Master Builder Series - Official Statement
Posted by CapnRex101,
LEGO has published an official statement in relation to the new Master Builder Series, responding to the speculation which followed the unveiling of 75222 Betrayal at Cloud City last week:
'The Master Builder Series models are large playsets and beside being complex builds they are characterised by having many play features and functions, interior details as well as a range of minifigures. Ultimate Collectors series [sic] will remain highly detailed display models providing complex builds with a focus on authenticity and both Ultimate Collectors Series and Master Builder Series will continue as a way to highlight the unique characteristic of each style of model.'
This description matches the general consensus of fan speculation, although a few questions remain about how this brand might be applied to vehicles such as 75059 Sandcrawler, should similar sets be released in the future.
Are you pleased that the Ultimate Collector Series branding will no longer be applied to play sets? Let us know in the comments.
118 likes
63 comments on this article
Well, that should clear things up. Good direction imho.
You say tomato I say whatever...
Sounds a lot like Creator Expert to me.
I suppose Creator Expert may have been a strange way to categorize Star Wars sets though, hence the new label.
The other question is what will brickset do with older UCS sets that if released now would be MBS sets.
I thought this was pretty obvious when the Master Builder Series was first announced. Did people really think that the Ultimate Collector's Series was done?
Assault on Hoth isn't even Master Builder Series worthy. ;)
I wish they came up with this for the 75098 Assult on Hoth set, which should have definitely been a MBS set
Good to have that distinction, but I hope they branch out more from Star Wars than they have in the past. The battle of Wakanda would be and AMAZING MBS Set, and the Milano would be great for UCS.
Interesting. I do wonder how many kids will be able to get this due to the price, but we'll see how well the set does I suppose!
What's in a name?
From what I've read so far, the issue, especially regarding Assault on Hoth, seems to be huffy 'fans' throwing their toys outta the pram because one UCS set or another doesn't conform to their own individual set of criteria about what makes a UCS set.
@bananaworld: to be fair, those "huffy fans" were not completely wrong, as the Assault on Hoth set really didn't fit into the UCS line, not offering any of the traits UCS sets usually possess (apart from the high price of course):
It had zero display value
It was shoddily designed, with many unsightly areas
It was a thrown-together mix of small scenes, not even a huge single playset like these new MBS sets are supposed to be
It featured no complex building techniques that seem to be a staple of both USC as well as MBS sets
Even Jang said in his video that he thought the UCS label on that set was a mistake, and I know no one who is more diplomatic than him when it comes to comments about LEGO.
Thia is my opinion but I so want an AT-AT UCS set (aside from Ninjago City and Rep Dropship with the AT-OT it would be my first UCS).
I truly couldn't care less about the label on any LEGO set. If I like it (and can afford it), I buy it.
I really don't see how this will appeal to kids and their families. The average working and middle class family can't exactly drop $400 on a fancy playset.
@AustinPowers
I could just trot out, "What's in a name?" again, but you've hooked me, so I'll get reeled in willingly.
Much of what you've used to justify your opinion (a word that "even Jang" likes to strongly stress) is subjective; I have no doubt that there are children and adults out there who love Assault on Hoth, consider it worthy of display, appreciate playing with it, and found it an enjoyable build.
Some didn't, so they shouldn't buy it, but should they get worked up about it?
You might be worried that they 'only' release 2 UCS sets per year, so Assault on Hoth 'wasted' a slot, but do you really love EVERY other UCS set, and consider it worthy of the name? Even the naked Death Star...?
Who cares what label or theme or age-range or box art LEGO applies to a set; there's a simple practice to follow: ask yourself, "Does this set represent good value to me, personally?" If it does, in terms of play, display, PPP, or whatever, buy the darn set (560heliport gets the idea!). If not, leave it on the shelf.
But don't harp on about it.
I think this statement was very clear and has answered the most important question about the whole new Master Builder Series.
As for the previous released sets, I don't think we should break our heads over whether or not a certain set should have been MBS or UCS (in retrospect). Just let those sets for what they are; let's not make things more complicated.
This is good and appropriate. While you can expect people to complain about them not doing this earlier in the lines, it clears up a point of contention for enough fans, collectors and builders that it needed to be done.
If one of the distinctions for MBS sets is to have many minifigs, what number would you all like to see as a minimum? maximum? Would a 50+ minifig set be out of the question? I wonder if TLG will establish any limits as to what they are willing to include in a set.
I feel like this must be in response to that UCS Hoth set from a while back. The description of basically an expensive playset applies better to it than what UCS usually means. I don't think these sets will be getting much play, though; the venn diagram of people who can afford sets like this and will play with them is likely very small. Also, would the Death Star currently available now retroactively fall into this category? Feels like it should.
