Why has 21337 Table Football been scaled down?

I'm fine with the scaled down size, but why are all the players wearing pants and long sleeves? As a soccer/football player myself, this bothers me (like when I see adverts for soccer and the models are wearing baseball cleats, etc). Lego makes legs that are wearing shorts and those really should've been used here. If they had done that, the long sleeves would pass as long sleeve jerseys but this looks like they're playing in warmups.

@brick_mason said:
"I'm fine with the scaled down size, but why are all the players wearing pants and long sleeves? As a soccer/football player myself, this bothers me (like when I see adverts for soccer and the models are wearing baseball cleats, etc). Lego makes legs that are wearing shorts and those really should've been used here. If they had done that, the long sleeves would pass as long sleeve jerseys but this looks like they're playing in warmups."

Probably to simplify the required skin tones.

Not exactly happy with this. The price is still too high for what you get. At this point, I'll be Bricklinking the minifigures (if they aren't ridiculously expensive) but leave this alone.

I mean the design limitations of a Lego foosball table are readily apparent. I was unimpressed with the original submission since it was a digital build and it didn't try to solve any of those problems.

Which kind of raises the question: If you're gonna gimp it so bad why choose it in the first place?

On the other hand a mini foosball table is still a cool novelty item, but adding a ton of Minifigure pieces (and a Minifigure stand) drives the price way up and out of novelty territory.

Just baffling decisions all around. Feels almost like they realized they had to make it smaller, but still pricey due to the pieces needed to make it work right, then decided to add the whole football angle to try and draw in football fans as well or something.

Small lego paperweight that costs as much as an actual, 2nd hand foosball table. Still, not as funny as that typing machine set, which was more expensive than real ones.

Can't help feeling that LEGO is heading towards brink of bankrupcy for the third time with dumb ideas - price hikes, smartphone themes that die after a year, unending stream of expensive adult oriented models and controversial political pandering.

@MainBricker, I couldn't have said it better myself. This set shows a lack of flexibility in price structure during the development. Either that, or the designers were too focussed on retaining stuff from a higher price point that actually helped to keep it at said higher price point.

Either way, this is quite a weird combination of a sports minifigure pack and a novelty item that had to go through major concessions to make it work. Now with more minifigures than there is space to use them.

All the design issues are understandable. Just seems like at some point you would acknowledge this isn't something where we can produce a set that is up to lego standards and at a scale that is appealing.

This looks horrendous and incredibly cheap. For that price, this set needed at least two more rows of players. This is barely even functional! Absolute fail on this one.

"We never just take a submission from the website and put that into production"
So why wouldn't you give the options some sort of viability test before offering them as an option on the vote? I'd have thought Lego experts would have identified the potential for issues quite quickly.

Obviously different from a product designer, but as a visual designer, I can attest that simply having a "comprehensive explanation" for a process in no way justifies the end result. Like others, it feels like the end result here should've been canned long before it got to this point.

I think in the future we will refer to the 2020-2022 era as the era of "Man, Lego will make a $250 set out of anything"

Meanwhile at Lego: "Man, these guys will buy anything"

@dimc said:
" @brick_mason said:
"I'm fine with the scaled down size, but why are all the players wearing pants and long sleeves? As a soccer/football player myself, this bothers me (like when I see adverts for soccer and the models are wearing baseball cleats, etc). Lego makes legs that are wearing shorts and those really should've been used here. If they had done that, the long sleeves would pass as long sleeve jerseys but this looks like they're playing in warmups."

Probably to simplify the required skin tones. "

Ah, I didn't think about that - it would definitely mean a lot of unique prints because they're not all yellow. So now it still bugs me, but at least I understand why. :)

@Morgan19 said:
"Obviously different from a product designer, but as a visual designer, I can attest that simply having a "comprehensive explanation" for a process in no way justifies the end result. Like others, it feels like the end result here should've been canned long before it got to this point."

A thousand times this. Making this decision to proceed anyway is not a bright one at all.

Want a sandwich?

Yes please!

Well, I’ve got a half of a piece of bread, 1/4 of a piece of cheese, hmm, let’s see…OK, everybody loves meat right? How about if I squeeze 22 slices of meat into that?

Um, that’s not exactly a sandwich though.

Eat it, flunkie! That’ll be $250.00.

*chokes*

Anyway you slice it the final product is laughably bad. If TLG couldn’t “figure it out” the product should have been canceled. The issues raised seem like they would have been solved with new molds however.

I guess the market will decide if this was a good or bad final decision. Kudos to the team for trying their best for playability. I question the necessity for racial, gender, hearing, hair and eyewear diversity, but I guess that's a big thing nowadays. I was always absolutely fine with yellow smiley faces, but I guess I'm old-fashioned. Never once did I feel excluded despite my own skin not being yellow and not always smiling.

Not a good sign when you feel the need to immediately defend and justify your own product rather than letting it speak for itself.

@brick_mason said:
"I'm fine with the scaled down size, but why are all the players wearing pants and long sleeves? As a soccer/football player myself, this bothers me (like when I see adverts for soccer and the models are wearing baseball cleats, etc). Lego makes legs that are wearing shorts and those really should've been used here. If they had done that, the long sleeves would pass as long sleeve jerseys but this looks like they're playing in warmups."
Well they are releasing it in winter ;)

People are complaining about Lego Corps, the visuals, and whatnot, but my question is: is it playable? Can the ball even fit between the defenders and goalkeeper? With movement, that'll be a tight fit, if it isn't already exactly the size of the ball...

Too expensive imo.
I wonder what the price point would have been if they had managed to make it 11 a side.

I love when they fire the PR replies right at launch.

I think it means they know some of us are not going to be happy with this.

Anyway, looking at the pictures (not knowing how many mini figures there were) I thought “nice, a cheap Ideas set for once”.

Then I saw the release price :) I would rather fork an extra 150 for the big Castle set.

I absolutely LOVE their transparency here. I hope we get it more often going forward.

