Its more that they aren't releasing so many pocket-money budget sets. Its as if they thought why sell 30 x £10 sets when you can just sell 1 x £300 set. It feels like they are leaving the children's market behind in order to chase the adult market.

I put 'yes, it's impossible to keep up' because there're so many great sets one can't possibly own them all. To make matters worse, there are parts that are neat that you can't get through B&P. (original LEGO logo from the Piano,(21323) music playing tile from the NES...(71374))

If LEGO keeps these D2C sets on the shelves for several years, it shouldn't matter how many are released in a given 12-month period. I don't need to buy everything (or anything, really) on "day one."

No I don’t think they have.

Perhaps there are AFOLs feel that way because they are completionists and have a fear of missing out an opportunities for exclusives, but not everyone falls into that category.

The variety of exclusive sets this year has been unlike any prior, which is good for broadening the demographic and allowing the brand to reach customers who, previously, may not have considered buying a Lego set as an adult.

The amount of sets for children in every price range is as big as it ever was since at least 5 years. What Lego is doing is attracting completely new group of buyers, that is adults that are not afols. Thats why we have so many new big and expensive sets, and i am very happy about it, even though i cannot afford to buy more than one such big set every year. But in the same time i am buying lego magazines, small city and ninjago sets and loose parts every month. The availability of choices pleases me.

Yes. Honestly, I feel burnt out. When I got out of my dark ages, I decided to collect the Modular and the big Technic set every year and maybe the odd decent Creator. If only.... Then there was the fair ground theme. Then the ideas stuff. Then the ideas stuff got better, but I had to have the Saturn V, Pirates, Tree House etc Had to have the Ghostbusters sets. I need a Winter Village. Never collected Star Wars, but I regretted missing on the original UCS Falcon, so got the new one. Always liked the A-wing. Love the Mustang. The Batman 89 was a must have.

That's too much money on ABS. Way too much.

I started missing stuff. I cut out Technic three years ago, didn't like the direction. Don't want Gingerbread house. Definitely not buying more SW UCS. Disney Castle is nice, glad to have it, but I need to skip the Train, certainly don't need Mickey & Minnie to go with it. Hogwarts UCS takes up enough space, not getting DA. Batwing 89 is really pushing it. Fiat 500 nope, Harleys the same. NES, Piano is cool, but no. I'm done.

The more I miss, the more I realise that I don't need everything. It's not Pokemon, I don't have to collect them all. Plus the money and space. Mainly money though. I can see myself just getting the Modulars soon. I reckon it's that, or back to a new dark age.

I'ma repeat something I said on an article from yesterday, feel free to remove it, if you feel like this falls under spamming. I just feel, it is very relevant to this topic specifically:

The thing is, Lego right now is mostly making money of of adult fans, that's why they are catering so much to them right now with ridiculously priced display models rather than playsets and other educational and creative building sets, that's why Lego is doing so good right now. They are not making money, because they are making good sets for children. They are making money, because they MADE good sets for children in the past. By that, they are very much neglecting the audience of children tho. This means, that there will be a huge decline about 10-15 years from now, because that's about the time, when all the children, that were not Lego fans, would be coming out of their dark ages. Lego is being ran, like about any other larger company right now. Very focused on profits right now and completely ignorant of the future.

I wish that they would release more smaller D2C sets, like the Helmet collection. Those are really neat and fun builds, do not take up too much room, and do not trigger buyers remorse as badly.

Lego sales are up 14% AFTER they had to close most of their stores. They'll do just fine for quite a while.

Having 13 D2Cs is not neglecting the audience of children. The vast majority of the product line is still targeted at children. Also, children like many of the D2Cs released. If a kid likes Ninjago, they will also like Ninjago City. You might say "it's a bit too fragile for heavy play" but they still wanted it and built it and had fun with it even if some of the decorations detached and ended up in the parts bin.

I think this poll is unwarranted.

There's just so many I'll be wanting to get, but money, and space is very restricting at the moment.

It might be frustrating if you're the type of person who feels compelled to buy everything. Otherwise, having more choice and more adult-focused products is exciting. Also, I don't see any evidence that the product lines aimed at kids are being negatively affected at all. It's a win-win now that Lego are embracing their older audience who are willing and able to spend hundreds on larger sets.

I really like the variety of D2C sets and have no problem with them releasing so many. My only concern is that they overextend and it leads to a massive reduction in the future.

Surely the strategy is becoming quite clear now? The "regular" LEGO sets are becoming steadily more "kiddish" while the direct-to-consumer sets have become far more advanced and display-worthy than anything we've seen before. To me that seems like exactly the plan.

I have no intention of buying every D2C set so a wide variety to choose from is preferable rather than 5 releases per year and not wanting any of them.

I have no intention of buying every D2C set so a wide variety to choose from is preferable rather than 5 releases per year and not wanting any of them.

What exactly is a ‘direct to consumer’ set? I see that 10270 is listed as a ‘direct to consumer’ set but it is also available for sale from Smyths. Same goes for 42115 and 75275 for example.

If it means only available from the Lego site and limited retail availability then I’m not in favour of the phenomenon.

Smyths have a decent sale on all Lego sets at least once a year e.g. I have gotten desirable sets such as modulars, Old Fishing Store, Ghostbusters HQ, Porsche 42056 etc for 20% off in the past.

More and more Lego sets are overpriced these days. Reducing the likelihood of getting them at a discount is not consumer friendly, I don’t see why anyone would welcome it. (Lego site ‘sales’ are generally pathetic.)

@Snazzy_Bricks said:
"I'd like to see more focus on making higher-quality playsets. They also need to work on the price of licensed themes."

In fairness, we’ve had some great playsets this year. Just the Summer wave of releases alone has brought us 71722 Skull Sorcerer’s Dungeons,
75969 Hogwarts Astronomy Tower, and 80013 Monkie Kid Team’s Secret HQ.

I don't mind the quantity but I think their limited runs make it really hard to save up for the ones you like, the modulars are around for 4 years and a little while afterwards so we have plenty of time for those but most of the D2C sets don't last more than 1-2 years, like i'm wondering if I can eventually get the new Haunted House at some point since by the time I can afford it it'll be off the shelves.

I don’t think d2c’s themselves are the problem this year. I think it’s the amount of awesome sets over $100 dollars. There aren’t many mid-sized sets I like this year compared to every other year, it’s all either really small or really big.

More adults are a fan of Lego these days than ever before. Not every DTC set is intended for everyone, they’re just trying to keep a wide audience happy by giving more options. For those that wish to buy all/most DTC sets I can see how it would be difficult to keep up, but that’s not the aim.

