The Perils of Product Development

I agree, and it’s a shame, because a cheaper version of this with Vader and Obi-Wan, similar to the sets mentioned, likely would have sold well and been a home run.

I agree completely. I believe this is an inevitable consequence of aiming for price first. It’s a reasonable strategy for building their product portfolio, but it will cause things like this to fall into the gaps. The flip side of just going purely based on set design, creative license first would also cause issues for meeting the needs of retailers and IP partners.

One way to help this (especially for new Star Wars) would be for Disney to keep LEGO more in the loop on their development. However, here is where LEGO’s inability to prevent leaks of products (not just images but descriptions as well) rears it’s head. They’ve proven themselves in this regard an unreliable partner from Disney’s point of view.

I think it’s something we have to accept in this circumstance. It’s not a matter of LEGO taking advantage of their customers. So while it’s unfortunate, I think we should hold them accountable elsewhere and be understanding of the limitations that create this kind of situation.

Fix terrible and unfair pricing based on volume of what we get. Fix printing issues. Fix element cracking issues. Deal better with scalpers. Etc. I can forgive them the occasional bad set when push comes to shove and it’s the best they can do.

I wonder if at some stage during development this scene was the final duel in the series finale. That may explain the decision.

Surely they’ll be better duel scenes towards the end of the series than basing a set on a scene in episode 3.

I'd buy a UCS Diamond-class Cruiser over the Obi-Wan set.

I think Falconfan on Instagram put it best - People buy sets based on the following broad categories:

1) Good Minifigures
2) Quality Build
3) Fair Price

Most people will tolerate a deficiency in one of the three categories. This set is absurdly deficient in both build and price.

The last people to complain about this set should be AFOLs. It’s good parts and great figures for an alright price. We aren’t the ones taking a hit. It’s a bad toy sadly. It’s the normies that lose out in my eyes. I end up taking most my sets apart anyways.

I wonder if somewhere in the trash bin are plans for a $30 Vader vs Obi Wan and a $50 Delta class starship with a terrible side build of a Kaminoan tower that just didn’t work out.

My son only needed the two minifigs to create his own battles. The rest is just extra parts.

This set is a disaster at the $49.99 price point. Outside of release day, I see this one sitting on the shelf for months before any significant movement when it goes on sale for 30% off at retailers other than LEGO. I think LEGO might go 20% off and head it into early retirement once stock is gone.

Nope, not really. LEGO simply need to get away from the mentality of having a tier for everything and everyone and determining how they want to position it in this system beforehand. Sure, Disney's greed and squeezing the license for all the money doesn't make things easier, but that is to be expected and at the same time in no way dictates that sets need to be as terrible as many Star Wars sets lately are. And I would assume that the irony is that LEGO even have some decent leverage here, because a good chunk of Star Wars Collectibles these days is LEGO Star Wars. So for what it's worth, LEGO just need to get away from these sloppy and cheap hack jobs just for the sake of selling something and perhaps it might even be wiser to just forego doing some sets entirely and say "No!" when they can only be done in such an unsatisfying manner due to Disney's rigid licensing restrictions...

A strange choice alright. Maybe it's some clever meta commentary on Disney's current management.
The scene in question i'd say is revealing in terms of Obi-Wan overall budget.... which I think I'm correct in saying is the first SW D+ show budgeted under the centralised control of newish CEO Bob Chapek. A man who is unburdened by things such as creativity, quality, vision or people skills and who excels in pairing things back to the bone, while charging exorbitant rates. The show looks shockingly cheap at times in comparison to Mandalorian and BoBF. Kinda apt that this central fight occurred in quarry, a site beloved of cheap tv production.

@peterlmorris said:
"I don’t blame LEGO. I blame the direction Star Wars has taken at Disney. KK is the problem and until she and everyone who thinks like her is either driven out or brought to heel, nothing will change.

Honestly I think the LEGO designers of sets like this are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I mean how do you design for a scene titled “The Emasculation of Obi-Wan Kenobi?”"

Congratulations on finding the worst possible take.

Its certainly receiving little praise. If you do look at the features and the box art it looks better than the initial photo on the Brickset article but it does seem a bit bland and too expensive. I would like the minifigs so as usual i'll wait to see if it gets 20-33% off anywhere in a few months. I was amazed to find one of the SW Dioramas at 34% off already.

@peterlmorris said:
"I don’t blame LEGO. I blame the direction Star Wars has taken at Disney. KK is the problem and until she and everyone who thinks like her is either driven out or brought to heel, nothing will change.

...

I mean how do you design for a scene titled “The Emasculation of Obi-Wan Kenobi?”"

I beg you, go touch grass.

Welcome to the new era of Lego - overpriced.

This is just one of the first, better get used to it! I suspect with the price increases lots of sets are going to fall well short on being good value.

That's a spot-on assessment, @CapnRex101. Sometimes LEGO will get caught in the middle on a subject/set...we've seen it before. The comparison to the earlier smaller lightsaber battles is a great example of where product planning 'lost their way' and made a set needlessly expensive. Thanks for taking time to go over this a bit more in-depth. Good to hear your thoughts on it as well as fellow Brickset members.

I thought this was another book akin to A Sense of Perfection by the title... I definitely think if they had shrunk the build down it would have been better. I think the main issue with this set is that there isn't anything screaming buy except for the minifigs. At $20 that would be fine, but this is a $50 set. I really hope they bring back the $20 duel sets. We still need one for Yoda(or Mace) vs Sidious, and Dooku vs Yoda or Anakin. I was hoping for a duel set with Ben and Vader, but I guess we won't get that now with this set existing.

@peterlmorris said:
"I don’t blame LEGO. I blame the direction Star Wars has taken at Disney. KK is the problem and until she and everyone who thinks like her is either driven out or brought to heel, nothing will change.