I absolutely HATE their final decisions here, leaning on all the things already said above and in the other 7 front page articles on this paperweight. :o)

@NissanZ32 said:
"Small lego paperweight that costs as much as an actual, 2nd hand foosball table. Still, not as funny as that typing machine set, which was more expensive than real ones.

Can't help feeling that LEGO is heading towards brink of bankrupcy for the third time with dumb ideas - price hikes, smartphone themes that die after a year, unending stream of expensive adult oriented models and controversial political pandering."

Having a handful of sets that are disliked by certain fans out of a running portfolio of 500 sets is not in any way going to cause LEGO to go bankrupt.

@DearMisterLegoBreaker said:
"I love when they fire the PR replies right at launch.

I think it means they know some of us are not going to be happy with this.

Anyway, looking at the pictures (not knowing how many mini figures there were) I thought “nice, a cheap Ideas set for once”.

Then I saw the release price :) I would rather fork an extra 150 for the big Castle set. "

Please, complaints with LEGO Ideas sets (or just sets in general) are constant. They never win everyone over in design, consumers just shell out loads of cash for random sets they criticize.

I think most people would be fine with the reduced size, as long as it came with a reduction in price. 10 simple minifigs, just the table at 30%-40% less would have been a winner. Something is not right in the production pipeline if sticking to a price-point is more important than creating a quality set.

I've said this is one of the other threads, but I wonder if they tried, and failed to get the set sponsored in some capacity. The players were supposed to be real people, and they kept trying beyond the point where the set could be scaled back.

It was obvious that, at the original size, it would never have had the strength for the slightest functionality. It might have made a good purely display item.

The final design I put alongside the Piano and Typewriter as models that have a representation of working, but don't actually. I do rather like it, but could definately have done with the pointless extra footballers.

I thought commenters were joking about the $250 price.

At least you can actually play with this. Lego means "play well" not "display will"

They should have had the guts to simply cancel this set.

After all the downsizing, this doesn't look or feel like a football table that you can have fun with at all anymore.

They should have released all the minifigs they were planning to put in this set as a separate "minifig megapack" or as something like the various "fun in/at the..." packs they had a couple of years ago.

As it is, I predict that this will become one of the worst shelf-warmer sets in LEGO history.

@Koend1999 said:
"I am honestly getting a bit tired of all the negativity here. To all those protesting about price, or selection of recent sets, or colorful sets or whatever, we hear you. But maybe it is also time you listen to others. There are arguments enough in favor of what the designers did with this set, and LEGO has always been expensive and colorful. But I guess it is more satisfying to complain for some people.

I am not giving up on the hobby but I guess I will stop reading these forums. And maybe all other people who just do not want the negativity should do this. That way all the complainers (of which, some are even downright impolite) can have their own little complaint area here."
The majority of these comments are both helpful and well thought out. I believe the Poll showed almost no one was interested in buying this set. If we seem more critical than appreciative, that’s a reflection of the product offering, not the membership.

@Koend1999 said:
"I am honestly getting a bit tired of all the negativity here. To all those protesting about price, or selection of recent sets, or colorful sets or whatever, we hear you. But maybe it is also time you listen to others. There are arguments enough in favor of what the designers did with this set, and LEGO has always been expensive and colorful. But I guess it is more satisfying to complain for some people.

I am not giving up on the hobby but I guess I will stop reading these forums. And maybe all other people who just do not want the negativity should do this. That way all the complainers (of which, some are even downright impolite) can have their own little complaint area here."

This is a comment section not a Lego Group fluff forum. To my mind, none of the negativity in any of the threads has been disrespectful or offensive. Whether you agree with it or not the criticisms are valid.

@Koend1999 : when it comes to this particular set, I think you will find that the overwhelming majority of comments is negative. And for lots of different reasons, not just the ones you name.

It's not like the "unicorn vomit" colour issue, or the dissatisfaction with pricing. Those issues are partly subjective of course.
But this set is such a colossal failure on almost every front that cancelation would have been the best option. I mean, they even openly admit that they seriously thought about it.

You can practically hear the comments of that one person in the boardroom who can’t figure out where to place their passion for “monster-of-the-week” social causes. They saw an opportunity in a completely unrelated area, and no one else had the spine to point out the emperor’s indecency, so the world gets a piece of political propaganda in toy form.

Is it just me, or does it seem that more and more new big set releases, covered on Lego news sites, are immediately followed up by several articles in defense of certain elements of that set that people dislike?

Not to shoot the messengers, of course, the Brickset staff and many others do fantastic work and I am quite grateful for these sites and their staff. I do think it is an interesting sign, if you will, of a disgruntled fandom when a set release article coincides with another article to explain why Element X is the way it is. In the case of this table, we have two articles - this one about the scale, and the other one about the minifigures. At least, I've now noticed that when I log into Brickset for the day, I often see the defense articles before I even see the main set everyone's complaining about!

I'm a simple man - if the main release article doesn't convince me to buy a set, I don't think I'll buy it based on a couple of defense analyses. Knowing why the table was scaled down or why the minifigures are focused on ethnic demographics will not make me reconsider buying a really expensive, super tiny, questionably functional foosball table.

To reiterate @kelano28 's excellent point, "not a good sign when you feel the need to immediately defend and justify your own product rather than letting it speak for itself."

@Koend1999 said:
"I miss people actually discussing how a set is built, or giving constructive criticism to set. But I honestly have zero interest in people’s complaints and the same old price discussion or discussion about minifig colours. "

There is plenty of discussion about why the price is an issue to the majority and part of that discussion is in regards to how it is built. You're free to disagree but if it bothers you so much you know how to fix that.

@Koend1999 said:
"I see no need to use words like Unicorn Vomit in such discussions. And neither should you."
I did not invent that term. It's all over internet whenever the "overly colourful interior in modern LEGO sets" is discussed. I just happen to agree with the notion and find the term very fitting, hence why I use it too.