To me, 'yes, it is impossible to keep up with the new sets' is equivalent to saying 'LEGO are producing too many good* products.' And I don't really see why an excess of good products is a bad thing. Sure, it means that not everyone will be able to get them all (I include myself in that group), but surely missing out on a good product is better than that good product not existing at all.

Sure, they could re-direct those resources into the cheaper end of their product line, but I don't think they need to. Ninjago and Harry Potter have had great runs this year. Marvel's been much better than usual and both Creator and Hidden Side have had a couple of good sets. There's innovation as well, with the new 8-wide Speed Champions and 5 new themes (DOTS, Minions, Monkie Kid, Super Mario and Trolls). I'd say the only themes that have been lacking in quality this year are DC and City, but not every theme is going to be perfect at once.

So, while they keep the general quality up, my answer will be 'No, more sets are always welcome.'

*Now, 'good' is subjective but, if the products weren't good, then people wouldn't want them and we wouldn't be having this discussion about not being able to keep up.

I like all the sets and more is better, so long as LEGO doesn't spread themselves too thin, like they did in the early 2000's.

That said, none of the vote options appeal to me. I don't like D2C and I question whether it should exist at all. I worry that it is not good for LEGO in the long run. I recently posted a photo online of 10261 Roller Coaster when my daughters finished building it, and of of the comments was "is that a LEGO set?" If it were in department stores, then more people would be exposed to the product. I worry that the current D2C trend in business is one of those short-term gains, long term loss situations.

I also don't like the effect it has on small businesses. There's a local brick-and-mortar store that simply isn't provided with access to product that they would like to sell. They have excellent service and I like to support them, but D2C eliminates that as an option.

Yes Lego is releasing too many D2C sets. I want them all because they are so extremely great. But my wallet wont let me buy them all. Lego makes adults feel like children again.... you have to make a choice which one you want most....(me as a kid with my birthday money). Having to make a choice betqeen all those great sets just sucks. I was so glad I was an adult and no longer a kid with aome birthday money anymore. I was able to buy all sets I wanted. Until 2020 ame along. Lego is killing my chilhood dream of being able to buy every Lego set I want........ damn First World problems

Any reasonable person recognizes that they don't need everything.

I have no problem that LEGO releases more D2C sets.
I do find it a pity that most sets tagged as 'D2C' are $199 or above.

As has been mentioned earlier by someone else, I'm starting to feel burned out. The joy of seeing new exciting sets released is more often than not paired with an increasingly stronger feeling of disappointment that I will not have the budget to buy them.

There is too much to keep up, too much to skip. This year I'm slowly phasing out buying LEGO, just to complete the Harry Potter sets, and that will be it for me.

I loathe the whining about this. You really don't need it all, and more options are always better. It used to be that you had the choice of Star Wars or Architecture, and perhaps one other random set. Now, there is literally something for everyone. When you sit in to build a large set, it's something you've selected from a dozen options that you're genuinely excited to build.

There are a bunch of themes I’m interested in but I always have to pause when the price gets over $100. Plus where to display/store them? Spouse has been pretty indulgent about modulars and certainly appreciates the craftsmanship and cool-factor of the Nintendo and Ninjago City, but space is definitely limited in our house. Mos Eisley looks fabulous, Haunted Mansion looks cool, but I’d have to displace a kid to have room for all of these great sets. Plus, I like to be able to buy food and pay a few bills...

I wouldn't say they released too many, but I would say that they should have spaced the pricey sets much better than they did.

They're launching too many expensive sets very close to each other. That doesn't really give consumers any breathing time. And without an express "shelf time warranty" that allows us to know for at least how long LEGO commits to keeping one set on shelves, it becomes very difficult and people have to end up skipping on sets that they would have otherwise bought if LEGO gave their wallets some breathing time.

@DrDaveWatford said:
"Honestly, reading some of the comments here you'd think that LEGO were forcing us to buy all these DTC sets!

How can a greater choice of outstanding DTC sets be a bad thing, ever?!"

Only being able to buy a set from lego.com is not greater choice. (I live in a country with no lego shops.)

My interests and preferences tend to have little overlap with those of AFOLs. Most D2C sets therefore aren't remotely within my interests, so I could really go without most of them. There's a handful on my wishlist, sure, but they're very specific choices, and mostly 2000s ones.

But I can see why some people are burned out. Not everyone who feels that way feels so because they're a completionist — maybe some of them feel that way because they genuinely have that many different interests. And to them I say:

I hear you. It's perfectly valid if you feel burned out and feel like you can't keep up, not because you feel like you gotta have them all, but because you genuinely like all of those sets so much but have to start making sacrifices. That's no fun. It's life, but it's no fun.

My only criticism in regards to the D2C sets is that it is difficult to prioritize which set to purchase without considering what hypothetical set could be released in the coming months. I held off on purchasing Barracuda Bay this summer because of Diagon Alley rumors. I like the Creator Expert modulars, in part, because I can predict the release and budget accordingly.

@Bricklunch said:
"Its more that they aren't releasing so many pocket-money budget sets. Its as if they thought why sell 30 x £10 sets when you can just sell 1 x £300 set. It feels like they are leaving the children's market behind in order to chase the adult market. "

Sorry but I laughed out loud when I read this. I count 131 regular sets released *so far* this year that are $20 or less, excluding polybags, cmfs, Dots, and gwps. That’s right, ten (10) times as many as the D2Cs. And almost all of them looked like great playsets. Can someone explain to me where they get the idea that Lego is throwing the baby out with the bath water? Because I think we can all agree that they are absolutely not leaving behind smaller sets.

@Tynansd said:
"The Nintendo and videogame stuff I just can’t understand. The sets just don’t appeal to me.

However, the Star Wars Mos Cantina looks pretty good, and I’ve got other AFOL friends who are already very excited about it. I had heard a rumour that a UCS imperial shuttle was to be released as well, but usually Lego releases only one large Star Wars set at any one time? "

There were things before that appealed to you. There are things currently that appeal to you. Could I suggest that Lego making things that don’t appeal to you means that they are trying to bring in people who aren’t buying Lego before? Expanding their market without leaving the previous buyers behind? Not every set has to appeal directly to you, my friend

@OneIsLit said:
"I like all the sets and more is better, so long as LEGO doesn't spread themselves too thin, like they did in the early 2000's.

That said, none of the vote options appeal to me. I don't like D2C and I question whether it should exist at all. I worry that it is not good for LEGO in the long run. I recently posted a photo online of 10261 Roller Coaster when my daughters finished building it, and of of the comments was "is that a LEGO set?" If it were in department stores, then more people would be exposed to the product. I worry that the current D2C trend in business is one of those short-term gains, long term loss situations.

