Should we mention value for money in our reviews?

I personally think that they should do the review without the value for money thing and then add a little extra bit at the bottom about that.

I think that in your review you could write about all the noteworthy aspects of the set, including some general remark about price like "it's in line with the others of the theme" or "it feels a bit pricey" if the reviewer feels that it's important to form an idea about the set, but the ultimate decision is up to every buyer - that should have all the objective and subjective elements to decide.

I.e. I think that the Bird of Paradise set does not value 100 €, but as soon as I found it discounted I bought it. It still felt overpriced but reached a compromise with my will to complete the botanical sets. But these are my personal evaluations that should not be generalized in the review.

I've never used "Value for Money" as a factor in buying a set. The only guidelines I go by are if I like it, I buy it. If I don't like it, it stays on the shelf.

My knee jerk answer was 'no' but in a lot of ways I'm about to say 'yes'. It depends a lot on exactly how it is executed/integrated.

I am personally interested in knowing more about the product itself so I can decide myself if it is worth my money. I read the reviews for their informative value not necessarily for their final conclusions. It's also a fact now that almost all LEGO sets are overpriced relative to what fans are used to paying, and I would hate for every review to have to go over this fact; an increase in cost across the board is overpricing the brand as a whole more than the value of individual sets.

I think the ideal execution would be to include a subheading that mentions the retail price, and how it compares in "price per piece (PPP)" with the classic 10c a set value, and in cases of remakes, compare to previous releases. It may also be wise to compare value with contemporary releases of the same price. (ie do two $30 sets both contain a similar number of parts? if they do, the problem may be the price scheme, not the individual set.) It is also good to mention unique parts and minifigures as part of that value as some others have said. I do feel it is appropriate with sets like The Justifier to emphasize that it is an outlier in value as well.

I would consider it an overreach if we saw price being mentioned throughout reviews multiple times in different sections, or emphasized daily in review summaries because of the company's own failures. If it became a problem at that level I would rather see more articles dedicated SPECIFICALLY to the price increase issue on the brand as a whole, which in many ways I think is a much, much more potent question than the value of each set individually.

I think you should (continue to) discuss price in relation to other sets available right now. So if a set seems comparatively more expensive than others on the shelf, as you mentioned recently in two reviews, I believe, it's definitely worth knowing.
But there is no point going on about price increases in every review, the prices have gone up and that's that. I also don't care much about POP. Historical pricing of retired sets is also not much use in deciding whether to buy a current set.

What's a 'value'? How does a new set add to my collection?
- Parts: amount, new ones, rare ones, special colour, ...
- Assembly: new techniques, realisation of function(s), design, ...
- Collection: (personal) interest, completeness, curiosity, ...
These are items that I would consider relevant for a value-to-money rating.
How to sum all(?) these up - including some weigthing?

Price per part is of no use. Even number of parts in the set is of no use. TLG could easily modify sets to replace 'big' parts with lots of smaller ones just to increase the total number of parts (and of course consequently lower the price/part ratio). Information I need when I decide if the set is worth buying is: a picture of the set.

Why not just take it on a set by set basis. If you feel a set is value for money there's no need to mention otherwise but if something is hugely over priced then let people know.
No two people's opinion are the same anyway, one person may feel a set is great value for money whereas someone else may think it's a total waste and hugely expensive.
The reviews are excellent for seeing photos of the set and figures and working out whether it would go nicely in a collection but the reviewers opinion on cost or value doesn't sway me either way at all.

Please do mention value for money, price per piece and maybe add the weight of model as well so we see price per gram.

I for one very much appreciate your experienced opinion on value, and it's part of what I enjoy reading about. I agree with other readers some sort of objective metric may help, but 'value' in Lego sets is always going to be slightly subjective, and thus by nature, opinions. You can't please everyone. There will always be haters....

Thank you for all you do.

I don't care about value for money at retail price. I hardly ever buy at retail price, or anywhere close to it. You giving your opinion about the value of the set won't impact me at all.

Yes, I think it does matter, and I do appreciate it. I don't buy much LEGO now and when I do it's at discount or by redeeming points (such as Nectar), because for me it's simply too expensive to buy even the smaller sets and justify it a lot of the time. I felt the Monster Jam trucks (of which I own two) were really good value for money because they were interesting builds and had a play feature that was fun, but some sets I've bought or seen get built and that's about it.

For me what matters about a set beyond it including characters or themes I enjoy are whether they can justify the (now-increasing) cost and how engaging and fun they are to build. My two favourite builds were the Claas Xerion and the Saturn V, and both sets were amazing value.

I think value is so subjective that it serves very little purpose including it.

The value of a set is obviously going to be very different for someone struggling to afford that set, compared to someone who gets the set for free and benefits from commission from sales via affiliated links to pay for the site. Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind.

I say keep articles with their excellently detailed descriptions and plenty of photos, and people can decide for themselves what a set is worth to them.

Nobody agrees on value, and including it will just lead to boring comment sections full of people telling you so!

Each review could include not only “Price per piece” but also “Price per ounce or gram”. Other things to value are the manuals and sticker vs. prints.