As for the general negativity, I guess it's down to what people expected versus what they are getting. Sometimes a few people are dissatisfied for one reason or another. This set offers so many reasons to be dissatisfied that even with the explanations by the designers it still can't be denied that it is a colossal fail that simply should have been canceled.

Lego management: "We need the set to cost $250!"
Lego Designer: "But we need to make the set smaller to make it structurally sound."
Lego management: "I refer you to my previous comment."

Keep in mind that this is the company that productised half a pyramid.

I 100% agree with their reasoning for the scale down of the set, but I 100% disagree with them not cancelling it once they figured out scaling down is a must.

It wouldn't've been the first set to get cancelled, I think "Snow White" ideas set was cancelled not so long ago.

At this state, if not cancelled, this should've been a $129 set.

I hate to bandwagon but ... I'm gonna bandwagon for a bit here. I'm sorry if you're not a fan of the negative comments, @Koend1999, but this is the internet. They are everywhere. People will share their opinions as they feel so inclined and no one is expected to appreciate them all. If their comments make you upset, that's a good cue to go focus on something else.

Frankly, I think the negative comments are an important indicator of the "health" of the Lego fanbase. I have been on Brickset for over 12 years now, and I have never seen such growing frustration towards current Lego releases than I have this year. Of course, everyone's immediate instinct is to blame the "whiners" or the "white knights," but I don't think simply complaining about "negativity" or "impolite terms" is going to get to the root of the issue.

The root of the issue is that Lego is producing sets that people do not want, charging insane amounts for them, and expecting those people to buy them anyways. This set is the latest in the series of those sets. No doubt, people are frustrated, and no doubt, there are issues. At this rate, there is no benefit in crying for the negativity to stop. The only logical path forward is to figure out WHY the negativity exists, and how to discern sound points from the ridiculous ones.

Welcome to the internet, where the things that are, they be the way they is.

I get why they resized it, but just like most people here I think they gone way too far.

But I can't help but wondering: does Lego need to stick to their plastic? Other brands have already made long axles from CFRP or even metal. There's a limit how far you can go with regular plastic, and looking at quite a few Technic sets of the last few years, I feel they are very much reaching the limits (and not just with the axles). And while designing this set apparently went over those limits. Instead of fixing the problem, they choose to avoid it altogether. Resulting in this joke of a set....

@CCC said:
"It looks like one of those "executive toy" snooker tables that get bought for Xmas presents and quickly end up in charity shops."

That's exactly what I see when I look at this set. It might have been designed to be "playable" ... but how many people will actually play with it?

@swbrickster72 said:
" @Phoenixio said:
"People are complaining about Lego Corps, the visuals, and whatnot, but my question is: is it playable? Can the ball even fit between the defenders and goalkeeper? With movement, that'll be a tight fit, if it isn't already exactly the size of the ball..."

We'll likely find out shortly when they review it....and that's what I'm waiting for."

I feel certain that there will be much gushing praise sent forth by the people reviewing their free set... (/sarcasm)

@Nytmare said:
" @NissanZ32 said:
"Small lego paperweight that costs as much as an actual, 2nd hand foosball table. Still, not as funny as that typing machine set, which was more expensive than real ones.

Can't help feeling that LEGO is heading towards brink of bankrupcy for the third time with dumb ideas - price hikes, smartphone themes that die after a year, unending stream of expensive adult oriented models and controversial political pandering."

Having a handful of sets that are disliked by certain fans out of a running portfolio of 500 sets is not in any way going to cause LEGO to go bankrupt."

Maybe you're right, after all they can just offload failure of themes/sets by hiking up the price of everything else, which they might just be doing now. We've had quite a lot not-so-successful sets in past two years, some bombed quite hard like that queer eye apartment or vidya theme. Licensing, design, software development, logistics, this all costs a lot of money and I doubt LEGO will say "okay, vidyo bombed hard and it's barely selling at 60% discount, we'll just swallow it and make less profits this year".

@brickwich said:
"OK, it's small, it's expensive, yeah yeah...but hear me out. That Poe Dameron-faced goalie gives me so many ideas for switching out the minifigures"

You're gonna... put BB-8 in goal...?

I still find it flabbergasting that a submission like this was accepted without any kind of physical build.

I could’ve told them just by looking at the rendering that it would snap axles, and I’m not much of a Technic guy. But I have built with Technic and put strain on the parts. And yeah, there’s only so much load they can bear before bending or snapping completely.

But I thought that changed recently, right? They required a physical build on the Ideas submission page? Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part! Ha!

@Koend1999 said:
"Also, if you start complaining about price, please come with some arguments. Yes, LEGO has released many expensive sets, but these sets also have high piece count. Average ppp ratio of most large sets still hovers around 10 ct pp. That has always been seen as reasonably fair. Look at the MSRP of old LEGO sets and adjust for inflation. I think you will be surprised for example that the Airport Shuttle would cost about 320 USD today adjusted for inflation, and that did not even have 1000 pieces. This example kinda puts things into perspective, and shows that most people are just complaining about prices because of the price of recent large sets, without actually considering the naked facts. LEGO has always been expensive, and is in fact in many cases, relatively speaking, cheaper than it was 20-30 years ago."

well, the Airport Shuttle doesn't had useless extra parts (because you can use only 10 minifigs at the same time!) and it had electrical and third parts elements...

Anyway, old Lego sets had less bricks, so even though the ppc was higher, it still cost less than today's sets with billions of pieces

Next Challenge on LEGO Ideas: design a 40-stud-wide beam that will barely bend.

£215 for that? Joking arn't they?

@elangab said:
"I 100% agree with their reasoning for the scale down of the set, but I 100% disagree with them not cancelling it once they figured out scaling down is a must.

It wouldn't've been the first set to get cancelled, I think "Snow White" ideas set was cancelled not so long ago.

At this state, if not cancelled, this should've been a $129 set."

I am still vividly remembering set 42113.

Reductio ad absurdum?

@Koend1999 said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Koend1999 : when it comes to this particular set, I think you will find that the overwhelming majority of comments is negative.

