BrickLink responds to crowdfunding problems

About exactly as expected. Not that it's a bad thing - just the ability for greater availability would be nice. Honestly, 10k is about all I'd want for sets like Pursuit of Flight and the Bird, but sets like Castle will probably still sell out a touch quickly for this.

Not sure about a limit of 1/per order unique, given there's more than a few households where multiple people have distinct collections. It's as good a solution as any though I suppose. I'm guessing they're using this second half addition as a test for the order speed or something.

And double checking, that limit of one set per is a one set of each, or you can only choose one out of the five to order and only get one copy? I'm figuring it's the former, but the text is somewhat unclear.

Incredibly odd that the Castle set sold 10k/5k. Makes the 30 minute window all the more dire in my view. And given 75% were individual buyers, that will probably only delay the sell-though period by an hour for that sort of set. Will have to see about the Fishing Boat when that reopens.

So when exactly is the increase from 5000 to 10000 sets for round one go into effect? I'm on the bricklink Designer Program pre-order page right now and still see 'sold out' and limits of 5000.

[edit] Ah cool, August 3rd - missed it in the summary earlier.

Also, bricklink has not addressed how these additional 5000 sets are going to be allocated to each region. Or are the additional 5000 in the pool available to all?

@darkstonegrey said:
"So when exactly is the increase from 5000 to 10000 sets for round one go into effect? I'm on the bricklink Designer Program pre-order page right now and still see 'sold out' and limits of 5000."

3rd August, it's in the press release.

@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
" @darkstonegrey said:
"So when exactly is the increase from 5000 to 10000 sets for round one go into effect? I'm on the bricklink Designer Program pre-order page right now and still see 'sold out' and limits of 5000."

3rd August, it's in the press release. "

Yeah thanks, noticed it after I posted too.

Hey so Im really bad at figuring out complex stuff, so can anyone tell me what I might need to do with my Kakapo? I have one ordered, and Im happy with it, but is there anything I might need to do to keep it or reorder it or am I all good to go?

@The_Creator said:
"Regardless, we better see a new castle wave in 2023 ala Kingdoms + MMV, otherwise TLG is just beyond obtuse. Maybe some more castle-orientated Ideas sets too, but I'd rather get a full theme."

Kingdom+MMV+ Heroica. Regular knights and armies + civilians + RPG-esque adventurers (rangers, thieves, mages, etc).

Sounds like they are at least trying.

A step in the right direction I think.
At least they have listened now. I do wish they had listened BEFORE round one, lets just hope the changes make round two fairer.

So how do we know if our Castle order will be fulfilled in January or June?

And does LEGO plan on keeping credit card orders open for almost a year?

@ericb_ said:
"I'm quite surprised by some of these responses. If nobody had complained about not getting a set they wanted, then what problem would there have been to solve? But, of course, many people did complain. Instead of solving the problem themselves or deciding to move on, they placed the blame for their predicament onto others. Someone else had to come up with a solution.
There was a lot of discontent toward those with a desire to own an exclusive set. What feeling do you have toward those who complain when they don't get what they want?"

How can we "solve the problem ourselves"? Why should all the folks who are interested in castles have to "move on" just because the only way Lego produces decent castle sets is limited edition? The 3-in-1 set looks reasonable but doesn't really appeal to me. The 3-in-1 sets just have too many compromises for my tastes.

@magykfyre said:
"Good to see!!! Great that they are acknowledging the scalpers. Hopefully they know this is an issue for some other sets too."

I ended up with more than one castle set do to a glitch in the system as well. If the glitches are fixed, that should make it even easier.

I still wish they’d bring back the Europa theme, and that never existed in the first place.

So basically we can’t get Castle. Lol

@PDelahanty said:
" @chromeboy2k said:
" @Shazbolt said:
" @Chilis_no said:
"How is it possible that the Castle did sell 10.000 copies as there was a limit at only 5000 copies…?"

It explained in the post that there was an ordering glitch which allowed it to happen."

That's not an explanation, "

As a professional coder, let me explain. When web servers crash due to overwhelming demand, WEIRD stuff happens. The web server can't keep up with requests and often things get jumbled in memory on the back end if you haven't coded things properly. They didn't code things properly and that resulted in double the number of sets being sold.

TL;DR: Someone messed up."

It also smells like a real glitch because it’s exactly double. I could make a guess that there was a tally somewhere that had the 5000 limit, but it wasn’t passed to where it needed to go. The number was then reset after hitting the limit, or they caught it somewhere during the second time around and it was allowed to go to 5k again.

I agree, code is weird.

If the *glitch* was counting orders instead of sets, then it would suggest that 1250 orders would account for 6250 of the sets sold = exactly 5 sets per order for those 1250 orders.

@bigginsd said:
" @MVives said:
" @bigginsd said:
"are LEGO still going to tell us there is no demand for a Castle theme?"
At what point did LEGO tell us there is no demand for a Castle theme?"
LEGO designers have said in several interviews that they love Classic themes but they need to sell them as one off sets through Creator or Ideas because they can’t support a full theme anymore.

https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-designer-says-creator-3-in-1-is-the-new-home-of-retro-themes/

They haven’t had a full Castle theme since 2014.

I understand for non-Castle fans I sound like an irritating geek, just as I would feel if someone talked Bionicle or Classic Space. Even Pirates is understandable to me, despite liking it in my childhood, because there is only so many times you can do big ships and island forts. But Castle has a lot of ongoing play value. My 5yo son loves the sets I have and MOCs I have built in this theme, and we can talk about history in a general sense whilst he plays with it."

I remember reading an article in Block magazine about how advertising changed the way that LEGO does themes. The nature of products for kids these days means that you need to cover multiple outputs - video games, books, merch, TV shows - with something vaguely story driven, hence Ninjago and Monkie Kid (and even Chima to an extent). From that point of view I can see why non-licensed themes like Castle or Space would struggle to get off the ground in a board meeting. In fact - when was the last new, non-licensed, non-story driven LEGO theme? 2015 Pirates?

This seems like a sensible response to the problems though. It sounds like those who did manage to get an order in will still get the sets by January 2022?

You should include a hyperlink to this Bricklink crowdfund site in the article. I found the site through a google search. Still shows 5k limit on each set. Whenever they update it to 10k, I hope I have a chance to purchase a Castle in the Forest set. Given the history of Lego with things like VIP though, I have a bad feeling I'll simply miss out like always.