Honestly I think the LEGO designers of sets like this are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I mean how do you design for a scene titled “The Emasculation of Obi-Wan Kenobi?”"

100% agree. Maybe if the Obi-Wan production didn't look like it was a spin off of "Power Rangers" people would be more likely to shell out a few more $$ for a little bigger and better developed sets. The series has gone down starting with the Boba Fett series. I was really hoping we would have gotten better.

That's a damn good floor, but who would want a 50$ floor? Reminds me of the Ninjago Spinjitzu arenas, like battle game for kids, but without any rules or actual game. Wasn't there any vehicles they could have slammed in instead?

Objection, I'd absolutely buy a multi-hundred dollar UCS Diamond-class Cruiser.

@Mylenium said:
"Nope, not really. LEGO simply need to get away from the mentality of having a tier for everything and everyone and determining how they want to position it in this system beforehand. Sure, Disney's greed and squeezing the license for all the money doesn't make things easier, but that is to be expected and at the same time in no way dictates that sets need to be as terrible as many Star Wars sets lately are. And I would assume that the irony is that LEGO even have some decent leverage here, because a good chunk of Star Wars Collectibles these days is LEGO Star Wars. So for what it's worth, LEGO just need to get away from these sloppy and cheap hack jobs just for the sake of selling something and perhaps it might even be wiser to just forego doing some sets entirely and say "No!" when they can only be done in such an unsatisfying manner due to Disney's rigid licensing restrictions..."

The issue with this approach is that setting price points beforehand ensures that LEGO doesn't end up with a suite of like 15 $10 sets or 10 $150 sets. The pre-set price brackets allow LEGO to be confident that their designers will produce sets across price ranges, which is essential to satisfy different types of consumers- I doubt that many people here would be too happy if every Star Wars set was $20 and targeted at age 7+, and parents and kids would be alienated if every Star Wars set was a higher-end model.

Very interesting analysis, thank you! It's refreshing to read something more than insults, in cases like this.

@peterlmorris said:
"I don’t blame LEGO. I blame the direction Star Wars has taken at Disney. KK is the problem and until she and everyone who thinks like her is either driven out or brought to heel, nothing will change.

Honestly I think the LEGO designers of sets like this are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I mean how do you design for a scene titled “The Emasculation of Obi-Wan Kenobi?”"

Dude, take a chill pill, this is a forum for LEGO fans, not toxic Star Wars 'fans'

Who remembers the 'awesome' 75098 UCS Hoth set? How does that set fit into this theory on pricing targets?

Disney/TLG probably agreed that a 1 on 1 dual between the eponymous star of the latest big budget Star Wars series and the most iconic sci-fi bad guy of all time needed to have a certain level of prestige, beyond that of other duals from the Star Wars universe. So, they just tried to set a prestige price point above all other considerations.

It seems like a fairly good 'playset' kind of Lego set, core characters, side characters, interesting action features, and loads of room to set up and act out various dual scenarios.

To be fair, it must be extremely hard to keep designing and producing dozens of new sets each year while balancing along a thin line between criticisms of 'reheating old ideas' and of 'straying too far from what Lego/Star Wars really is'. This is not a shelf display model, so maybe it's just meant to be a toy this time... like 75241, 75171 or 75205.

I won't buy it. I don't need a bunch of grey bricks with a brown guy, a grey woman and a black dude that everyone has 5 of already... but that yellow dude is ace!

@lippidp said:
"My son only needed the two minifigs to create his own battles. The rest is just extra parts."

Exactly my thought. The two main figures, a few plates, and some stuff the figs can climb and break is all a kid needs in this set.

Reminder: prices are going up in September

I've bought sets of 49 for 12 euros, others of 60 for 20... it's all a matter of patience and seeing which products are worth it and waiting to get them, otherwise it would have been impossible. And yet the companies that sold them made a profit...

This scene could've easily been covered by a minifigure pack, like 40557: Defence of Hoth.

The set design I find this most similar to is 75171: Battle on Scarif. Same number of minifigures, only 11 more pieces, but has a lot more going for it in the design with the trees and battlefield and the bunker door. And it was the same price as this 5 years ago.

You say "meet the price of $49.99". Why do they have to meet it? If they design a set of 19.99, then it is 19.99. If they design a 149.99 set, then they do that. Why is price the 1st, and then build something around it? It sounds so strange.

Honestly I blame Lucasfilm and the fact they can't just show LEGO everything that's going to be a new show. We all know Obi-Wan and Vader are going to have a new rematch. We're all going to wish that fight had a set. But Lucasfilm probably didn't send any material for that fight. So LEGO is stuck making this fight.

It's like the first version of Kylo's shuttle. LEGO made it accurate to the concept art they were given. Which ended up not being accurate to what was in the film.

@ComfySofa said:
"Disney/TLG probably agreed that a 1 on 1 dual between the eponymous star of the latest big budget Star Wars series and the most iconic sci-fi bad guy of all time needed to have a certain level of prestige, beyond that of other duals from the Star Wars universe. So, they just tried to set a prestige price point above all other considerations.

It seems like a fairly good 'playset' kind of Lego set, core characters, side characters, interesting action features, and loads of room to set up and act out various dual scenarios.

To be fair, it must be extremely hard to keep designing and producing dozens of new sets each year while balancing along a thin line between criticisms of 'reheating old ideas' and of 'straying too far from what Lego/Star Wars really is'. This is not a shelf display model, so maybe it's just meant to be a toy this time... like 75241, 75171 or 75205.

I won't buy it. I don't need a bunch of grey bricks with a brown guy, a grey woman and a black dude that everyone has 5 of already... but that yellow dude is ace!"