I also don't like the effect it has on small businesses. There's a local brick-and-mortar store that simply isn't provided with access to product that they would like to sell. They have excellent service and I like to support them, but D2C eliminates that as an option."

D2C sets have been around for over 20 years. They sell well, accumulate great aftermarket value, and showcase what can be done with LEGO. People who aren’t familiar with modern LEGO are always shocked by what can be done- I’ve had a friend remark on the complexity of last year’s $30 Batmobile.

CapnRex101, it would have helped me (and apparently others) if you had defined what a "direct-to-consumer" product is in your introduction. It's the kind of jargon that can confuse people who are unfamiliar. Next time!

The "gotta catch'em all" mentality for Lego buying and building is ridiculous. Buy what you like. If there are too many sets that you want but can't afford, be selective. If I have $1,000 to spend in a year, I would rather there be $3,000 in sets to choose from than $800--with the latter likely including things that aren't up my alley.

I primarily get Creator Expert vehicles, Winter Village, Star Wars UCS spaceships, and an occasional Ideas set. I skipped the Tantive IV because it didn't excite me as much. There are lots of sets that I think look great and would be fun to build, like the NES and Tree House, but I realize they aren't as important to me as other sets like the A-Wing and Batwing.

Selectivity is a good skill to develop.

Thank you to Lego for offering so many options from which to select.

Picked "Yes, LEGO should focus upon fewer different subjects."

Why? Because quality over quantity. Just look at the city and creator (3in1) line this year. Worst I've seen for respectively in years.
Then we have the discoloration.

I, for one, commend LEGO for delivering such amazing sets recently. Those who voted that it’s impossible to keep up these sets only shows the great quality of these recent D2C sets, and the effort by LEGO to reach out to the ever-growing adult market. While I voted no, not every set is intended for everyone, because it’s true, you’re not obligated to buy it everything, it has made choosing between large sets difficult for me, personally, particularly with how expensive they’ve been. I can see why some are complaining, albeit unnecessarily, but missing out on sets isn’t the end of the world.

As long as Lego keeps these sets on sale for several years I don’t see a problem. However I’ve missed out on some great sets as I’ve prioritised eating and my mortgage. The problem with being a Lego addict

My concern is that the market will be over saturated with higher priced D2C sets that will lead to shorter shelf lives before retirement, so while I never buy anything day one and will wait for it to come out at a local retailer on special, I fear that the availability outside of Lego directly may be lost and paying full price on so many good sets, even spread out over time, is beyond me. My wishlist for this year is going to have a lot more left on it then previous years and a lot of them are the higher priced items. Especially the Idea's sets, getting this outside of Lego is hard enough in Australia, getting them on sale is nearly impossible, so that piano is likely to never grace my Lego lair sadly :(

@DrDaveWatford said:
"Honestly, reading some of the comments here you'd think that LEGO were forcing us to buy all these DTC sets!

How can a greater choice of outstanding DTC sets be a bad thing, ever?!"

The kind of person who writes this is the kind of person that hasn't studied human psychology.

@DrDaveWatford said:
"Honestly, reading some of the comments here you'd think that LEGO were forcing us to buy all these DTC sets!

How can a greater choice of outstanding DTC sets be a bad thing, ever?!"

Because as long as they are not available through other resellers, their prices do not go down... other questions?

I'm shocked at the snotty bitchiness in this thread from people sneering at those who think there are too many sets.

i voted yes, but not because i can't keep up ... it's for different reasons:

- first, they are neglecting the quality / effort put into children-focused playsets. It's a pity for today's children (i refuse to buy the current city sets for them, they are an insult compared to those a few years ago), and killing the future potential of afol customers in 20-30 years.

- second, TLGs official pricing is counting in the discounts the big sellers give on lego to attract customers to their stores ... the prices are raised officially, so the chains can reduce them 20 or 30% without actual loss. BUT: when selling on lego.com, TLG has to stick with those official prices and they actually get painfully real - raising the actual cost for buying these exclusive sets up 20 or 30% above what they would cost when in the open market (yes, VIP points give us 5% with some hassle involved. 5% for future purchases is not 25% for the current purchase). If they sell well, these are total cash cows for TLG: no intermediate trader and the officially high price right into the pocket ... it feels a bit greedy to stick with the high pricing for D2C sets, but i also see the dilemma TLG is in here with the pricing policy.

Lego (designers) are obviously doing a great job if there are so many sets that we all want. Only Lego will know if selling more larger D2C sets is profitable. What it certainly does do is keep us away from Amazon etc.

I do find it laughable that people are complaining about there being too much great choice. If you go to a great restaurant you can’t eat the whole menu..... enjoy what you get and if you’re lucky go back

As someone who just buys what I want, the sets aren't out of hand, but the ever-increasing amount of licenses and partnerships is getting nuts, and to the point LEGO is mostly producing licensed sets. And then there are things like the Adidas partnership that just has me shaking my head--what do overpriced sneakers have to do with an interlocking plastic brick?

@FuddRuckus said:
... If I have $1,000 to spend in a year, I would rather there be $3,000 in sets to choose from than $800...

This is fascinating to me as I feel the exact OPPOSITE of this perspective. If I have $1,000 LEGO budget and there are $3,000 of sets I want, I'm now missing out on many sets. That's not a pleasant feeling (not a tragedy, of course, but still a negative experience). If there are only $800 of sets...a.) I get 100% of what I want and b.) have $200 leftover for other pursuits!!!!

That's a win-win in my book!!! Don't have to go without and spare money in my pocket!

I accept some folks will find that ridiculous to them, but that's how my brain works!

I've never been one who feels like I have to collect _EVERY_ D2C set released. I leaned a bit in that direction when they released the Fantasy Chess (it did look really awesome), but I couldn't justify buying it at the time, and eventually realized that I wouldn't ever actually do anything with it (I'm lousy at chess). After that, I gave up on trying to stay 100% complete on Star Wars (spending a year out of work "helped" in that regard), and now most UCS sets don't even interest me beyond wanting to just see a built copy in person. So the idea that they need to cut back on D2C sets...I mean, first of all, what do you cut? You get one modular every year. You get at least one UCS SW set every year, but I think two is the norm (one May 4th, and one late in the year). Some, like the piano and the pirate ship, are just really big Ideas sets, which fit within the 3000pc guideline when they were submitted. Technically the Winter Village series is D2C, plus they seem intent on trying to get a Halloween theme off the ground (though for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want to capitalize on the second most profitable holiday season in the US). There's the landmark series, seasonal stuff, and you've also got two different Superhero lines that occasionally wander into D2C territory. There's more than enough stuff to permanently fill a strict "five per year" quota and lock out any other theme that may want access. At that point, many AFOLs would just shrug their shoulders and say that D2C holds little to no interest to them. I've never been tempted to buy a modular or a landmark D2C. Not once. The only Creator vehicle that has ever really tempted me is the Routemaster, which I may still try to buy. I've actually favored the playsets that now comprise the MBS over UCS starships in recent years (only missing out on Hoth), and the last three Day One D2C purchase I think I've made have been the Burton Batmobile, the Apollo lunar lander, and the second UCS Millennium Falcon.