@yacoub said:
"I found the site through a google search. Still shows 5k limit on each set. Whenever they update it to 10k, I hope I have a chance to purchase a Castle in the Forest set. Given the history of Lego with things like VIP though, I have a bad feeling I'll simply miss out like always."

They aren’t producing anymore of the castle, so unfortunately you already missed out.

I could not order the Fishing Boat because out was gone for my region (but still available in other regions). Frustrating, another Ulysses experience for me. If the region matters and servers are limited why not set up different dates for different regions to hunt for those sets?

@bigginsd said:
" @MVives said:
" @bigginsd said:
"are LEGO still going to tell us there is no demand for a Castle theme?"
At what point did LEGO tell us there is no demand for a Castle theme?"
LEGO designers have said in several interviews that they love Classic themes but they need to sell them as one off sets through Creator or Ideas because they can’t support a full theme anymore.

https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-designer-says-creator-3-in-1-is-the-new-home-of-retro-themes/
"

That's cool. Johnny Thunder has popped up in cmf as well so maybe there's a slim chance they will make a 3-in-1 pyramid/temple/sphynx.

Good move by TLG/BL, i guess. Amazing that the Castle sold 10k in about 45mins (I logged in 38mins in, and there was about 30% left).

I DO hope they are NOT going to cancel all multiple orders - I only ordered the Pursuit of Flight, but twice - one for each of my boys (I have no unopened sets nor resell).

My logging in experience was pretty okay, only reloaded two or three times - only strange thing was that to order multiple sets, I had to put each into my shopping bag @ LEGO.com separately, and press back to order/select another one at BL - guess that also applies to the ordering of different sets?

@ericb_ said:
" @ffilz said:
"How can we "solve the problem ourselves"? Why should all the folks who are interested in castles have to "move on" just because the only way Lego produces decent castle sets is limited edition? The 3-in-1 set looks reasonable but doesn't really appeal to me. The 3-in-1 sets just have too many compromises for my tastes."
You can get the instructions and source the parts from your collection and/or Bricklink. You can buy a copy of the set from a Bricklink or ebay seller. You can design and build your own castle. My point is that you don't need someone else to solve your problem. You're perfectly capable of assessing the situation and figuring out a solution that works for you."

And who is going to pay the unique stuff from bricklink? It’s not about the castle itself it’s about the fractions, flags and the prints overall. For example I am a huge fan of castles but the last few lines were garbage, because of the new fractions I couldn’t care less. Yes I can make a castle too but i would like to fill it with you know “castle stuff”. But Lego in the last few years produce less and less castle elements, like helmets, swords, minifigures with good printing (and if the are most of them are new).
So my question is, when we get for example a cmf knight, why it has to be from a new fraction? Why it can’t be an old one? It would boost the nostalgy from afol-s and it would be the same for kids too.

Unfortunately, in the current LEGO.com setup we are not able to ship to additional countries.

^ This is very unfortunate... Nevermind being sold out before ordering. I did not even get the opportunity to try. :-(

"we saw a very small number of opportunistic customers hoarding sets and re-selling them for inflated prices"

is also a highly speculative statement, i.e. we saw, hoarding and re-selling. I can see they could see someone has bought multiples - but they'd not know what they intended to do with them... likewise they can look on Ebay etc and see some for sale - not sure they've had time / inclination to join the two up - although it's reasonable to speculate someone selling on Ebay may have bought multiples- but equally that could be someone who bought just 1... i.e. how many orders of 1 are someone intending to resell at some point? I would bet it's not zero... perhaps they are just generalising an assumption.

Hats off to everyone who has worked towards this answer

That retrospective and actions taken go beyond what I was expecting: Everyone (in previous sentence) is awesome 40516

Huge Thanks

@CapnRex101 said:
"I have to say, there was a discussion about the BrickLink Designer Program during Fan Media Days and Fan Media representatives brought up every issue which would subsequently affect round one, evidently without success.

While I appreciate the willingness to improve things which were not working and honour the extra purchases of Castle in the Forest, such issues should have been anticipated beforehand.

Good on Lego but I find it a bit odd that they allowed people to buy 5 copies and when they did they are now calling them yes holders

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the problems are being rectified now."

Well said cap,

Well done Lego I guess but I do find it odd that they allowed people to buy 5 sets then when they did they called them opportunistic. It doesn't seem like they are going to cancel any of these orders. Lego say that 75% of people only bought one but if the other 25% bought 5 that would mean that the 10,000 sets only went to 5000 people. I know that some people would have just got two but it does show how much it distorts the numbers even if most people only get one set.

Math:
3750x1=3750
1250x5=6250
3750+6250=10,000
3750+1250=5000
3750 is 75% of 5000
1250 is 25% of 5000

Hopefully they got rid of those stupid regional sale limits. Couldn't order the Kakapo as it was "sold out in my region" even though the bird is native to my country.

Secured one castle, one boat and pursuit of flight. Despite the delay, happy to hear that the complaints have been addressed so well (and that a nice box may come).

@SMC said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"I have to say, there was a discussion about the BrickLink Designer Program during Fan Media Days and Fan Media representatives brought up every issue which would subsequently affect round one, evidently without success.

While I appreciate the willingness to improve things which were not working and honour the extra purchases of Castle in the Forest, such issues should have been anticipated beforehand.

Good on Lego but I find it a bit odd that they allowed people to buy 5 copies and when they did they are now calling them yes holders

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the problems are being rectified now."

Well said cap,

Well done Lego I guess but I do find it odd that they allowed people to buy 5 sets then when they did they called them opportunistic.
.....
"

They could have known on forehand of course, but they stated that they were surprised to see the sets popping up on eBay at inflated prices. That part appears to be unexpected to them.

@apcsb
“But I guess the key phrase was "dilute the exclusivity" - seems like they are moving into the "drops" category (esp given the Adidas collab) and thus the limited supply and f*cked up website problems will never end, since they are an intentional part of the hype.”

This. I may be wrong, but I have the feeling LEGO wants the hype and encourages shortages and resellers. Marketing is all about how people perceive you. When you get in the news or on social media like we’ve seen in the past few months a) because what you produce is selling for 2-3 times its original price on the secondary market, b) because there are shortages of what you produce because of high demand and c) because collectors advertise the value of their collection, you increase the status of your brand amongst those looking from the outside and thus increase the number of potential wealthy clients. They don’t really care what we, normal AFOLs, think. The number of current AFOLs is WAY smaller than the number of potential AFOLs. It’s those people they are targeting now.