I agree with you, Huw, that the absolute value for money is highly subjective. A more objective measure in my opinion is the relative value for money, i.e. the comparison to other, similar sets. Personally I try to consider not only the price per part but also the "volume of stuff" (greetings to JANG), if a set is based on a license, etc.
For me, this has proven a good way to determine wheter a set is a bargain or actually overpriced within(!) the LEGO portfolio (which arguably is overpriced in general) and therefore I would prefer a similar way of comparison in a review instead of "just a personal opinion" on the reviewed set's price.

I think yes value for money should be mentioned, but on the understanding that lego is a more expensive luxury item. No point in saying every set is quite pricey, but as you get and review a lot of sets you can get and communicate a good baseline for what your money buys you in lego currently and whether it is a good deal compared to other lego sets also currently on the market in other themes. Highlighting discrepancies in various international pricing I also find quite interesting there have been a few sets recently where one region in particular gets an unfair price compared to others.

Please no. Leave to the buyer. However what is interesting is comparing the parts number in similar priced sets (from the same or similar theme).

DEFINITELY! Lego's price policy becomes more and more random. They obviously want to increase profit (every company has to do) but they similarily decrease quality (colours, construction, stickers, piece count etc...) I would not even complain a price increase if quality would still be high. But these two opposing developments worry me and move me away from Lego. The competition shows what is possible esp. in the Technic segment where you get better models incl. motorized functions at a lower proce point (red sports car!)

It's a weird thing to think about, because it's so variable. Obviously, we've all looked at a little set and thought "that's not worth the price", and we've all wished we could justify spending hundreds on a big set. But then there's those sets that are just so good we instantly buy them without thinking about the price... Maybe it only needs mentioning if it's an outlier - extremely good value, or extremely bad?

Value for money is an important part of any review, I would like to see more of the international pricing be included, for example Australian pricing varies wildly to the US prices (US $100 sets vary from $169 to $249 in Australia for example)

The Ford Raptor was on my wish list until I saw the AU$ price of $249 and I haven't looked at it since.

yes, mentioning that in reviews and our avoidance of overpriced sets are the only things we can do, so do it!

I think the most important metric, when it comes to price, is how the set stacks up against other sets in that price range. I think a $200 set is poor value when other sets which cost between 180-230 offer more.

Personally PPP is not a full proof way to determine value tbh.. some elements have a higher value than others if you were to buy them on their own so how can you give a blanket price per element. You can't really..

I would leave price and value for money overall for the buyer.. what could be worth it so someone could be seen as very expensive to someone else on a complete different income who'd only buy it for the big Christmas gift of the year and that's just speaking about the same currency..

Some people buy multiple £600 sets for fun and some save for months to get just one.. it's not a fair justification especially when review sets are sent for free as well to you guys and not purchased for said review.

A rule of thumb might be to not bother when the value for price of a given set is within only a modest range (subjective to the reviewer), whether that be high or low. But when a set is of notably high value for the price, or egregiously expensive, it’s fitting to discuss and let that be a significant factor of weight for the final verdict.

@Huw said:
"Thank you everyone for your comments. From them I can conclude that you'd like us to continue to discuss value for money in our reviews so we will therefore continue to do so."

Yes, please

Thanks for asking this @Huw. I find it's helpful to think of value for 'amount of stuff' like Jang.

I like to know what you think with the set in hand - value could be if it feels like good value for the amount of stuff, playability, scope for integrating with other sets, rebuildability, clever design, if you feel like there should be more to it, what else you could buy with the money...

Yes it's subjective, but we don't buy sets using logic, it's mostly because of subjective factors like feelings and nostalgia.

Just note the ppp and make no judgement.
Most people will have their own gauge as to what is a reasonable ppp to them.
Perhaps between us we could work out a what is considered to be a threshold for good value for ppp, but this would need to be fluid threshold with changing markets and trends.
The question then is how does everyone stay up to date with what the current threshold may be.

Just a quick early morning thought. I’ll probably read this back later and think what on earth was I on about

It is a subjective judgement, and therefore can be criticized (and will be in the comments!). But I think it's important to have a subjective opinion in reviews, cos how one feels the set is as important as the set itself for a reader who hasn't experience the set itself. It doesn't mean the reviewer is right or wrong, but it helps shaping our own opinion about a set.

What about price per gram, also not foolproof because of specialised parts but it takes the part size difference into account.

“Shoud” not should?

PLEASE DO mention value for money in reviews! You can buy so many models that are deatailed and/or have a god PPP value at first glance, but don't seem to be worth it once they're build. That's mostly sets rather for play than display, like 75323, 75332, 75334, 75338 and countless others that look good but don't seem like a good deal.

@bananaworld

I couldn't agree more.

If a price on a product is cheap/good value/expensive, is very much up to the individual person who's buying it.

Maybe it's a set that appeal very much to that person and he/she is willing to pay more for it, than usual, then a high price will still be "good value" for that person. And vice versa of course.

I think as an AFOL oriented site, us readers are all mature enough to know value is subjective. I for one love to hear a reviewer's opinion on value just as much as their views on the other merits of a set. Removing this from reviews would make them feel more like a sponsored press release in my opinion. I generally avoid websites/YouTube channels (on any hobby) that avoid calling out questionable value where it occurs.

I think anyone that has been part of the review team, reviewing sets on Brickset for a fair amount of time. Is capable of making an assessment of the set and if they feel in their opinion if the set is of value for its RRP. Basing it on any criteria they judge to be of use to them as a reviewer. This is regardless of how they came by the set. I welcome the reviewer's opinions balanced with how they came to those opinions. It helps me form my own opinion on the set. Keep up the good work I say.

