Blind box carnage

What did they think was going to happen?

I bought two at random today and I got the two I wanted; Agatha and Wolverine.

I guess the stars were in alignment for me today!

Haven't seen it occur myself, but I haven't checked them too much since release. For reference, I have seen the previous packaging of minifigures open in store before, and I've seen smaller sets with their packaging opened as well. And ripped open blind boxes are hardly an unheard of thing. It happening to an entire basket of them is admittedly weird though.

Frankly, we need more time and recurrences to actually make a judgement. Many figures have, for isntance, had figure swaps (buy a figure, replace it with an old one you have laying about, return to store) happen for a while now, but it isn't as absolutely prevalent as the reports and pictures would show. Similar with the head removals on open box packaging.

We just need more time to actually assess whether it's just normal occurrences or something which will grow into systematic.

Maybe people are opening them to steal them because the boxes, being a bit bulkier, are harder to steal than the packets.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

This:
I’m just here for the “here’s how I justify shoplifting!” comments.

Regardless of where you stand, it was a stupid move on LEGO's part. People going all coo-coo and crazed collectors shredding boxes was inevitable. And of course the solution is just as simple: No more mystery boxes! Just hand them out with the codes and or label the boxes outright let people pick what they want. Worked flawlessly when LEGO stores were selling figures this way during the pandemic.

I remember this happening back in the day with Bionicle mask packs, lol.

The article photo looks like Walmart. All the Walmart's in my area keep their LEGO sets, including CMF, behind glass. You have to have a worker open the case and watch you interact with the product. It's sad, and I don't buy LEGO from Walmart as a consequence.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

The "victim" here is a big box retailer. Lego has made their money. Why are we defending massive corporations when their poor actions have consequences?

This isn't a new problem. Some Tesco stores used to put every individual fig in a DVD security case. They may still do it for all I know.

Some people just suck. Don't pin it on the cardboard boxes.

Dirtbags. Straight up thieves, there’s no way you can justify this. Hopefully the losers get caught.

Are people going to the store ripping open baseball or Pokémon cards? I get people are upset about the change but c’mon there’s all kinds of random collectibles. And 12 minifigs are much easier to collect in secondary market.

I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯

Stealing not my thing, but opening them before buying I can understand.
But in the past I bought several boxes and intended to sell the figs I didn't need.
I still have dozens of figs around I only sell in slow motion so buying a full box, nooooooo

@fakespacesquid said:
"Dirtbags. Straight up thieves, there’s no way you can justify this. Hopefully the losers get caught."

You’re assuming someone is stealing… I see many opened and just left there to spill out. Not theft, but certainly vandalism… I guess. Sad since Walmart takes returns in most conditions. I just returned a bunch after I gently opened them with a sharp blade, got what i wanted, gently resealed with hot glue, and returned the rest. Followed the rules and played nice and all was fine in the end.

@CC said:
"Are people going to the store ripping open baseball or Pokémon cards? I get people are upset about the change but c’mon there’s all kinds of random collectibles. And 12 minifigs are much easier to collect in secondary market."

Yeah actually that has been an issue, sadly enough

Anyone else want to play 'Dumpster Fire Comments Section Bingo'?

Even Vitruvius from TLM could have seen this coming....

Sad to say, but I think this signals the beginning of the end of the CMFs. They're obviously not going to sell as well moving forward now that there's virtually no way to tell what's inside without opening them. Instead of correcting their mistakes, I worry that LEGO is more likely to just cancel the theme outright. I hope I'm wrong.

@Rolodzeo said:
"I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯"
Indeed. At this price point what actual fun is there in not knowing what you're getting? And is it right to, in effect, force kids to gamble with their money...?

I don't really go in for the idea of 'sins', but gambling is a, shall we say, 'vice', that never ends well.

Blind\loot bags\boxes are 100% gambling.

Just received my set and I really don't like the boxes, particularly as stores have to rip them apart to see what's inside (this is if you order complete sets off the internet).

I think Lego need to review this, and not blindly go through with another set of boxes for the next series.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

they are a multibillion-dollar corporation with many people involved in decision-making processes, not a person who could be victimized and blamed, hope this helps

also, making light of therapy-speak! not a great "joke" in 2023, "friend"

People cannot CHEAT their way into BLIND bag products anymore and they resort to this?

I never liked any sort of random product, be it LEGO figures, card games, or digital loot boxes, but this still is no excuse.

Loot box does not mean "Loot the box".

I can't say I support vandalism. But then again, I can't say I support selling blind boxes for an unfair price (where I live) and get unwanted characters like Echo or Werewolf, making me spend more money. It's the same as buying loot boxes in videogames with real money. If they want to sell in papers, at least put some bar code so that we could identify the minifigure.

