Ten Things in Ten Years - Greater Quantity of Large Sets
Posted by CapnRex101,
2020 is approaching quickly, bringing about the end of the decade. LEGO has experienced some important changes within the last ten years and we are therefore readying various retrospective articles, discussing ten influential ways in which LEGO has developed since 2010.
Our first such article focuses upon the increasing quantity of larger sets which have become available during this decade, further to the growth of individual LEGO products that was documented previously. Comparing the number of large sets released recently with those in previous decades reveals interesting differences.
LEGO has always produced an excellent range of products, offering something for every construction ability and price point. However, the 2010s has seen an unusual increase in the quantity of larger sets which have been released and the breadth of themes from which they originate. That change is rather dramatic, as demonstrated below.
This graph shows the number of sets containing more than 1000 pieces which have been produced during the last twenty years. Quantities throughout the 2000s appear in orange while the blue points represent the numbers during the 2010s, exhibiting an obvious and striking difference which became increasingly visible after 2014 when The LEGO Movie was released.
Please be aware that brick boxes, Education sets and BrickLink sets are not taken into consideration here.
LEGO produced 73 sets containing more than 1000 pieces during the 2000s, encompassing twelve themes. Star Wars, Technic and Creator Expert, formerly known as Advanced Models, comprise the majority of those sets but other themes contribute to the total too, including Racers, Vikings and Exo-Force.
However, the 2010s have yielded 217 sets which contain more than 1000 pieces and they are taken from some 36 different themes, trebling the total of the previous decade! Once again, Creator Expert, Star Wars and Technic account for more than half of those sets but the others are remarkably diverse, ranging from City and Friends to Jurassic World and NINJAGO.
Furthermore, many modern themes have included enormous sets from their inception, differing quite significantly from previous decades when LEGO has seemed more cautious. Jurassic World, Lord of the Rings, The Simpsons, Galaxy Squad and Hidden Side, among others, have all featured sets that contain more than 1000 pieces and were released during their first year.
Children have always been LEGO's primary target audience and that has continued during the most recent decade. However, the selection of sets which are designed for older fans, including teenagers and adults, has increased exponentially and the number of larger sets has risen as well. For example, eight Star Wars sets that contain more than 1000 pieces have been released during 2019 while seven such Technic sets were released last year.
That exceeds previous decades to an extraordinary degree and LEGO's marketing for these sets has focused increasingly upon adults. Of course, the prices have risen too, usually in concert with size, so many sets seem likely to be purchased almost exclusively by adults. This difference has become most apparent within the Technic theme, where the eighteen most expensive sets were released during this decade.
Inflation certainly plays an important role in the gradual increase in price but the growing size and the accordant range of larger sets seems even more significant. It will be interesting to see whether there are continued dramatic rises in the quantity of larger sets during the next decade, as there have been across this one!
Why do you think the quantity of larger sets has increased so dramatically within this decade? Let us know in the comments.
108 likes
52 comments on this article
My poor, poor wallet hopes the increase won't be *too* dramatic
Hey hey hey, Captain!
2020 is the last year of the decade, and is still part of the 2nd decade.
I'm not sure why this trend came to be, but I think it makes these sets feel less special. They used to be this cool thing that would only be announced once in a while, but now it's just "eh, another one? Whatever."
They've become incredibly greedy in last three years in particular. You might say good luck to them. But honestly, it's put me off slightly. There was a time when I would have bought every large set (with the exception of SW) but now I'm used to missing out and realising that they're not essential, that I can live happily without them. I don't need that Treehouse, or wind turbine etc etc.
@RonnyN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019 "2019 (MMXIX) is the current year(...)and the 10th and last year of the 2010s decade."
???
@ChazTheMinifig. There was no year zero.
I am extremely happy about the increase in large "adult" sets. It's the main reason I've kept buying LEGO. I don't love every large/expert set, but every year I easily find 5-10 sets that really are a joy to build and to display. I assume LEGO is increasing the size and cost of sets, and the number of expensive sets, because there are lots of adults like me, with money to spend, who find this worthwhile.
