Licensed Technic sets: where will it all end?
Posted by Huw,
The Technic building system debuted in 1977 and so far has yielded over 480 sets.
During the first thirty years of the theme the models simply took inspiration from real-life subjects, but recently the number based on actual cars, plant and aircraft has increased considerably to the extent that, this year, more than three-quarters of all the sets being released will be based on other companies' intellectual property.
In this article I will take a look back at the history of licensed Technic sets and speculate whether we'll get to a point where they are all are based on real-life machines.
2000-2010
The first licensed Technic sets were three Star Wars droids released in 2000. A further six were produced in the following two years, although the Technic branding was removed from the four released in 2002.
Away from IPs the company was already working with, the first one was 1237 Honda Asimo. It was based on the Japanese manufacturer's robot that was demonstrated at the Honda Fair in Japan in 2001. The 56-piece promotional set was available in Honda car dealerships in the country from January to March 2001, and it contains the rarest Technic piece ever made.
During the company's financial difficulties in the early 2000s the Technic theme was scaled back dramatically with just a handful of sets being produced each year. Running parallel with it, though, was the Racers theme which encompassed both cars built with System pieces and also those made using Technic elements that traditionally would have been labelled Technic.
This period yielded five licensed 'Technic' cars, one based on the Williams Formula One car in 2002, 8461 Williams F1 Team Racer, and four Ferraris: 8386 Ferrari F1 Racer 1:10 (2004), 8653 Enzo Ferrari 1:10 (2005), 8674 Ferrari F1 Racer 1:8 (2006), and 8145 Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano 1:10 (2007).
The 599 was the last Technic car to be produced under the Racers banner, although System sets continued to be produced until 2013 before being replaced by Speed Champions a couple of years later.
Racing cars made with Technic parts returned to the Technic theme in 2008, although it would be some years before another licensed one was produced.
2010-2015
8110 Mercedes-Benz Unimog U 400, released during 2011, was arguably the model that heralded the current era of licensed Technic models. It looks almost comical now, with such small wheels, but I remember it being well-received at the time, partly because of the novelty of it being based on a real vehicle.
It would be three years before the next one appeared, 2014's flagship model 42030 Volvo L350F Wheel Loader. Another Merc was released the next year, 42043 Mercedes-Benz Arocs 3245 (also with comically small wheels!).
2016-2017
Having tested the waters and, presumably, finding that adding a licence to a model increased its sales, 2016 saw the introduction of three of them, almost one-quarter of the year's output: 42053 Volvo EW160E, 42054 CLAAS XERION 5000 TRAC VC -- arguably the best Technic set ever -- and 42056 Porsche 911 GT3 RS, the first in the series of 'ultimate cars'.
The first licensed motorcycle, 42063 BMW R 1200 GS Adventure, was released in 2017 and was the only licensed set of that year, so they were still something of a novelty at that point.
2018-2023
Since 2018 the number of licensed models has been steadily increasing, and accounting for a larger and larger percentage of the year's total output.
The table below shows the number of Technic sets released each year since 2011 and the percentage of them that are licensed. The hyperlinks on the numbers lead to the appropriate database entries.
Year | Total sets | Licensed sets | % licensed |
---|---|---|---|
2011 | 11 | 1 | 9% |
2012 | 10 | 0 | 0% |
2013 | 12 | 0 | 0% |
2014 | 11 | 1 | 9% |
2015 | 13 | 1 | 8% |
2016 | 13 | 3 | 23% |
2017 | 15 | 1 | 7% |
2018 | 14 | 3 | 21% |
2019 | 15 | 4 | 27% |
2020 | 14 | 7 | 50% |
2021 | 15 | 8 | 53% |
2022 | 17 | 11 | 65% |
2023 | 18 | 14 | 78% |
As you can see, in 2020 half of all the sets were based on real vehicles or, as was the case for the lacklustre 42109 App-Controlled Top Gear Rally Car, had a licence attached to it for no other reason than to attempt to boost sales. The upward trend continued in 2021 and 2022, when more than half of those released were licensed.
So far this year 14 sets have been released of which ten are licensed -- that's 71%. However, we believe there will be four more produced before the end of the year, including the massive 42146 Liebherr LR13000 (as confirmed here) which allegedly was originally slated for release last year.
The remaining three, if rumours are to believed, will also be based on real-life vehicles which will thus raise the percentage of licensed sets released this year to a whopping 78%.
Where will it all end?
Will we get to a point where all Technic sets licensed?
It used to be the case that licences were reserved for the top-of-the-range models, but as we have seen recently even the smallest sets, such as 42102 Mini CLAAS XERION and the polybag 30433 Volvo Wheel Loader, are based on real vehicles, so it's certainly a possibility.
However, while it's fair to assume that a large percentage of the range will continue to be licensed in the future, I don't think we'll reach 100%, simply because some types of machines, such as this year's 42148 Snow Groomer, are not manufactured by household names. It would not make financial sense to make a model of a PistenBulley snow groomer with all the hassle and costs that it would entail if hardly anyone has heard of the company, for example.
We can conclude that having familiar names attached to models increases sales enough to make it worthwhile acquiring and paying for licences, otherwise LEGO would not bother, so they are here to stay, like it or not.
Analysis of licensees
LEGO has released 61 licensed Technic sets thus far, negotiating rights with a whopping 27 different licensors and, if rumours are to be believed, two more companies will be added to the list later this year.
Licensor | No. of sets |
---|---|
Lucasfilm/Star Wars | 9 |
Monster Jam | 6 |
Volvo | 5 |
Bugatti | 3 |
Ford | 3 |
Mercedes-Benz | 3 |
Porsche | 3 |
Warner/The Batman | 2 |
BMW | 2 |
Chevrolet | 2 |
CLAAS | 2 |
Ferrari | 2 |
John Deere | 2 |
Liebherr | 2 |
McLaren | 2 |
Airbus | 1 |
Bell-Boeing | 1 |
Cat | 1 |
Ducati | 1 |
Universal/Fast and Furious | 1 |
Honda | 1 |
Jeep | 1 |
Lamborghini | 1 |
Land Rover | 1 |
Mack | 1 |
NASA | 1 |
PEUGEOT | 1 |
BBC/Top Gear | 1 |
Do you prefer models of real vehicles or would you rather they merely took inspiration from real life machines?
Do you think that attaching, say, the Volvo name to a model of a digger makes it more appealing?
Which licensors would you like LEGO to work with?
Let us know in the comments.
131 likes
94 comments on this article
It just reflects where the company is going. It seems that, nowadays, they need an "extra" brand to put on the boxes to sell. This makes me think that, perhaps, LEGO is not as powerful as it was few years ago.
The tendency of branding sets increases the prices and attracts casual consumers. But I think they are not consolidating long term fans.
This is how I see it, after talking with many hard core fans. Of course I might be mistaken. Only the future will tell us the result.
A fascinating read, but I'm kind of curious - do the Star Wars technic droids from 2000 (8000, 8001 and 8002) not count as licensed sets?
Shouldn't we look at the demographics of who likes Technic sets to see if licenses will increase in number?
If I may take a well known example from here on Brickset, a lot of people have similar tastes to CaptainRex, for whom authenticity and details are of crucial importance (for his beloved Star Wars sets for example). For this type of collectors (adults, detail oriented), following licenses seems to be of greater interest because you can compare the set to the original model, whereas generic sets are just that, generic.
Technic is also well known to be more popular on the European side of the Atlantic, so does that affect the general demographics as well? Most of the supercars seem to be deployed more in Europe than elsewhere, which could generate more attention to those sets...
Surprised we haven't seen a Bobcat loader. Would be a fun Technic build and perhaps reasonably sized as well.
Have we considered these are licensed because they’d be sued otherwise?
@Phoenixio said:
"Shouldn't we look at the demographics of who likes Technic sets to see if licenses will increase in number?
If I may take a well known example from here on Brickset, a lot of people have similar tastes to CaptainRex, for whom authenticity and details are of crucial importance (for his beloved Star Wars sets for example). For this type of collectors (adults, detail oriented), following licenses seems to be of greater interest because you can compare the set to the original model, whereas generic sets are just that, generic.
Technic is also well known to be more popular on the European side of the Atlantic, so does that affect the general demographics as well? Most of the supercars seem to be deployed more in Europe than elsewhere, which could generate more attention to those sets..."
It would be just as easy to design a realistic looking original car than a licensed one. It's just that Lego only ever cares about detailing in select products while everything else defaults to tacky garbage with boring giant pieces that do half of the designing legwork.
For example, they could have always done a realistic looking sports car in City but they choose to make those into licensed sets in a separate theme while the official city cars use fewer and larger pieces and have far tackier colors.