It's not like the "unicorn vomit" colour issue, or the dissatisfaction with pricing. Those issues are partly subjective of course.
But this set is such a colossal failure on almost every front that cancelation would have been the best option. I mean, they even openly admit that they seriously thought about it. "
Well, even that is a personal choice. I have no interest in the set, but why people have to be so vocal about a set they do not like is beyond me.

LEGO has made a decision here, and they have explained it very well. But people do not seem to even take that into consideration.

The only thing I can agree with is: I think LEGO should have cancelled it, when finding out it was just too difficult. But again, that is my opinion and stating that in a polite matter is sufficient for me. I see no need to use words like Unicorn Vomit in such discussions. And neither should you.

Also, to all the price complainers, I would really urge you to look at the MSRP of old LEGO sets and adjust for inflation. Only then we can have a discussion of whether LEGO has become way too expensive or if it was just always expensive.

"

I don't think the price per piece in this set is particularly bad, it's moreso the overall value. An extra twelve Minifigures, and every Minifigure being printed and with not a lot of prints, is wholly unneeded in this kind of set. To cap it off those Minifigures come with additional hair pieces and a stand to display the Minifigures. It's not unreasonable to think they could have shaved $50 off the set by sticking to just the game of foosball. So the core issue isn't so much price-per-piece as it is they unnecessarily drove up costs in a set that was already expensive for what it is (a gimped foosball table).

I'm not against the idea behind having all the football players either. It's a cool idea. It just should have been done outside of the set so this set could focus on what it is. "Make your own football team" with diverse Minifigure options would have been a well recieved set in the $50 range, and this set would have been better recieved coming in at $200 IMO. Promoting diversity in Minifigures but locking them behind an expensive premium set is kind of a poor move anyways.

@Koend1999 said:
"I know this is the internet. No need to explain what it does, nor to be arrogant about it.

The issue I have with comments like yours or the German British Spy (you know who you are) is that just because you do not like some of the large sets that LEGO has been putting out recently and because of the negativity here and on other media mainly targeting AFOLS, you assume that the vast majority of people interested in LEGO do not like these sets. Now, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you are not the target audience of these sets? That maybe other people who are not in your age group or social group or who have just different tastes and ideas might actually think this is cool? I read and watch a lot of LEGO media, and I can tell you that on some Youtube channels, that prob 90% of the Brickset audience do not even bother to watch, the reception of this set has been quite positive.

I still think that the set is a bit of a compromise, and maybe LEGO should have cancelled and focused on something else. But, reading the enthusiasm of some younger people and football fans, I actually am happy that LEGO produced this. I mean, if LEGO would only appeal to the older AFOLs, I think they would have been bankrupt a long time ago, and we would only be discussing here with slight nostalgia to the past of LEGO. After all, if it were up to many AFOLs, Bionicle would have never existed. And it is widely understood that Bionicle was one of the reasons LEGO actually did not go bankrupt when it was in massive financial trouble at that time.

Also, if you start complaining about price, please come with some arguments. Yes, LEGO has released many expensive sets, but these sets also have high piece count. Average ppp ratio of most large sets still hovers around 10 ct pp. That has always been seen as reasonably fair. Look at the MSRP of old LEGO sets and adjust for inflation. I think you will be surprised for example that the Airport Shuttle would cost about 320 USD today adjusted for inflation, and that did not even have 1000 pieces. This example kinda puts things into perspective, and shows that most people are just complaining about prices because of the price of recent large sets, without actually considering the naked facts. LEGO has always been expensive, and is in fact in many cases, relatively speaking, cheaper than it was 20-30 years ago."

No offense, but this is all over the place. I don’t see where anyone here is intending to speak for any and all types of fans. And you can’t expect folks to provide any opinions other than their own, whether they’re representative of a larger group or not. I don’t watch any of those YouTube fans either. Does that make my opinion any less valuable?

I’m glad if any set finds an audience though it would surprise me if this underbuilt set at this overbuilt cost point would find a large demographic.

And are we now splitting the AFOL taxonomy into Younger and Older members? And if so, where do you draw the line? And why would “older” AFOLs have bankrupt the company? And how can you complain about our negativity while wielding that same ubiquitous and unsupported wide seeeping hammer yourself? Just because I don’t collect Friends and didn’t Bionicle doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate their role in the success of LEGO. As we get older, our interests evolve. I don’t even want to know how much I’ve spent on DUPLO.

We’ve talked this through a lot these past few months but cost vs perceived value is a big thing these days. PPP is an okay measure but the preponderance of greebling and small parts can distort. There appears to be significant concern with the reducing number of smaller / less expensive sets across all themes, including Ideas.

In my opinion, posting opinions about the positive aspects of a set is generally more effective than simply proselytizing against perceived negativity.

@Koend1999 said:
" @GBP_Chris said:
"I hate to bandwagon but ... I'm gonna bandwagon for a bit here. I'm sorry if you're not a fan of the negative comments, @Koend1999 , but this is the internet. They are everywhere. People will share their opinions as they feel so inclined and no one is expected to appreciate them all. If their comments make you upset, that's a good cue to go focus on something else.

Frankly, I think the negative comments are an important indicator of the "health" of the Lego fanbase. I have been on Brickset for over 12 years now, and I have never seen such growing frustration towards current Lego releases than I have this year. Of course, everyone's immediate instinct is to blame the "whiners" or the "white knights," but I don't think simply complaining about "negativity" or "impolite terms" is going to get to the root of the issue.

The root of the issue is that Lego is producing sets that people do not want, charging insane amounts for them, and expecting those people to buy them anyways. This set is the latest in the series of those sets. No doubt, people are frustrated, and no doubt, there are issues. At this rate, there is no benefit in crying for the negativity to stop. The only logical path forward is to figure out WHY the negativity exists, and how to discern sound points from the ridiculous ones.

Welcome to the internet, where the things that are, they be the way they is."
I know this is the internet. No need to explain what it does, nor to be arrogant about it.