Adults don't really "play" with their sets. We are not looking for swooshable sets. We want something we can relax and build, maybe a bit of a challenge but not too much, and then display. One runs out of space eventually, but you can always resell some, usually at a very minimal loss, and free up space and build new stuff.
Keep up the good work LEGO - I hope they don't run out of ideas.
^ 2010 was 'year zero' in this context.
@RonnyN - This decade began on the 1st of January 2010 and will conclude on the 31st of December, 2019, encompassing ten full years. 2020 will be the first year in the next decade.
I am aware that not everybody will agree but that is how Brickset is defining it.
I think the rising number of AFOLs in the LEGO community has a lot to do with it. Adults who can afford larger purchases combined with generations of LEGO fans now working for the LEGO company may have statistics that match the rising large sets graph
As mentioned, there was never a year zero.
For convenience, we refer to “the 20s” as a decade encompassing 1920 to 1929 (including).
The year 2000 did not usher a new millennium for this exact reason.
Anyway, I do understand what you’re saying. It’s an example of how day-to-day speech took over what is an actual fact.
Ninjago came out and that increased lego's popularity.
Not all Afols like gigantic sets. I for example don't like those sets, because it makes building them a long and dreary experience, sometimes over days. I like smaller sets best, built within 20 to 60 minutes. And I like them to be swooshable. I do have several unopend big sets - not knowing when I will have the time to build them, let alone where to put them in the end. So I will not buy any more of those needlessly oversized sets.
Let's be real, the current calandar system was brought in a few hundred years after any 'year 0' anyway so it's not like anything has been counted since the starting date. Using the 1st Jan, [year ending in 0] as the beginning of a decade makes far more practical sense from an inuitivity stand point.
Since my kids have grown up, now 13 and 18 our household no longer buys the £10-£60 'swooshable' sets. However, luckily come Christmas day they still want a nice big Lego set to enjoy, this year that will be the Stranger Things set plus another until the next modular arrives. I'm sure Lego has some very clever people looking at the numbers and know exactly what they're doing regarding finding new generations of fans/customers, and producing products to keep existing fans interested long after they leave behind other 'toys'. PS isn't 1978 year zero?
Lego must be doing their market research and, as a result, realize there is a market for those larger, more detailed sets in a variety of themes that can appeal to a broader range of people. There are a lot of retired baby boomers out there who grew up on Lego, raised their kids/nephews and nieces on Lego and want to enjoy Lego with the next generation in their family. Lego making bigger, more detailed oriented sets with a wider range of parts and colors makes that whole dynamic even more fun for those who decide to spend their "fun money" that way. I haven't bought a big set yet, but I think many of them are fantastic. The Chinese New Year Temple Fair may be the one that gets me, though!
It's a trend here in my home. Son is getting older, doesn't want the mid range sized sets. Only the larger more detailed sets to build.
For me, I still look at the aesthetic. If it looks good to me regardless of size, I'd want it in my collection BUT, the last couple years I've found I've collected larger sets much more often.
Like others have said, they just don't feel special anymore. A roll out of a large unique set would be like once or twice a year it seemed to me, but now it's a little too much. Just not enough shelf space to accommodate the sizes.
About the decade confusion: the German Wikipedia says that a decade starts with January, 1st ***1 and ends with December, 31st ***0 ( https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahrzehnt )
So still 13,5 month in the second decade of this millennium. Which gives LEGO the change for more huge sets.
I think LEGO is doing this because they realized that this is an easy was to make money. Better packing, handling, shipping one big 250 $ set rather then 10 25 $ sets.
Looking at sets with a high piece count doesn't automatically mean a big set, e.g. look at the Architecture line. There are so many different elements in the 1x1 and 1x2 range these days (1x1 tile we know for ever, now we have round and quarter 1x1 tiles and the one with the bar pin top. And it feels like there are even more modified plates in that range). So piece count in sets can grow easily.