That said, I don’t really mind because I enjoy LEGO many different ways. I build sets and design MOCs, but I also collect minifigs and rare in-box sets, so this program is designed with people like me in mind.

(sorry about the English, it’s not my mother tongue, it’s early and I’m on vacations!)

Well, according to the numbers I saw, more than 5000 single unit orders were placed for the castle. That is more than was originally promised. And an additional 2000 units were sold to another 1000 people. So, looking on the bright side (I know it is not bright for those that did not get one), over 6000 people were able to order 1 or 2. Ignoring the technical issues, it seems that it was going to sell out regardless. If they had limited sales to one per order, it still would have sold out quickly. If there had not been a technical glitch, the numbers suggest that there still would have been availability issues for many.

Unfortunately, the rollout had the issues it did. If there had been a limit of 1 per order, I am guessing that there would not be the same kind of complaints since it would have sold out quickly anyway with 5100 sold already as individual sales and people would have felt like they had been given a fair chance (mostly). As it stands, more than 5000 people were able to order a single set.

Just another view on the single sales. I wish there was not the 10000 limit. This must be a tiny run for production.

I also wonder how many sales some of the bigger Ideas sets have had. Voltron is at the same price point as the Castle. I think Ideas set creators get 3% (maybe 1%) of sales for the entire product run, but the BL set creators get 10% of a fixed run (hopefully the full 10000). It would be interesting to see which is more profitable for the set creators.

@SMC said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"I have to say, there was a discussion about the BrickLink Designer Program during Fan Media Days and Fan Media representatives brought up every issue which would subsequently affect round one, evidently without success.

While I appreciate the willingness to improve things which were not working and honour the extra purchases of Castle in the Forest, such issues should have been anticipated beforehand.

Good on Lego but I find it a bit odd that they allowed people to buy 5 copies and when they did they are now calling them yes holders

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the problems are being rectified now."

Well said cap,

Well done Lego I guess but I do find it odd that they allowed people to buy 5 sets then when they did they called them opportunistic. It doesn't seem like they are going to cancel any of these orders. Lego say that 75% of people only bought one but if the other 25% bought 5 that would mean that the 10,000 sets only went to 5000 people. I know that some people would have just got two but it does show how much it distorts the numbers even if most people only get one set.

Math:
3750x1=3750
1250x5=6250
3750+6250=10,000
3750+1250=5000
3750 is 75% of 5000
1250 is 25% of 5000"

What they specifically say is "It’s important to point out that 75% of orders for Castle in the Forest were for one set"

Meaming

1 person buys 5 separate orders

Order 1 - Castle
Order 2 - Castle
Order 3 - Castle
Order 4 - Castle
Order 5 - Castle

If user orders 5 "separate" castles, this falls under their "75% of each ORDERS for Castle were for ONE set" - Yet - user ordered 5 sets.

This data point from LEGO is meaningless.

@chromeboy2k said:
" @Shazbolt said:
" @Chilis_no said:
"How is it possible that the Castle did sell 10.000 copies as there was a limit at only 5000 copies…?"

It explained in the post that there was an ordering glitch which allowed it to happen."

That's not an explanation, "

It's probably all the explanation they have at the moment until whatever developer is assigned to fix it finds and patches it.

If I had to guess off the top of my head, the check for maximum quantity was done in such a way that it could be shot past in the right situation, and not checked again until a multiple of the maximum came up. Hence 10,000. They're probably lucky it didn't shoot past that as well and end up at 15,000.

As they say, a happy scalper is a happy Lego

‘It’s important to point out that 75% of orders for Castle in the Forest were for one set– so we’d like to thank you for being considerate of other fans.”

75% of orders is not the same thing as 75% of the production run. That is giving a false sense that 7500 sets are going to individual customers out of the 10000. It looks like they are putting the best face forward on the scalping issue, rather than take an action that may cause them to be sued.

But I may be being cynical.

Of course as I typed this someone laid it out much better right before me.

Its quite easy to go beyond 5000, if the system only assumes you are going to buy 1 set , then the availability will reduce by 1 when you start the process of filling in address and credit card, but at the last second before hitting buy you select 5 then there will be other people who are also in the process of ordering before the system reduces availability by 5! If they have being really careless it may not even reduce by 1 until after you have finished your order!

The original bricklink crowdfunding sets were not that popular as over-priced per piece (compared to usual shop sets) since they were using their own sellers inventory (rather than producing new Lego bricks) and their were imports duties outside of USA. None of this applies this time around, so they should have just sold as Lego Ideas sets and saved all the headaches and heartaches (I need to explain to my son why he cannot have the castle).

@theseasentinel:
I’m pretty sure the two largest LEGO retailers are Walmart and Amazon.

@Shropshire:
If someone only posted one copy for sale, sure, you can’t say for certain that they bought multiple copies. If someone posted five or more copies, on the other hand...

@ambr:
I placed an order for the Nebulon B that went to Backordered status right away, and then got cancelled later on because there wasn’t going to be any restock. If you plug in “5000 units” as the stock inventory, then anything from 5001+ that clears the system should automatically go to Backordered until they can resolve the stock count one way or the other. Once orders switch to Backordered, they can shut off the ability to order an item, so they don’t end up with a sky-high pile of backorders that they’ll just have to cancel later on. The only trick is you need to inform the system of the correct quantity when assigning stock levels.

As multiple folks pointed out above, the most number of single unit orders could be is 6000. But that number is likely much lower. Throw in the fact that single users could place multiple orders, the number gets even lower. I think it’s fairly clear that 50% or more of these castles were bought by folks buying more than one.

Should we congratulate LEGO for listening its fans after the fact?

Everyone posting here seems to be happy with how LEGO is going to handle this. I personally am disappointed that I'll be getting my sets months later than promised.

@rahlmaclaren said:
" @The_Creator said:
"Regardless, we better see a new castle wave in 2023 ala Kingdoms + MMV, otherwise TLG is just beyond obtuse. Maybe some more castle-orientated Ideas sets too, but I'd rather get a full theme."