So, here's the question you have to ask: What do you give up? Scrap modulars to make room for landmarks? Force SW to go on a tri-annual rotation with DC and Marvel? Limit the holiday stuff to Nightmare Before Christmas so you can cater to both Halloween and Christmas in a single set? I mean, many of these D2C sets are yearly purchases for some people. That is, it's one thing that has become an annual tradition to them. People threw a fit the year they repeated the toy shop for Winter Village, and there's nothing else in the D2C range that can replace that as an annual family holiday tradition. May 4th has become an event weekend-ish thing that only works for Star Wars and nothing else. There are people who think they need to ditch genre sets and focus on City...and people who think City should be dropped in favor of more genre sets. So, you've got this situation where people agree that _most_ of these D2C sets need to go away, but blood would be shed before they could agree on which ones should remain.

Weren't the Chinese New Year sets D2C as well? I can't remember seeing them for sale anywhere other than through LEGO directly.

As for the question at hand, I am lucky enough to be able to afford all the LEGO sets I am interested in.
My "problem" was that I felt oversaturated.
While I love the fact that there is so much choice these days, I have got too many sets already. Which means, every new great set is taken under far harder scrutiny than it would have been had there not been so many in the first place.
Add to that the fact that there now are cool sets by alternative manufacturers as well and it becomes even more oversaturated.

Just for reference, in addition to my mountain of unbuilt LEGO sets these awesome yet also enormous sets are either being built right now or waiting in the attic to be built:
Cobi - RMS Titanic
Cobi - USS Enterprise CV-6
Mega Construx - Castle Grayskull
Mega Construx - U.S.S. Enterprise NCC 1701
Xingbao - Silk Zhuang Building
BlueBrixx - several train sets, buildings and vehicles
CaDa - several Technic style vehicles

In the end I decided to drastically cut down on my spending on brick sets (pun not intended) and only buy one set per month max. This means that some of the new sets, however awesome, might likely never find a way into my collection.

But you know what, I have made my peace with that realization. I enjoy what I have, not worry about what I don't have.

It helps to think back to my childhood, when not being able to have every set I would have loved to have was the norm, so every one I did get was treasured even more.

In the 47 years I've been playing with Lego, I have never expected to be able to afford to buy every set. I choose which I like most. Certainly I wish I could afford them all, but that's unreasonable. I'm not a completionist: I don't feel I need all of any theme or subtheme just to have them all. If you think 13 D2C in a year is too many and you can't afford them all... What number is just right? If you can afford, say, eight... shut up and quit whining. "First world problems."

@speedorz4ever said:
[If I have $1,000 LEGO budget and there are $3,000 of sets I want, I'm now missing out on many sets.]

I didn't say $3,000 of sets I want, just $3,000 to choose from.

I am glad Harry Potter fans have their large sets. I am glad modular fans have theirs. I am glad Star Wars Master Builder Series exists for people who want those. I am glad there are sets such as The Upside Down and Pirates of Barricuda Bay and Old Trafford (and I'm a Chelsea fan).

I don't want any of those sets. If those were the only D2C sets that came out this year, I would be sad.

Lego is trying to cater to different groups. They aren't trying to get one person to spend $2,510 (plus unannounced prices of Mos Eisley and Elf Clubhouse) on all 13 D2C sets. While the company is happy to sell all of those to people who want all of everything, that is not the goal. The aim is to get people to buy a few from different themes.

I have a colleague who got the Disney Castle, Train Station, and Steamboat Willie as he and his wife are big Disney fans. I assisted him with Bricklinking a Carousel. Then his wife got Central Perk. They bought Mickie and Minnie the week it came out. Now they are thinking about getting either the Grand Piano or Hogwarts. That's why Lego does what it does.

I personally never had the desire to own everything from any series. Especially of series that are still in production. If I would, I'd basically let a company decide for me what I will be buying.

I realise I am among collectors here, so to each their own of course!

Bottom line is that I'm grateful for the exceptional choice of great sets. And then buy just 1.

According to Brickset, 2020 has seen 23 Duplo sets. I didn't buy any, and I don't feel I missed out, since they don't fit my interests. But I don't want Lego to /not/ produce Duplo sets just because I can't buy them all.

I've apparently only bought 18 sets this year (plus 3 GWP sets), Razor Crest and Barracuda Bay being the largest ones, and I don't feel like I've missed out all that much. Not even on "direct to consumer" sets really -- mostly due to just general budgeting decision I've made. We all have to budget Lego against other things we have to or want to purchase, besides then having to decide at the Lego layer what strikes our fancy.

Of course, my interests help a bit, since I don't tend to display or play or MOC, and most of my enjoyment tends to come from the building process and seeing the engineering and complexity of a set. Which means reviews (like Brickset's and various video formats) and the digital building instructions can help satisfy my need to buy, saving me money that I can spend on sets I'll actually revisit rather than leave bagged up for months and years. Technic's been pulling me more lately since I can get all giddy about seeing gears working for hours on end, even if the set isn't the best display piece. 42102 is a perfect example of a simple set that really satisfies my interests -- sure, Sián would have even more so, but cost is always a big factor, and I'm still wanting to buy a house this millennium.

It would likely be more consumer-friendly if Lego were to put some kind of "expected lifetime" of a set on the listing so we know that they intend to sell it until Month of Year and then plan accordingly (Raspberry Pi Foundation's Obsolescence Statements on their product pages comes to mind). But that's not really how companies work, and I don't typically see Lego killing off sets the first week they're for sale when interest isn't matching what they expected. Sure some will be backordered for a while, but no one says you /have/ to buy a set the first day/week/month/year, and a lot of us are incredibly fortunate with set availability and pricing compared to many other Lego consumers.

Choice is good. Budgeting is hard. Neither force you to feel like you're missing out.