Absolutely include the value per money opinion. It's happened so often that a set looks tiny based on pictures (and hence low value per money), but it's a completely different matter once you (or by extension a Brickset reviewer) have actually build it. I value your subjective perspective.

Yes, but use a few factors not just PPP.

@Slobrojoe said:
"“Shoud” not should? "

No, "should" is the correct spelling.

PPP is already mentioned on the set info page so not needed to add in a review.

And even then, we see based on the 40% discount even a set with 6 cent a piece does not sell as well : 10284 : Camp Nou - FC Barcelona

Of course, value based on other factors can be mentioned, like size from a picture is sometimes hard to judge , and screen sizes vary a lot as well.

10497 was obviously expected to be big, but 50% larger on both width and length dimensions means it's absolutely huge compared to the orginal, 225% larger.

Price per gram would be very helpful!
(And this is information not readily found elsewhere).

I'm firmly in the Yes!-camp here. Value is a relative thing, and since you guys (and gals) build so many sets, you can put your experiences in a good perspective.

Obviously, all Lego is pretty expensive, and it isn't getting better at the moment. But there is a distinct difference between expensive and overpriced. I mean, just look at some recent products and your reviews: I think everyone agrees that 10497 and also many recent Friends sets represent very decent value, even when I wouldn't call them cheap. 42052 is on the pricey side, but as your review showed, is a pretty good set so not a terrible value. And then we get stuff like 42144, which might not be a bad set but the price is insane.

I don't think there is an exact metric for that. PPP can be a useful indication, but certainly isn't the be-all-end-all. Not all parts are equal, and 75334 showed that a lot of parts used poorly doesn't help either. Jang often mentions "price per volume of stuff", which already is much more subjective but generally a much better indicator. But it's not just the size that matters, it's what you can do with it. 75323 is pretty big even for its price, yet still didn't impress anyone. And that's the thing: we can all judge from pictures or look at numbers, but in the end you guys actually build the stuff and can assess how you feel about it. And even when you get the stuff for free (unlike Jang or Sariel), I never got the feeling you take that for granted (unlike so many other "reviewers" on Youtube).

So please, keep assessing value for money, do mention if and why a somewhat higher price point for a set in your opinion is warranted, and keep calling out Lego for cutting corners not in line with the price point.

Can we all just agree that the PPP standard is .10 because it makes the easiest math? Why hasn’t it changed in the past 20 years I’ve been an AFOL despite inflation? Because anything other than .10 would be harder to calculate in your head. Which makes it a lifeless statistic grabbed out of thin air to make stupid people like me feel smart.

And one more thing: it would be interesting to every once in a while a review or comparison with something from another brand that is similar to a certain Lego product. Just to put things into perspective. And I don't mean in a very broad way like Jang sometimes does (and which in itself I do very much appreciate!) but just within the brick world. I'm obviously not talking about copycats, but other brands with their own designs and to some degree their own unique parts inventory. How do these compare with similar Lego products in terms of quality AND value for money?

Yes. Please continue how you have. It’s very helpful. Thanks!

Didn't get a chance to read all comments so I don't know if it was mentioned. But a standardized scatterplot with price per piece on one axis and some other metric like weight per piece on the other axis, with a bunch of past sets and the current set value highlighted would show a "value" metric without subjectively. The value portion of the review absolutely needs to stay in some form, if only for items like Justifier to confirm I'm not crazy.

The price always needs to be addressed in every review, otherwise it isn't a helpful review to consumers. Rex is right that you need to comment on it to stay objective. I find Brickset reviews already downplaying or not addressing several concerns of different sets far too often in a bid to stay objective, which comes off more like you don't want to criticize Lego too much to keep getting Review copies and not offending the crowd that is completely uncritical of all of Legos decisions out of brand loyalty. This is why I prefer Youtubers for commentary and mostly use Brickset for neutral pictures because so few people have consistent and neutral photography set-ups.
Of course it is difficult now to judge sets with price increases being more common, which also ruins reviews retroactively. At the same time though there have always been sets which depending on the region get more frequent or higher discounts, so your review statements have been not perfectly applicable already. The MSRP though gives an indication of how likely discounts are and how price hikes could address the value.

A truly objective solution would be an equation that is more complex than just price per piece. One that also keeps in mind the average size or weight of the pieces, use of exclusive or rare pieces and use of specialized equipment for the production of some pieces like prints, double molding, arm & side leg printing, pre-assembling of pieces, cloth, etc. It's not immediately obvious how to give a consistent value to these factors but it wouldn't be entirely impossible to come up with something, especially with this focus on statistics and analytical data of yours already. It would definitely reveal injustices between some sets or maybe put sets with perceived little value into perspective, coming closer to your goal of objective reviews and presentations. Just remember that omitting information isn't helpful in being objective, it's deceptive.

For example the juniors AT-ST looks like the worst value offering of Star Wars in ages, but after all the sets including the double molded Scout Trooper helmet or Ewok head piece I am starting to assume that these pieces are some of the most expensive or difficult to produce for Lego as they are consistently used only in sets which are more overpriced even compared to overpriced sets. Maybe a factor is also that the helmet has to be printed from 4 sides while other pieces can rely on all paint apps coming onto the piece from one side. I think someone who thinks more about such factors could come to some revelation for us consumers that might explain some of these value perception issues.