Good to see a distinction between the two, I will concentrate on UCS. Unless something special comes out as a MBS. Still don’t like the look of cloud city.
^ cody6268 I do think few families would be able to afford such a large set for a kid, but maybe would be willing to plunk it down for a teenager or young adult if they are still into Lego collecting by that age.
Another option might be a large family buying one set to have their kids share. If a family has four kids, what is easier, buying 4-6 $100 sets, or just one $400 set for them all to share? I don't really have answers on that, but if Lego is making the product I assume they figure there is an audience for it.
I am not a completist that collects everything in a particular category regardless. So i didn’t buy AOH because it is a playset and i won’t buy the new Cloud City for the same reason.
I love building complex display models whether it is SW or Marvel or other.
What I would like to see are more UCS like sets from other licenses as well regardless of whether it is branded UCS, such as the Tumbler a few years back.
I think this might be to avoid backlash for sets like Assault on Hoth in the future. Serves to give fans more accurate expectations for sets.
Sounds to me like the UCS Falcon fits both descriptions. Perhaps if a model could be both, it becomes UCS. I agree that this is likely a response to the fans' issues with Hoth being labeled UCS.
Myself, I would consider my UCS collection complete even if I didn't buy Hoth (not that I'll ever be able to complete UCS)... I didn't buy the Winter Village Market because I didn't think -that- was a proper Winter Village set. Interesting enough, the Market has much the same issue as Hoth--it's a fine set, but felt like a hodge-podge of play features rather than the unified buildings I'd come to expect from WV.
Either way, I think this is a great response from Lego. I love that they respect their adult collectors/fans enough to take these kind of steps.
@Judgeguy I agree. I'm pretty sure this is a direct result of the feedback Lego got from the Hoth 'UCS'. Otherwise Hoth would have been the first MBS.
The Master Builder branding will appeal to kids who have seen The Lego Movie, probably more than an Expert brand would.
I cannot help but be amused that the press release cites "Ultimate Collectors Series", while the box for the UCS Yoda and others I have seen says "Ultimate Collector Series", and the gold badge says "Ultimate Collector's Series".
Sounds smart. Probably a counter to the poor reception of Assault On Hoth.
I had no issue with the label before. However, I think LEGO made the right move here for those that wanted some distinction between larger collectible models and playsets. Assault On Hoth is a great build for a group of 5+ people to do together, a rarity among most LEGO sets. Looking forward to what the new MBS had to offer!
@datsunrobbie A series for all the ultimate collectors, an ultimate series for the collector, or an ultimate series for the collectors. All three could work, but they really should pick one ;)
Seems like this new distinction was aimed squarely at UCS completionists. These completionists can now feel justified in saving $400 while still maintaining their moral high ground.
It seems every kind of LEGO completionist deals with the same issue. The debate about whether Market Street belongs to the modular building line and whether the fairground mixer belongs in the same category as the Ferris Wheel, Carousel and Rollercoaster both come to mind.
@cody6268 Maybe it is not for average working class families. Plenty of upper-middle and upper class families can afford it. It is obviously a luxury product. And I see no problem with that, it's not like that anything would replace it in lower price brackets.
The only problem I see is that today's kids don't seem to be that interested in OT SW, and Cloud City is even a more adult part of it. So why would well-off people buy it for their kids? The targeted market seems off to me.
I honestly couldn't care less how sets are labeled. I care more about the fact that despite the billion dollar profit the quality is still not improving but prices are still going up.
So I suppose the sets so far that fall in this theme (officially or not) are Betrayal At Cloud City (obviously), Assault On Hoth, and Ewok Village. Maybe even the original open Death Star?
I guess this is the response to the huge wave of negative comments following Hoth's release. Makes a clear distinction which appeals to a number of AFOL's
So is this TLG's (long-winded) way of saying more large SW sets??
If so; awesome!
If not; ... I don't really care.
I hope we get some Harry Potter Master Builder Series sets!
I'm hoping they'll put these distinctions on other products besides Star Wars.
Also for the new UCS series, like they said, more difficult builds but truly make them so. More complex in design. Really push the skills of the builders and to have printed nameplates. The only mini-figures should be a small group showcasing key characters from said model. Highly detailed and true exclusives. Or even, leave out the minifigures all together while the Master Builder Series can have figs.
I like the confirmation but it's a shame they didn't confirm anything around the amount of models they expect to release for UCS and MBS in any given year - perhaps it will be flexible between either 2 UCS sets (see 2017, 2015) or one UCS set and one MBS set (see 2018, 2013). I feel a year like 2016 where there were effectively 2 MBS sets with Assault on Hoth and Death Star rerelease will always be more unusual.