Kingdom+MMV+ Heroica. Regular knights and armies + civilians + RPG-esque adventurers (rangers, thieves, mages, etc)."

and GOATS

@purpledave [

@Shropshire :
If someone only posted one copy for sale, sure, you can’t say for certain that they bought multiple copies. If someone posted five or more copies, on the other hand...]

I was mostly pointing out the person buying 1 to resell could be a scalper too i.e. deprived a fan of a copy for a quick buck.

@ogel_chicago said:
" @SMC said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"I have to say, there was a discussion about the BrickLink Designer Program during Fan Media Days and Fan Media representatives brought up every issue which would subsequently affect round one, evidently without success.

While I appreciate the willingness to improve things which were not working and honour the extra purchases of Castle in the Forest, such issues should have been anticipated beforehand.

Good on Lego but I find it a bit odd that they allowed people to buy 5 copies and when they did they are now calling them yes holders

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the problems are being rectified now."

Well said cap,

Well done Lego I guess but I do find it odd that they allowed people to buy 5 sets then when they did they called them opportunistic. It doesn't seem like they are going to cancel any of these orders. Lego say that 75% of people only bought one but if the other 25% bought 5 that would mean that the 10,000 sets only went to 5000 people. I know that some people would have just got two but it does show how much it distorts the numbers even if most people only get one set.

Math:
3750x1=3750
1250x5=6250
3750+6250=10,000
3750+1250=5000
3750 is 75% of 5000
1250 is 25% of 5000"

What they specifically say is "It’s important to point out that 75% of orders for Castle in the Forest were for one set"

Meaming

1 person buys 5 separate orders

Order 1 - Castle
Order 2 - Castle
Order 3 - Castle
Order 4 - Castle
Order 5 - Castle

If user orders 5 "separate" castles, this falls under their "75% of each ORDERS for Castle were for ONE set" - Yet - user ordered 5 sets.

This data point from LEGO is meaningless. "

It don't see the advantage of placing five different orders if it can be done in one order, as was the case. So it seems like a reassuring data point to me.

@Wrecknbuild said:
" @ogel_chicago said:
" @SMC said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"I have to say, there was a discussion about the BrickLink Designer Program during Fan Media Days and Fan Media representatives brought up every issue which would subsequently affect round one, evidently without success.

While I appreciate the willingness to improve things which were not working and honour the extra purchases of Castle in the Forest, such issues should have been anticipated beforehand.

Good on Lego but I find it a bit odd that they allowed people to buy 5 copies and when they did they are now calling them yes holders

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the problems are being rectified now."

Well said cap,

Well done Lego I guess but I do find it odd that they allowed people to buy 5 sets then when they did they called them opportunistic. It doesn't seem like they are going to cancel any of these orders. Lego say that 75% of people only bought one but if the other 25% bought 5 that would mean that the 10,000 sets only went to 5000 people. I know that some people would have just got two but it does show how much it distorts the numbers even if most people only get one set.

Math:
3750x1=3750
1250x5=6250
3750+6250=10,000
3750+1250=5000
3750 is 75% of 5000
1250 is 25% of 5000"

What they specifically say is "It’s important to point out that 75% of orders for Castle in the Forest were for one set"

Meaming

1 person buys 5 separate orders

Order 1 - Castle
Order 2 - Castle
Order 3 - Castle
Order 4 - Castle
Order 5 - Castle

If user orders 5 "separate" castles, this falls under their "75% of each ORDERS for Castle were for ONE set" - Yet - user ordered 5 sets.

This data point from LEGO is meaningless. "

It don't see the advantage of placing five different orders if it can be done in one order, as was the case. So it seems like a reassuring data point to me."

Boxes easily get damaged. Nearly half my orders from LEGO arrive damaged and crushed at this point.

I bought two copies this way of the Castle and the Ship. Four separate orders. One Castle and Ship for myself and one of Castle and Ship for a friend traveling that day that wouldn't have access to the internet. Mine would count as the 75% but only one PERSON ordered.

Also, I've heard that people trying to order multiple in one order could see the whole order canceled.

@jatonaz said:
"So...basically anyone that missed out on Castle in the Forest is still not going to be able to get one."

Everyone seems to be singing the praises, but this was the main info I got from the article. Well, that and there was a concerted effort to blame “Bricklink” for the problems.

I know a truckload of people, myself included, who wanted that Castle, and ONLY the Castle, from this round. All of us are SOL. That situation has not changed a bit. It was a well-constructed “Sorry people you’re still screwed, maybe next time we’ll get this right.” But that’s what it was.

And hey, glad to see they might do something to get it right-er the next time. Maybe. Their history with online stuff is crap, so I’ll believe it when I see a product I want in my house that I didn’t pay double or triple for on eBay.

Hopefully LEGO will fulfill all the single-set orders first, then start filling the multiple-set orders, starting with orders for 2, then 3, and shipping the orders for 5 sets last.

The software I helped write and still support is used to process orders for the public schools and prisons in New York state, processing hundreds of orders for thousands of cases every day. The orders are confirmed when the ordering systems checks the back-end system to confirm inventory. Its not rocket surgery. It really sounds like LEGO accidentally set the available inventory to 10,000 instead of 5,000 and did not catch it until they had sold out.

If LEGO was actually interested in making enough sets to meet demand, they could take preorders for a set number of days and then bas production on the number of sets ordered. That way everyone who wants one, or three, or thirty could buy them prior to production.

Yes, go ahead and collect payment at the time the order is placed, to guarantee that LEGO gets paid for the sets and avoids getting stiffed by somebody who wants 20 copies today, but does not want them a year from now when the product ships. That should also knock a big dent in the scalper market, since everybody could order as many as they want direct from LEGO at MSRP instead of getting shut out and having to pay through the nose on the secondary market.

@Shropshire:
Sure, but the hardcore scalpers wouldn’t stop at one. An opportunistic person who doesn’t have a flush bank account might only be able to afford one, or someone who was worried about resale value not really moving from MSRP might have opted for the cautious route. Or there might even be people who bought them to build, but then realized how much people are listing them for and decided the money was too tempting.

@Wrecknbuild:
How many LEGO.com orders have you had get your placed on your front steps during a rainstorm?

@ogel_chicago:
If there’s a Limit 5, and you’ve already ordered four previously, placing any order with 2-5 included will reportedly get that entire order cancelled. Adding one to an order would be fine, since that puts you at a combined 5x copies. Placing two orders for 5x, one right after the other would certainly get one cancelled. But if your entire order history is under the limit, you should be fine.