@Anonym said:
"I find Brickset reviews already downplaying or not addressing several concerns of different sets far too often in a bid to stay objective, which comes off more like you don't want to criticize Lego too much to keep getting Review copies and not offending the crowd that is completely uncritical of all of Legos decisions out of brand loyalty. This is why I prefer Youtubers for commentary and mostly use Brickset for neutral pictures because so few people have consistent and neutral photography set-ups."
I wonder how realistic the chance is that Lego would stop sending free review copies. After all, several prominent reviewers on Youtube (I think of Sariel, RacingBrick and Tiago Catarino) can often be pretty harsh, yet still keep receiving their free stuff now for years. And even when lego isn't always handling PR-matters that well (look at the situation in Germany for the past few years...), they will understand that if they stop supplying sets to such prominent channels it will unleash a shitstorm never seen before in the Lego community. And even when this isn't Youtube, I feel Brickset is very much in the same realm.

Things are different obviously for smaller channels, around some releases from the last few years you suddenly saw countless "reviews" from small channels pop up, and most delivered very little criticism. And I bet that the ones who did were never ever heard of anymore....

I think value for money absolutely should be a factor in a Brickset review. Let’s be real here, LEGO is expensive with or without price hikes. Consumers only have so much money to spend, so sometimes value is the deciding factor between leaving a set behind or picking it up.

Plus it could help highlight alternative sets available that give more bang for your buck. That Ewok set yesterday was far too overpriced for what was offered. In comparison, you could get a very nice star fighter or even a full-sized ATST for a little bit more.

I appreciate the comments on value. I find that I am sometimes surprised when a set is deemed to be a good value. Similarly, sometimes I don't realize that a set is a poor value, since I don't have the same purchasing history of the reviewer. And of course, I'm always free to make up my own mind after considering BrickSet's evaluation. Furthermore, I suspect the threshold of "good value" will eventually correct itself with time.

My comment won’t matter much, but yes, definitely keep mentioning price. Every person considers price when dealing with Lego, and some sets, like the recent Obi-Wan set, are absolutely overpriced and terrible value, regardless of how expensive Lego is overall.

I’m generally not bothered with what others perceive as good or bad value. I do like to know what the US price is though as I measure my value based on that compared to the AU price.

Absolutely! Unlike some, I have a LEGO budget, so value plays an integral part in my decision-making. There are many sets that interest me, but they are priced so ridiculously, I don't even bother adding them to my want list.

The price of a set IS an aspect of the set, and can’t really be mentioned without some reference to perceived value, so I think it should remain to some degree. But, at the end of the day, I have NEVER bought/not bought a set based on what someone else said - it’s always been my own decision based on my own financial condition.

Also, to be honest, I find when the conversation moves towards value, I find myself “doom scrolling” through the comments, which I’d like to aim to do less of…

I think we can all agree 90% of Lego sets nowadays are overpriced so we’re purchasing a overpriced product anyways. The thought of us getting a reasonable deal from ppp is just something to justify our purchase. Without this measure and having reviews be more realistic in terms of the value for the retail price would be better. Currently, almost all the reviews here are overly positive and not critical/objective enough in my opinion.

When a set is overpriced, it should be called out. Last I checked, this site was not owned by Lego.

Personally, I think the only way to tell the value of the set is quite simple: Is it worth it to you? If the answer is no, it's a bad value. If the answer is yes, it's a good value. Owing to the fact that this question is entirely subjective, I do not think it is worth-while discussing value in a product reveiw.

Yes price per weight and piece please.
Perhaps clever Huw could use this as a formula of value for money based on the previous year’s set prices so it literally is either above or below average value.

If you’re going to dive headfirst into this empty swimming pool, you might as well cover your bases and list a spread of “price per” rather than trying to pick one that you think is all things to all people. And be prepared for the comment sections to be dominated more by repetitive arguments about which metric is best/worst/a sign of the apocalypse, and maybe revert now and then to discussion of the actual set.

Price is a key element to evaluate an item. Reviews are made for potential buyers. Buyers have to pay to get Lego sets.

It would seem rather strange not to talk about this topic at the very moment when it is so relevant.

I dont think whether you mention or not is likely to change that a lot of comments will mention it. Its an incredibly important (if subjective) factor in most peoples' decision as to whether they'll purchase the set or not. I'd like to think that constant negative press from popular sites about price would put pressure on Lego to not get too egregious with it, but they already have gotten too egregious with it so clearly that's not working.

However I do think that value for money varies substantially from country to country., so even if you give an assessment from an American or British perspective, that's unlikely to be meaningful anywhere else. Not just because Lego's price conversions are... bizarre, at best... but because economic factors also vary significantly between countries. A set being good value in the US doesnt mean its good value everywhere. I also dont believe its possible to give a meaningful assessment of value for money when the reviewer isnt paying for it.

I think the best thing you can do is provide metrics such as a range of regional pricing, price per piece, price per weight, etc. More information will never be a bad thing. And leave any opinions regarding that information to the comments.