One of the appeals of Competition and the early Bionicle Rahi, is they had wacky builds which demonstrated Technic could be more than cars. Sure they weren't always great builds, but they demonstrated stuff like four bar linkages you don't see in car focused builds.
Imagine if the Rahi approach was taken to modern Technic sets based on real world animals. We could have models that demonstrate the mechanics of a bee's wings or a horse's gallop; and other natural things combining the study of biology and the engineering in the build. It would be a welcome break from the supercar parade.
@lluisgib said:
"It just reflects where the company is going. It seems that, nowadays, they need an "extra" brand to put on the boxes to sell. This makes me think that, perhaps, LEGO is not as powerful as it was few years ago.
The tendency of branding sets increases the prices and attracts casual consumers. But I think they are not consolidating long term fans.
This is how I see it, after talking with many hard core fans. Of course I might be mistaken. Only the future will tell us the result."
I second this. While it may not be absolutely necessary having another brand to sell a set, you can bet that it does increase a set's chances of being sold, since people outside of Lego can go 'wait, that's something I like turned into Lego? Cool!' and thus buy it. If it didn't have the brand, those people wouldn't of bought it.
Make another honda set please
Given we've had a Batmobile, and the Batcycle in Technic scale, I think an Avengers Quinjet or the Guardians Ship (the Milano though, not the new one) would be pretty awesome, or the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier?
Given DC has had some Technic love, why not throw some towards Marvel??
I also think some Star Wars ships would be pretty cool in Technic
@NathanR2015 said:
"A fascinating read, but I'm kind of curious - do the Star Wars technic droids from 2000 ( 8000 , 8001 and 8002 ) not count as licensed sets?"
Yes they certainly do, and to be honest I had forgotten about them, because we have categorised them as they were marketed, as Star Wars ( https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Star-Wars/subtheme-Technic ) rather than Technic, although I see that the first ones had dual branding on the instructions and, presumably, boxes too.
Thanks -- I have amended the article.
@xboxtravis7992 said:
" We could have models that demonstrate the mechanics of a bee's wings or a horse's gallop; and other natural things combining the study of biology and the engineering in the build. It would be a welcome break from the supercar parade. "
I agree entirely -- where are the clocks, orrerys, GBCs, automaton and so on? LEGO seems to think that sets without wheels or wings won't sell.
To be fair, it did test the waters with Forma ( https://brickset.com/sets/theme-FORMA ) but given that came to nothing beyond the initial set I'm guessing the experiment was deemed a failure.
@lluisgib said:
"It just reflects where the company is going. It seems that, nowadays, they need an "extra" brand to put on the boxes to sell. This makes me think that, perhaps, LEGO is not as powerful as it was few years ago.
The tendency of branding sets increases the prices and attracts casual consumers. But I think they are not consolidating long term fans.
This is how I see it, after talking with many hard core fans. Of course I might be mistaken. Only the future will tell us the result."
I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors, and many people refer to any building block toy as LEGO even if it’s not branded as such.
@Anonym said:
" @Phoenixio said:
"Shouldn't we look at the demographics of who likes Technic sets to see if licenses will increase in number?
If I may take a well known example from here on Brickset, a lot of people have similar tastes to CaptainRex, for whom authenticity and details are of crucial importance (for his beloved Star Wars sets for example). For this type of collectors (adults, detail oriented), following licenses seems to be of greater interest because you can compare the set to the original model, whereas generic sets are just that, generic.
Technic is also well known to be more popular on the European side of the Atlantic, so does that affect the general demographics as well? Most of the supercars seem to be deployed more in Europe than elsewhere, which could generate more attention to those sets..."
For example, they could have always done a realistic looking sports car in City but they choose to make those into licensed sets in a separate theme while the official city cars use fewer and larger pieces and have far tackier colors."
I don't know about that. Having myself submitted a fan-made taxi design to the internets, I was slammed because it didn't look like a "real" car. And yet it was obviously a taxi, and I though it had caught the whimsical look of City-range Lego. So the amount of people who want real-real looking stuff is non negligible.
I wouldn't mind a range of Technic trains. License the Big Boy from UP.
@Sandinista said:
" @lluisgib said:
"It just reflects where the company is going. It seems that, nowadays, they need an "extra" brand to put on the boxes to sell. This makes me think that, perhaps, LEGO is not as powerful as it was few years ago.
The tendency of branding sets increases the prices and attracts casual consumers. But I think they are not consolidating long term fans.
This is how I see it, after talking with many hard core fans. Of course I might be mistaken. Only the future will tell us the result."
I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors, and many people refer to any building block toy as LEGO even if it’s not branded as such. "
Looking at the last 5 years, I can not agree with your statement about quality. It decreased significantly. Flaw designs, colour consistency, broken parts after few months, mistakes on induction booklets...
At the end Lego has to sell toys. And branding attract potential customers. My guess is that Lego is contacting more companies for licensing than the opposite. Of course I don't have figures about this statement, but branding benefit more LEGO then the branded company.
And when most of the catalog is license based, it makes me think about what's behind that decision.
Perhaps I'm still a romantic thinking about 80's and 90's catalogs without almost any branding, and Lego was selling well... I'm getting old :(
Another example of Lego's move towards licenced sets - which, to me, moves Lego further away from the "rebuildable toy made of plastic bricks" concept, and more towards "specialist model kit maker"
Lego seem to be doing less and less sets and themes with Lego's own IP, which can only diminish the brand overall, and lead to less kids becoming enthusiastic about Lego - like kids going for Star Wars or Harry Potter sets that just happen to be made of Lego.
But, sales are king, so you can understand why Lego are doing this. It just narks me that a proportion of the £50 set is going straight to some major brand name rather than paying for the plastic bricks that I want.
I hope the new theme Dreamzzz is a big success - even though it's on the back of a (Lego owned) TV show..........
I started collecting Lego with Technic sets and at that point I really didn't care if they were licensed or not, but the licensed one were more detailed and with more functions, like @42030 Volvo L350F Wheel Loader, @42043 Mercedes-Benz Arocs 3245 or @42054 CLAAS XERION 5000. But this day the license don't bring very much to the table beside the price increase, so the fact that there are so many licensed technic sets out there that have only the basic functionality (the same like Creator expert/Icons sets) is frustrating and made me change to another themes.
@Huw said:
" @xboxtravis7992 said:
" We could have models that demonstrate the mechanics of a bee's wings or a horse's gallop; and other natural things combining the study of biology and the engineering in the build. It would be a welcome break from the supercar parade. "
I agree entirely -- where are the clocks, orrerys, GBCs, automaton and so on? LEGO seems to think that sets without wheels or wings won't sell.
To be fair, it did test the waters with Forma ( https://brickset.com/sets/theme-FORMA ) but given that came to nothing beyond the initial set I'm guessing the experiment was deemed a failure.
"
Test the waters.
Ow.
@lluisgib said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @lluisgib said:
"It just reflects where the company is going. It seems that, nowadays, they need an "extra" brand to put on the boxes to sell. This makes me think that, perhaps, LEGO is not as powerful as it was few years ago.
The tendency of branding sets increases the prices and attracts casual consumers. But I think they are not consolidating long term fans.
This is how I see it, after talking with many hard core fans. Of course I might be mistaken. Only the future will tell us the result."
I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors, and many people refer to any building block toy as LEGO even if it’s not branded as such. "
Looking at the last 5 years, I can not agree with your statement about quality. It decreased significantly. Flaw designs, colour consistency, broken parts after few months, mistakes on induction booklets...
At the end Lego has to sell toys. And branding attract potential customers. My guess is that Lego is contacting more companies for licensing than the opposite. Of course I don't have figures about this statement, but branding benefit more LEGO then the branded company.
And when most of the catalog is license based, it makes me think about what's behind that decision.
Perhaps I'm still a romantic thinking about 80's and 90's catalogs without almost any branding, and Lego was selling well... I'm getting old :("
Oh I agree the quality has gone down lately, but compared to Mega, Lego is magnitudes better
Great article. I find it shocking to see just how high of a percentage of Technic became licensed the last few years. Since about 2020 lego apparently generally went for: a) more detail b) larger and more expensive and c) display oriented models. d) smaller, more specific parts (but also not technically specialized, just specifically modified). And of course d) licensing.
If you ask me -and I am just one biased person- these changes have hurt the quality of small sets because every single one of these changes don't scale down well or at the very least result in a tiny model for the price.
This is most evident in technic. But weirdly the smaller models are also less likely to be licensed as of now, and due to technic's building style having smaller more specific parts actually might have benefitted the models. There's also -as of now- less options to make too accurate recreations of real-world vehicles at that scale in technic. And having two functions is more compact on a 10 euro set compared to a 70 euro set!
So at least right now the small models still offer some variety to some extent.