Interesting you brought up 75171. This set reminds me of that: $49.99 SRP, 4 minifigs, 418 pcs. This set is visually more bland, but has extra functions the older set lacks. In some regards, this could be seen as a better value once adjusted for inflation!

I think TLG was in a tough spot here. They wanted a set with Kenobi and Vader in it, but couldn't spoil anything from later in the series, so they were left with this single scene. The setting is not very interesting, but that's not TLG's fault. Once you combine the need to hit various price points and the lack of options from source material, I think this set was destined to disappoint.

Small gripe, but showing Vader with red lenses on the box art but having the usual black lenses on the figure is a slight disappointment. I wouldn't expect dual molding, but a paint app on the lenses would be nice.

@Yooha said:
"You say "meet the price of $49.99". Why do they have to meet it? If they design a set of 19.99, then it is 19.99. If they design a 149.99 set, then they do that. Why is price the 1st, and then build something around it? It sounds so strange."

It's like how Tesco make the same product at three different price points:

Value Jam = 1Ft
Jam = 2Ft
Special Jam = 3Ft

Some people want special, some want regular, some want value. Also, some people who usually want value will sometimes want special.

If you only have jam at one price point, nobody gets to feel special, and nobody gets to feel like they have found value, so those people shop elsewhere.

Reading some of these comments makes me want a mute/block button.
You want to comment on the article? Sure
You want to throw around the same toxic crap again & again that people are already sick of? Go do it elsewhere, or preferably nowhere

I see many comments stating that Disney had any influence over the price of this set. I think all of you are wrong and LEGO is 100% responsible for it. Disney/Lucasfilm definitely has a big say on what they would like to be produced by LEGO, but I find it hard to be believe that they could dictate prices. Disney is the license owner and as long as the money is right and the product correct, they might not have a say in prices whatsoever.

The issue with this set being $50 instead of $20 could happen early in the development when all Kenobi's lineup had a limited number of products that were given $50 and $100 brackets. Only during the product development phase it might've turned out that source material is not great and "the epic duel" turned out not that epic after all.

These are just suspicions of course, but I still believe LEGO is the one and only company responsible for the final design and price of this set.

I think its pretty simple. If you create a line of duels and they all cost relatively the same and you bring out a new one, and adjusted for inflation and instead of having 2 characters you have 3 or 4, then you can justify the price for a bit more, but to make the hyperjump from $20 play set to $50 is just ludicrous! But you know not every set can be a smash hit... so wait for a little while and this one will be deeply discounted with all the extra inventory laying around.

@CapnRex101

I think perhaps you found a winner for most obscure cannon vehicle? I guess I need to pause and squint at more backgrounds.

Regarding this article, surely the designer could have added other aspects of the town (like the rebel Jedi hideout) to make this an appealing set. Design is poor, simple as that.

Star Wars is one of the rare fandoms that not only includes the people who love it the most, but also the people who *hate* it the most.

With that being said, it's a weak set at an outrageous price and it deserves to be criticized. And it's not because the designers suck (they don't), and it's not because corporations are greedy (even though they are).

There were other factors at play, and the analysis in this article is the best I've seen on this set so far. Great work as always, @CapnRex101!

As for me, I'm a long-time fan of Lego Star Wars, but I'll vote with my wallet and skip this set, unless I can find it on clearance for $25 or so.

This set is $50, which is the equivalent of $18 in 1985, $24 in 1991, $35 in 2007, or $41 in 2015.

Comparable sets at this inflation-adjusted price point would be 6897, 6939, 7678 75082 75086 75087 75045

It feels on the surface like you're getting less value here than a lot of these older LSW sets. The issue is that building three-dimensional terrain in Lego is often really expensive relative to building something hollow like a spacecraft. In the '90s, Lego mitigated this with hollow ramp baseplates. For this set, they tried something different and the results are not impressive.

@MrKoshka:
They stated, quite clearly, that they determined what was causing certain colors to turn brittle with age. They stated that they figured out how to fix the problem, and that they only announced this _after_ implementing the change and waiting long enough to verify that it had actually worked. And yet here we are again, with someone telling them ti fix a problem that has already been solved. Often, my response to this is met with, “Ah, you can’t believe a word they say,” and right back to ordering them to fix it, or demanding to know when they intend to fix it.

So far, I haven’t seen any solid proof either way. Nobody I know of has done a year-by-year test, checking parts from sealed sets, or from sets that were built right from sealed boxes, to see if these brittle colors have stopped degrading with age. Obviously, you can’t check a fresh set right as soon as it ships, so this would have to be done on a rolling basis. Set aside suspect parts each year and test them all annually to see how old they have to be to start breaking, and if/when there’s a cutoff after which this no longer happens.

I just don’t get why they couldn’t have done more. Everyone keeps saying that this planet was just a desert wasteland and nothing else. That’s not even true. There were buildings on this planet too. Having Tala’s hideout could have been a perfect addition for the price point. Especially since we see Vader walk past it in probably the best moment of this scene. It could provide more features with a secret door and it would also give NED B something more to do in this set.

"However, this sometimes means subjects are stretched to satisfy the chosen price, which might be higher than necessary."

Why not adjusting the price in the first place? I just don't get it... that is not customer-centric behaviour.

The set is as bland as the series.
Not worth a look, not worth the price.

I feel this was a really important article to make as people always fail to take this into consideration.

Also kinda want someone to make a UCS Diamond-Class now

@ytjedi said:
"The set design I find this most similar to is 75171: Battle on Scarif. Same number of minifigures, only 11 more pieces, but has a lot more going for it in the design with the trees and battlefield and the bunker door. And it was the same price as this 5 years ago. "

I agree. 75171 Battle on Scarif is a great set! Visually interesting and excellent play features with the bunker door and exploding floor. I added onto the interior relatively easily and the set inspires building out the surroundings for a diorama. The Rogue One sets were a pinnacle.