@ogel_chicago I'm surprised (well, not really) that the back-end software LEGO is using does not combine multiple orders being shipped to the same account and address do not get combined for shipping. That's another fairly basic function that my software handles, along with checking quantity limits per customer as described by @PurpleDave.

@PurpleDave I have no data to back it up, but I suspect Target may sell even more LEGO than Walmart. Locally, Walmart has a really pathetic selection on the shelves, and Target has nearly everything available, including Architecture and Ideas sets that I never see at the local Walmart.

@ericb_ said:
" @blogzilly said:
"Everyone seems to be singing the praises, but this was the main info I got from the article. Well, that and there was a concerted effort to blame “Bricklink” for the problems.

I know a truckload of people, myself included, who wanted that Castle, and ONLY the Castle, from this round. All of us are SOL. That situation has not changed a bit. It was a well-constructed “Sorry people you’re still screwed, maybe next time we’ll get this right.” But that’s what it was.

And hey, glad to see they might do something to get it right-er the next time. Maybe. Their history with online stuff is crap, so I’ll believe it when I see a product I want in my house that I didn’t pay double or triple for on eBay.
"
What did LEGO and Bricklink do to make you miss out? Start pre-orders at an inopportune time? Advertise it to more than just their "real" fans, leading to an increased demand?
You're no worse off than you were before. You're actually better off because there will be official instructions. You'll also have the opportunity to buy the set should it appear in the secondary market. Whether or not you choose to source the parts or buy a complete set at a premium is up to you.
"

What LEGO did to cause people to miss out was severely underestimating demand. Yes, they said ahead of time that only 5000 copies would be made. The screwed up and sold 10,000 and they still sold out in under an hour. That's like saying you will bring cupcakes for a school party with 100 kids attending, but you're only going to bring 20 cupcakes.

@AustinPowers said:
"I'm with CapnRex101 totally on this. They could have known of these issues beforehand and tried to resolve them, yet didn't - as per usual.

Good thing they at least have done what they described to partially rectify the problem.

Funny though to read - again - how surprised they were about the popularity of the sets, especially the Castle.
They really seem to have a reality blocker installed in their collective consciousness as they constantly fail to realize how popular Castles still are and what a best-seller a new proper Castle theme would be. Not Nexo Knights or some other lame excuse of a theme but a proper one.
I hope one day they'll get it into those heads of theirs.

I mean, seriously, those 10K sets were gone worldwide in less than 35 minutes! And 75% percent of them apparently went NOT to scalpers thank God. "

not just any castle theme - a fully adult focused castle them. not one of these waves of 6 kids-focused sets that hit all the price points from $15 to $150. But 4-5 sets that range from $80 to $200 that are designed to connect and/or complement each other.

i really like the annual or semi-annual idea. make castle an adult-focused theme and do 1-2 big DTC sets each year. basically a continuation of the ideas blacksmith set. i feel very confident based on how well every adult-focused castle set sells, that this plan would be a big success

Honestly, I rather they used the 5000 orders to decide if a project is funded, and then leave the order process open for a few days to allow everyone around the world to place their order.

This is just enabling scalping and leave long time fans out to dry.
Right now I just get increasingly frustrated with every Lego event...

@ericb_ said:
" @blogzilly said:
"Everyone seems to be singing the praises, but this was the main info I got from the article. Well, that and there was a concerted effort to blame “Bricklink” for the problems.

I know a truckload of people, myself included, who wanted that Castle, and ONLY the Castle, from this round. All of us are SOL. That situation has not changed a bit. It was a well-constructed “Sorry people you’re still screwed, maybe next time we’ll get this right.” But that’s what it was.

And hey, glad to see they might do something to get it right-er the next time. Maybe. Their history with online stuff is crap, so I’ll believe it when I see a product I want in my house that I didn’t pay double or triple for on eBay.
"
What did LEGO and Bricklink do to make you miss out? Start pre-orders at an inopportune time? Advertise it to more than just their "real" fans, leading to an increased demand?
You're no worse off than you were before. You're actually better off because there will be official instructions. You'll also have the opportunity to buy the set should it appear in the secondary market. Whether or not you choose to source the parts or buy a complete set at a premium is up to you.
"

The assertions you’re making aren’t in any way related to the actual point of my post. If you want to dust it up about my opinions re: product exclusivity or limited availability, aftermarkets, etc., that’s a different discussion.

@datsunrobbie said:
" @ericb_ said:
" @blogzilly said:
"Everyone seems to be singing the praises, but this was the main info I got from the article. Well, that and there was a concerted effort to blame “Bricklink” for the problems.

I know a truckload of people, myself included, who wanted that Castle, and ONLY the Castle, from this round. All of us are SOL. That situation has not changed a bit. It was a well-constructed “Sorry people you’re still screwed, maybe next time we’ll get this right.” But that’s what it was.

And hey, glad to see they might do something to get it right-er the next time. Maybe. Their history with online stuff is crap, so I’ll believe it when I see a product I want in my house that I didn’t pay double or triple for on eBay.
"
What did LEGO and Bricklink do to make you miss out? Start pre-orders at an inopportune time? Advertise it to more than just their "real" fans, leading to an increased demand?
You're no worse off than you were before. You're actually better off because there will be official instructions. You'll also have the opportunity to buy the set should it appear in the secondary market. Whether or not you choose to source the parts or buy a complete set at a premium is up to you.
"

What LEGO did to cause people to miss out was severely underestimating demand. Yes, they said ahead of time that only 5000 copies would be made. The screwed up and sold 10,000 and they still sold out in under an hour. That's like saying you will bring cupcakes for a school party with 100 kids attending, but you're only going to bring 20 cupcakes."

That in addition to all the site issues they were having. Wouldn’t let me purchase until it was too late to get the castle. From what I have seen and heard this happened to a lot of people. People that were there the minute of release. That isn’t our fault

@fakespacesquid said:
" @ericb_ said:
" @datsunrobbie said:
"What LEGO did to cause people to miss out was severely underestimating demand. Yes, they said ahead of time that only 5000 copies would be made. The screwed up and sold 10,000 and they still sold out in under an hour. That's like saying you will bring cupcakes for a school party with 100 kids attending, but you're only going to bring 20 cupcakes."
What @fakespacesquid said."