I hope licensing stays away from the smaller models for now with the exception of the occasional mini version of a bigger previous vehicles. Because especially in the polybag's case the model actually suffered from trying to allude to details (the green liftarm being supposed to be the engine killing its whole color scheme).
And yeah, my main gripes with licenses, as always are:
1) that the need for adhering to source material is a double-edged sword. It might produce something interesting... if the source material is interesting. If it's not and looks boring and gray... have fun with a bland model.
2) sticking to licenses can seriously stifle creativity. For example; Star Wars can be a great theme, but if all lego spaceships are star wars we'll never see anything beyond what canonically is in star wars. The same is the case with Technic. Competition is something that will never appear again unless lego adapts an IP that lends itself to that sort of play. Good luck with that, even though it gave something different.
3) Things HAVE to be detail oriented. If something is 'wrong' in how it's adapted from the source material that's a problem. With non-licenses you just don't get that as easily. Especially technic had been forced to make supercars firstly LOOK like the source material whilst the whole point of technic is that it's a technical building system that allows for functionality.
I think the implications of this article are farther-reaching than Technic itself. Rather, I think a larger percentage of the entire portfolio is succumbing to license fever. I’ll state my bias up front: I have little need or want for licensed LEGO products with few exceptions.
Why make Johnny Thunder anymore when you can make Indiana Jones? Why make Studios anymore when you have Marvel, DC and Universal? And forget about Dino Attack when Jurassic World is a co-brand away.
Like castle? Try Harry Potter. Space interest you? Have a look at Star Wars. Oh and let’s remember the Pirates of the Caribbean shall we? Elves becomes unnecessary when Lord of the Rings is available.
Maybe it’s a matter of avoiding litigation, but being independent of licensing means LEGO had to come up with something new and original while “looking like the real thing,” whatever that may have been.
I might be oversimplifying the argument but consider this: would our beloved Classic Space have existed if there was a Star Wars license in 1977?
The loop is closing ... As kids we learnt about mechanics and so on building and playing LEGO Technic sets, sets which focus on the mechanics, e.g. a powered and steered front axle in 8865 (which thrilled me as a kid).
Using this childhood knowledge some of us become engineers at Volvo, Mercedes, Claas etc. creating cool real live stuff. And others, who are not so gifted to create the real stuff are now lucky to purchase their dream car, dump truck or tractor in smaller scale from their favorite toy company.
But LEGO Technic and LEGO in general is not the only area with co-licencing. Look at all the sport clubs and their stations rich are not called "Munich stadium" but "Allianz Arena" these days ...
For me, the more licenced sets there are, the less I tend to buy.
I have zero additional interest in a Technic set just because it has a licence. Plus nowadays a licence means there's no B-model, which imho is a must have for Technic.
On the other hand, my interest in Technic has been on a sharp decline for years. And with the direction Technic is apparently going in, that doesn't seem to be likely to change anytime soon.
P.S. My favorite Technic set of all time is still 8043, closely followed by 8880.
I saw Lego Technic at a hardware store. A bunch of older guys were stand8ng around them chatting about the models. One had a kid (probably grandkid). These sets land in areas outside of the Toy Aisle and get new customers that otherwise wouldn't see or care about Legos. It is smart business, but does limit creativity. Lego Ideas could help with that, buy technic is very niche in that forum.
Is a Schindler escalator in the works?
@jsutton said:
"Is a Schindler escalator in the works?"
Not that I'm aware of but it would make a nice model!
@Huw said:
"To be fair, it did test the waters with Forma ( https://brickset.com/sets/theme-FORMA ) but given that came to nothing beyond the initial set I'm guessing the experiment was deemed a failure."
Well, considering they didn't sell the FORMA set anywhere relevant, it's no wonder it was a failure. I know lots of people, myself included, who would have loved to buy that FORMA set. But since TLG didn't deem us Germans worthy buyers, they shouldn't complain that we moved on. Now all they try is to use the courts to sue the competition out of the market - not that they appear to be any more successful at that either... ;-P
@Sandinista said:
"I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors... "
ROFL
Have you built a LEGO set at all recently, and one from the competition? And by the latter I mean actual competition, not stuff like Best-Lock or the crappy copycats of years ago.
And just as food for thought, who holds the rights to the following licences? :
Star Trek
Halo
Masters of the Universe
World of Warships
Pokemon
Naruto
Robocop
Game of Thrones
Barbie
Paw Patrol
Hot Wheels
Maserati
Boeing
Top Gun
The list goes on. None of them are with LEGO.
And even if you discount the purely military ones, there's plenty that didn't chose LEGO as their partner, and for good reason.
@LegoBoi69 said:
"Mars rover please!!!"
You mean 42158? It'll be out in June.
@Huw said:
" @NathanR2015 said:
"A fascinating read, but I'm kind of curious - do the Star Wars technic droids from 2000 ( 8000 , 8001 and 8002 ) not count as licensed sets?"
Yes they certainly do, and to be honest I had forgotten about them, because we have categorised them as they were marketed, as Star Wars ( https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Star-Wars/subtheme-Technic ) rather than Technic, although I see that the first ones had dual branding on the instructions and, presumably, boxes too.
Thanks -- I have amended the article."
They are missing from the table though
@Sandinista said:
" @lluisgib said:
"It just reflects where the company is going. It seems that, nowadays, they need an "extra" brand to put on the boxes to sell. This makes me think that, perhaps, LEGO is not as powerful as it was few years ago.
The tendency of branding sets increases the prices and attracts casual consumers. But I think they are not consolidating long term fans.
This is how I see it, after talking with many hard core fans. Of course I might be mistaken. Only the future will tell us the result."
I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors, and many people refer to any building block toy as LEGO even if it’s not branded as such. "
"Coughs in 212th clone trooper helmet"
Lego has been putting mechs everywhere, but a giant Technic mech with a lot of functions could be really fun. Not to mention dinosaurs.
Steampunk Technic sets, a Solar System model...
Wouldn't surprise me to see a Solar Panel or Wind powered set sometime , as some co-operation campaign.
LEGO has had solar panels before via Education 9681 and 9688 (also has a windmill) , but now the times are even more relevant for a new version.
A set like 42158 : NASA Mars Perseverance Rover , is a great opportunity for a new Solar Panel add-on set.
But maybe start at some simpler, light model solar technic car first.
Thanks for putting this analysis together!
Licensing doesn't bother me a great deal when the model is a good build that actually makes interesting use of the Technic system, e.g. 42043 Arocs.
What is unforgivably pointless is the endless parade of "Technic" "super" cars with no functions whatsoever (useless, buried gearbox does NOT count).
...but people keep lapping them up! Madness.
@Huw - great article. I love nerding out in the archives.
As to licenses, its a mixed bag. For functional engineering, Liebherr & Volvo clearly give them access to a cool catalogue of stuff. For example the Liebherr LR 13000 is a structural and mechanical engineering marvel.
Things like the supercars clearly form a nice entry to Lego for adults who've not been inclined before.
The key question: is there enough commercial mileage in non-licensed Technic to make it worthwhile?
Personally, I'd like to see more structural rather than mechanical models.
We need more technic in technic: machines, mechanisms, gears, pneumatic..
I wish there were some non-vehicle Technic sets. Personally I'm fine with including some System pieces as well for the cosmetic stuff on the outside. There have been a few Ideas sets (Typewriter, Piano) that have done this a bit, and of course the Icons/Creator Expert theme park rides incorporate Technic. However I'd really be interested in buying sets with a bit more emphasis on the mechanisms, and ideally some smaller ones.
I don't know if it's just me, but I cannot do anything with Technic.
Take structures with beams for example. They are more difficult than technic bricks with holes. I don't know how to get beams at right angles and rotated without a crazy number of intermediate bits that make the joint too thick.
That is just working with immoveable structures, cogs and moving things are another story.
Anyway, in a similar way that people create tutorials for complex things like programming languages, I wish there was a similar thing for Technic.
Edit:
20seconds of googling has found me this that answered my above question
https://www.fllcasts.com/tutorials/872-constructing-with-lego-technic-101
@Paperdaisy said:
"I wish there were some non-vehicle Technic sets. Personally I'm fine with including some System pieces as well for the cosmetic stuff on the outside. There have been a few Ideas sets (Typewriter, Piano) that have done this a bit, and of course the Icons/Creator Expert theme park rides incorporate Technic. However I'd really be interested in buying sets with a bit more emphasis on the mechanisms, and ideally some smaller ones."
And of course, 75313 AT-AT.