The issue I have with comments like yours or the German British Spy (you know who you are) is that just because you do not like some of the large sets that LEGO has been putting out recently and because of the negativity here and on other media mainly targeting AFOLS, you assume that the vast majority of people interested in LEGO do not like these sets. Now, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you are not the target audience of these sets? That maybe other people who are not in your age group or social group or who have just different tastes and ideas might actually think this is cool? I read and watch a lot of LEGO media, and I can tell you that on some Youtube channels, that prob 90% of the Brickset audience do not even bother to watch, the reception of this set has been quite positive.

I still think that the set is a bit of a compromise, and maybe LEGO should have cancelled and focused on something else. But, reading the enthusiasm of some younger people and football fans, I actually am happy that LEGO produced this. I mean, if LEGO would only appeal to the older AFOLs, I think they would have been bankrupt a long time ago, and we would only be discussing here with slight nostalgia to the past of LEGO. After all, if it were up to many AFOLs, Bionicle would have never existed. And it is widely understood that Bionicle was one of the reasons LEGO actually did not go bankrupt when it was in massive financial trouble at that time.

Also, if you start complaining about price, please come with some arguments. Yes, LEGO has released many expensive sets, but these sets also have high piece count. Average ppp ratio of most large sets still hovers around 10 ct pp. That has always been seen as reasonably fair. Look at the MSRP of old LEGO sets and adjust for inflation. I think you will be surprised for example that the Airport Shuttle would cost about 320 USD today adjusted for inflation, and that did not even have 1000 pieces. This example kinda puts things into perspective, and shows that most people are just complaining about prices because of the price of recent large sets, without actually considering the naked facts. LEGO has always been expensive, and is in fact in many cases, relatively speaking, cheaper than it was 20-30 years ago."

Dude! Stop stating facts that can be backed up with evidence! That's not how it works here! XD

So, around 40 individuals in this comments section don't like the set (or pretty much any set it seems!). Lucky that Set Details is already showing that '447 members want this set'. Hold off filing for bankruptcy just yet Lego.

@sjr60 said:
"So, around 40 individuals in this comments section don't like the set (or pretty much any set it seems!). Lucky that Set Details is already showing that '447 members want this set'. Hold off filing for bankruptcy just yet Lego."

Hyperbole aside, 7.5% of 1400 respondents saying they plan to buy this set is exceptionally low.

@CDM said:
" @sjr60 said:
"So, around 40 individuals in this comments section don't like the set (or pretty much any set it seems!). Lucky that Set Details is already showing that '447 members want this set'. Hold off filing for bankruptcy just yet Lego."

Hyperbole aside, 7.5% of 1400 respondents saying they plan to buy this set is exceptionally low."

Using only the Brickset numbers (i.e. Brickset members) there are 4482 persons owning set 75201 - based on this, I would not be too worried about the fate of the foosball table. Some people will buy it just to be able to say: "this is one of the most hated/controversial Lego set ever". There is a market for everything it seems... To each his/her own.

I can appreciate the compromises and rationalizing to downsize but to me Im not sure what the purpose of this set is any more. It doesn't look particularly great in terms of playability and looks awkward and disproportionate as a display piece - in fact if I was to see that on a shelf I wouldn't immediately identify it as a table football. And the price as many have stated seems steep. Anyway it is what it is.

Someone should have had the courage to pull the plug on this.

Another wasted Ideas slot.

At least if this set fails it can be written off as due to the toxic haters against diversity and ignore the fact no one wants to pay US$250 for a mini-Foosball table...

@pazza_inter said:
" @Koend1999 said:
"Also, if you start complaining about price, please come with some arguments. Yes, LEGO has released many expensive sets, but these sets also have high piece count. Average ppp ratio of most large sets still hovers around 10 ct pp. That has always been seen as reasonably fair. Look at the MSRP of old LEGO sets and adjust for inflation. I think you will be surprised for example that the Airport Shuttle would cost about 320 USD today adjusted for inflation, and that did not even have 1000 pieces. This example kinda puts things into perspective, and shows that most people are just complaining about prices because of the price of recent large sets, without actually considering the naked facts. LEGO has always been expensive, and is in fact in many cases, relatively speaking, cheaper than it was 20-30 years ago."

well, the Airport Shuttle doesn't had useless extra parts (because you can use only 10 minifigs at the same time!) and it had electrical and third parts elements...

Anyway, old Lego sets had less bricks, so even though the ppc was higher, it still cost less than today's sets with billions of pieces"

If 6399 were to release today it would be *at least* $350, with less tracks, no baseplates and most likely just one station with another one as a stand alone set that includes a bus.

@sjr60 said:
"So, around 40 individuals in this comments section don't like the set (or pretty much any set it seems!). Lucky that Set Details is already showing that '447 members want this set'. Hold off filing for bankruptcy just yet Lego.
"

You can set sets as wanted before the actual set release, it's not a good metric to go by as it doesn't automatically get removed off your wanted list if you give a negative vote to it.

In regards to the negativity, i don't think it's fair to paint it as just toxic brickset users complaining about anything that comes out nowadays, LEGO is straining it's production pipeline with an ever increasing amount of products added to it's portofolio - quality control is weaker, the jacked up premium that LEGO requests no longer seems fair; adult sets feel less and less affordable as every other kit is priced at hundreds of euros.
It's harder and harder to gloss over LEGO's shortcomings when they keep missing the mark, while alienating and trying to price out of the hobby their die-hard adult fanbase. The price increases and occasional terrible set that should not have seen production are easy targets to take your frustrations at.

I thought maybe a £90 set… I just saw the price… WTF…. I see it has a lot of parts but still…. WTF

@MainBricker said:
"Lego "We scaled down the size of the set, but not the price"."
Yep

I didn't recognize the set as a foosball table immediately from the tiny picture. It's because the proportions are not right. The green field is way too small in comparison to the thick walls around. As a consequence, it looks like a chibi, not a brilliant display piece. At the same time it does not give me the feeling of assurance it will play well. In one aspect it will certainly not play like a real foosball table. With a real one, each player is forced to get her hands on different handles very fast. With this chibi one, there are only two handles for each player, so no need to swap hands.