I recall LEGO doing a survey or receiving feedback about 5-10 years ago stating that we (as a majority) wanted more large sets so I see if as only answering demand, and then reacting to the marketplace as a result if those sales volumes.
On the other hand, from a personal level, as someone in a modest to low income, I cant remember a time when I missed out on so many of these sets due to not being able to justify the expense, so feel they went too far.
That being said, some of my better off friends however, have got the majority so it's less of an issue to LEGO as a business.
Interesting article. This decade has been one of great change.
A decade is literally ten years. Any ten years. So, the 2nd decade of the century is 2011-2020. The “2010’s” are 2010-2019.
And 2005-2014 was the first ten years, or decade, of my kids’ lives.
I’m surprised how many people are complaining about more large sets. Isn’t this what we have been wanting for a while? Even though my Lego budget is small, I would still rather buy one memorable, exciting $200-$400 set for the whole year than acquire dozens of small minifigure-based sets that repeat themselves every few years anyway.
When I look back at all the sets I bought in the past 10 years, the majority of the small (<1000 pcs) sets I bought have been disassembled and stored away due to lack of space. However, I have never regretted any of the larger purchases I made, and all of my larger D2C sets (modulars, UCS, ideas sets) still proudly occupy space on my shelves.
Of course, small sets are still important for Legos target demographic, kids. But I really appreciate the fan service Lego has given to AFOLs in the past 10 years. We’ve even had entire themes dedicated to producing large sets for adults, like Simpsons, Stranger Things, and Ideas.
Interesting. I look forward to the rest of the articles.
I don't understand the decade confusion, but I don't understand even more why it matters.
I love big LEGO sets especially the modular buildings and anything which is somewhat compatible to them. I try to get the sets with at least 20% discount which is usually not a big problem if one is patient. Love it takes a while to get the sets build up and have them up for display. Unfortunately space is becoming an issue
I like the large sets a lot, and don't feel the need to buy all of them. There are this many in order to provide many options for adults looking for a large, displayable quality build. The themes are very diverse, and I think Lego is trying to have something for most adults who could be interested in Lego.
Look at it this way. If you like Star Wars, there are 2 sets each year, then 1 for modulars, winter village and fairground, 1-2 for motorheads, 1 Technic, and a random assortment of other stuff, including IDEAS. This way, most people find something new each year. Pretty standard business logic.
Large sets have merit, be it to capture incredible levels of detail or simply to enable the subject matter to be addressed whilst allowing functionality or playability impossible at a smaller scale. Also as Lego's appeal broadens to include more and more adults the spending power is there to match the size of the set. But most rational AFOL's now understand that with the huge range of sets available the possibilty of owning them all is simply not realistic. Therefore we become more selective, thus increasing the scrutiny (and criticism) of such sets to ensure our purchases result in happy experiences.
I don't even consider 1000 pieces a large set anymore.
I really felt the increase of the sizes of sets in 2016, like in 2015, we had no sets with more than 3000 pieces, and the year after, we get a bunch with more than 4000 pieces. and at the beginning of the decade we had a 3000+ pieces set every 2 years maybe, now it's like every 3 months.
I think 1000 pieces is not longer considered big. The new big is 2000 pieces.
As one of those darn AFOLS, I just don't have the space in my house, or the funds necessary, to purchase too many of those gigantic sets. I like that they exist, and I appreciate that I have the option to do so ... but I still don't buy that many. The largest I've purchased recently was Voltron, and that was a (much treasured) birthday gift last year from my family.
Thing is, a lot of the gigantic sets appear to be one-offs for display (those giant Technic vehicles, those giant SW ships, the big ideas sets, the big T-Rexy thing or the '89 Batmobile). There's not much play value, they don't slot into a Lego city easily (aside from the modulars, of course). So honestly, most of the time, I'm just not that interested in them.
The 2010s was a big glow up for TLG after the 00s (in huge part thanks to TLM).
This is interesting to look at, but my wallet suffers. Also, would there maybe be... ten of these articles :) ?