@Unikittius I’ve never considered the Creator Expert buildings very high on the playability score.
I don't get why some people always say: "if you don't like it don't buy it but stop ranting about it". Most companies spend very good money on market analysis, focus group, product placing, etc. By venting their frustrations, those Lego fans are providing a valuable service to the Lego company. And if the Lego company is smart enough, it must have a team of people scanning all those comments and comparing it to actual sales levels. Allowing only the positive views does not depict a true picture in any case. That said, I definitely would like to see UCS for other themes: UCS Ninjago movie - imagine a 4500 pieces Lloyd dragon!!! (sand green bonanza)
What I always tell myself when a set comes out that I am not interested in is "Thank goodness! One less set to tear myself apart over."
Ya hear that Lepin- Utimate Builder and Master Collector Lepin series coming up.
@Hobbes - first of all: with you on the desire for a sand green bonanza.
LEGO have been in this toy-selling game for a while, so one can hope that they do some market research before releasing a set into the wild. A reaction such as that elicited by Assault on Hoth's 'UCS' label from a minority of fans instils in me a vision of LEGO designers and marketers exasperatedly paraphrasing Woody: "It's a TOY!"
Whether or not it's a good value set (again, in terms of playability, etc.) seems to me independent of the reactions of those who took umbrage with that 'UCS' labelling, but LEGO have apparently had to respond to those fans & their "valuable service" and come up with this new label to prevent further offence. Lucky LEGO.
What we can't know are the actual sales figures of the set, but what leads me to conclude that it's a minority of people who reacted badly to the UCS label, and CRUCIALLY not to the value of the set, is that thousands of Brickset members own Assault on Hoth (from which we can conclude that many thousands more sets were sold to non-members) AND more people on Brickset 'Want' it than 'Own' it.
So, yes, LEGO have looked at the sales and 'reaction' data and concluded that such sets are in demand (hence Cloud City) but that the vitriol from UCS-purists needs stemming (hence MBS).
My issue is with that vitriol; it ignores value in favour of loudly decrying some perceived watering-down of a marketing label. If we pause and ask, "What's in a name?" (i.e. ignore the name) then we can make a less biased judgement of a set's actual value.
UCS vs MBS, to be or not to be?
So... UCS is for display and MBS is for play?
Why can’t we have both in a single set? While a brand distinction is helpful, it’s also an excuse to be lazy, going forward.
Rereleases of Death Star with minor changes (but much needed minifigure updates) and Assault on Hoth were lazy releases in my opinion as they could have been designed so much better.
The rereleases of Falcon, Y-Wing and Snowspeeder were well done as the display models were highly revised. However, The Falcon, with play features, required a better figure assortment to best reflect minis we won’t likely see, if not in such an expensive set. Ewok Village, Slave 1 and Sandcrawler were UCS, but both displayable and playable. So...where do they ‘fit’ in? Who gets a plaque, who doesn’t and where do we draw the line between play vs. display? While Betrayal at Cloud City is well detailed, good assortment of unique minis... its design is downright LAZY as it could have checked ALL the boxes.
While I welcome the moniker of MBS to the line, it should not be a free ticket to offer an excuse for lazy, highly overpriced sets...
If you think that I overused the word, ‘lazy’ - it was intentional. As a marketer, I preach that brands should listen to their consumers. The Web is flooded with MOCs and Feedback from die-hard LEGO fans. It’s not like LEGO even needs to spend money on ‘creative’ - when the community provides them with multiple IDEAS.
I truly believe LEGO has either become lazy or they like to swim up-stream. LEGO had to have been fully aware of what fans wanted for the past 5+ years for this Cloud City set and yet...they produced this and other setts as if they were tone deaf. Bizarre!
For me, if I really like a set and that I have the money for it, I buy it. No matter it's UCS or MBS or anything. If too expensive I wait for a discount. And there are things more important in my life than knowing if one enters in a category or another - or none. I did not even imagined it could lead to such debates to know what is MBS and will UCS stop? I mean Lego may turn my head sometimes, but there are things in every day's life that helps me keep my foot right on the ground. Things have just the importance we want to give them, no less, no more. Does the UCS logo on 75192 makes it better? No. Does MBS logo on CC makes it worse? No. I like it but too expensive, I won't get it, things are as simple as this. Let us take care and not forget that Lego is a passion, and as this take place in our lives, but must not grab all of it. IMO it's the price that really gives me the category of a set.
I don’t care what a set is named or how it’s categorised ... if I like it, I’ll buy it! For me, this is totally a non-issue.