Value is a subjective thing, but I think there are objective criteria which can be provided to help each reader make their own value decisions. PPP is one such criteria, along with mentions of unique minifigures and new/rare parts (molds or colors). Having all this information in the Set Details area would be helpful, especially if that area was visible when viewing the Reviews. And increasingly, it seems that providing the weight for each set would be helpful, but that's a harder metric to work with, since I'm not sure if that information is "officially" provided by Lego, and having each reviewer weight each set would undoubtedly result in arguments about discrepancies in scale accuracy, not to mention whether the weight of the box should be included or not, etc.

It should be the number one thing to review. It is the most important impact to the buyer. Not including it would remove credibility from the site.

I think it's worth at least mentioning the price, but at the end of the day, everyone is going to have a different idea of what makes a set "more valuable". I also think, at the risk of sounding overly pretentious, that there is an artistic element to it; it's just hard to judge any individual creation's value relative to a somewhat arbitrary price. Money is obviously an important factor, because even if Lego released the greatest set ever made, it might not be popular if it was a $100 more than people would expect based on metrics like PPP or weight. There's no harm in mentioning the price or value of a set, but ultimately I think it's important to remember that peoples' sense of value varies wildly from person to person.

You already list the price and number of pieces, I am able to make a decision base upon that. A review is always something subjective, so I don't mind you posting your opinion on the price. I'd say it's the reviewer's decision to comment on value.

Negative comments will appear anyway, maybe LEGO listens for once. Sets like the Justifier or the recent technic crane are simply not acceptable and it should be noted so in the review.

Yes, definitely.

I personally value the Brickset staff's take on value, since they handle far more sets and builds than my budget allows me to. I'll add that I also enjoy reading the comments from members regarding value that accompany the reviews. I find that seeing someone else's perspective can sometimes shift my view on the perceived value of a given set. I don't think it sounds like a broken record if the 'rating' is justified accordingly.

put it in the reviews if there is good value for the money - which i expect to be an outlier, not the norm.

no mention in the review can just mean "overpriced, as usual"

I do not mind reading about the value for money. If sets were for free, we would only discuss about which one is better. However, we have to pay for them and we want to use our limited money as best as possible. Hence, comments about value for money are necessary. A set can be awesome, but if it is too expensive, we will not buy it.

I feel like Price Per Piece is kinda useless factoid, "fun" to know but not actually relevant. I think you should go over each set in their review separately and tell how the completed model feels, like some sets are huge and feel like value for money and some other are tiny while made of more bricks. I have been suprised before, for example the Ninjago dragons are hard to judge by their images. It's an important part of the review.

@TheIronBadger said:
" @Slobrojoe said:
"“Shoud” not should? "

No, "should" is the correct spelling."

Yes mate, the title said shoud and I was correcting

Yes please I like it

Absolutely, yes! Value is an important part of the review process. I rely on several reviewers to evaluate the value of a set and that factors heavily into my decision on which sets to purchase. Brickset is one of my two favorite review sources and would be significantly less valuable to me if they did not mention the value of a set.

People have different opinions on whether a set is a good value for the price, so I personally don't think it's a required attribute of each review. However, I'd appreciate it when you point out a set stands out as a good value or is a poor value, even if you point out the reasons for the poor value (such as all the +4 kids sets with large new molds.) My 2 cents on whether the 10 cent per piece rule still applies in our post-pandemic inflationary society where corporations don't compromise on their revenue by passing costs to consumers even though their revenue is growing or holding firm over the last three years. =-)

Yes, I think you should include whether you think the set is a good value for money in your reviews. Not that he's the end-all-be-all, but Jangbricks always discusses value for money in his reviews and I think they're more complete because of that.

yes

I’d like to hear your opinion on the value for money. There’s more to a set than the price per piece, or how the set looks once built. The enjoyability of the build itself can all be also be a factor.

Yes, you should include price and your opinion on it.

OK set that costs a lot - price can make it worse.
Ok set that costs a little - price can make it better.

PPP should remain in set listings and be in the review summary. In the body of the review you should discuss value re: price based on whatever criteria you feel is relevant (e.g. PPP is okay because of this or that inclusion; play value is very high; looks great on display; etc.)

About PPP vs. price per weight:

If we are comparing two $100 sets I'm not ignoring the piece count (‘it’s meaningless!’) and asking instead which one is heavier. Lower weight is primarily an indicator of fewer parts, not smaller parts, anyway. If 42114 Materials Handler seems expensive compared to other Technic sets, it’s largely because it has fewer parts, not because they used the same number of beams but shorter ones on average.

I’ve never seen a set where piece count was ‘artificially’ inflated in any meaningful sense by including a bunch of unnecessary 1x1 studs (no, not even 92177 Ship In a Bottle). Should they have not included those studs? Were they going to put in 25 horses and 75 baseplates instead?

I would prefer, at a given price point, that sets get smaller parts and more numerous parts over time, instead of larger parts and fewer parts over time. If the number of parts stays the same, I don't care too much if they are bigger or smaller as long as there is some variety.

No.

What represents value for money for one person can be completely opposed by the next person.

I like seeing that but then I also decide on how much I really want it. For other sets that I'm slightly interested in I'd like to know the opinion of PPP.

While it's all a bit subjective with regards to value, I really do appreciate and value all of the reviewers here on Brickset and the opinions they have to offer. I would prefer that you keep giving your opinion of the value with the sets you review. Thank you all for your time and efforts here on Brickset!