@JukeLimited said:
"Technic's been pulling me more lately since I can get all giddy about seeing gears working for hours on end, even if the set isn't the best display piece."
Interesting. I would love to know how you achieve that goal with the current generation of "Technic" sets which appears to cater for the exact opposite approach.
I guess you stop building after about a third of the instructions. ;-)

This is so odd. How can this be bad? Only in the LEGO community can you find people annoyed by such a thing. You’d rather the sets not exist at all because you can’t buy them all!?! How selfish.
For those saying yes it’s a problem, thank god you’re not the ones running LEGO.

On one hand NO, as they don't force us to buy anything. Who buys all these sets anyway? Only a couple of hardcore superfans, most members here even won't purchase more than a couple. A NES is different enough to a Ideas Treehouse or a UCS SW set, it's about offering something to everyone our there.

On the other hand YES, I'm particularly annoyed with over the top big and expensive sets. I very much miss smaller sets, especially when it's about nerdy stuff like older movies. One example: Ghostbusters came from a fan idea and was a great set for 50€, not regarding the new movie and that set, they just moved to a 350€ set with the Firehouse, which was fine as is, but it demonstrates pretty well what target audience they are aiming for, how they maximize their profit. They might need to sell only 1/7 of the Firehouse (vs (Echo-1) to generate the same turnover. I can guarantee you it's a lot less times even to generate the same earnings. And next year they're moving to a 200€ Ecto-1, which will be again a nice set probably, but again a display piece and not a toy anymore. And me personally, I prefer toys to display pieces. Not to compare Lego with Playmobil, but the latter had no trouble making great toys of the movie and selling those. Their Ghostbusters line was a nice toy line.

The increased prices are what's really stuck out to me. IMO when a set goes above about £150, that's when it stops being a 'main-line' set (for lack of a better term) and starts being exclusive. After a quick look there's been 13 sets above that mark, plus Mos Eisley and any others that come later. Compared to previous years (and this is just me taking a cursory glance, nothing extensive):

2019 - 13
2018 - 11
2017 - 11
2016 - 9
2015 - 7

So it has been steadily increasing year-on-year, at least since 2015. What I did notice is that 7 of this year's sets (i.e. as many D2Cs we got in the whole of 2015!) are above £200, with four of those including Mos Eisley over £300. I get the appeal of having flagship sets, but the whole point of flagship items is that there aren't many of them...

Another sticking point is that only 5 of those 14 sets are not based on existing licenses or IPs, and two of those were Ideas submissions. I understand LEGO's move towards the non-AFOL adults will use other IPs to make them more attractive, but do they really need to lean so heavily on licenses?

IMHO, more choice is never a bad thing so long as it doesn’t negatively affect the company. Adults who can’t or don’t want to triage their own wants based on their own circumstances have greater issues than LEGO saturation. It’s a fun if not frustrating problem to have for most of us, what to get and when. And at least for me, it brings back those childhood shopping spree angst dreams I always craved / feared.

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan. They really should scale down some of the sets. The piano has more pieces than the original submission, added some needless play features, and looks worse. Mickey could have been a single set with just Mickey, and if it was successful they could have released Minnie the year after.

It feels like there's just too many sets releasing over $200 these days and not as many adult oriented sets between $100 and $200.

Honestly I like the greater number of options being released. Not every set is for everyone, and there are a number of sets they have been coming with that I likely will not get, despite how well done they are because they are just not for me. The greater number of sets, however have also provided me with more that is for me. In the past , the fewer number of releases have morgen resulted in longer timeframes between purchases leaving me waiting and craving something new. With space limitations like everyone else, I typically choose sets that both interest me and have good qualities for display. The D2C sets always meet the displayability criteria, while more options means greater likelihood of their being options that interest me.

That said, if you are someone who just has to have everything, I could see how that may be a problem. However, I don’t see why that problem should have to result in fewer options for everyone else.

I managed to stay more or less "current" until last year. There were always some sets, which I liked very much, but I convinced myself that there is no good reason to buy them (Giant Chess, R2D2, Tower of Orthanc, Silent Mary, etc... Then there are those, which I bought, but afterwards decided that I like some other things more, so I sold them: Tumbler, Sea Cow, Kingdoms Joust etc... Then there are those, for which I'm still sorry that I did not buy them. For some, I did not like them at the time, but regreted it later: Imperial Flagship, Grand Carousel, Eiffell tower... Then there are those, for which I "waited too long" and they were gone: Apocalypseburg, Triple E, BNSF. But all in all, I was good up until this year. I bought each year's modular, winter set, some UCS (X wing etc), all landmark, all fairground, all technic supercar and some other sets, which I really liked. I skipped (it was not easy) on Ninjago City and docks, almost all other UCS, all collectabe ,minifigs etc... For this, I decided to skip Upside Down (love the set, but I dont know the tv series, Old trafford (I am football fan but not fan of MU), but I was still ok. Problem came after some "big ones" hit. In the past, 200 euro mark normal for D2C, with some exceptions. This year, we got Piano, Diagon Alley, Sian, all over it and all sets which I would really really like to have. And then there are of course still other great set: mickey, Haunted house, Nintendo etc... For all of those, I would say there are "must buy", but of course I will be able to buy just one or two. So now I convinced myself that I dont like piano, I'm not Nintendo fan, I have nowhere to place Micke etc... So, instead of Joy because of new sets, I only anticipate ech new set with "please dont let it be good" thought on my mind. I already considered stopped following all news and reviews, but it's not really possible.

My issue is the prices. Way too many $200+ sets, in addition to a large number of $100+ retail sets. They need to produce more smaller and affordable sets, this model is unsustainable.

I wish LEGO would announce when the sets will retire at the same time it’s released, Then people wanting to try to buy them all could know how long they have.

A lot of people are Lego collectors. I collect OT Star Wars sets. When they release sets too frequently (or at too high of prices) it makes it impossible to collect them all. Then collectors need to decide to either live with missing some of the sets and having an incomplete collection (a difficult psychological hurdle) or stop collecting altogether. I think by releasing so many sets, Lego is going to have record profits in the short term but hurt themselves in the long term when people decide to change to more affordable hobbies.

@jaredhinton said:
"This is so odd. How can this be bad? Only in the LEGO community can you find people annoyed by such a thing. You’d rather the sets not exist at all because you can’t buy them all!?! How selfish.
For those saying yes it’s a problem, thank god you’re not the ones running LEGO. "

Yet another snotty response in a post full of dozens of them. I take it you've never studied economics? And you've never heard of the problem of having too many choices. Instead you resort to insults.

Im happy to have more sets but its hard to keep up especially since they are all really expensive.

Hence, I put yes too many as the world is in a global recession with thousands of people in lockdown (not sure what the policy is for online orders in strict lockdown areas, can one collect items from your front door?).