If you bring 100 cupcakes one year, and people only eat 20, then it makes sense to bring 20 the following year. This project didn't occur in a vacuum, they had a predecessor round and clearly based their expectations off of those results. "

Which is why I suggested taking orders for a set number of days and then producing sets to cover those orders. If only 500 people pre-pay for the set, only make 500 copies. If 100,000 people pre-pay, make 100,000 copies.

Maybe in the future they should just do regular pre-orders within a specific timeframe and produce exactly as many as were ordered (or there about). Like how other toy companies aimed at collectors, like Super7, approach it. That way it'll still be exclusive, being a set that's offered only a limited time, but they'll make more money by producing as many sets as they can possibly sell (additionally, it'll reduce production costs, meaning more profit) and it'll reduce aftermarket madness, that serves nobody except greedy scalpers. Why try to reinvent the wheel?

@ericb_ said:
" @blogzilly said:
"The assertions you’re making aren’t in any way related to the actual point of my post. If you want to dust it up about my opinions re: product exclusivity or limited availability, aftermarkets, etc., that’s a different discussion."
I apologize if I misinterpreted your post. You paraphrased the press release as “Sorry people you’re still screwed, maybe next time we’ll get this right.” I ask, what did LEGO or Bricklink do wrong to make you miss out? The FAQ they released prior to Round 1 clearly state how it would work.
I understand how you could be disappointed. We're probably not going to change each other's opinion, but it seems so clear to me that having an unrealistic expectation is the real problem. Same with the Ulysses space probe. And Comic Con sets and figures. And regional exclusives. And the coins. And leaks/rumors that don't pan out as one had hoped."

As I previously explained, my commentary is on their press release. There is a high probability they feel as if they screwed up, or they may not have released such a detailed and apologetic presser. I never said that “they” screwed “me”, or that I feel I was wronged. I also, if you’ll note, gave them props for at least promising to “try” to get it right the next time, though I also expressed my doubt.

I don’t intend to have an argument over product exclusivity and limited availability.

I think you’ve painted me with a broad brush that lacks detail. When I went to the site my expectations were very, very low. I own a couple of pieces from the first AFOL Designer wave and thought I’d be fortunate to get 1 from this round. Clearly I wanted the Castle the most, but did I think I was getting it? No. No more than I think I’m getting an SDCC piece. Figured maybe an 8% chance. So I had no unrealistic expectations, no emotional letdown.

My issues frankly are mostly about the overall handling of this particular “sales event”, it’s poor execution, and the non-response (as it pertains to those people who were prohibited in the present from being able to participate for whatever reason) by the organization.

More than anything this shows the demand for a well designed "UCS" level castle. I've been asking for that for years. While the Medieval Blackmith is great, and the Castle in the Forest is great too, I think they can do even better, and I would pay $500 for an awesome 4000 piece castle set that had the same love put into it as Ninjago City, Docks, and Gardens - all of which I own even though I care nothing for Ninjago as a story. I think many others would too.

@Chilis_no said:
"How is it possible that the Castle did sell 10.000 copies as there was a limit at only 5000 copies…?"

It was a glitch in the system

@GabeTheBuilder1 said:
" @Chilis_no said:
"How is it possible that the Castle did sell 10.000 copies as there was a limit at only 5000 copies…?"

It was a glitch in the system"

A "glitch" that only affected one set? I don't believe it was an actual technology glitch. I think it was intentional doubling but now with the complaints, they decided to apply it to the other 4 and "look good" in the PR sense.

@tne328:
A Winter Village castle might be a more reasonable expectation. WV is a family tradition, to the point that their phones blew up when they rereleased the toy store. Christmas villages often have some sort of castle-like element (in Michigan, I know Canterbury Village does, but I’m not sure about Frankenmuth), so it’s not really a stretch for the theme, and it would open up some new possibilities.

@fakespacesquid:
The distinction that was ignored is that the ADP sets were just very expensive MOCs. These are official LEGO sets, which really opens up the potential market.

@PurpleDave said:
" @fakespacesquid:
The distinction that was ignored is that the ADP sets were just very expensive MOCs. These are official LEGO sets, which really opens up the potential market."

In what sense? I don't recall whether or not these will get numbered but they're hardly less official than the ADP rounds. If anything, it seems like these got even fewer edits than the ADP sets did, Lego barely altered the designs outside of the directive to only use active elements. And whether or not the market was opened, they didn't use the opening. It wasn't advertised anywhere that the ADP wasn't except for the Ideas blog. If they had plastered it on lego.com then that point would make sense but there wasn't really any fanfare anywhere

@fakespacesquid:
The ADP sets were produced by an independent Bricklink. These sets are produced by a Bricklink that’s under the LEGO Group umbrella. ADP were not LEGO-branded, while these will be. That logo makes all the difference in the world.

Whatever number they limit it to, based on their marketing and production capacity, as long as they limit orders to just 3/customer…one to open, one to keep sealed, and one just in case. ;)

@PurpleDave said:
" @fakespacesquid:
The ADP sets were produced by an independent Bricklink. These sets are produced by a Bricklink that’s under the LEGO Group umbrella. ADP were not LEGO-branded, while these will be. That logo makes all the difference in the world."

How much difference does it make if these will never see shelves?

Just saw this:

https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-has-taken-action-against-bricklink-designer-program-scalpers/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwim65OEwNbxAhW18uAKHSS1A3UQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3kMO0jLceUkQDQdctGnmQs&cf=1&cshid=1625851429985

Interesting.

@AustinPowers said:
"Just saw this:

https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-has-taken-action-against-bricklink-designer-program-scalpers/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwim65OEwNbxAhW18uAKHSS1A3UQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3kMO0jLceUkQDQdctGnmQs&cf=1&cshid=1625851429985

Interesting. "

Every Ebay listing has a "report item" link (RHS of the description and price tabs near the bottom) which we can all use. Ok, getting a more direct complaint from TLG will probably carry more weight but you can do your bit as well.

@1265 said:
" @legoDad42 said:
"Whatever number they limit it to, based on their marketing and production capacity, as long as they limit orders to just 3/customer…one to open, one to keep sealed, and one just in case. ;)"

Going forward, max order limit is 1 set per customer. It states that in the article."

