-falcon
…my favorite Brickset April 1 article is still the 18+ Duplo:
https://brickset.com/article/58636/%5Bapril-fool-s%5D-introducing-18-duplo-design
This sounds good!
I'm happy to hear LEGO wants to return to making fun and interesting sets! Considering 6991 - Monorail Transport Base was only 573 pieces, had electronic play features and it was absolutely massive, I can't wait to see what LEGO can do with 999 pieces!
I can detail it with hundreds of 1x1 tiles and cheese slopes myself. I mean, I do this constantly anyway, even with sets released now. Some might think I'm strange for doing this but I don't know--I don't always agree with the LEGO design or color choices. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the LEGO designer isn't me? I'm not really sure. Whatever the reason, I'm okay with it. After all, that's the whole point of LEGO. If you don't like something, you can always just change it, right?
The best part though is that the sets should all be reasonably affordable! As we all know, every piece basically costs the same regardless of what the piece is or how big it is, at least according to the PPP metric some people like using for determining value from the cost of sets, so with a maximum piece count of 999 pieces, I think everything should be $150 or less!
Amazing!
@yellowcastle said:"Thank you for keeping this fun tradition going. In this day/age it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to identify hyperbole.
While I enjoyed writing the return of 10179 and the uproar it caused (before we had likes!)…
https://brickset.com/article/2887/lego-to-rerelease-ultimate-collector-s-millennium-falcon
…my favorite Brickset April 1 article is still the 18+ Duplo:
https://brickset.com/article/58636/%5Bapril-fool-s%5D-introducing-18-duplo-design"
It's a shame that the page on lego.com for Super-Size Tim doesn't seem to be up anymore. And who could forget the Majestic Horse?
@Huw, would it be possible to add an "April Fool's" tag of some kind to the news articles to make them easier to find? When I search for "April Fool's," and then click on "View all matching news articles," nothing comes up, and I'm sure that there are more AF articles than the ones shown (including the ones listed in one of those articles) and the two @yellowcastle mentioned. And some of the article (like the 10179 rerelease and https://brickset.com/article/58690/news-round-up) don't even say "April Fool's" at the top.
@Vindicare said:
"I wouldn’t be mad at this one. It would cut down on the amount of 1x1’s & using one part where they would use two, 1x8 instead of two 1x4’s. "
I actually think two 1x4s are more useful than one 1x8. Not always, but mostly.
That said, I don't want to build 1x2 bricks out of 1x2 plates. But I will when the PAB wall gives me 1x2 plates in Reddish Orange, for instance.
I kind of hoped this were true... Is something wrong with me?
@yellowcastle said:
"Thank you for keeping this fun tradition going. In this day/age it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to identify hyperbole.
While I enjoyed writing the return of 10179 and the uproar it caused (before we had likes!)…
https://brickset.com/article/2887/lego-to-rerelease-ultimate-collector-s-millennium-falcon
…my favorite Brickset April 1 article is still the 18+ Duplo:
https://brickset.com/article/58636/%5Bapril-fool-s%5D-introducing-18-duplo-design"
I never knew that you used to be a contributor here!
I'm inclined to agree with you on the the 18+ Duplo gag. Definitely the best they've done.
@jBXavier said:
"So many posts on April Fool’s day… hehe"
what'd you bet this is an april fools joke (I sincerely hope it is...)
@pumpkinwashingmachine said:
" @jBXavier said:
"So many posts on April Fool’s day… hehe"
what'd you bet this is an april fools joke (I sincerely hope it is...) "
Look at the top of the article.
@adrx13 said:
"Missed opportunity to reduce the max age limit at the same time"
I was just thinking, the funnier bit might have been something like "LEGO to enforce box age limits with ID-checks at purchase" or something like that.
@TheOtherMike said:
I think this is all of them: https://brickset.com/news/month-4/day-1?query=april%20fool
@ajp31 said:
" @adrx13 said:
"Missed opportunity to reduce the max age limit at the same time"
I was just thinking, the funnier bit might have been something like "LEGO to enforce box age limits with ID-checks at purchase" or something like that."
Already done: https://brickset.com/article/58690/[april-fool-s]-news-round-up
Thank you, @Huw!
@yellowcastle said:
"Thank you for keeping this fun tradition going. In this day/age it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to identify hyperbole.
While I enjoyed writing the return of 10179 and the uproar it caused (before we had likes!)…
https://brickset.com/article/2887/lego-to-rerelease-ultimate-collector-s-millennium-falcon
…my favorite Brickset April 1 article is still the 18+ Duplo:
https://brickset.com/article/58636/%5Bapril-fool-s%5D-introducing-18-duplo-design"
Best one I ever pulled off was faking an Infected Miru Nuva:
https://www.maskofdestiny.com/news/it-does-exist
You can see how close I got to the actual Infected Hau paint job in the follow-up article:
https://www.maskofdestiny.com/news/anatomy-of-an-infection
If this wasn't an april fools article I wouldn't necessarily agree with it beeing done for all sets, but a decrease in average part count I wouldn't mind seeing