While, yes, lockdown means more building, a recession and arguably millions of lost jobs certainly over the coming years is the most ridiculous time to make a whole lot of really expensive, usually specific sets (i.e POBB, HH, NES game etc technically only appeal to a certain market).

While we all love our hobby and often do spend lots, people just wont be able to afford 300, 400, 500 dollar sets anymore. Some people will, but the large market in general will not. Expensive sets also applies to younger themes eg City. $280 for a mix mash of mediocre buildings and vehicles? Would a parent really want to spend that amount of money, on a City set?

Clearly it's a strategy that's working for them sales-wise, so it's hard to argue that they're releasing too many. And if none of them catch my eye, that's good for my bank balance. But when they release 4 or 5 in the space of a couple of months that do happen to appeal to me it can be a little frustrating knowing that I've got maybe only a year or so before some of them disappear. A longer shelf life for some of the more expensive sets wouldn't hurt.

@Slithus_Venom said:
"I don't want to go into a dark age, but I honestly haven't seen a quality, affordable set at all this year : ("

I agree that several themes haven’t had the best years but Ideas, Creator and Harry Potter, for example, have held their own. And late 2020 City has definitely been very good.

AFOLs complain there's not enough sets or that they're too juniorized. LEGO responds with more adult labeled sets and AFOLs complain it's too many. Complain, complain, complain. There's always going to be those you can't please no matter what.

This latest strategy is obviously working for LEGO. Not every set will appeal to everyone so at LEGO has widened the D2C sets to include something other than the standard Star Wars, Creator Expert, etc.

Has anyone noticed that there are way too many cars out there on the market. There are so many cars that I would love to have, like an Aston Martin, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Bentley, Rolls. They keep on making these DTC cars that cost more than my house, and they look beautiful and I have to have them all, but they are only available for one year and then a new model year comes out and I find myself falling behind as I’m still trying to catch up on the Studebakers that were released before I was born and then there are electric cars that I want to start collecting and I’m running out of parking spaces to put all these cars in and...

But I’m quite happy with my Subaru Outback that I’ve had for 4 years and plan to drive until my son is old enough to drive it. Doesn’t mean I don’t still want to drive a 60’s Corvette with the top down in the summer, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming. But I’m not complaining and am very happy with what I got.

As far as Lego, this is the first year that I went online at 11:00 at night to buy a set as soon as it came out. I really wanted the NES and am thrilled to have it. Sure, I could have waited a few more months and it wouldn’t have changed my life any, but it made me happy and there is nothing wrong with that. They never offered a set like this before and had they decided to only release 12 sets so far this year and not the NES, I still wouldn’t buy any and I would still be happy.

I understand collecting, I’ve collected many things over the years. Like drugs and gambling, it’s an addiction and can become dangerous if you don’t control it. As a kid I collected baseball cards, still have all of them. Let’s just say I never owned a Mickey Mantle and I never felt like I was missing out on anything.

@guachi said:
" @jaredhinton said:
"This is so odd. How can this be bad? Only in the LEGO community can you find people annoyed by such a thing. You’d rather the sets not exist at all because you can’t buy them all!?! How selfish.
For those saying yes it’s a problem, thank god you’re not the ones running LEGO. "

Yet another snotty response in a post full of dozens of them. I take it you've never studied economics? And you've never heard of the problem of having too many choices. Instead you resort to insults."

Snotty I’ll give you but resorting to insults? Hardly.
And no, I don’t believe in too many choices and neither do LEGO, especially since their bottom line seems to be hugely benefiting from releasing all the D2C sets.
The idea of too many choices is driven by market saturation and consumer fatigue. I don’t think that applies when talking about high end products (within their industry). A LEGO fan, or casual LEGO buyer may only be likely to buy a small number of these large sets, but LEGO have proven that, with LEGO at least, the market is not limited to fans of LEGO. The opposite in fact. People will buy LEGO who aren’t fans because they are fans of X license or X models. Like people who collect frogs, they don’t care who makes the frog. This the potential customer base is unlimited and the more varied products they release the more they will sell.
It may be a problem for the small number of LEGO collectors not being able to make up their mind, but ultimately even that market eventually buys one or two of them.
So no, I don’t give much weight to the theory of too much choice.
PS. It’s not helpful to your cause if you complain about someone being insulting by being insulting yourself.

Hey friends, hope you're all keeping well. My thoughts on the D2C:

My dark age ended when I finally had the money to start collecting sets that interested me. It began with UCS SW, Red 5 X Wing, B Wing, etc. I always aimed to have sets that matched a certain 'theme'; that is, looked good as models in my office or house. To that end, I've avoided buying the play sets (Hoth, Cloud City), the sets that aren't to the same 'scale' as the star fighters (Death Star, Super Star Destroyer), and the 'character' sets like Yoda and R2-D2. I also avoid the smaller SW sets, since they're not as large as the UCS sets and therefore don't fit my theme. That limits the SW sets quite a bit, and pretty much the ships I have are the ones that fit the theme: UCS MILF, B/X/A/Y Wing, TIE, and Imperial Shuttle. I add the Clone Dropship with AT-OT because it's pretty much a UCS in everything but name.

While some of the LEGO themes are compelling, not all of them are for me. I'm not a Marvel fan. I bought the 1989 Batmobile because I grew up on that movie, but I'm not interested in any other Batman sets. I like Ghostbusters but the firehouse didn't fit my theme (although the rumored UCS ECTO-1 certainly would). I don't play video games so the Minecraft and Overwatch sets are out. Ninjago, City, Friends, etc don't interest me. I do plan on getting the Nintendo, but I'm not convinced the piano set is worth the money. Long story short, I'm a picky guy.

Architecture is where it really hits home, literally, as my wife enjoys seeing these sets on my shelves. They're more for a mature household than a nerd's cave, which brings my LEGO hobby more in line with my wife's interests. The fact that they just released a set for her hometown, Tokyo, is a big plus as well.

I enjoy being spoiled for choice, as my tastes are very specific and I'm not the type to grab every set from a given theme. I'm also not the type to buy a set as soon as it comes out, unless there's a sweet deal involved such as 2x VIP, GWP, or a discount; most sets stay on the market for at least 18 months. I can understand, however, that those of us AFOL's may feel like LEGO is saturating the market. That being said, LEGO is making the smart play here and attracting people from all walks of life to the brick-built fold. I doubt many people will buy the Ideas Piano and the Nintendo and the Diagon Alley and the next UCS set all in the same year. I can't imagine that most people, even if they are less picky than myself, would spread their LEGO purchases so wide.