Whoosh...lol.

I think I'm with @gylman and @fakespacesquid, in that I view these BDP sets and especially the Castle In The Forest as "really nice MOCs" regardless of whether LEGO owns their distribution pipeline. Someone can correct me, but I don't believe that the BDP products include any exclusive pieces, prints or recolors, which means that they can easily be sourced on Bricklink without needing to buy any as "sets." I am a huge Castle fan (see my handle!), and I purchased the Blacksmith on Day One, but I had no real interest in buying the CITF.

> "
https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-has-taken-action-against-bricklink-designer-program-scalpers/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwim65OEwNbxAhW18uAKHSS1A3UQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3kMO0jLceUkQDQdctGnmQs&cf=1&cshid=1625851429985 "

That's compounding the problem they (Lego) created. Not only did they choose a stupid way to offer the product, now they're penalizing the people who actually managed to get it and are willing to sell it to others. Typical ignorance of market economics.

What they need to do is a proper pre-order, open for a period of time with no artificial limit on the total number produced. When it closes, they know exactly how many to make and they plan how long to produce however many the consumers pre-ordered. Everyone who wanted one and paid for it will receive it and the date of arrival is determined by when they will have them all produced.

It's not a difficult concept how to do a pre-order properly in 2021. Lego is so screwed up (as evidenced by their VIP nonsense on their own web storefront) and now they're spreading their incompetence to BrickLink.

@Shazbolt said:
" @Chilis_no said:
"How is it possible that the Castle did sell 10.000 copies as there was a limit at only 5000 copies…?"

It explained in the post that there was an ordering glitch which allowed it to happen."

https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-and-bricklink-accidentally-sold-10000-castle-in-the-forest-sets/

@ericb_ said:
" Ebay policy is preventing people from selling them right now, not LEGO."
In case you hadn't noticed, the article is about Lego stating they plan to take action against people trying to resell something they legitimately purchased with their own money and have every right to offer to sell at whatever price they please. The asking price will come down until it meets a buyer willing to pay it. That's how markets work when they're not artificially manipulated.

"Have you considered the possibility that LEGO and Bricklink made a sensible decision to limit the number of sets produced?"
No, there is nothing sensible about how Lego operated this and continues to not fix it satisfactorily. They've disenfranchised a large portion of their customers with the goofy way they offered these sets, and in particular the Castle set for which they allegedly accidentally took in double the amount supposed to go through in a glitch (which still isn't anywhere close to enough to satisfy demand), then treated it differently than the other less-popular sets that they doubled the quantity for which opened them back up for more people to order, but didn't add more quantity to the Castle set so it did not open back up in a similar manner that would have allowed more people to purchase it. Just really trash decision-making by them all the way around it.

"It's not difficult to conclude that they know how to run their companies better than anyone here."
They've proven on multiple occasions just this past year that they don't make wise decisions with how they go to market with Lego sets, in particular limited items like VIP items, to which this incident has unfortunate similarities that it shouldn't if they'd learned any lessons from the VIP fiascos.
There are also two truths everyone does know: (1) Higher production volume = lower cost per unit, so more is nearly always better, even if it means shifting their production roadmap of some generic boring retail set to accommodate selling more of this very popular, high demand one-time-run set. (2) They make more money the more they sell. There is no good reason to not pre-sell and produce more of a high demand, one-time popular set while it is popular and in high demand. They can push the release for the next generic City Cops & Robbers set (or whatever other dumb generic filler set they've always got a few of in the pipeline) into 2022 or 2023 and nobody loses, meanwhile producing more of the Castle set and everybody wins.

Maybe I miswrote... I am not saying they should produce an infinite amount of sets. I am asking for them to produce only the amount that the fans pre-order.

They could use a certain amount to decide if the set is manufactured. Once funded, they could leave the process open for a while longer to allow everyone that wants the set to pre-order.

By doing so, they wouldn't have any extra stock to handle.
Scalpers would be less likely to buy a bunch of these items, preventing the people that really want the sets from buying.

@yacoub said:
" @ericb_ said:
" Ebay policy is preventing people from selling them right now, not LEGO."
In case you hadn't noticed, the article is about Lego stating they plan to take action against people trying to resell something they legitimately purchased with their own money and have every right to offer to sell at whatever price they please."
Interestingly enough, in Germany there is actually a law against selling stuff at overly inflated prices (§138 BGB, colloquially known as "Wucherparagraph", with Wucher meaning usury or profiteering). It is considered quite a serious offense by the way. Might be different in the US of course.

While I only bought 1 each of the sets I wanted this time around, I am a bit disappointed with the limit of 1 for the future. I think 2 would have been better for many AFOLs: one to build, one to treasure :-)

Oh well, it's all good. LEGO is so much more interesting these days than it was even a decade ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago.

@AustinPowers said:
" @yacoub said:
" @ericb_ said:
" Ebay policy is preventing people from selling them right now, not LEGO."
In case you hadn't noticed, the article is about Lego stating they plan to take action against people trying to resell something they legitimately purchased with their own money and have every right to offer to sell at whatever price they please."
Interestingly enough, in Germany there is actually a law against selling stuff at overly inflated prices (§138 BGB, colloquially known as "Wucherparagraph", with Wucher meaning usury or profiteering). It is considered quite a serious offense by the way. Might be different in the US of course. "

Yes, I'm sure there are anti-market laws in some countries. The irony of such laws is who defines, in this case, "overly inflated". It's arbitrary and thus open to bias, mis-use and manipulation. That's why such laws are dangerous. :)

So there will be no chance in getting the castle in the forest. Unbelievable. The best design I have seen for years and it sells out in minutes, leaving hundreds of disappointed customers. What a bad joke. :(
No, this scarcity will not help the brand - it has a danger of hurting the brand! Do this stupid limitation often enough and frustrated people will walk away from you! I am still upset! This will not be forgotten.

Well LEGO con now this

@fakespacesquid:
How many ADP sets sold 10k units in half an hour? How many total ADP sets combined sold in half an hour? You've already seen the impact. There was a feeding frenzy for the castle, the boat sold 5k units before many people even logged on, and two more were capped out at 5k before the end of the day. Only the Kakapo had some stock left available, but I'm not sure what region(s) still had access. If they hadn't put regional caps on quantity, and/or if they had made these available to any country where Bricklink is capable of operating, they could have sold out even faster.