@Huw, it wasn’t that they scaled back the Technic theme 20ish years ago. There was a conscious choice to debrand both the Technic and Duplo lines and roll their element palettes into whatever theme fit them best. So the SW Technic sets just became generic SW, Bionicle lost the Technic logo and became an independent theme, and the one or two more traditional sets that slipped out at this time got the yellow box treatment that basically equated them to either Creator or Designer. I’m less familiar with the changes Duplo went through (the only Duplo bricks I know I own are 1x2x2 event bricks), but there was such significant blowback from the customer base that this debranding didn’t last even two years before they had to roll it back and started producing normal Technic sets again. By this point, SW Technic had kinda fizzled out, I think Racers had shifted over to Tiny Turbos, and Bionicle had diverged significantly from its Technic roots. But nothing had really filled the niche that had been occupied by the Technic line up until this point.
@Phoenixio:
If you had modeled your taxi on a real car, you’d still get people complaining that you didn’t get the details right, or even that it’s based on the wrong taxi.
@MeisterDad:
I really don’t think Elves concluding five years ago had anything to do with the release of a single LotR set this year.
In itself licensing doesn't have to be a bad thing. I mean, I think everyone would agree that the 42053 Volvo EW160E was a far superior set to the pretty much similar but unlicensed 42144 Material Handler. And for flagship sets aimed purely at adult collectors it sure does make sense. As for the (brilliant!) mini-Claas and (still decent) mini-Volvo, I bet these only are licensed because of existing deals, to benefit from the big models that came before.
But too often do I feel the licensing is holding Technic back, especially in the mid price range. We just get a bunch of functionally very similar cars, and especially for the smaller ones, Technic just isn't ideal to replicate a specific design at that size. It wasn't designed to be to begin with. The Monster Jam sets are fine for what they are, even when in most of them the detail mostly comes from stickers. But in no way does the licensing seem to hurt the product.
But then looking at the John Deere....I think so much more could have been done function wise for the same price if they hadn't had to worry about making it look like the real thing (and having to pay for the license). And I find it hard to believe that a lackluster licensed set sells better than a better unlicensed one, especially in the long run.
I think 42152 Firefighter Aircraft shows Lego can still do good unlicensed Technic sets of a proper size, it might not look great but has some well designed original functions. And I think Technic needs sets like that to maintain the interest of kids. Most of the licensed sets (minus MJ and a few others) are clearly primarily aimed at adults. The danger in that is the same what model trains have already suffered from: that Technic as a whole becomes an old man's hobby. The absence of starter sets, the lack of B-models, and a motor system that is very expensive and relies on an app all take away from the good old play value for kids. Maybe that's not where the money is now, but if they loose that customer base now Technic is doomed for the future.
If there's one thing BIONICLE fans and non-BIONICLE fans agree on, it's that Technic needs more animals
For me, the licensed Technic sets are the only thing that attracts me to Technic. I like all the big car ones. Still not enough for me to buy any of them but nice enough to look at from a distance.
@windjammer said:
"...in a similar way that people create tutorials for complex things like programming languages, I wish there was a similar thing for Technic..."
On a similar note, I'd be keen for some annotations or explanation about what is making everything work. I enjoyed building the complex set 42129, but did it (literally) by the numbers so didn't seem to learn anything about the engineering principles involved.
The only recent licensed Technic set I own is 30433, and I only have it because it was a GWP, but I do like it. I have three of the Star Wars sets from 2002 (I'm missing 8011), and that is the extent of my licensed Technic collection. I did buy 42118 for my second nephew's last birthday, and would buy 42136 for his dad if it were a bit cheaper. And if Bigfoot were still in Monster Jam and they did a set of it, that'd be a must-buy for me.
@AustinPowers said:
"
And just as food for thought, who holds the rights to the following licences? :
Star Trek
Halo
Masters of the Universe
World of Warships
Pokemon
Naruto
Robocop
Game of Thrones
Barbie
Paw Patrol
Hot Wheels
Maserati
Boeing
Top Gun
The list goes on. None of them are with LEGO.
And even if you discount the purely military ones, there's plenty that didn't chose LEGO as their partner, and for good reason.
"
Hasbro has held the Star Trek license for a long time. And yes, 10302 exists, but that's just one set, so I don't think it foretells a long partnership. The two are still rival toy companies, after all. Hasbro is also the original IP holder for Barbie. Hot Wheels is another IP created and owned by another toy company, in this case Mattel. Lego wouldn't touch Game of Thrones with a ten-thousand-foot pole. And as for the others, Lego may not even have tried for the license, or simply got outbid. And they have done Boeing sets, although if you don't count 42113, the only one from this century is 10177 from 2006, and the previous ones were three sets from the '70s (two of which, as a side note, have been VSotW), so I'll grant you that it's not an ongoing license.
@GSR_MataNui said:
"If there's one thing BIONICLE fans and non-BIONICLE fans agree on, it's that Technic needs more animals "
Hip, hip, hoo-Rahi!
@TheOtherMike:
Mattel owns Barbie, not Hasbro. Looking through that list, I have no idea what "World of Warships" is, but TLG has banned first-person shooters from Ideas, so Halo seems unlikely. Top Gun uses modern military aircraft, so that's a huge no. Mattel tried to buy TLG two decades ago, and bought a competing brand to push them past TLG for the title of biggest toymaker in the world (TLG having taken the throne from Hasbro before that). They also outright own MotU. Nintendo owns Pokemon, so that's a license that could feasibly change hands if TLG and Nintendo stay on good terms. Robocop is a pretty violent R-rated franchise, and also doesn't seem like something TLG would ever touch. That basically leaves Star Trek (unlikely if they want to keep the Star Wars license with Disney), Paw Patrol (they do have other licensed children's IP, but it's not like they can licensed _EVERYTHING_), Naruto, Boeing, and Maserati.
Naruto doesn't seem to be doing much these days. There are a few original novels being released, and a couple of those have had manga adaptations. There are live stage performances, but those have a very limited audience. They obviously _did_ have a Boeing license recently, but it remains to be seen what the fallout will be from the cancellation of the set. And Maserati...kind of pales in comparison to the stable of brands that Speed Champions currently has under license. And again, it's not like they can license _EVERYTHING_.
I just wanted to give thanks for this article, super super interesting data and analysis.
"Do you prefer models of real vehicles or would you rather they merely took inspiration from real life machines?"
For me, I'd rather technic move away from so strictly focusing on vehicles at all. Certainly the licenses dont do anything for me, since I have no interest in those companies to begin with. I would prefer to see technic actually focus on ... well, technic, again, instead of just being used for mostly the same things as system. Go back to focusing on fun mechanisms. This onslaught of samey cars and trucks and the occasional boat or helicopter is just so utterly dull in my opinion.
@Sandinista said:"Oh I agree the quality has gone down lately, but compared to Mega, Lego is magnitudes better"
I think people dont realise just how much the gap has narrowed. You can now easily buy knockoff parts from like webrick for example that are completely on-par with Lego's quality. IDK what mega is doing these days but other brands have absolutely matched (or even exceeded, for a few pieces) Lego's quality in the past few years.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
"I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors... "
ROFL
Have you built a LEGO set at all recently, and one from the competition? And by the latter I mean actual competition, not stuff like Best-Lock or the crappy copycats of years ago.
And just as food for thought, who holds the rights to the following licences? :
Star Trek
Halo
Masters of the Universe
World of Warships
Pokemon
Naruto
Robocop
Game of Thrones
Barbie
Paw Patrol
Hot Wheels
Maserati
Boeing
Top Gun
The list goes on. None of them are with LEGO.
And even if you discount the purely military ones, there's plenty that didn't chose LEGO as their partner, and for good reason.
"
Yeah, I'm a halo fan, and bought a warthog set a few years ago. It had extra pieces, was missing one, and the parts quality was overall not great. I would not be surprised if Lego gets some of these licenses within the next few years
Interesting that the first recent set yo flag (Unimog) was the set that got me out of the dark years and into AFOL.
For a big proportion of casual (not MOCing) technic fans, I think licensing is a big draw. I want stuff that looks like something I know.
You forgot the Technic-built Mars Rover from the Discovery theme in 2003.
@MeisterDad said:"And forget about Dino Attack when Jurassic World is a co-brand away."
I've said before that Dino Attack/Dino 2010 *is* Jurassic World. The "mutant" dinosaurs were just some of Dr. Wu's hybrid experiments that got out of hand.
@PurpleDave: Thanks for the correction on who owns Barbie. I haven't spent any time in the "pink aisle" since they started stocking Friends next to the other Lego, and even before that, the only time I've ever really looked at a Barbie was a Star Trek one (speaking of licenses) back in the '90s.
@MeisterDad said:
"I think the implications of this article are farther-reaching than Technic itself. Rather, I think a larger percentage of the entire portfolio is succumbing to license fever. I’ll state my bias up front: I have little need or want for licensed LEGO products with few exceptions.