If the cost and worth segment doesn’t overshadow the entire review I think it’s fine to include those opinions. However, seeing as that is the foremost topic currently I could see that being a challenge.

Yeah, I think you should. I mean, it's really the reviewer's opinion but I think they would generally be shared with the majority of readers.

@Luka_Lobe said:
"i wonder when there will be sets over 1.000 euros."
It won't take long I think, but I bet the price will be justified by lots of stickers and color variations.

Already looking forward to a video about it by der Held :-)

No, please don't. Endless complaints about pricing detract from the reviews.

Yes. A paragraph about value is still needed.

There will always be people new to Lego reading the review so it is is good to provide a baseline opinion on value. Perhaps explain why some sets ( 21335 ) may be expensive due to power functions.

Users will always comment about the price/value of a set in the comments. Providing a value discussion in the review will lead the discussion in the comments and provide insight to new Lego buyers.

Yes you definitely should continue to mention value for money in your reviews. It is a necessary & valid critique of sets and a natural part of a review as well as a natural factor when deciding to buy a set, particularly on the higher price points.

PPP ratio while useful is not as effective, particularly if a set has a lot of studs or small parts that make up the ratio.

Keep up the good work, always love the reviews & articles. And now Ireland finally has a lego shop horray! :)

Weight is a must for me. I weigh all my sets for fun anyways.

To be honest and no offense to the Captain, I put more emphasis on his opinion on Star Wars set value than his opinions on how the set compares to the source material. And it's all opinions so let's not split hairs. But I trust the Cap and Huw and Brickset Team Reviewers to give me their honest opinions on the build experience, the final model, the minifig assortment and the set value.

And I am confident that any of their opinions on set value are based on more than a wishful recollection of the good ole days but encompass an understanding of where LEGO pricing is today. As a CMF costs $5 USD each these days and has done so for a while now, I don't expect that to be a big part of new reviews because it unfortunately is what it is. But a review of the Justifier, when compared to other Star Wars ships as well as other sets in the current LEGO portfolio, would be criminal without mention of the unhinged pricing on this set.

I disagree PPP is no longer valid, I think it's still a fine metric, and unlike some others, is still objective. If I see 8c/pc, a standard assortment of parts (aka, not a pile of 1x1 tiles), printed pieces, decent minifigs, then I know I'm getting a good value regardless of the set (I just used 10497 as an example).
It helps for people to recognize that certain things are naturally going to drive up a price: specialized/very large/non-reusable parts, extra minifigs, lights/power functions, licensing. But if none of those are present and you're still seeing 40c/pc, you can generally assume it's overpriced. And I think that's pretty independent of subjective taste. For instance, I have zero interest in 21319 but I still know it's a good value because I see 5.6c/pc despite a license and several unique minifigs.

I still think including an opinion on value is worthwhile. For me, there are many sets I really like, until I see the price, then my decision about buying them or not often changes.

Perhaps a measure of what you would prefer/hope the set to be priced at may work? After all, many other retailers will still discount down to a buyers trigger point at some point.

@abri123 said:
"After all, many other retailers will still discount down to a buyers trigger point at some point."
Agreed. Well, except for exclusives in the U.S. :o(

Yes, include the price opinion.
Liking a set is easy. Knowing how others feel if it's worth it is a different case.

I read reviews to see details of the set before I buy/build it to see if it can tempt me to buy it. Price and value are strong components of "is it worth buying?" But at the end of the day it boils down to is there enough of a set/my satisfaction from building it there to pay out this much money for this many pieces/this much mass...

So you do you.

@huw, would there be any benifit from scoring on different metrics?
For example, build experiance, price per piece, price per gram and end result. Then tally the score to give a worth the money scale. This could also be included as a metric on the user reviews so users could see the Brickset score and the independently rated scores of all reviews of a set.

@xarquar said:
"I think it is worth calling out the price outliers."

This. We’re all upset over price rises. But there is a difference between Lego sets being generally more expensive, and sets being more expensive than other comparable sets.

I think it’s good to mention it but as it’s own compartmentalized topic. There can be absolutely outstanding sets that are egregiously expensive, and there can be really disappointing sets that are at a favorable price point. It shouldn’t swing the impression of the set itself but mentioning it is worthwhile as a separate consideration.

One other comment which I’m not sure was mentioned before, in that article the other day about if sets actually are getting more expensive, I would love to see more data around that vs inflation over time. Part of the sticker shock in all parts of the economy is the inflation impact.

Price is key!

A LEGO set is value for money. You don’t have to stick with the intended build - you can create your own build. In terms of cash value, when has a LEGO set ever been value for money? Date I say never?!

I'd personally say dedicate an entire section to discussing value for money, that way it doesn't influence the final verdict but is available.

I think that it is one of the most important part of a review.
It is not easy considering that price could vary among different regions, so the reviewer should take this aspect into account.

Surely "price per part" and in case "price per gram" as suggested above could help to get an idea, but it is easy to fall into error, because some parts (especially those composing minifigures, but not only) are more complex and expensive to produce, prints and stickers often are not taken into account, and so on.

Long story short, the opinion of an experienced user could be very useful to understand the real value of a set and should not be removed from reviews.
Maybe you could even add a d0uble 1-10 stars indicator, the first by the reviewer, the latter voted by the readers of the review.