@Mylenium said:
"Regardless of where you stand, it was a stupid move on LEGO's part. People going all coo-coo and crazed collectors shredding boxes was inevitable. And of course the solution is just as simple: No more mystery boxes! Just hand them out with the codes and or label the boxes outright let people pick what they want. Worked flawlessly when LEGO stores were selling figures this way during the pandemic."

^^^^THIS RIGHT HERE^^^^

Until LEGO comes up with a way to identify each of the packages. This is going to happen with every collectible minifigure series moving forward…stores are either not going to carry them anymore or they’re gonna lock them up. Either way it’s going to stifle sales. One of the dumbest marketing and packaging ideas I’ve seen from any company in quite some time. Congratulations, LEGO :(

About a month before release, I found the series for 20% off at a grocery store. I bought ten and got eight unique, including all four that I wanted. I got very lucky.

The lousy part about just decided to buy these on a secondhand market as we’re already seeing them jacked up on pricing and they’re barely out on the market. My local Bricks & Minifigsstore had them anywhere from $7 to $15 apiece. So you get pooched either way.

@Cinnamonbricks said:
"Shoplifting Lego? Really? I could understand having to shoplift food if you're gonna starve otherwise, but Lego isn't a life or death situation."

Totally agree. Lego looting? Minifig frenzy?? Wtf??? Maybe I'm too old to get this...

Anyway, none of this nonsense is going on around here.

My local grocery store had them out early about two weeks ago, and the next time I was in there all the ones left on the shelf (about 8) were opened. I will only buy them on the secondary market, because if I can’t feel them to get what I want, I’m not going to gamble on what I get.

Saw the carnage in a local Walmart yesterday. Every box was ripped open. Looked in a few and the ones that still had parts in them all seemed to be some of the characters with white heads or torsos. But I only looked in a few as I didn't want to be accused of causing the damage & theft. Glad I pre-ordered a set before release to insure I wouldn't have to play minifig roulette. Probably going to be my way of obtaining CMF's going forward or else trying my luck with random 6 pack boxes for the series I have more interest in.

*hot take* I don't think the packaging change caused an increase in the behavior, it merely made a pre-existing problem more obvious. I live in the US and I constantly see opened and emptied Hot Wheels blister packs, TCG (Pokemon/Magic) boosters, Nerf dart boxes, etc, on the shelves at stores. The previous polybags were probably easy enough to pocket, these new boxes, less so, and now it's clear people have always been stealing them. Same thing happened with the Super Mario blind boxes. Theft has always been there, people just didn't notice, but I see it all the time, unfortunately.

Based! Blind boxes are one more way to unnecessarily rip off consumers even more. Write on the god damn box, what is inside and stop trying to make people buy doubles!

@ao_ka said:
"I always find this so ironic to happen in the US and EU. Lego is ten times more expensive in Brazil yet this never happened here. "

Just because you don’t have information about it, it doesn’t mean, it never happens.

I like the idea from Lego to be more green, but they choose by far the worst theme to start with (or they just went full gamble with loot boxes).

Either way, doing this with the cmf series was “black instructions” level of stupidity.

Personally I stopped buying them, because random is not fun.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

The real victims are consumers. Shops are insured against theft of merchandise. Companies are not your friends!

@Dash_Justice said:
"*hot take* I don't think the packaging change caused an increase in the behavior, it merely made a pre-existing problem more obvious. I live in the US and I constantly see opened and emptied Hot Wheels blister packs, TGC boosters, Nerf dart boxes, etc, on the shelves at stores. The previous polybags were probably easy enough to pocket, these new boxes, less so, and now it's clear people have always been stealing them. Same thing happened with the Super Mario blind boxes. Theft has always been there, people just didn't notice, but I see it all the time, unfortunately."

I commonly see this kind of thing even with very large sets - people presumably steal the bag that has the set-exclusive minifig in it and walk out. But I also see it with common, fig-less Creator sets too, especially in Dollar Generals that are in out-of-the-way locations.

I'm not surprised and while the whole situation sucks, I land harder on the blind boxing being an anti-consumer shutout move that is understandably, if not justifiably, being responded to with vandalism and theft. For years, the blind nature of CMFS was *optional* because they were placed in a foil pack you could feel through. For years, the culture of minifig collecting was largely that of bag-feeling to circumvent the blind packaging tons of people disliked, especially as the prices approached extortionate. You can protest that blind buying was the intended experience, but it had never been fully forced before and a massive amount of collectors always found the blind-packing to be an obstructive and unfair move for reasons I find perfectly sound. It had worked out so LEGO could have their gimmick while the buyer didn't have to participate when they didn't want to, which was a pretty ideal setup under the terms of blind bags. I get why this is happening now. I'm turning away from buying in store rather than going aggressive and tearing boxes, but regardless of response, this move has been a huge collecting turnoff.

@Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

That people weren't going to be dicks?

Yeh, I know that is a very naïve view.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @SolidState said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

The "victim" here is a big box retailer. Lego has made their money. Why are we defending massive corporations when their poor actions have consequences?"

Excellent motivation. I'll be sure to use that in court when I start robbing banks, stealing cars, and treating the world in general like my very own personal (pirated!) copy of GTA6.

Paired with the foolproof "some dude on a Lego-forum said it was okay, your Honour"-strategy, why, I'll be a modern-day Robin Hood."

No one is saying this. The point is that a massive company made a poor packaging decision that encourages consumer misbehavior. See missing heads on Transformers as prior example.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @SolidState said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

The "victim" here is a big box retailer. Lego has made their money. Why are we defending massive corporations when their poor actions have consequences?"

Excellent motivation. I'll be sure to use that in court when I start robbing banks, stealing cars, and treating the world in general like my very own personal (pirated!) copy of GTA6.

Paired with the foolproof "some dude on a Lego-forum said it was okay, your Honour"-strategy, why, I'll be a modern-day Robin Hood."

Nice strawman my dude!

@PjtorXmos said:
"Based! Blind boxes are one more way to unnecessarily rip off consumers even more. Write on the god damn box, what is inside and stop trying to make people buy doubles!"

No one is forcing you to get the whole collection and no one is punishing you for getting doubles. This idea that you must have all of them with no repeats and that Lego making it slightly more difficult for you to do that turns you stealing into their fault is just entitlement, plain and simple

I typically get CMFs at my local Walmart. I have even encountered recently in the last year that even old blind bag CMFs were opened. At one Walmart I went to someone had gone through the aisle and ripped open regular boxed sets. I think without being able to feel the figures I am done with CMFs. Not being able to feel them anymore gets rid of the treasure hunting atmosphere for me, Sad day.

I haven't seen them yet in a shop but wouldn't be surprised if some shops decided not to stock them.

LEGO could have got around part of the problem by putting a code on the boxes that would allow you to find the figures you wanted if you chose to do it that way, or not if you just wanted a lucky dip.

I don't condone the damage to the items but I think there would be a lot fewer people deciding to open boxes if some means of identifying them was on the box. It would be a pragmatic solution and also address some of the gambling issues with blind boxes.

For me, feeling the bags was kind of part of the fun of the old style of packaging. It took a little bit of effort but you could identify the figures you wanted. I kind of wish that they could do something like that on the boxes, something that took a bit of effort to work out but would allow you to identify the figure.

@Banners said:
" @Rolodzeo said:
"I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯"
Indeed. At this price point what actual fun is there in not knowing what you're getting? And is it right to, in effect, force kids to gamble with their money...?"

I genuinely don't get that mind set. If you don't want the fun of finding out what's inside the unknown then why on earth are you buying things advertised as blind bags? As for gambling...how? Its not like you could get a really rare fig or a really common one, they're all made specifically for the series, they're all equivalent value. You pay to get a neat minifig, you get a neat minifig, there is no element of loss that would make it gambling

@Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Rolodzeo said:
"I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯"
Indeed. At this price point what actual fun is there in not knowing what you're getting? And is it right to, in effect, force kids to gamble with their money...?"

I genuinely don't get that mind set. If you don't want the fun of finding out what's inside the unknown then why on earth are you buying things advertised as blind bags? As for gambling...how? Its not like you could get a really rare fig or a really common one, they're all made specifically for the series, they're all equivalent value. You pay to get a neat minifig, you get a neat minifig, there is no element of loss that would make it gambling"

The idea that all the minifigs in a CMF series are all the same value is absolutely ridiculous- every CMF has high value and low value figures, its 100% gambling

@Brickalili said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Based! Blind boxes are one more way to unnecessarily rip off consumers even more. Write on the god damn box, what is inside and stop trying to make people buy doubles!"

No one is forcing you to get the whole collection and no one is punishing you for getting doubles. This idea that you must have all of them with no repeats and that Lego making it slightly more difficult for you to do that turns you stealing into their fault is just entitlement, plain and simple"

I've seen a lot of people bow down to corporations and their justifications to make profit any way in the name of Almighty Capitalism™, but this is a new low: "So what if the company tricks you into buying doubles?"