Why make Johnny Thunder anymore when you can make Indiana Jones? Why make Studios anymore when you have Marvel, DC and Universal? And forget about Dino Attack when Jurassic World is a co-brand away.
Like castle? Try Harry Potter. Space interest you? Have a look at Star Wars. Oh and let’s remember the Pirates of the Caribbean shall we? Elves becomes unnecessary when Lord of the Rings is available.
Maybe it’s a matter of avoiding litigation, but being independent of licensing means LEGO had to come up with something new and original while “looking like the real thing,” whatever that may have been.
I might be oversimplifying the argument but consider this: would our beloved Classic Space have existed if there was a Star Wars license in 1977?"
I understand what you are saying, and sympathize with your argument. I myself have recently collected all the bug parts of Galaxy Squad, and am amazed by how cool they are (even if it's just a rip-off of Starship Troopers)!
However, I'm only an insane Lego collector now because Star Wars Lego pulled me back from my Dark Ages. The BS article that confirmed that many other AFOLs share a similar story is:
https://brickset.com/article/84713/when-did-you-become-interested-in-lego-as-an-adult
So, perhaps the branding is for a reason.
@Phoenixio said:
"... Technic is also well known to be more popular on the European side of the Atlantic, so does that affect the general demographics as well? Most of the supercars seem to be deployed more in Europe than elsewhere, which could generate more attention to those sets..."
Whew! I sometimes wonder why Technic doesn't interest me at all. It's not because 95% of the sets look like a silly, hodge-podge, Frankenstein version. It's because I'm American!
I do f*%$ing LOVE my 4481, though!!
@ItisNoe said:
"... can go 'wait, that's something I like turned into Lego? Cool!' and thus buy it. ..."
Your honour, let me present exhibit A in support of the aforementioned position:
@person_that_uses_brickset said:
"Make another honda set please "
No matter what does the set depict, what it costs. The only thing the decision will be based on is the brand name. Sad.
I'm all for fusion sets, with a Technic motorised skeleton hidden by system panels etc., like the motorised AT-AT walk 10178, which I know had stability problems but I prefer it when TLG push the boundary rather than having repeats of the usual safe options.
Would like to see a fully functioning road grader to finish off the construction vehicle's, don't care what brand but its got to be yellow and black.
Licensed construction machinery is a great solution. Licensed sports cars are also nice but there are some problems here - few functions ... not like 8880 or 8070. Lack of creative constructions like: 8277.
The only arguable problem is too many number of cars in techinc line up. Almost all the Licensed sets have been pretty great. Libeherr, Mercedes, Volvo, Cat, Airbus copter. And even the most of the cars have been great. Only ones that are bit disappointing were Jeep (Only a suspension), Ford Raptor (no 4wd and wrong engine) and Ferrari + Porsche Rally raid cars but even with small modifications those can be great Even the new motorcycles have been pretty cool. For me Licenced sets have been great with functions + looks you get to build both and tecninc parts get way more parts thanks to that approach. I welcome our new era.
@Ridgeheart said:
"I will say this much, the "Toys That Made Us" Netflix-documentary on Barbie is every bit as fascinating as the one on Lego. Especially considering how much Barbie had to clean up her act in order to become a suitable toy for kids. I thoroughly enjoyed that one."
Yeah, considering that what inspired the toy was basically a pinup girl in 3D, intended to be sold to horny bachelors. I've never seen that documentary, but I have a book called "Timeless Toys: Classic Toys and the Playmakers who Created Them" which covers Barbie, Lego, and a whole bunch of other toys.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
"I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors... "
ROFL
Have you built a LEGO set at all recently, and one from the competition? And by the latter I mean actual competition, not stuff like Best-Lock or the crappy copycats of years ago.
And just as food for thought, who holds the rights to the following licences? :
Star Trek
Halo
Masters of the Universe
World of Warships
Pokemon
Naruto
Robocop
Game of Thrones
Barbie
Paw Patrol
Hot Wheels
Maserati
Boeing
Top Gun
The list goes on. None of them are with LEGO.
And even if you discount the purely military ones, there's plenty that didn't chose LEGO as their partner, and for good reason.
"
@AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
"I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors... "
ROFL
Have you built a LEGO set at all recently, and one from the competition? And by the latter I mean actual competition, not stuff like Best-Lock or the crappy copycats of years ago.
And just as food for thought, who holds the rights to the following licences? :
Star Trek
Halo
Masters of the Universe
World of Warships
Pokemon
Naruto
Robocop
Game of Thrones
Barbie
Paw Patrol
Hot Wheels
Maserati
Boeing
Top Gun
The list goes on. None of them are with LEGO.
And even if you discount the purely military ones, there's plenty that didn't chose LEGO as their partner, and for good reason.
"
I'm not the person you replied to, but yes I have tried other brands, none of them have the fit and finish quality of Lego. I have thousands of dollars of Lego sets including tons of recent ones. I've yet to run into these supposedly massive Lego quality issues a vocal minority rant about online.
Most of the themes you listed Lego wouldn't allow because of adult themes (not just the military ones), being from a rival toy company or having niche audiences.
Boeing did a Lego set (Osprey) and then Lego cancelled it due to the backlash about military content.
Many companies choose a rival brick brand for licencing because the smaller companies take a small cut of the sale price compared to Lego or because they got declined by Lego. I have a hard time believing many went with other brick brands because they thought the quality was better than Lego.
Of all the themes you listed, most of those have significantly smaller audiences than the IPs Lego has licences for (Disney, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings etc)
@Ridgeheart:
I don’t know what Overwatch gameplay is like, and how it fits within the “no FPS” restriction on Ideas sets (to be fair, there are a few such restrictions on Ideas, like no existing licenses or previous Ideas subjects, which don’t apply to non-Ideas set development at one tiny bit). I do know the theme got cut short with leaked sets that never got produced. And I don’t know if the two things are related. What I do know is that Indians Jones falls under “fantasy violence”, where Top Gun would not. It’s a line that’s hard to define, especially if someone is trying to push an agenda while doing so.
And no, Wolfenstein is probably out on several counts.
@TheOtherMike:
I find it easy to remember on the adjacent bits of trivia where TLG is the largest tire manufacturer (Hot Wheels/Matchbox don’t count because they almost never have rubber tires), and Mattel is the largest clothing manufacturer.
@StyleCounselor:
Licenses absolutely move product. They do it to a degree that they pay for their own fees without needing to jack up prices (contrary to what every other comment on any AFOL site will “inform” you about). Star Wars alone took the US from a modest market during the mid-90’s to top consumer-nation over Germany. If licenses weren’t profitable, they wouldn’t be sitting on so many, or running some of them for so long. Heck, TLM is technically a licensed theme (WB has at least a partial stake in any original characters, plus there are licensed characters from several unrelated IPs from Batman to Star Wars).
@Ridgeheart said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"Looking through that list, I have no idea what "World of Warships" is, but TLG has banned first-person shooters from Ideas, so Halo seems unlikely. Top Gun uses modern military aircraft, so that's a huge no."
Let me be 'that guy' for once: it seems that this is one of those things where TLG is constantly at odds with itself. From realistic depictions (of sorta-realistic) army-men and their vehicles from Toy Story, to military vehicles from DC, Marvel and Indiana Jones, all the way up to absolutely everything from Overwatch (which by my metric is also a shooty-pew-pew-thing - although in honesty I only briefly participated in the beta, where I played a robot made of bullets who wanted nothing more than to share every bullet there ever was with the entire world).
I THINK TLG tries to shield itself with a blanket 'yes, alright, but they're realistic depictions of violence -within the medium of licensed entertainment-, so go bother Spielberg's lawyers, not ours'. And seemingly succesful, but it also means that on this sliding scale, I could see them produce set from... I dunno. You provide an example. I'm not a shooty-man, I play the fighting-games.
Probably not Wolfenstein though."
With the mess that became Overwatch, I would not be surprised if LEGO is just done with any and all FPS games.
They did have the infamous (and relatively non-violent) Portal in Dimensions, but no doubt Half-Life is just too much for the kids (can't blame them, Ravenholm is terrifying).
HALO is considered far more tame today than back then, but the military aspect will have LEGO re-analyzing its fantasy violence argument for a good while. No doubt stuff like Wolfenstein, DOOM, and Dead Space is out due to the sheer exaggeration of violence and gore. Call of Duty and Battlefield are black and white enough that LEGO can throw down their military comments and call it a day. Destiny has niche appeal these days due to the difficulty of getting new players in, so LEGO would be skeptical of that market.
So when all is said and done ... yeah, FPS is kinda off-limits to LEGO by their own terms and conditions.
@CrimsonFury said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
"I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors... "
ROFL
Have you built a LEGO set at all recently, and one from the competition? And by the latter I mean actual competition, not stuff like Best-Lock or the crappy copycats of years ago.