Just my two cents, I’ve actually quite enjoyed these comments as it gives me a better view into the LEGO world. Be safe and well my friends!

@anthony_boccia said:
"That limits the SW sets quite a bit, and pretty much the ships I have are the ones that fit the theme: UCS MILF, B/X/A/Y Wing, TIE, and Imperial Shuttle. "

You couldn't figure out a better abbreviation for the Millennium Falcon? :P

@alfred_the_buttler said:
"Has anyone noticed that there are way too many cars out there on the market. There are so many cars that I would love to have, like an Aston Martin, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Bentley, Rolls. They keep on making these DTC cars that cost more than my house, and they look beautiful and I have to have them all, but they are only available for one year and then a new model year comes out and I find myself falling behind as I’m still trying to catch up on the Studebakers that were released before I was born and then there are electric cars that I want to start collecting and I’m running out of parking spaces to put all these cars in and...

But I’m quite happy with my Subaru Outback that I’ve had for 4 years and plan to drive until my son is old enough to drive it. Doesn’t mean I don’t still want to drive a 60’s Corvette with the top down in the summer, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming. But I’m not complaining and am very happy with what I got.

As far as Lego, this is the first year that I went online at 11:00 at night to buy a set as soon as it came out. I really wanted the NES and am thrilled to have it. Sure, I could have waited a few more months and it wouldn’t have changed my life any, but it made me happy and there is nothing wrong with that. They never offered a set like this before and had they decided to only release 12 sets so far this year and not the NES, I still wouldn’t buy any and I would still be happy.

I understand collecting, I’ve collected many things over the years. Like drugs and gambling, it’s an addiction and can become dangerous if you don’t control it. As a kid I collected baseball cards, still have all of them. Let’s just say I never owned a Mickey Mantle and I never felt like I was missing out on anything. "

To all the fanboys / girls, collectors, perfectionists out there, the above post summarized it all and it is perfectly written.

I was for a long time not able to understand how could anyone have the space and money to collect hundreds or thousands of sets (since I'm not in that category). I was not able to understand how Lego could make so much revenue even though sometimes the product seem mediocre or priced out of reach (maybe this is just due to having too many choices nowadays).

Now I understand that there are in fact too many people, who are addicted into collecting and simply just feel happy to keep on buying Lego, to an extend it is not a hobby anymore. It edge towards an Addiction. If money is not a concern then it's fine but there are things more than money. There are a bigger world out there with more interesting things to do and more toys to explore than Lego. Keep an eye, when addiction overtakes a hobby.

And the way Lego can do by making more choices to us, making good marketing, making very nice boxes, designs and so on, is to make you keep buying. Unfortunately that is business. So nothing wrong with that. But the people needs to be aware and to have self control.

Thanks alfred_the_buttler for making it so clear.

And in my opinion keeping so many ABS at home is never good for the environment. ;)

I used to be a completist on UK circulation coins, but stopped when it was no longer viable to do so.
I'm going to stop being a completist on Collectible Minifigures when my display shelves are full (two more sets!) because they have become prohibitively expensive.
I am still a completist on various book series, because they're fun to search out and generally available at more-or-less affordable prices.
Never, ever would I have considered being a completist on "direct to consumer" Lego sets. That would be insane.
I did, however, get the UCS Y-Wing a couple of years back and am looking forward to at last getting the Crocodile loco which I ordered on 1st July (!) I like the opportunity of getting these special treats from time to time, because they are cleverly designed, are fun to make and look impressive when complete.
Therefore, YES, Lego should make these direct to consumer products to keep up adult interest and showcase what they can do.
If you feel that you have to buy every single one of them, there are organisations out there to help you get off your addiction.

@speedorz4ever said:
" @FuddRuckus said:
... If I have $1,000 to spend in a year, I would rather there be $3,000 in sets to choose from than $800...

This is fascinating to me as I feel the exact OPPOSITE of this perspective. If I have $1,000 LEGO budget and there are $3,000 of sets I want, I'm now missing out on many sets. That's not a pleasant feeling (not a tragedy, of course, but still a negative experience). If there are only $800 of sets...a.) I get 100% of what I want and b.) have $200 leftover for other pursuits!!!!

That's a win-win in my book!!! Don't have to go without and spare money in my pocket!

I accept some folks will find that ridiculous to them, but that's how my brain works!"

This is true but we all have to learn that we can't get 100% of what we want. That also works for your budget, but mine might be $200 or $2000, should they target their sets to my budget or yours?

The real problem with Direct 2 Consumer sets is that they are priced the same as retail. It's perfectly understandable that they need to not undermine retail pricing, but it means that they are continually trying to push prices that are unnecessarily high - especially when you look at the discounts that you can get on retail sets (at least after a few months).

When you look at how much Lego actually makes from wholesale to retailers, and the discounted retail prices, there is a lot of room for D2C pricing that would really squeeze the knock-off manufacturers without hurting profits.

And if they don't want to reduce prices outright because of retail, they could at least afford to improve the VIP rewards.

I don't mind the amount but why do they all have to be $200+ sets?

@T_Lars said:
"I don't mind the amount but why do they all have to be $200+ sets? "

Because many of these would not be possible to do from less while maintaining the essence of the set. Complexity and level of detail already attract a large piece count. Imagine if the Mos Eisley Cantina was done for half price, half piece count. You would probably look at something incomplete, open back oversized playset with a lacklustre selection of minifigs. Then that would be the problem, why are they like Attack on Hoth??! In order to make the D2C sets as attractive and attention grabbing as they are, the large size and piece count are a must. Otherwise, there would not be much to look at in the first place - then why make them D2C at all?

We can see that size and hence price is pretty much dependent on source material. For the vehicle sets, Hulkbuster, helmets, Architecture (AFOL sets), trains, etc a desirable outcome can be achieved from less. For large buildings, spaceships, etc there would be too much compromise to make the set cheaper, and those would by all means most likely make them unattractive.

I prefer more expensive sets that actually do feel complete if I decide to splurge, instead of half done also-runs that we can only complain about why do they don't have this and that, even if I can't afford all. I rather buy one complete set than two half-baked ones from separate themes.

I really really want LEGO to come out with an Ultimate collector's series MILF - I'd be really curious what they do!

@The_Toniboeh said:
" @anthony_boccia said:
"That limits the SW sets quite a bit, and pretty much the ships I have are the ones that fit the theme: UCS MILF, B/X/A/Y Wing, TIE, and Imperial Shuttle. "

You couldn't figure out a better abbreviation for the Millennium Falcon? :P

"

@anthony_boccia:
"...UCS MILF..."