Makes perfect sense to me. LEGO is 'double dipping' with generations. In other words, a Gen-X like me grew up on LEGO sets, not electronics. Now we have careers, more disposable income and LOTS of nostalgia. We also have kids!
I guess that would mean "part inflation"?
Since the 1000+ don't seem that big anymore, they'll just have to have 2000+, etc etc.
Yay numbers! And yay another great decade for Lego!
Well, you don't have to buy all the large sets. Some people do, I know. But even if you're a n avid collector, you may try to choose what you get. To me, getting it all is not collecting, it's gathering. I have couple of special sets (to me). Yes, Millenium Falcon UCS is a marvelous set but never have I thought buying it. So, it doesn't matter how many large sets Lego produces, I love seeing them. And if I like one, I'll get one.
That's a strange graph, since the blue line is really just the extension of the yellow line, but laid on top of it. I suppose it was done that way to make it readable within the narrow margins of Brickset's web layout? For that matter, since the article is about a change in the the last 10 years, it seems strange to include the yellow line at all.
On the other hand, this article actually frames the data based on the last 20 years to provide context, so perhaps it wasn't the best to kick off your series of articles if it isn't quite constrained to the theme common to all of them?
...Or I'm just looking too deeply into a story about a fascinating LEGO statistic because it's really late and my brain is half-awake! :)
For me, I prefer buying larger sets as they are the ones (not all of them) that I put on display. Small sets get built and then broken down and sorted into my collection of loose bricks. Not counting the modulars, I currently have seven sets on display, all of which are above 1000pcs, and all but maybe two are above 2000pcs.
For me, I like both big and small sets or whatever that really catches my eye or if there is a set that has a desirable minifigure. But I do like the trend that LEGO is making more big sets for consumers who want a bit better quality build. Of course, should LEGO still have many small sets as well.
@Huw , would it be possible to run this analysis again whilst controlling for the rising amount of parts per set?
Or in other words, what would this be like if you account for the increasing complexity of sets in general?
I think some of those 1000+ part sets are only there because now everything has to be built with various small special parts due to detailing, greebling, SNOT, structuring etc. A 1000+ set from 2006 can barely be compared with a 1000+ set from 2016.
This decade starts at 2010 so: You see that is is 10 years
2010, 2011, 2012
,2013 ,2014, 2015,
2016, 2017, 2018
and ends 2019.
@mrforcepower
Here is a trick question, then: what was the decade that ended with the year 9 AD?
I'm in the same camp as those who think large sets are not necessarily measurable by piece count.
When I look at sets like 928, which could be considered "large" by late Seventies standards, those still have very few pieces compared to today. I mean, 338 pieces back then got you a gigantic spaceship and a space landscape with the same floorspace as two modern day Modulars!
Nowadays, a lot of the part inflation is due to the enormous amount of tiny pieces and greebling you didn't get in the olden days. A modern version of 928 would likely have more than 2000 pieces as well.
Not that I would mind large LEGO sets per se, I only dislike the frequency with which they are announced nowadays. It used to be something really special when a set of 2000 or more pieces was announced (remember when 10030 was announced? I was gobsmacked by the size of that thing). Now it just feels like "Ok, another one. Pity I haven't got any display space anymore". I am not one to disassemble and sell my sets once new interesting ones are released. I bought my sets to keep and pass on to my kids (and grandchildren one day).
Looking at the database it seems like with the exception of Technic, Mindstorms and a small handful of sets like the roller coaster, the Assembly Square and last year's cargo train (which happens to be the most expensive train set ever released at US$229), all the really high price-point sets are licensed or tied to a real world thing (i.e. the Taj Mahal etc). Which makes sense, if you are going to sell a set with a US$799 price tag, you want it to be based on something that's already popular and has a market.
I like these kind of posts, I find them super interesting… One thing I'd say though is that 1000, while it is a psychological barrier, is somewhat arbitrary, it'd love to see the scatter or distribution plot/graph for sets in the past 2 decades! ??