And just as food for thought, who holds the rights to the following licences? :
Star Trek
Halo
Masters of the Universe
World of Warships
Pokemon
Naruto
Robocop
Game of Thrones
Barbie
Paw Patrol
Hot Wheels
Maserati
Boeing
Top Gun
The list goes on. None of them are with LEGO.
And even if you discount the purely military ones, there's plenty that didn't chose LEGO as their partner, and for good reason.
"
@AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
"I disagree; I think Lego’s power as a brand is what attracts licenses. They know Lego’s quality is miles ahead of its competitors... "
ROFL
Have you built a LEGO set at all recently, and one from the competition? And by the latter I mean actual competition, not stuff like Best-Lock or the crappy copycats of years ago.
And just as food for thought, who holds the rights to the following licences? :
Star Trek
Halo
Masters of the Universe
World of Warships
Pokemon
Naruto
Robocop
Game of Thrones
Barbie
Paw Patrol
Hot Wheels
Maserati
Boeing
Top Gun
The list goes on. None of them are with LEGO.
And even if you discount the purely military ones, there's plenty that didn't chose LEGO as their partner, and for good reason.
"
I'm not the person you replied to, but yes I have tried other brands, none of them have the fit and finish quality of Lego. I have thousands of dollars of Lego sets including tons of recent ones. I've yet to run into these supposedly massive Lego quality issues a vocal minority rant about online.
Most of the themes you listed Lego wouldn't allow because of adult themes (not just the military ones), being from a rival toy company or having niche audiences.
Boeing did a Lego set (Osprey) and then Lego cancelled it due to the backlash about military content.
Many companies choose a rival brick brand for licencing because the smaller companies take a small cut of the sale price compared to Lego or because they got declined by Lego. I have a hard time believing many went with other brick brands because they thought the quality was better than Lego.
Of all the themes you listed, most of those have significantly smaller audiences than the IPs Lego has licences for (Disney, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings etc)"
Boeing also had the Dreamliner set back in 2008
@Ridgeheart:
Um…capture the flag with guns?
@GBP_Chris:
Maybe Splatoon would make it through? There was also a Nerf FPS, but that’s another Hasbro brand, and I’m not sure how successful the game was.
@CrimsonFury said:
"I'm not the person you replied to, but yes I have tried other brands, none of them have the fit and finish quality of Lego. I have thousands of dollars of Lego sets including tons of recent ones. I've yet to run into these supposedly massive Lego quality issues a vocal minority rant about online."
So you haven't got
- totally scratched trans-milk windscreens because nowadays they are made of an inferior material plus get thrown into the box instead of extra protected
- tons of colour inconsistency like with the Vespa I just built (just as one recent example) that has more than four distinct and very different types of bright light blue
- constantly torn or creased sticker sheets because again they are just thrown into the box without any kind of extra protection
- torn instruction manuals because of the same reason as above
- scratched tiles like the ones you used to get with Chinese copycat manufacturers of years ago
- skewed or incomplete prints
- "see-through" pieces on certain colours like light yellow, light bluish grey etc.
???
No?
Then all I can say is you have been really unbelievably lucky.
I'd prefer if designers would focus on developing nice functions rather then trying to build the model to match the shape(s) of the real thing.
I'd prefer to get a nice model to play with rather than a 6-speed gearbox.
I'd prefer to see whats going on when activating a technic function rather than having one more panel to close the (see-through) gap.
I'd typed up a longer response but for some reason it didn't post yesterday. So I'm going to just keep it brief.
Licenses bring more money to Lego and have their place. Licenses should not make up the majority of their offerings, however. I will say as well, if they're going to do licensed Technic sets, be creative like Lego ought to be. Technic Star Wars needs to happen again (droids or ships, or just do the same thing as before with one as the alternate model as the other). The speeder bike from 75532 was gorgeous. That we nearly got an AT-RT only to get it cancelled is a shame. There's a lot of potential and I don't see why it hasn't been tapped yet.
But speaking of potential, that's in Technic becoming original again. We're so far removed from the peak of Technic in the mid-90s through the mid-00s. Technic figs, robots, crazy scifi machinery, and of course, animals. It's astounding that we don't see anything like that anymore when they were a great demonstration of Technic's versatility and display of functions and mechanics. Can't imagine we'll see that again any time soon, but one can hope they'll regain their senses.
To everyone who would rather see literal function over form, I’m just going to point out that I can only think of one person I have met face-to-face who focuses on Technic over System, and isn’t more specifically doing robotics with Technic as the base. He uses it to build MOCs of cars. I haven’t seen him in over half a decade, but he’s probably giddy about all the licensed Technic cars they’ve been doing lately.
@Onatu:
From the time you open the page, there’s a countdown running, and when it reaches zero, you can’t post without refreshing the page. This gets a bit wonky because the clock (handily located right below the comment box) doesn’t stay synched on mobile. If you switch to a different tab in your browser, or to a different app, or let your screen go dark, the on-screen countdown will pause while the server countdown keeps going. If it takes you a while to read through the article and all the comments, just refresh the page and you’ll reset the clock to 20 minutes. If it’s taking you a while to write out your comment, at least copy the text before hitting the submit button, just in case.
@PurpleDave:
That must have been it. I was using mobile and it took a while to type up. Think I had let me screen go dark or did something else in the middle of it, too. Ah well, learned something new so thank you!
@PurpleDave: I knew about Lego being the biggest tire manufacturer, but didn't know (or had forgotten) about Mattel being the biggest clothing manufacturer. I love trivia like that.
@Ridgeheart said:"'Team Fortress 2' with fewer hats."
Best comment in this thread.
@AustinPowers: I've never had the problems you describe, except for wrinkled sticker sheets, and that hasn't happened in a while. I don't remember any of them being torn, though, just wrinkled. To cite another example, the color consistency on my Vespa is fine. I'm wondering if your sets and mine came from factories, one with differing levels of quality control. If that is the case, and you're not exaggerating very minor issues, then I'll agree that it's something Lego needs to look into.
@AustinPowers said:
" @CrimsonFury said:
"I'm not the person you replied to, but yes I have tried other brands, none of them have the fit and finish quality of Lego. I have thousands of dollars of Lego sets including tons of recent ones. I've yet to run into these supposedly massive Lego quality issues a vocal minority rant about online."
So you haven't got
- totally scratched trans-milk windscreens because nowadays they are made of an inferior material plus get thrown into the box instead of extra protected
- tons of colour inconsistency like with the Vespa I just built (just as one recent example) that has more than four distinct and very different types of bright light blue
- constantly torn or creased sticker sheets because again they are just thrown into the box without any kind of extra protection
- torn instruction manuals because of the same reason as above
- scratched tiles like the ones you used to get with Chinese copycat manufacturers of years ago
- skewed or incomplete prints
- "see-through" pieces on certain colours like light yellow, light bluish grey etc.
???
No?
Then all I can say is you have been really unbelievably lucky. "
You failed to address- what I consider- the worst... snap, crackle, and pop with the dark red, reddish-brown, and (any color) cheese slopes. Almost as bad is the COLOR-MATCHING between prints and parts, prints and prints, prints and stickers, and parts and stickers! Yuck!
@StyleCounselor said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @CrimsonFury said:
"I'm not the person you replied to, but yes I have tried other brands, none of them have the fit and finish quality of Lego. I have thousands of dollars of Lego sets including tons of recent ones. I've yet to run into these supposedly massive Lego quality issues a vocal minority rant about online."
So you haven't got
- totally scratched trans-milk windscreens because nowadays they are made of an inferior material plus get thrown into the box instead of extra protected
- tons of colour inconsistency like with the Vespa I just built (just as one recent example) that has more than four distinct and very different types of bright light blue
- constantly torn or creased sticker sheets because again they are just thrown into the box without any kind of extra protection
- torn instruction manuals because of the same reason as above
- scratched tiles like the ones you used to get with Chinese copycat manufacturers of years ago
- skewed or incomplete prints
- "see-through" pieces on certain colours like light yellow, light bluish grey etc.
???
No?
Then all I can say is you have been really unbelievably lucky. "
You failed to address- what I consider- the worst... snap, crackle, and pop with the dark red, reddish-brown, and (any color) cheese slopes. Almost as bad is the COLOR-MATCHING between prints and parts, prints and prints, prints and stickers, and parts and stickers! Yuck!"
No, never had any of those issues
@TheOtherMike and @CrimsonFury : if you really didn't have any of the issues I described, then all I can say is you're very lucky.
I was definitely not exaggerating. I have these issues with almost every set nowadays.
At the same time the sets from alternative manufacturers that I buy have improved massively over the years quality-wise and by now often surpass what I get from LEGO.