I, um...think that falls a bit outside their corporate comfort zone.

@scottd:
Your tastes might also be wildly divergent, and catering specifically to either of you might leave the other with nothing that interests them. Several people here have suggested a hard limit on the number of big D2C sets that can be released annually, but as I've already mentioned, several themes have already staked out an annual release, and if that number is set too low there won't even be enough room for the "regulars", much less a one-off release like Stranger Things. Any attempt to pare that list down would end up sounding like the Monty Python skit where they're discussing how many things people never expect.

But the budget difference is another major issue. People with small budgets are always calling for a severe reduction in the product line so they don't feel like they're missing out on anything, but people with money clearly want to buy more. Right now, many people have found themselves with zero budget due to the pandemic, and I've run across at least one such person who seems to prefer that they basically put 2020 on hold and release nothing new until the world is back to normal. On the other hand, sales seem to have skyrocketed, as people with savings, or who are trying to find alternatives to cancelled plans, have been seeking alternate sources to keep busy that can take place in the home, and don't involve just watching more TV.

@hackenbacker:
D2C sets require a much bigger investment to get to store shelves than a $20 mass market set, and they sell in lower volume that's spread out over a longer period of time. To make the release of an individual set profitable, you have to look beyond what it takes to just make a single copy of the set profitable. A single LEGO Store might sell a hundred copies of a single $20 set on a random day, but might go days at a time without selling any copies of a random $200+ D2C set. The late store manager at our local store had to practically beg to get _twelve_ copies of the second UCS MF for the VIP launch date, and corporate was worried that he'd still be sitting on most of them by the time the Christmas season had passed.

There's a reason that their D2C calendar is back-loaded so heavily, and that's Christmas. People will buy these huge sets as Christmas presents, but pass them right by the rest of the year. SW gets a pass for May 4th because that's become something of a holiday for the IP in general. Beyond that, releasing an expensive D2C set during the first half of the year probably has a spotty track record. Even the big sets that were tied to movies released in February (like The LEGO Movie) tended to max out in the $100-150 range for launch of the theme, and the really big stuff got pushed back to a second wave later in the year.

@T_Lars:
Because you just can't do jaw-dropping grandeur on a tiny budget. A high level of detail commands a high piece count, no matter the size of the finished model. When you start with a large model in mind, the piece count is going to be sky high. The thing is, if these big D2C sets were MOCs designed by AFOLs, the piece counts, and the level of detail, would often be even higher.

@ToysFromTheAttic:
20 years ago, TLC was still under the impression that AFOLs only accounted for 5-10% of their market share, while many AFOLs were under the delusion that we were buying over half of all sets sold. Through the VIP program, they were able to narrow that range down considerably, ultimately settling on AFOLs being only 5-10% of the raw customer base, but buying closer to 25-30% of the product sold. Having woken up to the buying power of AFOLs, they've shifted their product range to include a much greater focus on the AFOL market, and this is a direct result of that. We've never seen an updated set of numbers since then, but I expect the percentage of sales has risen, though I'd be surprised if it has hit the 50% mark yet.

@PjtorXmos said:
"I'ma repeat something I said on an article from yesterday, feel free to remove it, if you feel like this falls under spamming. I just feel, it is very relevant to this topic specifically:

The thing is, Lego right now is mostly making money of of adult fans, that's why they are catering so much to them right now with ridiculously priced display models rather than playsets and other educational and creative building sets, that's why Lego is doing so good right now. They are not making money, because they are making good sets for children. They are making money, because they MADE good sets for children in the past. By that, they are very much neglecting the audience of children tho. This means, that there will be a huge decline about 10-15 years from now, because that's about the time, when all the children, that were not Lego fans, would be coming out of their dark ages. Lego is being ran, like about any other larger company right now. Very focused on profits right now and completely ignorant of the future.

"

Thats completely false, the volumes sold for kids is massive compared to AFOLs. Your whole comment is based on a false statement.

Figured I'd get a little quantitative with my response to this question. So we have thirteen confirmed D2C sets so far this year. As just one fan, here is my response to each of them:

Bookshop: Bought close to its initial release. A must-have.

Fiat 500: This set was of no interest to me.

Old Trafford: This set was of no interest to me.

Haunted House: Bought it in the first week. A must-have.

Elf Club House: Cute, but I don't collect the winter village series, so no need to buy this.

Crocodile Locomotive: This set was of no interest to me.

Lamborghini Sian: This set was of no interest to me.

Mickey and Minnie Mouse: This set is super cute, but not one that I felt like I needed to have.

Main Square: This set was of no interest to me.

NES: This set was of no interest to me.

A-wing Starfighter: Cool UCS as usual, but not the type of Star Wars set I normally collect.

Mos Eisley Cantina: Looks amazing, very tempting.

Diagon Alley: Again, looks amazing, very tempting.

So of the thirteen sets that have been released or announced, only four of them are ones I'm likely to buy (or for two of them, have already bought). So the problem is really not the sheer quantity of sets that are coming out - I doubt most collectors are buying every single one. Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to buy all 13. And I wouldn't be in a normal year with fewer D2Cs either. But even so, it's still hard to stay on top of even just those four. Cantina + Bookshop + Diagon Alley + Haunted House is still well over US$1000 of sets, and that's even before adding a lot of the medium sized sets that have caught my eye this year (Razor Crest, Ocean Exploration Base, the rest of the Harry Potter line). And also, I haven't even managed to stay on top of the previous years' sets either. I have yet to purchase Roller Coaster or Disney Train, so I'm well behind on the wishlist, which means I'm probably, inevitably going to have to take a pass on a few of these amazing items. Not to mention the issues of storage and display space. The house only has so many closets and shelves.

So the problem to me seems to be twofold. Sets are getting bigger and pricier, which at least for me makes it harder to justify buying certain items, despite absolutely loving their designs. But the problem doesn't really have anything to do with the absolute number of D2Cs being released. I'm thrilled for the fans of the other 9 of this year's D2Cs that haven't made it onto my wishlist. More variety means more fun for everyone. But for me the last couple of years and this year too have been filled with so many great sets, that I will most likely end up skipping more sets than usual, despite not being a completionist.

LEGO should renew its relation with independant resellers. It is totally unfair that so many top-products are exclusive, D2C, ... . Independant resellers (e.g. small specialised toy shops) do a lot of the field work for LEGO by explaining the many features of the different sets and making the product come to life for parents and children all over the world. The unequal treatment is broadened by the many gifts that LEGO reserves for its own channel, and the VIP-card [Please read what I write: I don't say the VIP-card is bad, I say that the competition is unfair as independant retailers don't have access to these means].