After reading the reasoning behind scaling down and the logic behind the skin tones, I still don't understand why the _scaled down_ set has to have 22 players. Why are 10 players with 20 heads and 19 wigs not enough to offer diversity? I thought this years Friends line was excellent for it's diversity, but no set contains more than eight minidolls and none wears pyjamas to hide non-matching leg colors.

A thing that surprises me is the process of selection and development. Apparantly, only the design manager constructed a real, physical model before making the decision to make a set out of the idea, apparantly he's in a different department than product development, and apparantly this testing procedure is not enough to find problems early on in a set that clearly depends a lot on moving parts. "Fail fast" is the adagium in software development. Maybe someone from product development should be involved in the decision making.

@bdc101 said:
"I think in the future we will refer to the 2020-2022 era as the era of "Man, Lego will make a $250 set out of anything"

Meanwhile at Lego: "Man, these guys will buy anything" "

What makes you think this era is ending this year?
I could see this continuing indefinitely!….

@Huw It might be interesting to write a data-driven article on the number of large sets released as a function of time. Inflation-adjusted, or perhaps even better, adjusted based on median income.

My suspicion is that we would see a huge number of large sets from 201x to now, a fact that might alienate collectors, since a collection of all desired sets might be out of financial reach.

Being a corporate cog, I can see the trend TLG is undertaking in diversifying and expanding their portfolio. Any growing corporation does that, although most corporations do not cater to collectors (though hard-core collectors are likely just a tiny fraction of the user base).

Really liking these various articles explaining the design choices and how Lego went about it! Thanks Brickset!
I understand Lego scaling it down although currently it looks way too small and very squashed.
Given how intense and rough the game gets personally I wouldn't have chosen any foosball project in the first place. (No offence to the fan designer or Lego designers, they have both done a great job trying to make this very difficult subject matter)

@morvit said:
"For those complaining about the price, this set will be hugely profitable for Lego. The shareholders will be very happy. AFOL will still gobble up the sets. That already makes the ridiculous high price justifiable."

Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product.

I think, in regards to all the comments on the articles related to this set, it is important to remember that the folks here at Brickset represent only a VERY NARROW slice of the Lego fan community. That's not an insult to Brickset members - you're fans as much as any other fan - but I think it's critical to remember that the views of people here do not necessarily represent the views of the vast majority of Lego customers.

The Lego customers I interact with in real life on a daily basis often have completely different views from those shared in these forums. That's almost certainly because this is not a statistically accurate representation of the community, but rather a self selecting segment of fans who have relatively similar views and similar passion for Lego.

So, while I think everyone here has a right to express their views on pricing, scale, minifig diversity, etc, without being subject to ad hominem attacks, it's also worth being humble and understanding that we are just a piece of the Lego community, and there are many other fans out there who have never been to this website who have totally different thoughts about what makes a good, desirable Lego set.

@NissanZ32 said:
"Small lego paperweight that costs as much as an actual, 2nd hand foosball table. Still, not as funny as that typing machine set, which was more expensive than real ones.

Can't help feeling that LEGO is heading towards brink of bankrupcy for the third time with dumb ideas - price hikes, smartphone themes that die after a year, unending stream of expensive adult oriented models and controversial political pandering."

Comparisons to what an actual item costs versus what a Lego set that replicates said item costs are baffling. Sure, you can get a cheap old typewriter for a couple of bucks...but is it a Lego set that you can build and appreciate as a Lego set? This point almost seems to obvious to make and I almost feel that there is something broken in the brains of people who make this type of comparison. The strange thing is that I didn't see anyone making these comatose price comparisons for any of the Lego plants (ie: "derp! you can buy a vase with some flowers in it for 5 bucks so why pay $60 for the Lego recreation? derp!")

I think this is awesome! I completely sympathize with the challenges of designing this set, and with the decisions that were made to do so... this is a genuinely challenging mechanical problem (speaking as a mechanical engineer), and it's super cool that they were able to solve it!

I get that people are disappointed, but the level of negativity here makes me sad :/

@hawkeye7269 said:
"The Lego customers I interact with in real life on a daily basis often have completely different views from those shared in these forums."
Same here. But if one is honest, the LEGO customers one meets in toy stores on a daily basis are not the ones regularly buying 250 Euro sets anyway.

Anecdotal evidence of course, but from my experience, 100 Euro appears to be a magic threshold for most LEGO shopping parents or relatives, where the decision to buy or not to buy becomes quite easy. Especially since most of the time, Playmobil is found right next to LEGO in the aisles, and for the sheer volume of stuff per price (and durability for heavy use), most parents prefer those products, unless the heart of the kid is absolutely set on a certain LEGO item.

While we here or on other forums discuss building techniques, stickers versus prints, or fuss about some other nits, parents/relatives' main aim is to make their kids happy. And if they have a choice, like getting them a 180 Euro static LEGO DeLorean that is too fiddly to be properly played with, or a 40 Euro one from Playmobil with light and sound which can be swooshed around and take abuse from heavy play, the decision becomes a no-brainer. I see similar discussions in toy stores all the time, as well as the inevitable outcome.

From what I see on a daily basis over here, value for money or not, the sets that sell in numbers are sub 100 Euro sets. City, Friends, Harry Potter, Star Wars. In that order. When a 200 Euro plus set is sold, the customer typically fits the description of an AFOL - and when that person then drives away from the car park, it's usually in a vehicle of a class above what your average customer drives.
Let's not kid ourselves, high end sets don't sell to your average customer.

@R1_Drift said:
"
Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product."

Blimey, you've neatly summed up the tragedy of our consumerist society.

Let's not get new phones every year, let's repair our clothes, and let's MOC more!

@1265 said:
" @Vindicare said:
"I was bothered by the size....until I searched pictures of foosball tables. I saw this exact layout, pitch & team size. It’s a tabletop version. It’s not so bad now. "

I sure hope this was your attempt at sarcasm."