I can indeed say that from my personal experience LEGO does have massive quality problems.
And from what I hear and see from friends and colleagues in that regard I can say I am no outlier but apparently the norm.
I would love to see LEGO get back on form quality-wise. With the prices they are asking these days one should expect nothing less. Only Cobi is as expensive on average, but their quality is way beyond LEGO's by now. And that's not even accounting for the fact that ALL their decorated pieces are printed, and with print quality LEGO is unable to even come anywhere close to.
My intention is not to rant for rants' sake, but because I really have had very bad experiences with the quality of LEGO for about four years now.
The only issue I have never had (that many others describe) is brittle or breaking pieces. For whatever reason that has never happened to me.
@Phoenixio said:
" @Anonym said:
" @Phoenixio said:
"Shouldn't we look at the demographics of who likes Technic sets to see if licenses will increase in number?
If I may take a well known example from here on Brickset, a lot of people have similar tastes to CaptainRex, for whom authenticity and details are of crucial importance (for his beloved Star Wars sets for example). For this type of collectors (adults, detail oriented), following licenses seems to be of greater interest because you can compare the set to the original model, whereas generic sets are just that, generic.
Technic is also well known to be more popular on the European side of the Atlantic, so does that affect the general demographics as well? Most of the supercars seem to be deployed more in Europe than elsewhere, which could generate more attention to those sets..."
For example, they could have always done a realistic looking sports car in City but they choose to make those into licensed sets in a separate theme while the official city cars use fewer and larger pieces and have far tackier colors."
I don't know about that. Having myself submitted a fan-made taxi design to the internets, I was slammed because it didn't look like a "real" car. And yet it was obviously a taxi, and I though it had caught the whimsical look of City-range Lego. So the amount of people who want real-real looking stuff is non negligible."
The internets don't judge on the basis of affordability and the like, nor are likes a good marketability metric
@CrimsonFury said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @CrimsonFury said:
"I'm not the person you replied to, but yes I have tried other brands, none of them have the fit and finish quality of Lego. I have thousands of dollars of Lego sets including tons of recent ones. I've yet to run into these supposedly massive Lego quality issues a vocal minority rant about online."
So you haven't got
- totally scratched trans-milk windscreens because nowadays they are made of an inferior material plus get thrown into the box instead of extra protected
- tons of colour inconsistency like with the Vespa I just built (just as one recent example) that has more than four distinct and very different types of bright light blue
- constantly torn or creased sticker sheets because again they are just thrown into the box without any kind of extra protection
- torn instruction manuals because of the same reason as above
- scratched tiles like the ones you used to get with Chinese copycat manufacturers of years ago
- skewed or incomplete prints
- "see-through" pieces on certain colours like light yellow, light bluish grey etc.
???
No?
Then all I can say is you have been really unbelievably lucky. "
You failed to address- what I consider- the worst... snap, crackle, and pop with the dark red, reddish-brown, and (any color) cheese slopes. Almost as bad is the COLOR-MATCHING between prints and parts, prints and prints, prints and stickers, and parts and stickers! Yuck!"
No, never had any of those issues"
The color-matching is and has been a HUGE problem. If you don't see it, you're seriously not looking close enough.
The brittle parts issue is (hopefully/supposedly) a thing of the past. I have a whole bag of broken dark red, reddish-brown, cheese slopes, and battle droid parts. Most of those are from sets that are more than 5 yrs old. Be very careful with those colors from that era if those sets interest you.
Have they fixed the issue? I guess only time will tell.
With Technic, the licensing is way too prominent imho. Even if it is to promote buying Technic sets, it should be made much more clear that the parts may be used to create something else. Preferably through one's own creativity. Or at least as a B or C model from instructions.
I would think that also smaller models are more prone to be rebuilt, because that's much less work than taking apart that Lamborghini Sian that you have finally completed (and which again takes a long time to take apart).
@AustinPowers said:
" @TheOtherMike and @CrimsonFury : if you really didn't have any of the issues I described, then all I can say is you're very lucky.
I was definitely not exaggerating. I have these issues with almost every set nowadays.
At the same time the sets from alternative manufacturers that I buy have improved massively over the years quality-wise and by now often surpass what I get from LEGO.
I can indeed say that from my personal experience LEGO does have massive quality problems.
And from what I hear and see from friends and colleagues in that regard I can say I am no outlier but apparently the norm.
I would love to see LEGO get back on form quality-wise. With the prices they are asking these days one should expect nothing less. Only Cobi is as expensive on average, but their quality is way beyond LEGO's by now. And that's not even accounting for the fact that ALL their decorated pieces are printed, and with print quality LEGO is unable to even come anywhere close to.
My intention is not to rant for rants' sake, but because I really have had very bad experiences with the quality of LEGO for about four years now.
The only issue I have never had (that many others describe) is brittle or breaking pieces. For whatever reason that has never happened to me. "
If you have so many serious quality issues with LEGO and think that alternatives are even better nowadays, maybe you should go and complain on the LEPIN board on Reddit instead of here?
My opinion is that you come across as reasonably arrogant. Not only do you write as if your opinion is the only correct one, and everybody who does not agree with you is either blind or just extremely lucky, you also seem to enjoy laughing at people by using terms like ROFL.
I have built sets from multiple alternative brands (BlueBrixx, Mega(construx), Panlos, FunWhole ("I can't believe anyone thought this was a good name for a toy company"), Mouldking, QMan, Keeppley, Cobi), and I will give you my honest, unfiltered opinion:
a) LEGO bricks still are the most enjoyable to build with in terms of clutch power, ease of separating the bricks without being too loose, and just general feel. You are free to disagree, but I bet that the egenral public would actually agree with me. The clutch power of Cobi or MouldKing is imho for example too much, and makes it stupidly hard to separate bricks again when making a mistake.
b) I had only two wrong (not missing!) pieces in a LEGO set ever and have built 100s of them. All other brands - except Cobi - had missing pieces, even Mega. Main issue: with the alternative brands it is usually a massive pain to obtain replacements
c) Colour consistency has been an issue for LEGO since forever (look at the 50 shades of sand green Haunted House from 2012), but is basically an issue for all producers. That is because all producers obtain bricks from multiple factories or batches, which makes it almost impossible to get this 100% right.
d) Prints on LEGO sets are usually good quality. I have never ever had crooked prints, except on the R2D2 dome head that LEGO for some reason cannot get 100% straight. I have to admit that most alternative brands also have good prints. However, LEGO stickers are unbeatable in quality and ease to apply (or reapply if you messed it up the first time), and I never had a wrinkled sticker sheet.
e) Transparent pieces in LEGO sets are indeed scratched sometimes and I would love it if LEGO would pack them separately always, but they are still far better than the transparent pieces of any other manufacturer I tried. The Chinese ones are usually milky, and/or full of (micro)scratches, and Cobi seems to avoid transparent pieces wherever they can
f) ...
See, I can go on and on and refute every LEGO criticism that you bring up ad nauseam. You will probably respond saying I am a fanboy or just very lucky.
@xboxtravis7992 said:
"Imagine if the Rahi approach was taken to modern Technic sets based on real world animals. We could have models that demonstrate the mechanics of a bee's wings or a horse's gallop; and other natural things combining the study of biology and the engineering in the build. It would be a welcome break from the supercar parade. "
I said this before some time ago. My daughter has loved the Harry Potter Hedwig/Fawkes/Horntail, but has zero interest in vehicles. Someone pointed me towards some beautiful commercial MOCs or eg galloping horses, but the price was simply unaffordable (got Hedwig for £25).
@Huw said:
"To be fair, it did test the waters with Forma ( https://brickset.com/sets/theme-FORMA ) but given that came to nothing beyond the initial set I'm guessing the experiment was deemed a failure."
I'd never heard of these, and was briefly very excited. I didn't initially realize that it's only one model and multiple skins, but that still looks much more like the kind of thing we'd both enjoy.
Big sets and lots of functions is what attracted my to Technic in the '80s. It seems like Technic still has that in abundance, but a lot of sets definitely look less like Meccano and more like Airfix. Overall there are plenty of unlicensed sets available to Technic fans, probably similar numbers year on year, but the plethora of licenced sets dilutes those in people's minds.
Licensing gets flak across the whole range of Lego themes from those not into it, but in my view there is still a very healthy selection of non-licences sets of any type of Lego you could want. Having said that, I did a quick look through the BS database, and only just realised that Technic Universal sets stopped in the early '90s. If the 'loads of functional parts in a box' theme hasn't continued under a different name I do think that's a loss.