With this in mind, the only way the Obi-wan could have been conceived is if a designer was shown a set design sketch of an empty gravel area and given an ultimatum to build only the ground. Even a flat plate and more structure height or high ground for Tala's counter attack would have been better. It's just weird the set is a platform, as in my mind the scene is in a pit or quarry.

@Jelippo said:
"I wonder if at some stage during development this scene was the final duel in the series finale. That may explain the decision.

Surely they’ll be better duel scenes towards the end of the series than basing a set on a scene in episode 3. "

I doubt it, although I think this series is dangerous as previously the general storyline between Revenge Of The Sith and A New Hope was that Kenobi, took baby Luke to Owen And Beru Lars and went into hiding near by. So for Kenobi to be wandering about and having duels all over the place is the total opposite and for him to be duelling Vader, someone who he would sense the presence of and avoid meeting at all costs is preposterous

> LEGO is not necessarily responsible for this decision

They are. They have enough say to change the subject matter of the set, or price it differently. I can respect that you don't want to anger the giant, but no need to come up with excuses.

Bottom line, it's a Lego product on the shelf for $50, we don't, nor should we, care about the back story.

Watched the scene again, and they could've added in the background of the model that 'bridge', mining catwalk you see in the background of the scene.
Would add more play value as kids could have Vader and Obiwan fight up there too and it would've added more substance to the build.
You don't have to follow EXACTLY what happens in the show or the EXACT distance in the terrain. Lego does this all the time.
What it is here is that exclusive lifter droid. That's where they getcha' for the money and hot new show out. I believe he's exclusive to this set?
So any Star Wars completest will get this regardless of price for the figs.

I think right now LEGO really needs to get more products across different price ranges. Everyone is already mad at them for increasing the prices. I personally don't care what the reasons are. LEGO prices have been steadily going up long before inflation and global supply issues became a factor. Call it a necessary evil, call it greed, but I personally call it a problem.

I believe a lot of LEGO sets now suffer from bloat. Take the 501st Battle Pack for example. You get four minifigures, but they come with vehicles that are far too big. The AT-RT shouldn't be that big compared to the minifigures. The speeder bike is so big that it takes out the whole point of a speeder bike; which is supposed to be sleak and nimble. They could've easily shrunk those two vehicles down, or just included one or the other, and released it at the same lower price of $15-$20. Now we don't even get normal battlepacks anymore. We either get the blister packs with one less troop and less bricks for the same old price, or we have to bite the bullet and pay $20 for a couple of minifigures and lackluster builds.

I don't think it's unfair to argue that LEGO seems to be giving you less and less for what you're paying now. LEGO keeps going on and on about how they need to raise prices. This is while they made over two billion last year, put a billion into this stupid Metaverse nonsense that might just wind up as LEGO Universe 2, fired hundreds of employees, and keep making lines fail because of poorly made apps that never work. The recent price hikes in a time where people are already miffed about things going up is NOT helping.

Not everyone can afford nor wants to drop $40+ dollars on a pretty basic set. I wish something like the Mandalorian Forge was $20. I want more sets that cost $10-$15 that aren't just mechs. I feel like the only options I have currently are out of reach. Big sets being announced isn't even exciting anymore because I know there is no way I'll ever be able to afford it. I don't want to drop $300 for the Daily Bugle as my only way to get Black Cat and Daredevil.

This Obi-Wan feels like a slap in the face. For $10 less, people could've gotten an x-wing, tie fighter, or a Slave 1 with $20 leftover for something else. $50 should give you a much more substantial vehicle or set piece than a flat grey platform with a spinning feature. Star Wars is already infamous for being expensive.

It's a set that's a bad value in a time where people already feel like they're being nickled and dimed while overall quality is decreasing. The new instructions look hideous. Pieces are breaking. Minifigure prints are getting messed up. Sets missing parts used to be a very rare occurrences, but now I'm hearing stories of it happening more often than it should. The prices for Avatar sets have been raised before the things have even released. LEGO right now feels like all take and no give.

The licensees like Lego make products and those get licensor approval. And if something is against the licensors taste that detail gets changed (like the name slave, or the inclusion of slave girl figures), but everything else stays the same.
So the price point is entirely on Lego, and I suspect less the designers and far far more to the marketing team. Or at least there are many uncalled for choices in recent years. Like the terrible 100$ Sandcrawler that nobody asked for and was promptly put out of production.

But the worst offender in my opinion was the 2015 AAT and Flash Speeder. These two sets should have switched price points, so the AAT would have been the 40$ set and Flash Speeder the 20$ set. The way it ended up being, the Flash Speeder is ludcriously huge and the AAT got scammed out of the necessary opportunity to make a part in a new color for its half UFO shaped footprint. Instead of the Quarter 12x12x1 UFO piece they used a quarter 6x6x2, which made the model not much bigger than the Microfighter released around the same time. I didn't buy both sets because of the backwards scaling, and would have gotten multiples had they been scaled correctly and used the correct ufo piece for the AAT, which thankfully exists now due to Barracuda Bay.
But that was the point where I realized that it isn't enough to trust Lego to make a set, they can still absolutely wet the bed for... I still can't come up with any understandable reason. AAT might as well have been released in the summer of 2015 and Flash speeder in the spring with correct price points. It makes no sense to sabotage the products this obviously, especially when it was supposed to be a last hurrah of prequel sets before the focus switched to predominantly Original and Sequel trilogy.

Design aside, at the $50 price point the clear answer would have been to do a recolor of the $50 Boba Fetts starship and make it the Jang Fett version from AOTC. It pairs up appropriately with the upcoming Obi Wan ship and ultimately would sell better to have that “conflict” as most of us would buy both. That would leave the duel as a $20 duel set that could have been released later in the year/early 2023…capturing what presumably will be the iconic duel that’s yet to come. I think they just missed on the planning stage and got stuck building this scene.