Huh? Where are you reading sarcasm? I’ve only ever seen full sized tabes on legs, and I played plenty of foosball in my teens. And I’ve read a lot of complaints at the size of it...then I stumbled upon a tabletop version, which I didn’t know even existed. So I decided to let others know.

@Koend1999 said:
" @ambr said:
"If the plastic axles bend why not just create some 'new' long metal '+' axles. These would also be great in Mindstorm projects, off-road RC cars etc, where there are lots of stresses on the plastic axles."

Because LEGO does not use any metal in its toys, and would have to source this externally. I can understand why this is not an option they would consider."

Linear and pneumatic actuators use metal shafts.

@Koend1999 said:
"Can we please not let emotions get in the way when having a discussion? What you did here is pure speculation, and not in any way or form backed up by facts.

Fact 1: Currently, for about 320 USD you can buy two full train sets (passenger and cargo train) with remote, lights, plenty of track, some nice side builds and about 2500 pieces in total. I would argue that in terms of actual stuff you get, that is probably more than with the Airport Shuttle.

Fact 2: The new Galaxy Explorer costs 100 USD and has 1200 pieces. The old one (497) cost 32 USD MSRP in 1979, with a baseplate, but a much smaller aircraft made up of way fewer pieces. 32 USD now is approx 130 USD. I would like to ask you if you seriously think the old one was better value (and please do not let nostalgia be a base of your arguments).

Fact 3: In 2007 the MSRP of the Cafe Corner, with about 2000 pieces, was 140 USD. That is about 200 USD in today's money. The new Boutique Hotel is 230 USD for 3000 pieces. I admit that I prefer the looks of Cafe Corner, but that was less detailed, had no prints, and no interior to speak of. So again which one is better value? Or would you agree that in monetary value it is about the same?

Fact 4: In 1989 the MSRP of the Black Seas Barracuda was 110 USD. That is 260 USD now (I was actually surprised that it was that expensive). A few years ago LEGO sold the Barracuda Bay set, which had waaaaay more pieces, and could be converted to a more detailed version of the original ship. That one had an MSRP of 200 USD. Again, which one would you consider better value?"

I'm not letting "emotions" gets in the way. I'm not sure 6399 would exist today as it were. You don't know it either.

Fact 1: Yes, two train sets will get you more stuff than one monorail set. One Table football set will get you less of both options.

Fact 2: Not a "fact", but the new Galaxy Explorer is one of the best sets TLG released in the last 5 years, and the price was a shocker for me. It's a cheap set for what you get and the love they put in it. I find both old and new to be of equal value but in different ways. The playability of each of these answers different play styles. I'm sure a kid will enjoy the modern take.

Fact 3: I find the morular building to be the same value as they were, with the line starting to get a bit over priced.

Fact 4: I cannot answer that, sorry. Unlike the Space Explorer, I find the old ship to be a better set than the new one.

There are few things you look at, which I think are wrong.

Piece count. More is not always better, and one can use 1 1X8 or 2 1X4 and double the piece count. Modular have more details for sure, but 99.9% of the time they are displayed in a way you can't even see the details. I try to value the set as a whole, not as the pieces it is made of.

Cost/Inflation. It's a bit more complex than just showing how much the cost is in today's market. You need to look at the whole economy cycle and how much did people had to work in order to buy a set. It also varies from country to country.

Emotions. Lego has zero worth outside of the bubble. It is made from one of the cheapest materials on the planet. The only real value is what we think about the product. It's not silver nor gold. It's not food or water. When I look at a set I try to figure out its worth for me, and lately most of the sets are not worth it. I don't think that the trend of making sets 5 meters tall with 10K bricks is that good.

Look, by the end of the day here we are, 32 years from the release of "Airport Shuttle", and still talking about it. I find it VERY hard to believe people will talk about this table football set in 2054. There are some great modern sets, but I find that many new ones are lacking soul. It's a product, not a set. I'm aware that it was a productt back then as well, and I'm aware these are not "fact", but this is how I see things.

Disclaimer:
My comment represents no one but myself.
I see Brickset as one of the most popular Lego fan sites in the world. If the general comments look overtly negative, minus 25% for internet bandwagon hate and check the remainder.
Here is my questioning yet current negative view:

Table football often loses the ball so your finger may ‘throw in’ to your players to continue.

A child’s world is naturally full of diversity, inherent as diversity is to all of nature. They need escapism where they can shape their ‘mini world’. We all look different- yep well spotted and kids know but who are Lego seeking to please or inform? Did they want to educate on other diversity as well? What about rich and poor? Those that can afford and those that can’t?
Because when they release a statement such as
“ We always hope to give you even more than you voted for.” that can come across as hubris.

I mean TLG design and sell what you want at the price you want. However do you think more priveleged customers owning multi skin-coloured plastic bricks makes us all more worthy and responsible human beings?
I feel like TLG have lost sight of their past ethos of child development, imagination and play.

With my kids in mind it’s unfortunate that beyond affording to buy less of Lego’s product in recent years, I also like less of their product and worst of all think a lot less of them as a company. Only self righteous, privileged adults would force any social message in to children’s toys at the sacrifice of said children affording to actually play with them. So I hope that is not what is happening.

I’m not correct in any regard, I just feel increasingly disappointed for children in general. This is just my impression from available information, I hope I’m totally wrong.

@Koend1999 said:
" @ambr said:
"If the plastic axles bend why not just create some 'new' long metal '+' axles. These would also be great in Mindstorm projects, off-road RC cars etc, where there are lots of stresses on the plastic axles."

Because LEGO does not use any metal in its toys, and would have to source this externally. I can understand why this is not an option they would consider."

TLG has actually used quite a bit of metal:

1) all electric motors use magnetic steel to guide magnetic flux. Plus the motor enclosure is metal.
2) Until recently, train axles were metal. The new models do not use wheelset axles anymore, but plastic wheels with individual axles. The friction is about 10% up compared to the metal solution, so the secondary markets for metal axles have gone crazy.
3) Technic linear pistons have metal cylinders.