Two facts on the other debate, I consider myself a fanboy (in the sense that I never consider buying another brand, not in the sense that I cant be critical of TLG), and I can only recall one part missing in about 700 sets built. It was a 1x3 dark red brick from 70425 Newbury Haunted High School, which TLG then sent me. Even then, I can't be 100% sure it was LTG's fault as I was building with my then 7 year old and over two or three sessions.
It's comical that during almost every set I build I have a panicky/wonderous moment of thinking "No, not that part, no, that's wrong, hang on... wait... no, not that one, what! Did TLG finally get it wrong???... oh wait, there it is.".
I'm prepared to accept that I'm lucky, statistics can be weird like that. Also, people being people, the ones who don't find problems are very unlikely to write several internet posts about nothing odd happening, whereas I can totally understand people posting if they're unlucky enough to get wrong or missing parts in several sets.
Over the years I've accidentally ended up owning and building sets from other minor/cheap brands, and they've all paled in comparison. I'm sure there are equal or better brands at the top end of the market that I've not tried, but I'm happy enough being a Lego snob :D (safe in the knowledge I haven't found anything better, and won't because I'm deliberately not looking)
It would suck to have a Lego moment akin to Betamax or CDs...
I wouldn't necessarily argue that other brands are doing better, but they do things differently. Some time ago I built a Cobi jet, and while it was not without a few (pretty minor) frustrations, I very much enjoyed the experience as the building process and the parts used were so completely unlike Lego, despite being a compatible system. And Cobi isn't cheap, but they cut less corners than Lego does so it feels like much better value for money.
With other (cheaper!) brands it might be hit or miss. But that's the thing: those imperfections are easier to forgive at the low prices. A brand like Loz (not compatible because of the smaller size) offers easily 90% of the quality for less than 20% of the price. And so far never a missing part, instead just an absurd amount of spares.
I sure had some lesser experiences too (and will avoid some brands for either that or other reasons), but with lower prices come lower expectations.
Considering the very high prices Lego is asking for their products, we can and should ask for nothing less than perfection. And stuff like color variations, the overuse of badly matching stickers even in extremely expensive display sets, and scratched windows just don't fit in that picture.
Don't get me wrong: I still very much like Lego (don't we all here?), but I rather see them making the best products they can than cutting corners wherever they can just to maximize profits.
I think Lego ought to keep a variety of both inspired and licensed. I personally am not a huge technic lover, but I do think both are cool.
@MrBedhead said:
"See, I can go on and on and refute every LEGO criticism that you bring up ad nauseam. You will probably respond saying I am a fanboy or just very lucky."
Not at all.
You give your honest opinion, I gave mine.
If those are the experiences you had, why should I be arrogant about it?
If I come across as arrogant, I am genuinely sorry because that's not at all my intention.
I have build over a thousand LEGO sets over a period of more than forty years, plus hundreds of sets by alternative manufacturers for over seven years now.
Not all of those were great experiences. BestLock was the absolute worst I ever experienced, and early BlueBrixx sets had loads of issues.
By the way, I do indeed have a couple of Lepin sets, and I was gobsmacked at the time at how great their quality was compared to the price of the sets. The difference to LEGO at the time was negligible.
The first real eye-opener for me in terms of quality was indeed Cobi, since while I agree with you that their clutch power is sometimes a bit too much and can be a nuisance when trying to correct a tile (theirs as you know don't have grooves) that was placed in the wrong position, their print quality is arguably orders of magnitude better than anything I have ever seen from LEGO. Same with the print quality of the Star Trek sets from BlueBrixx Pro.
Where I absolutely disagree with you is on the subject of transparent pieces.
Not only are all new LEGO transparent pieces just as milky now as those from cheap Chinese copycats from years ago, (because LEGO changed to the same cheap material those use), at least the ones I have had in recent sets all have scratches of all kind, from micro to huge gouges that had me call customer service for a replacement.
And as for Cobi, all the transparent pieces I have from them, like the canopy pieces on their planes, are crystal clear and without any scratches since they are usually packed separately.
By the way, you are definitely not a fan boy, because none of those would ever consider building a set from a brand other than LEGO. To those people, and there apparently are some here on Brickset, pieces from alternative manufacturers are considered filth that might "soil" their precious LEGO collection.
@ComfySofa : you should indeed avoid building sets from quality alternatives like Cobi, because your positive view of LEGO would come crumbling down just like mine has.
Once you have seen what kind of quality is possible for the money, you will always wonder why LEGO can't or won't provide the same - especially since their motto is "only the best is good enough", which, to anyone who knows how many corners they cut everywhere, is laughable.
@WizardOfOss : you took the words right out of my mouth!
I believe licensed sets brings in new fans, and most importantly adult fans who did not participate in collecting Lego previously. By this way Lego Technic moved from being an advanced toy to collectible item for adults. It hard to imagine some people making engine noises, playing with their super car on the floor. I do, but I've been doin' it since I was 10. I think licensing helps but I don't have to like it.
95% of the Lego I purchase are cars. For me, the love of Lego is driven by the love of cars first. If they didn't license vehicles, I would stop purchasing Lego.
@RickestRick said:
"95% of the Lego I purchase are cars. For me, the love of Lego is driven by the love of cars first. If they didn't license vehicles, I would stop purchasing Lego."
Oh wow! You my diametrical opposite in terms of LEGO collecting! It must take some chance to have no overlap in collections.
Related to the 'rankings' for size of collection etc, I've always wanted to have some way of 'comparing' collections to find out which other Bricksetters have collections most like (or, in this case, UNLIKE) one's own; could be interesting to chat to others who, for example, also have no LEGO cars or modulars to find out what makes their collection tick. Maybe I should suggest it... Maybe noöne would use it... Maybe it's just me...
@bananaworld said:
" @RickestRick said:
"95% of the Lego I purchase are cars. For me, the love of Lego is driven by the love of cars first. If they didn't license vehicles, I would stop purchasing Lego."
Oh wow! You my diametrical opposite in terms of LEGO collecting! It must take some chance to have no overlap in collections.
Related to the 'rankings' for size of collection etc, I've always wanted to have some way of 'comparing' collections to find out which other Bricksetters have collections most like (or, in this case, UNLIKE) one's own; could be interesting to chat to others who, for example, also have no LEGO cars or modulars to find out what makes their collection tick. Maybe I should suggest it... Maybe noöne would use it... Maybe it's just me..."
I would. ;]
I think unlike something like star wars it doesn't matter for a technic set if it's licensed or not. Like, a excavator is a excavator, besides prints or stickers it won't matter if it's Lego's own design or a licensed one.
I think it does matter for top end sets of recognizable stuff. Like cars. Even when the "Italian sports car" from Cada is superior to any Lego Ferrari.....it's still just an Italian sports car that happens to look (a lot) like a Ferrari. Here licensing is the right thing to do. And I don't think that many people are willing to pay €300 for some fantasy sports car. Well, unless maybe if Lego would go all out on some unique functions to make up for it.
But indeed, for more generic stuff like construction equipment, does anyone really care?
Great article, thorough analysis :) so many comments!
My favourite Technic on the whole was the Universal sets - I loved the inspiration they provided with multiple, different builds. Usually five or six in the instructions but even more in photographs on the box. Look at 8055 for an example. Such a small parts count by today’s standards, but they reached a high point with 8094 .
I think you could consider Mindstorms sets as the modern equivalent of Universal sets - 51515 seems to have a nice selection of modern pieces - and NO licensing. ‘Real’ brands don’t really fit with the free-build, wide subject range that I like to see.
What a pity that Mindstorms has ended. I hope LEGO replace it with something similarly versatile! Imagine a PoweredUP set that makes several mechanised devices… Boost was my favourite of modern sets, and it wasn’t even Technic.
As a kid, I don’t think I would have enjoyed a set that built one model resembling a branded product. I liked the abstract quality that avoided the need for realistic appearances; function over form. It’s the mechanisms that are the interesting part, not the shape or colour. Being able to pose the Technic figures was great, too.
The Williams F1 car is actually a rebranded and color changed 8458: Silver Champion from 2000. They are almost identical beside from change of panels and colors body + wheels.
I'm not a Hardcore Technic connoisseur, however, I actually prefer the licensing, because to me, the whole appeal of Technic is that they're making vehicles and things that actually exist. Technic shines when it's based in reality, and the more experimental or esoteric builds don't seem to do as well. When the designers can grab the real deal and recreate it, I feel like they do a better job with that. It also means we get interesting recolors instead of "hey another red car, yay..." In the long run, I find more net benefits from branding. I'd also be curious as to how much branding affects the price of a Technic set.
Lego does not need so much licensed Technic sets. They produced a lot of, in my eyes, nice technic sets in the past which were not licensed and still realistic and resembling the real world sample.
Have alook at 42008, 42024, 42112, 8274, 8109, 8052, 8043.
And how much does 42039 differ from the licensed 42156?