@yacoub:
Once you've bought something, they can't prevent you from reselling it if you choose. However, there are two actions they can legally take, for sure. They can report any auction that violates eBay's ToS (and they can pay people to scour the site for any offending auctions). They can also try to find out which buyers are linked to these extremely early pre-sales and cut them off from being able to buy any product directly from The LEGO Company. That means no sales at LEGO Stores, no sales through LEGO.com, and no wholesale purchasing as a business. This is something they've done to several people in the past. I remember one person saying they cut him off after he bragged to a Customer Service rep about how he was going to flip some hot new set for a profit on eBay. That rep reported him to their superior, and anything connected to that customer got flagged to prevent any future sales. To get around that, you'd need to get a new shipping address, get a name change, and get a new method of payment.

@Straight_6 said:
"So there will be no chance in getting the castle in the forest. Unbelievable. The best design I have seen for years and it sells out in minutes, leaving hundreds of disappointed customers. What a bad joke. :(
No, this scarcity will not help the brand - it has a danger of hurting the brand! Do this stupid limitation often enough and frustrated people will walk away from you! I am still upset! This will not be forgotten."

Such a shame that apparently Crowdfunding wasn't understood by Lego and instead it was a lottery how many got through a glitchy website and underpowered server infrastructure. A shame that BrickLink/Lego doesn't want our money.

@magykfyre said:
"Good to see!!! Great that they are acknowledging the scalpers. Hopefully they know this is an issue for some other sets too."

LEGO has known about 'scalpers' for years and have done nothing (or the SDCC limits likely would not have been 3 per account). One could argue they have known about 'scalpers' since the Minecraft mini world -Forest debacle (or the Research institute debacle a few years later). Heck if LEGO cared about 'scalping', SDCC sets would not be super limited to just one comic convention on the planet when they could easily see how much people were flipping the figures or sets for.

Look, nothing that occurred in the first round should have surprised LEGO, nothing. Anyone that was 'surprised' should be fired. All of these problems have been mirrored at LEGO's main site for years now. including Site reliability, demand of product (ie production numbers), and scalpers, among the main one issues.
Is it good they are acknowledging it? Sure.
Good that they are fixing it? Absolutely.
Should LEGO have had this planned so none of these known issues would be issues in the first place? Undoubtedly!!

Oh, and if they wanted to ensure that everyone that ordered one of the castle sets get one, they could have simply cancelled every set ordered past '1' to make it only a limit of one and they likely would not have had to make more... For LEGO to just make 5K more, that's pretty good of them. Though one could argue they should have cancelled all ordered beyond one per account and then opened up that other 5K to others that obviously wanted one of those but could not get one (and no, I did not care to order any of these).

I would be curious to know what a large run for Lego is (sales numberwise). I know Lego brings in a lot of revenue, but I also wonder how these BL sets compare. At 10000 units each (round 1), they can bring in almost $5M USD. Then there will be the other rounds for other sets. I know the designers get a 10% cut (good for you povoq, and the others) and things are done differently than normal sets, but I can't help but wonder how profitable this program really is for Lego. It might be great, but it might be less than their usual lines, despite the vocal fans desiring unlimited production. Obviously I have no way to know how Lego runs their business or why they make decisions. It would just be interesting to see behind the curtain regarding these types of numbers.

I can only assume that $5M for 5 sets is small for Lego (but direct to customer may change that perspective). Without knowing the reasons for the decisions, it appears to me that Lego either underestimated demand, or were not willing to take a risk on this program yet due to production vs profitability.

Despite all the conjecture about why Lego does things, I have noticed a pattern over the last 40 years. That pattern is to test the waters before diving in. Often they have had less successful product lines that seem to be inspiration for future successful ones. I know that does not translate to programs, exactly, but I can see them creating a better program like this in the future (maybe I am wrong). In the end, I do not know what their biggest customer base is. I hear many say that the AFOL community is their biggest base. Who knows? Many, many sets are sold to kids. And many of the same sets are sold to adults. But I do not know if Lego knows how to parse that information when trying a pilot program directed at collectors/AFOLs. I hope this program can become a great thing with smooth operation in the future. It also makes me wonder what kind of production numbers (expected and real) they have with their Ideas line, and how that compares to their expectations for this program. It does suck that they may be cutting their teeth with these awesome sets, though.

Still, they sell 10k copies and multiple people (myself included) weren't able to order one...so that stinks.

And I understand the first time they did this wasn't as huge of an outpour of fans, but then again none of the first time sets were as good as this new castle set was, so there's that...

I didn't even attempt to buy any the first time they did it a few years ago because of lack of interest. The ONE set I was interested in this year for the program was sold out immediately, so I guess it doesn't matter. They made their money, they can't please us all.

I understand the logistics of selling extra sets doesn't mean they can produce extra sets, especially immediately since they have other things that also need production time. Still, upsetting considering they sold twice as many as expected and still could have sold more. 25% were for multiple copies!! (Not all were for reselling, but still, that shows an interest in this particular set or theme).

Oh well, par for the course...

@ryan_c_byrd:
Sometime after the VIP program enabled them to more accurately track purchases (and who they’re intended for), they did reveal how the kid/AFOL breakdown sat. They claimed AFOLs accounted for a small (5%?) minority of overall sales, while many AFOLs were convinced we buy more than parents do for their kids. The numbers have likely changed with the released of The LEGO Movie, launches and retirement of several themes, and the push to make more AFOL-targeted sets and themes, but the results at that time showed that AFOLs were buying about 25% of all product for personal use. However much the numbers may have shifted since then, I’m highly doubtful that they’ve changed enough for AFOLs to make up for a 3:1 deficit. If anything, TLM probably caused a surge in sales to and on behalf of kids that has not fully gone away.

Lego.com do send replacement parts to many countries, so why can't they accept purchases from those countries as well?

I don't see how increasing the production of lesser wanted models is going to help anything. If anything, they'll end with surpluses which will make them take (once again) bad decisions in the future (remember these decisions were based on the previous Bricklink program of 2018).

If you are selling 5 items (for example) and the demand is 60% for item 1 and 10% each for item 2-5, logic would tell you to produce item 1 in (significantly) larger proportion than all other items.

As mentioned above this stems from Lego's blatant refusal to recognize that Legacy themes (Castle, Pirates, Space) are in high demand.