I definitely would like to know the weight of a set (without packaging if possible). Ppp is skewed in my opinion if there are a load of 1x1 plates/ tiles or other small elements.

@Luka_Lobe:
Isn’t that the guy who has done nothing but grind his axe down to a stump of the handle after receiving a Cease & Desist order for violating their trademark or somesuch? Sounds about as honest as a Nigerian prince giving you investment advice.

@Reg said:
"IMO, having price per part is one thing which gives us some idea of a set's value but far more interesting I think would be to have the weight of the bricks taken into account too. As the Brickset reviewers do have these sets in their possession for review, would it be too hard an ask to incorporate price per gram etc?"

I second this! Large parts and electronic parts are more expensive to make and obviously skew the PPP. The actual amount of plastic is slightly more important than how many chunks that plastic is divided into.

Definitely address the value! It is such an important consideration for each set, each purchase. I like how you are doing it now, and especially pointing out when a set is a good value in one market, and a horrible value in another. I appreciate when you address US pricing, as they can be vastly different stories.

I say yes, absolutely. It helps with the authenticity of the review, IMO, to consider how the experience is for those who will end up spending their money on the sets - especially since many reviewers are provided review copies. If things improve and Lego pricing gets better (hopefully), then hopefully we can celebrate that in the review summaries.

Personally, I don’t see much worth in the “perceived value” sections of a LEGO set review. I know what the price is, I see the piece count, and I can do the math. But price-per-piece (please don’t give in to the price-per-gram loonies and start weighing sets) is just one of several factors that determines the cost of a set, and not the end-all be-all arbiter of value some seem to think it is.

I suppose, as others have said, the outliers may be worth mentioning. But every review? No, thank you.

I like lamborghini's. But knowing how much they cost would make me buy one or dismiss it altogether as not worthy.

About those 90th anniversary sets, the way I described it before was that 10497 felt like a gift from Lego to the fans (even when we still have to pay for it obviously), while 10305 feels like an exclusive party with a rather steep entrance fee.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that they go a bit crazy every once in a while, but this just wasn't the set for that (or they just didn't go crazy enough...).

What is 'value'?
Parts, weight, 'fun', design, flaws, functions, creativity,...?

Without value there is no 'value for money'.

If you want raw statistics, maybe add price per kg to the database.

Yes.

Yes. Most definitely. As someone who doesn't have a lot of money for LEGO floating around, value for the money is very important to me.

Lego has begun to charge prices that are in no way associated with the total costs of a set. In some cases the price charged is more than double what the price is in another country. This is different from how Lego has sold products in the past. With this pricing change there will be a change in how some customers feel about Lego products and TLG as a company.

I think unless it’s a little extreme one way or the other (but it’s mostly one way right now…) it’s pretty pointless to mention but, at the same time, all the internet’s really going to want to talk about.

It’s a fan site, not advice for someone who’s never heard of legos before. And the reviews are overwhelmingly positive to begin with.

Yes, specially now that most LEGO sets are being overpriced.

Although you will need to find an objective way to measure that - ppp might be the simplest way - because any subjective evaluation will be worthless as it will be limited to the reviewer and not necessarily extendable to the rest of us.

I'm honestly shocked that this was ever even a question. Why would you ever remove content from a review like this? If anything, the question should of been, "what else would you like to see in the review to help convey the value of the set?"

Honestly, the reviews are not as long as they could be and I'm struggling to figure out why. Why not add a section about new pieces to every review? Showing detailed close ups of pieces that are new (when I say new, you would need to classify that as pieces introduced maybe this year or new in the last wave of releases).

Anyway, I'm glad you came to the conclusion that you are not going to stop talking about the value of sets. If anything, it should be expanded! Thanks!

@CapnRex101:
My biggest complaint is that 10305 has nothing to do with Bionicle. Indeed, not a single 90th set is focused on Bionicle, and the sole inclusion feels more like, “we didn’t expect them to do so well in the vote, so take five minutes to whip up something we can cram in a random set or we’re going to be roasted on a spit.”

Is this a good value set?

Is this a good value Lego set?

Is this a good value decoration?

Is this a good value model?

Is this a good value brick built model?

Lots of ways of thinking about value.

Yes, of course you need to mention value for money. Nearly anything can be great if you throw enough money at it (e.g. Castle Icons set). The real art is in creating something great for a reasonable price (e.g. Spaceship Icons set). Furthermore, value for money can (mostly) be treated very objectively (price per part, volume, weigh, special pieces etc) and even by mentioning that it might appeal (more) to fans of a certain theme (something I believe you already do).

I disagree. There are only a few ways to look at it, your examples are variants on the same aspect.
* It’s a good value Lego play set
* It’s a good value Lego display set
That’s it.

Once your addicted to a theme (or LEGO), does it really matter the price? If you into collecting then price probably isn't your issue, more of it is when you are going to get it to complete what is coming out.

Per the definition of addiction... "the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity."

Thus $$$ yup, just do it and get over it.

@CapnRex101:
I think at least two System Bionicle projects have been voted up on Ideas, one of which went to Bricklink. Before they combined every individual who voted for one or more Castle subthemes, it won the 90th vote, and even remained in second place over Space, Pirates, and Town.