I feel like the increase in really large sets has made those sets less special. I also don't think it's that much of a great business tactic, as most people who would like to complete the whole theme, just can't keep up with the stupidly large amount of sets paired with the enormous cost of them, so at some point they just give up.
I also noticed that Lego is replacing way to much of their original themes with licensed themes, which kinda kills the creativity aspect of Lego, as they are strictly bound to the reference material.
@PjtrXmos
The release of large sets within theme has not increased, so I don't know what you are referring to by completing the theme. Rather, more themes are receiving their own large sets. Which is a fine business tactic to capture more variation in taste.
If you mean collecting all themes / large sets, only a statistically insignificant minority would be doing that. I think Lego is banking on adults buying 1-2 large sets a year at most, and want to ensure that most have something to look forward to each year.
In any case, it is not like these sets are coming instead of smaller sets, Lego is producing more sets than ever, these are coming on top of whatever was there before. We therefore have more choice at the upper end of the spectrum without making other sets less available. I understand that there are people feeling FOMO as they cannot afford all, but I don't think a company like Lego should primarily cater to people who want to collect all and therefore limit its portfolio.
@Baldarek the year AD. The first decade began 0 AD probably
I believe that the rise in piece count is a direct result of the designers using way too many plate pieces as opposed to actual bricks. More pieces isn't necessarily better. I'm finding many builds where they are using stacks of 1x1 or 1x2 plates instead of 1x1 or 1x2 bricks. As I'm getting older I find it more difficult to build some of these sets well as my aging aching fingers can't stack these small plate pieces properly resulting in messy looking builds for me.
While I love how detailed and smoother looking many of the builds have become over the years I dislike the proliferation of stickers as opposed to actual printed bricks. I know they use the excuse that it keeps the cost down but so would using larger bricks as opposed to multiple plates to fill the same space. But, then that would lower the brick count so they could sell the sets cheaper. TLG has decided that Higher Brick count = Higher Prices not taking into account that sometimes it also means uglier builds.
It's quite staggering how many of these huge sets are coming out. I didn't think they would top the Bucket Wheel Excavator in Technic, for instance, but now there's this massive new thing...
I have a few big sets (and probably not very big by the standards of this article - Hogwarts Great Hall, the Saturn V and the Old Fishing Store) stored away waiting for me to have the time and space to build them. I'm also going to buy the Treehouse, because it's everything I've ever wanted in a Lego set, both in itself and as the world's most gigantic 'nature colours' parts pack.
But as others have alluded, it's definitely a different experience building something that big, and I find it's actually not an experience I need to have too often. I think I'm going to want to build it in stages over a week to avoid it feeling like a slog. Many of the most satisfying experiences I have with Lego are with sets in the £15 - 30 range, often resulting in something swooshable, or at least trundle-able around an imaginary 80s-style Town.
But that's not to say I have a problem with the sheer number of huge sets - of course there's things I wish I'd been able to get; Palace Cinema aside, I don't collect modulars, and it feels like something huge and cool is being released every five minutes lately. But it is what it is; "insufficient funds/space for giant Lego sets" is a luxurious problem to have, after all.
Interesting data. Thanks for giving it.
If you launch too many collector sets nobody is going to be able to keep up the pace... and that will be a terrible marketing policy... so may be they should slow down a little bit...
As an AFOL who's endured multiple Dark Ages, i want to impart a few bits of wisdom:
Unless you have lots of space and money, you're not going to get everything. I come across plenty of sets (large abd small) and think, yeah, I'd love this one, but priority sets.
Learn to pick and choose- focus on a particular theme or two, then be selective on others. I've amassed a sizable SW collection since the 1st wave released,however I'm pretty selective on other themes. And there's plenty of larger sets I passed on due to space or no interest (the modular buildings for example- really nice, but not for me).
And for those concerned about price - shop around, save up VIP points, or use a shopping service that gets you a percent back (I use both BeFrugal and Rakuten [formerly Ebates]).