@ CapnRex101

"Sets simply being too expensive is a completely separate issue."

It's the exact issue of this set. Grey slopes and cheese slopes do not justify the pricepoint, let alone one exclusive special head piece for the droid.

This set is awful but rather than complaining online about it, we need to let our wallets do the talking and not buy this turd. You pointed out three other duel sets that are better than this, and I’ll add one more for comparison that’s even better than the other three: 75965 The Rise of Voldemort with five minifigures for $20 and some play features.

@24nolf said:
" Lego hasn't launched a successful non licensed theme in over a decade."

What about Friends and DOTS?

Plus the new products aimed at adults e.g. the Botanical sub theme.

I think maybe what you mean is that Lego haven't launched a successful theme that appeals to me. That doesn't mean that there aren't successful products. It's just not the original action themes they were doing previously.

I don't really care about Star Wars (though I can see how a flat grey thing definitely looks a lot less interesting and worth less money than a more dimensional thing ) but I really don't see why a lack of original themes that appeal to AFOLs with 80s and 90s nostalgia pangs has anything to do with pricing and set design decisions?

@MegaMechaLesbian said:
"I think it's a huge shame that this turned out how it did. I tend to try and be positive but at the end of the day this set could have been done for like 150 pieces at $20 and been infinitely more desirable. It's just excessively built."

I know this is off-topic, but I love your username.

LEGO is currently undergoing a major transition - from a children’s building toy that all ages can enjoy, to an expensive hobby for addicted AFOL’s. It’s sad to see.

@thefirst said:
"LEGO is currently undergoing a major transition - from a children’s building toy that all ages can enjoy, to an expensive hobby for addicted AFOL’s. It’s sad to see."

This is absolute nonsense- there are still as many sets for kids as there ever where- they are putting the expensive hobby sets as extras.
You can easily buy a bunch of bricks and build things just as you could decades ago

@24nolf said:
" @Paperdaisy said:
" @24nolf said:
" Lego hasn't launched a successful non licensed theme in over a decade."

What about Friends and DOTS?

Plus the new products aimed at adults e.g. the Botanical sub theme.

I think maybe what you mean is that Lego haven't launched a successful theme that appeals to me. That doesn't mean that there aren't successful products. It's just not the original action themes they were doing previously.

I don't really care about Star Wars (though I can see how a flat grey thing definitely looks a lot less interesting and worth less money than a more dimensional thing ) but I really don't see why a lack of original themes that appeal to AFOLs with 80s and 90s nostalgia pangs has anything to do with pricing and set design decisions?"

Lego Friends was launched over a decade ago. There is no evidence thus far to suggest DOTS is a hit(it's clearanced more than any other theme from what I've seen).

"I think maybe what you mean is that Lego haven't launched a successful theme that appeals to me." No, quite the opposite. Lego has failed to reach new audiences. Instead it's sold fewer and fewer sets to folks like us at a higher price. That is not a sustainable model. Personally I'm happy with the themes but it's not about me. Go through the financials. The pandemic put a rosy face on a company that was selling less and less product since 2016. There are serious structural and cost issues. "

Even excluding Dots, Monkie Kid has been very successful, the current iteration of LEGO Classic was launched in 2015, and Elves was fairly popular as far as I know (it lasted four years- most flagship original LEGO themes have a planned two-or-three year shelf life). The Creator Expert offerings have also diversified- in addition to the aforementioned Botanical Collection, the Fairground sets began in 2014. I also don’t understand the animosity towards licensed products- they sell very well and in many cases are high-quality sets, such as Speed Champions or the modern iteration of Harry Potter, just pulling from the last ten years.

After thinking about this for a while, I think they could have done better by making the set include these minifigures with the workshop place that Obi-Wan (and his companion) hide out with the loader droid. Could have included the secret door in the back. THAT would be a neat set...and not just be a raised gray turd of a playset. Seems like they could still make a version of that with about the same amount of pieces and hit the same pricepoint.

All the criticisms are fine and valid and I agree with a lot of them, but I do worry that we're eviscerating it to the point where the designer is getting absolutely soul-crushed.

Maybe they're a junior designer (or even a not-junior designer), who's just gotten the rare opportunity to work on one of the sets in the exciting new Obi-Wan tentpole product line, did the best they could within the limitations of their skillset, the source material and corporate mandates, was excited to have it revealed, and now is devastated that the internet hates their creation.

On the flip side, sure, it could be some lazy hasty design that greedy Lego rushed through, but I do worry about the human element. It's not like designers design disappointing products on purpose, and I worry these valid criticisms which are rightfully aimed at the company(s) involved will be heard and misinterpreted by the wrong ears.

@thefirst said:
"LEGO is currently undergoing a major transition - from a children’s building toy that all ages can enjoy, to an expensive hobby for addicted AFOL’s. It’s sad to see."

I remember when LEGO was affordable to kids with a little pocket money and some spare change. That bit of money could get a kid a long way in the LEGO aisle.

Nowadays, that same money (adjusted for inflation) would barely get you a City set.

It really is sad to see that these kids can't experience the joy that we felt when we got $10 Star Wars sets.

@Terreneflame said:
" @HOBBES said:
" @Terreneflame said:
" @thefirst said:
"LEGO is currently undergoing a major transition - from a children’s building toy that all ages can enjoy, to an expensive hobby for addicted AFOL’s. It’s sad to see."