Having owned and later sold the first Cloud City set I’m interested in this but I’ll likely wait for at least double VIP points due to the high price point.
Hhhmm, Batcave master builder set, please!
Man with all this anger towards the play sets and how expensive it will be for children, it does make me wonder if I’m the only AFOL that actually still enjoys playing with my Lego rather than just letting it sit there and look nice
ie. for children to play with, not for adults to complain over.
I just hope this means I no longer have to waste money on minifigs in UCS sets. That has bugged me ever since Emperor's Shuttle. I'd be happy if I could save $10-15 by not having minifigs. No interest in minifigs at all. This goes for modular buildings as well.
I'm torn. Whilst I agree with the statements from people, like "if you don't like it don't buy it" etc, it just feels like a bit of an excuse from Lego, to bring in 'another' range. They know people will want to now collect 'another' range, ala UCS, but didnt maybe eant to call this UCS, as it doenst conform to what they think UCS is. However, as a comment above makes, nor does Insult on Hoth. Maybe they've learnt from that? who knows? Another comment talks about it being a 'Creator' set in what they mean MB to be, bt only maybe related to SW sets, as they wouldn't want SW sets to be 'Creator'. All I know is, I'm disappointed personally, that it doesnt look like Cloud City. I think there are some fantastic elements, i love the Han and Vader meeting room, but I hate the boring Lading Pad and the fact the Clud pods are Red not Orange! These would make better individual sets IMO, these I would buy. This set I won't. I may have considered it, if it had been UCS and a bit more expensive and looking more Cloud City like
All Lego sets are for playing with :)
LEGO should add a different branch that could include sets like betrayal at cloud city and the sand crawler. sets with huge play value but not immaculate detail.
I want a UCS/MBS Invisible Hand.
It won't stop people complaining that "XXX set is a MBS and not a UCS! Life-doomed!"
Now that the newest MBS set is "Betrayal at Cloud City", I hope that the next UCS set is "Cloud City" :)
I wish I knew what that meant. So playsets aren’t UCS sets but the current DS box has the badge? Yeah that makes sense.
I heard they are coming out with a third category - the UDCS: Ultimate Dust Collectors Series.
I only see from the perspective that the Direction of the Lego towards a toy and not collectibles. This is already seen in many of the other sets in the recent years, i.e. remake of old and popular sets, more minifugures, more kids centric designs etc. I have already stop collecting Lego since many years. And only buy it on-and-off for the kids to play. So well, it's all fine I guess, to keep two different series for two different target audiences.
As to the price of the set, I think there is no point arguing oh this cost XXX and thus the kids can't afford it blah blah, well there are many smaller sets that the kids can afford, and there are kids who have wealthy parents who can afford bigger sets.
@ bananaworld: it's not about me personally. I don't even collect UCS sets and I couldn't care less whether these large Star Wars sets - display or play set alike - even have a special designation at all.
I merely replied because I was so annoyed by your "huffy 'fans' throwing their toys outta the pram" comment, which was imho completely unneccessary and uncalled for.
Sure, some people take LEGO far too seriously, but there's no need for name calling or ridiculing or any other form of personal insult.
Let's not forget, LEGO is a toy, meant to be enjoyed.
If some get enjoyment out of collecting overpriced sets with a certain label, so be it.
Most others will get enjoyment out of building and playing with these sets (there's nothing wrong with swooshing a UCS set I suppose - other than the overly fragile Star Destroyer and to too heavy and bulky Millennium Falcon(s) probably.)
But no matter where the enjoyment comes from, comments like yours mentioned above certainly have no place in a healthy and enjoyable environment, hence my reaction.
So exactly what I said then, a name change so people can maybe quite whining about what is and isn't UCS. Seems to have been of limited effect so far.
Meanwhile I'm still wondering why there was so much upheaval about a label that Lego never formally defined in the first place, and has been pretty inconsistent with in the past.
UCS line has essentially become a man-cave collectable. The majority of these sets are likley to be "built once, display only" with the sticker sheets not even used in order to preserve value for resale. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with that. The heart of the issue here is that these some sets in the UCS line that aren't really display pieces and don't fit with the others. I recently sold off the majority of my UCS collection as I simply didn't have the room to display them and their good resale value allowed me to funnel the funds into other Lego projects. Regarding the above clarification from Lego, looks like they bent to the demands of the AFOL community and decided not to label this playset as a UCS...however, I really don't think they needed to create a while new series. Just leaving the UCS label off the box (like Ewok Village) would have sufficed and kept the pitchforks and torches away. This is the difficult realm where kids toys become adult collectables; can't please everyone!