A while back, in the forums, on the Unpopular Opinions thread, I posted about how I have zero respect for digital builds. None. If you're gonna build it, build it for real. And before you ask "what have YOU built", I have an 8' x 11' city in my basement, so I'm well familiar with the challenges of having to build physical sets while acquiring tons of pieces, and not be able to have impossible connections, use parts that are in colors that don't exist, or any of the other "advantages" that building digitally purportedly has.

This set is a perfect example of why I feel that way. They go to make it, realize the digital submission has all the flaws allowed by a digital build, then realize they can't make it that big because the System simply can't physically do it, then have to scale it down into this mockery that everyone is bemoaning it has become.

Ideas submissions should need to be built in the flesh. Not digitally. For this EXACT reason.

I'm surprised more of these comments aren't along this line of thought.

"we definitely reached a point where the model was not where we wanted it to be."

This is the point where you should have CANCELLED the project and made a YouTube video to share on all your social media channels explaining WHY and SHOWING the fans the reasons why.

But no. You decided to simply ignore that, butcher the design people voted for completely and use the opportunity to push another set more concerned with pushing woke propaganda than with being a good set. And you thought you could charge a premium for it, even though it has been proven time and again that SJWs don't put their money where their mouths are.

I can't wait to see this thing flop hard.
I just hope, this time, LEGO learns its lesson. Although I doubt it.

@dimc said:
" @brick_mason said:
"I'm fine with the scaled down size, but why are all the players wearing pants and long sleeves? As a soccer/football player myself, this bothers me (like when I see adverts for soccer and the models are wearing baseball cleats, etc). Lego makes legs that are wearing shorts and those really should've been used here. If they had done that, the long sleeves would pass as long sleeve jerseys but this looks like they're playing in warmups."

Probably to simplify the required skin tones. "

If they really wanted to simplify the required skin-tones they'd of packaged the set with yellow figs, and not fleshies.
(not to mention this seasons attempt at getting diversity points)

@ArmoredBricks said:
" @MrJackson said:
"A while back, in the forums, on the Unpopular Opinions thread, I posted about how I have zero respect for digital builds. None. If you're gonna build it, build it for real. And before you ask "what have YOU built", I have an 8' x 11' city in my basement, so I'm well familiar with the challenges of having to build physical sets while acquiring tons of pieces, and not be able to have impossible connections, use parts that are in colors that don't exist, or any of the other "advantages" that building digitally purportedly has.

This set is a perfect example of why I feel that way. They go to make it, realize the digital submission has all the flaws allowed by a digital build, then realize they can't make it that big because the System simply can't physically do it, then have to scale it down into this mockery that everyone is bemoaning it has become.

Ideas submissions should need to be built in the flesh. Not digitally. For this EXACT reason.

I'm surprised more of these comments aren't along this line of thought. "

"Only rich people should be allowed to have Lego has a hobby. If you can't afford to fill your basement with a humongous Lego city, then you don't deserve to have Legos at all.""

you can make silly quotes all you want, not a single thing Mr Jackson said was false.

@ArmoredBricks said:
""Only rich people should be allowed to have Lego has a hobby. If you can't afford to fill your basement with a humongous Lego city, then you don't deserve to have Legos at all.""
That's quite the ironic reply in a discussion about a pretty expensive toy....

@djcbs said:
"(...)
"woke propaganda"
"SJWs"(...)"

You made some good points, then had to ruin it all.

Time and again, I've found that people who complain about "woke" this & "SJW" that do so from positions of privilege and have rarely, if ever, had to face discrimination.

i don't normally post comments here... but being a table soccer fanatic... seeing this end product, i had to say something...

despite all the hardwork involved... quite frankly i am disappointed in the final product... visually it is nowhere near a table soccer... of cos i am not expecting the full fledge size... but at least something bigger... the mini table soccer i got from ToyRus is bigger than this...

if you look at the original and the end product, the differences is just too great for people not to post comments... and lastly, the football is pure white... at least LEGO could provide some patterns on it...

It would have been hilarious if they had used the 1975 minifigure for this, they look exactly like foosball players.

@Koend1999 said:
" @CCC said:
" @Koend1999 said:
" @elangab said:
" @pazza_inter said:
"
Anyway, old Lego sets had less bricks, so even though the ppc was higher, it still cost less than today's sets with billions of pieces"

If 6399 were to release today it would be *at least* $350, with less tracks, no baseplates and most likely just one station with another one as a stand alone set that includes a bus."

Can we please not let emotions get in the way when having a discussion? What you did here is pure speculation, and not in any way or form backed up by facts.
But please do not distort adult discussions with emotional arguments when someone presents facts."

You have chosen facts that support your argument, they could equally well choose facts that support theirs. For example, compare the average price of a set in 1992 adjusted for inflation to the average of 2022.

Note that their argument is not that LEGO was cheaper per part in the past compared to now, but that set prices now are significantly higher because they contain more parts. That is, LEGO tends to stuff loads of parts into each set to justify high prices."

Well, I would love to see such an analysis being done. My analysis of about 30-ish sets from LEGO's portfolio tells me that most people complaining that LEGO has become expensive and that it did not use to be that expensive will be quite surprised.
Of course the same people will probably still say that the older sets have more value because they have more soul or more whatever. "

A quick scan of the Brickset database from 1992 shows approximately 33 sets that cost $20 or less (in 1992 US dollars). The database from 2022 shows more than 150 sets that cost $20 or less (in 2022 dollars). In other words, there are about 5X as many "affordable" sets available today than there were 30 years ago.

Moomins died for this.

I just realized what is "really" bothering me - using fleshy heads to represent "real" people on a foosball table implies that they are actually "real" people, which in turn makes me wonder about how they are suspended above the pitch, and then I start thinking about horror movies that grossly incorporate meat hooks, and then I am afraid for the people.