This is absolute nonsense- there are still as many sets for kids as there ever where- they are putting the expensive hobby sets as extras.
You can easily buy a bunch of bricks and build things just as you could decades ago"

That's not non-sense at all. There are still sets for kids but kids cannot afford them any more (i.e. there are very few 'pocket money' sets left). Take 60345. This set is CAD$60. This is such a small little thing, it should be a CAD$25 set. That 's the kind of set you buy as a kid with your pocket money - and wait for Christmas and your birthday for the big set. Nowadays, this small little set will become a Christmas or birthday set because the price is just insane for what it is. This is just one example, there are many to choose from.

Have a look at this: 60324 (340 pieces) at CAD$50 or GBP£35 versus 60345 (310 pieces) at CAD$60 or GBP£25. What's wrong with this picture? (most likely due to the grey rabbit...)
"

Considering that I said they could buy boxes of bricks, which they still can at multiple cheap price points, the fact that you found an irrelevant to the point city set thats expensive doesn’t mean much.

I wouldnt be surprised if many many familys just buy boxes of bricks, certainly what I did for my son and he plays with thoses MUCH more than the random city sets he has been gifted"

But back in day, say 2014, kids could get an entire series of Microfighters, and there were much more battle packs and $10 or $20 sets.

Not trying to defend disney for sure, but are you sure this is almost surely just disney's fault and not at all lego? I think it's naive to say that. Lego at least bears maybe 30-50% responsibility since it's still a lego product and should have some say in designing a set. Just because disney picked the price point (not even 100% sure about that, maybe lego have some say on that), doesn't mean lego couldn't make it more interesting and design it better. And like someone have mentioned before, Selecting a price first, then design a set based on the price is completely weird. Are you sure that's how things are done all the time...

@PDelahanty said:
"After thinking about this for a while, I think they could have done better by making the set include these minifigures with the workshop place that Obi-Wan (and his companion) hide out with the loader droid. Could have included the secret door in the back. THAT would be a neat set...and not just be a raised gray turd of a playset. Seems like they could still make a version of that with about the same amount of pieces and hit the same pricepoint."

Exactly what many others, including myself have though of.

The warehouse would've have made for a much more interest set, perhaps the duel could be at the front of the warehouse? It wouldn't be that accurate, but then again, this set isn't too accurate either.

I'm going to try to design this exact set on Studio with the same figures and amount of pieces.

Just some things I noticed in The LEGO Group's FY 2021 annual report...

In 2020, the cost of licensing and royalties was 10.76% of expenses. That cost rose to 11.72% of expenses in 2021.

More interesting are the profit margin numbers. This is where you take the profit divided by the revenue. These margins are...

2021: 24.03%
2020: 22.71%
2019: 21.55%
2018: 22.19%
2017: 22.31%

So with 2021 being the outlier of the past five FYs (and not by much), profit margin is pretty consistent. Not sure how that charts for the "greed" narrative if say 2017 was seen as a "non-greed" year. AFOLs gonna AFOL.

I think I'm going to buy this set out of spite now even though I feel it's over priced. But, y'all forgot about 75238? $29.99 USD and for what? But THIS is the hill to die on? To each their own. (NED-B? More like NED-B lookin' fierce!)

@Yooha:
Ultimately what it comes down to is that, in the eyes of their retail partners, their entire product line is just a bunch of price points. Balance needs to be maintained across all themes, and even factoring in previous release waves. They can’t have SW producing exclusively $100+ sets any more than they can have Ninjago exclusively producing sub-$20 sets. And when you look at an original in-house theme like Galaxy Squad, how do you schedule new waves of sets except by price point, when they don’t have a list of existing subjects to pick from?

@FoolECK:
From various sources, I’ve read that Disney issued a blanket ban on approving any merchandise tied to the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises once the MCU turned Marvel profitable and Fox refused to let Disney reacquire the film rights. I’ve read that Disney refused to approve the Giant Man model for CA:CW until they changed the light-bley Mixel ball joints to dark-bley (the only known instance when they’ve broken the color lock on any of these parts). I’ve read that WB submits character artwork for use on the LEGO DC Superheroes theme (but not whether this is finished minifig templates or regular comic book art.

So, there’s no way I believe Disney doesn’t give them a nudge on subject matter now and then, and they’re probably very hands-on when a new feature film is nearing release, but I expect the bulk of the theme is left to the design team to figure out.

@CapnRex101:
I once heard from either Steve Witt or Kevin Hinkle that the only directive given for 10030 was, “Make something cool.”

@24nolf:
Elves (42 sets, 2015-2018)
Botanical Collection (8 sets, 2021-2022)
Mixels (81 sets, 2014-2016)
Legends of Chima (127 sets, 2013-2015)

And while Monkie Kid is based on an existing IP, it’s public domain, so no license needed. It didn’t “fail to get a wide release” either. It was created specifically for the Chinese market, and only sparingly made available elsewhere to comply with their “no regional exclusives” promise. Even with the severely bloated prices, people are buying them.

Also, keep in mind that sales from 2014 were bloated following the release of The LEGO Movie, and probably tapered off over the next few years as new fans aged out and were not replaced by viewers of TLM2 and TLNM.

@Anonym:
Parts is parts is parts is parts. If they sold a bulk pack of 2L Technic friction pins for what the market is willing to pay for them, the company would go bankrupt in a year. What it costs them to produce doesn’t change based on how desirable the pieces are.

@JasonBall34 said:
"All the criticisms are fine and valid and I agree with a lot of them, but I do worry that we're eviscerating it to the point where the designer is getting absolutely soul-crushed.

Maybe they're a junior designer (or even a not-junior designer), who's just gotten the rare opportunity to work on one of the sets in the exciting new Obi-Wan tentpole product line, did the best they could within the limitations of their skillset, the source material and corporate mandates, was excited to have it revealed, and now is devastated that the internet hates their creation.

On the flip side, sure, it could be some lazy hasty design that greedy Lego rushed through, but I do worry about the human element. It's not like designers design disappointing products on purpose, and I worry these valid criticisms which are rightfully aimed at the company(s) involved will be heard and misinterpreted by the wrong ears."