I think many people underestimate the Bionicle community because they don’t run across many Bionicle fans. In reality, they splintered off very early on because they were largely chased away from more mainstream AFOL communities because they liked Bionicle, and most of the fanbase were kids at the time. They’re still around, running build competitions every year, and scavenging parts in a way that would make Jawas step back and give them props. They wouldn’t be able to get to the 10k Club on Ideas, or outperform more widely respected themes in the 90th vote, if there weren’t still a lot of fans around the world.

But there’s no respect. Not from the AFOL community, and not from The LEGO Group. They did a timeline, and put the Junkbot Flash game on where the Mata Nui Online Game could have gone, eliminating the one spot Bionicle could have fit based on the criteria of the timeline. The MNOLG is still so popular that the Bionicle community was able to extract all of the files necessary to play it, and rehosted it so you can still play it today, with the official blessing of TLG. Even when all they got from the 90th lineup was Sad Tahu, they embraced that and started expanding the lineup as soon as the set was announced, well before you could actually buy a copy.

The fans who saved the company in the mid-00’s want some sort of recognition, and it’s like the company resents them for the fact that they owe so much to something that’s so far from their core line, and which the reboot proved even they didn’t really understand. They’ve hired a lot of AFOLs from the community, which makes me wonder if the tan prejudice against Bionicle has infected the company.

It's... a review, aren't subjective opinions the whole point?

@PurpleDave said:
" @CapnRex101 :
I think at least two System Bionicle projects have been voted up on Ideas, one of which went to Bricklink. Before they combined every individual who voted for one or more Castle subthemes, it won the 90th vote, and even remained in second place over Space, Pirates, and Town.

I think many people underestimate the Bionicle community because they don’t run across many Bionicle fans. In reality, they splintered off very early on because they were largely chased away from more mainstream AFOL communities because they liked Bionicle, and most of the fanbase were kids at the time. They’re still around, running build competitions every year, and scavenging parts in a way that would make Jawas step back and give them props. They wouldn’t be able to get to the 10k Club on Ideas, or outperform more widely respected themes in the 90th vote, if there weren’t still a lot of fans around the world.

But there’s no respect. Not from the AFOL community, and not from The LEGO Group. They did a timeline, and put the Junkbot Flash game on where the Mata Nui Online Game could have gone, eliminating the one spot Bionicle could have fit based on the criteria of the timeline. The MNOLG is still so popular that the Bionicle community was able to extract all of the files necessary to play it, and rehosted it so you can still play it today, with the official blessing of TLG. Even when all they got from the 90th lineup was Sad Tahu, they embraced that and started expanding the lineup as soon as the set was announced, well before you could actually buy a copy.

The fans who saved the company in the mid-00’s want some sort of recognition, and it’s like the company resents them for the fact that they owe so much to something that’s so far from their core line, and which the reboot proved even they didn’t really understand. They’ve hired a lot of AFOLs from the community, which makes me wonder if the tan prejudice against Bionicle has infected the company."

We know Bionicle won the first round, with no word on the others. It is entirely possible that the votes of everyone who initially voted for something other that the top four overtook that. This victim complex that Bionicle fans seem to have needs to stop.

You constantly talk about how you saved lego. This is true. however, it is not true that many people are interested in Bionicle today. The reboot was a failure, so while I do believe that it still has diehard fans, I do not think they are as relevant as you think.

How do you think the ideas sets were voted in? They were done by Bionicle fans in those different communities, all working together for a common cause that despite their dedication, was not nearly popular enough. Bionicle fans need to accept that Lego's supposed disrespect has nothing to do with Bionicle itself, and everything to do with money.

I think having an opinion on value for money is subjective, but I think it’s necessary for a review. Take the 76944 T-Rex Breakout set as my example. If any consumer goes by price per piece as their deciding factor, it’s about 32 cents/pieces. But having a value for money opinion allows for additional thought beyond that. It’s honestly why I love watching JangBricks reviews - he explains what the actual cost is and will often talk about how he does not like the price and will often suggest $5 to $20 lower to be worthwhile in his opinion. Because of those opinions Jang provides, I have learned to craft my own value on sets far beyond price per piece. My own value comes from looking at unique parts, mini figures, playability, complexity, and even how much I like it compared to the source material. As another example, the new Star Wars 75332 AT-ST has the same price per piece as the before mentioned Jurassic set, but I value the AT-ST set higher than the T-Rex set. But why? I already own a T-Rex from set 75918 so that’s not a draw to the set. But I love scout troopers and I don’t have Ewoks in my collection. Going back to Jang - he will often say things like “if you have this (insert set/mini figure/etc), then maybe pass on this new set.” It’s not Jang’s way of saying don’t buy Lego, but rather his way of suggesting looking at other sets that create better value for you, rather than having too many similar sets/mini figures/etc in your collection. Again, value for money is subjective person to person, but if someone can provide their opinion in a non-forceful way, it can help educate a reader better. Think of a parent that may not be a Lego-AFOL (like my parents) that is trying to decide between multiple sets to buy for a birthday and they decide to look up set reviews to help educate them on what would be the “best” gift. A simple value for money suggestion/opinion may go a long way.

Value for money is totally subjective based on our own preferences. However it might be worth having an objective numerical comparison that others have suggested which is to simply add in a "Price per piece" value as part of the reviews.