I think it goes without saying that LEGO fans hold no ill-will towards the designer of this set. Our grudge is more with the LEGO group that it is the people that worked on the product. They likely just had the wrong thing, wrong time, and the worst luck possible. At the end of the day, LEGO as a company greenlights the sets.

However, this Brickset article annoys me, as do some of the comments. For one, labeling people unhappy/disappointed as "toxic" doesn't help anyone. The label of "toxic" has been thrown around so much that it's meaning has been completely lost. Nowadays, it's used to handwave anyone who criticizes anything for any reason. Ironically, Star Wars loves calling it's fanbase toxic when it doesn't eat up a piece of new content. You also see this with the Halo show. There are always people who will take something too far in a fandom, but the term has been abused. It's become a blanket statement to dismiss critique - which isn't going to lead to improvement on any front.

The second reason this article bugs me is because it has a vert "well they tried their best" feeling. This is also something that can also be used to deflect critique. I understand that, when working on a product, sometimes things go wrong. There are constraints, unforeseen events or other factors that can lead to a product not turning out quite right. A lot of these are outside the designers' control.

However, at the end of the day, this is a product that LEGO is trying to sell. It is LEGO's job to convince the customer that they've made a quality enough product that is worth their hard-earned money. When you start asking money for something, any criticism you get is completely fair. This is especially true when you're jacking up prices, and people are already miffed at LEGO over that. I don't care what happened behind the scenes. What went down behind the curtains is not the customer's problem. It's LEGO's problem.

I always enjoy seeing people start talking and speculating about things they have no idea of.

@StorzN said:
[[ @nushae said:
[[ @peterlmorris said:
I mean how do you design for a scene titled “The Emasculation of Obi-Wan Kenobi?”]]

Dude, take a chill pill, this is a forum for LEGO fans, not toxic Star Wars 'fans']]

Nah his take is harshly worded, but on point and a legitimate question to raise. Dismissing him as a 'toxic fan' ignores the issue.

LEGO can only do so much with the source material they had to work with and this duel was pretty anticlimactic and disappointing (and as a Star Wars aside, was very poorly written). Why choose this duel when they could wait for the one presumably coming in the finale? Certainly part of the blame of the disappointing set comes from the mediocre source material (the only thing memorable about the location was that it was on fire)
]]

I see a Rocky v Apollo situation here. Ben needs to get worked over a bit before he re-engages with the Force and his old self.

My cringe moment was James Earl Jones saying, "I am what you made me!"

Nope. That's not well-written. Maybe AOTC Ani would say that. But, not Darth Vader. Not after the Clone Wars plus ten years. Writing the great Mr. Jones to sound like a petulant 13-year-old is disappointing.

@monkyby87 said:
"I always enjoy seeing people start talking and speculating about things they have no idea of. "

Trolling is far worse.

@24nolf said:

"Monkie Kid failed to get a wide retail release and discontinued sets are still available on Amazon nearly six months after EOL. Licensed themes come with business issues(see financials). This is a business conversation not a quality or I like X product discussion. You have mentioned many great products that I and others own and love but the financials say there are serious problems. As a business you must attract new customers and retain current ones. You must control costs and mitigate risk. Lego's costs are far too high and the products are no longer remotely price competitive. It is heavily reliant on licensing parters. Putting Covid aside it has a dwindling customer base. It has failed to adequately invest in many areas and has lunched unsuccessful products in others. Lego operates in an industry which has faced serious demand and distribution issues in some territory's which compounds the issues. Legos own financials indicate there is a "cliff" moment approaching.

*The Lego Group is the correct term"

As @PurpleDave stared above, Monkie Kid was not designed for a wide release.
I don’t quite understand where you’re getting the dwindling customer base from- I’m not trying to be incredulous here, I’m genuinely interested if there are numbers to back this up. I’m also unsure as to whether licensed sets are truly as financially debilitating as you claim- there’s certainly a smaller profit per dollar per unit on licensed sets, but licensed products also generate higher sales.

" My cringe moment was James Earl Jones saying, "I am what you made me!"

Nope. That's not well-written. Maybe AOTC Ani would say that. But, not Darth Vader. Not after the Clone Wars plus ten years. Writing the great Mr. Jones to sound like a petulant 13-year-old is disappointing. "

See, I think in contrast that it was a perfect line. Vader is, for all intents and purposes, a character created by a deeply scarred and hurt young man; his most defining characteristic isn't rage, but regret. He stays with the Empire because they're all he has left anymore, and while he maintains his role as a cold, hard monster most of the time, seeing the person who sealed him in that walking tomb, that couldn't bring himself to kill him, leaving Vader to suffer; that caused him to crack. Because after losing Padme and the rest of his friends, he wanted Kenobi to kill him that at the end of that fateful duel on Mustafar.

Even later, he doesn't want Luke because he necessarily needs him to kill Palpatine, at least thematically (personally, while media contradicts this, I'm a fan of the idea of Palpatine as being sort of an Oz figure; to the Sith, the Master is supposed to embody power, and the apprentice crave it, but with Vader and Palps, it's reversed, I think it works well); he wanted Luke to return to a semblance of normalcy, and the only way to get it is to kill Palpatine and rule together.

As regards

"For example, LEGO would probably not ask a Star Wars designer to develop an Imperial Star Destroyer for play that needs to cost $49.99. Doing so would be essentially impossible. "

Lego did just that in 2010 with the 8099: Midi-scale Imperial Star Destroyer which was $39.99

The RSOT post today reminded me of that.

Understandably the majority of comments are in regard to the crazy price or how bland the set seems. However no one appears to be discussing that Lego have just produced a set about burning a guy alive including a fire play function. This is possibly the darkest place Lego have gone. Not very Disneyesque either.

Even if it’s true that designers are given a price and subject matter in advance, that still isn’t an excuse for poor design, it’s simply a challenge for better design or more creativity.

I hate it when speeders get added to a set so that they can charge an extra $10, but when a set is this bland, that should have been the first thing they think of (and I do realize that this scene has no vehicles in it). Or get creative and integrate a tunnel into the build with Leia and the Third Sister.

There is simply no excuse for poor design. Poor design does not benefit Lego or Disney. Both companies should be willing to pull the rug out from under a failed product than to push it through into production.

I hated how it took Lego so long to give us the Razor Crest, but perhaps they need to go back to that model of waiting over a year to give us the sets we want as that turned out to be a great product in the end (until Disney blew it up a month later).

I'm glad we get what's kind of behind the scenes explanations.
It makes one more empathetic towards the designers

They could have just done the robot parts shop. and the 4 figures.

@MainBricker said:
"Let's face it, the output of SW content from Disney has been vastly superior to stuff like the prequels"

Pack your bags, you're banned from Earth.

@24nolf:
You’ve got some “alternate facts” mixed in there. Layoffs in 2017 occurred because _GROWTH_ declined. That is, sales shifted from increasing quickly on an annual basis, to increasing more slowly on an annual basis. They were still increasing sales year over year. Website issues primarily revolves around two issues. The more significant one, and the one that directly caused the site to crash, is that web sales spiked during the pandemic, and site infrastructure that was already stretched to its limit fell off a cliff. Compounding that was manual actions that were either poorly timed or involved bad choices. 2020 profits have to factor in the added cost of work-from-home, operating warehouses with reduced staff during sales spikes, shutting down the Mexico plant completely for at least a month, shifting global supply from Europe to North America to compensate for the temporary closure of the Mexico plant, diverting company resources to produce medical supplies to help front-line healthcare workers combat the pandemic, and any other unexpected adjustments that needed to be made to weather the storm.

@PixelTheDragon said:
"I think right now LEGO really needs to get more products across different price ranges. Everyone is already mad at them for increasing the prices. I personally don't care what the reasons are. LEGO prices have been steadily going up long before inflation and global supply issues became a factor. Call it a necessary evil, call it greed, but I personally call it a problem.

I believe a lot of LEGO sets now suffer from bloat. Take the 501st Battle Pack for example. You get four minifigures, but they come with vehicles that are far too big. The AT-RT shouldn't be that big compared to the minifigures. The speeder bike is so big that it takes out the whole point of a speeder bike; which is supposed to be sleak and nimble. They could've easily shrunk those two vehicles down, or just included one or the other, and released it at the same lower price of $15-$20. Now we don't even get normal battlepacks anymore. We either get the blister packs with one less troop and less bricks for the same old price, or we have to bite the bullet and pay $20 for a couple of minifigures and lackluster builds.

I don't think it's unfair to argue that LEGO seems to be giving you less and less for what you're paying now. LEGO keeps going on and on about how they need to raise prices. This is while they made over two billion last year, put a billion into this stupid Metaverse nonsense that might just wind up as LEGO Universe 2, fired hundreds of employees, and keep making lines fail because of poorly made apps that never work. The recent price hikes in a time where people are already miffed about things going up is NOT helping.

Not everyone can afford nor wants to drop $40+ dollars on a pretty basic set. I wish something like the Mandalorian Forge was $20. I want more sets that cost $10-$15 that aren't just mechs. I feel like the only options I have currently are out of reach. Big sets being announced isn't even exciting anymore because I know there is no way I'll ever be able to afford it. I don't want to drop $300 for the Daily Bugle as my only way to get Black Cat and Daredevil.

This Obi-Wan feels like a slap in the face. For $10 less, people could've gotten an x-wing, tie fighter, or a Slave 1 with $20 leftover for something else. $50 should give you a much more substantial vehicle or set piece than a flat grey platform with a spinning feature. Star Wars is already infamous for being expensive.

It's a set that's a bad value in a time where people already feel like they're being nickled and dimed while overall quality is decreasing. The new instructions look hideous. Pieces are breaking. Minifigure prints are getting messed up. Sets missing parts used to be a very rare occurrences, but now I'm hearing stories of it happening more often than it should. The prices for Avatar sets have been raised before the things have even released. LEGO right now feels like all take and no give.

"

companies are raising prices because they can, and blaming it on inflation. they love those record profits from when everyone bought legos during the lockdowns.

The set seems fine, I was surprised at the vitriol. It’s about $10 more than it should be which the same could be said of most Star Wars sets (among other themes).

As I think more about it, the Vader v. Kenobi sets should've been swapped in price. The complaints I regularly hear about Duel on Mustafar is that it's too small, and I agree, the mining facility is a massive set piece. Even a 49.99 set probably couldn't do it justice, but it would be better than what we have. Meanwhile, this set could have been really neat at 19.99 or 29.99 with a basic play feature.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @PixelTheDragon, said:

"I think it goes without saying that LEGO fans hold no ill-will towards the designer of this set."

I wonder if our old friend César Soares drew the short straw on this one... again.

@Cesbrick, you gonna cop to this one?"

I didn't design this set. But I could've! :)

@MainBricker said:
" @TheIronBadger said:
" @MainBricker said:
"Let's face it, the output of SW content from Disney has been vastly superior to stuff like the prequels"

Pack your bags, you're banned from Earth."

Are you being humorous or are you seriously suggesting that the prequels were good, let alone better than any Disnry content?"

Yes.

^ that was incredibly painful to write. Now excuse me while I go get a lobotomy.

Although there is the occasional product that has appeal, on principle I never buy anything related to Disney, a hugely corrupt and hypocritical company. Sets like this make it easy.