@SolidState said:
"
No one is saying this. The point is that a massive company made a poor packaging decision that encourages consumer misbehavior. See missing heads on Transformers as prior example."

Just because Kinder Surprise Eggs are blind products, doesn't justify me eating them in a store to see what's inside. (and yes I know those are actually banned in the US , but that's beside the point)

@SomethingOrOther said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Based! Blind boxes are one more way to unnecessarily rip off consumers even more. Write on the god damn box, what is inside and stop trying to make people buy doubles!"

No one is forcing you to get the whole collection and no one is punishing you for getting doubles. This idea that you must have all of them with no repeats and that Lego making it slightly more difficult for you to do that turns you stealing into their fault is just entitlement, plain and simple"

I've seen a lot of people bow down to corporations and their justifications to make profit any way in the name of Almighty Capitalism™, but this is a new low: "So what if the company tricks you into buying doubles?""

How is it a trick? So what if you get doubles? Again, this mindset comes from you and is nothing more than entitlement

@Terreneflame said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Rolodzeo said:
"I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯"
Indeed. At this price point what actual fun is there in not knowing what you're getting? And is it right to, in effect, force kids to gamble with their money...?"

I genuinely don't get that mind set. If you don't want the fun of finding out what's inside the unknown then why on earth are you buying things advertised as blind bags? As for gambling...how? Its not like you could get a really rare fig or a really common one, they're all made specifically for the series, they're all equivalent value. You pay to get a neat minifig, you get a neat minifig, there is no element of loss that would make it gambling"

The idea that all the minifigs in a CMF series are all the same value is absolutely ridiculous- every CMF has high value and low value figures, its 100% gambling"

They do something like they did with the Highwayman way back when where it was notably more rare, I'd agree, I thought that was kinda skeevy. But here they're all the same value. It's not like a box has 10 of the exact Iron Man that pops up in every other set and then 2 unique ones, they're all one of a kind

You can buy the box of 36 which guarantees 3 complete sets, but really they could just sell boxes of 12 guaranteeing a complete set.

*Surprised Pikachu meme*

If retailers have to waste time securing these, its the end of the line as a distribution channel.

When you buy a Kinder egg... you're buying the EGG, and the toy is a bonus.

You buy a CMF, and get a dupe/unwanted... what are you going to do? Eat the cardboard??

It's a scam to increase sales, simple as.

And the easiest solution is to stop buying them, even from the secondary market.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @TeriXeri said:
" @SolidState said:
"
No one is saying this. The point is that a massive company made a poor packaging decision that encourages consumer misbehavior. See missing heads on Transformers as prior example."

Just because Kinder Surprise Eggs are blind products, doesn't justify me eating them in a store to see what's inside. (and yes I know those are actually banned in the US , but that's beside the point)"

I think that wasn't really about outcries of "Kinder is selling edible lootboxes and forcing gambling-addictions onto our children", but more about them, you know, eating the plastic.

Oh god. What if that's what's happening here as well?"

Why, you mean, I can swallow the contents when I eat the box?

Anyways, while I'd never encourage stealing, I see why people are opening the boxes here:

1. These aren't 1-buck cheap blind bags toys where a low price allows for the fun of thr surprise
2. Collectors are interested in the minifigures themselves, not in the gamble.
3. Repeated figures aren't fun. Yeah, you're supposed to swap with your friends in the school yard, but heck, I'm 40 and none of my coworkers collects these. There aren't many events in my area that would feature a swapparoo sort of thing and I don't think It's worth organising one. My local bricks shop isn't interested in swapping, either.
4. Bag feeling was a way to mitigate multiple copies of the same thing. It also gave you the feeling of "beating the system" which verybody knew was fake in the first place, but part of the fun - for me at least, but not for everybody.

Blind boxes/bags are by design a method for a company to entice someone to spend more money than they would like to, through the chase of collecting. They are essentially video game loot boxes in real life. You might get something you want, something you didn't want, or something you already have. Blind boxes/bags are a scummy business tactic.

So long as they aren't stealing them, I don't really care if someone opens them up. It just makes it easier for the rest of us to know what we are getting. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but I'm saying I don't feel bad when people actively circumvent scummy business practices.

I found a Mario figure I wanted in a box someone else had already opened at Walmart once, so I wasn't upset by it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have ever purchased any of the Mario blind boxes.

Lego would have no problem selling each minifigure if you could purchase exactly the ones you wanted. After the last price increase, I stopped collecting entire sets. If Lego were to sell complete sets on their website, I would buy them every time.

*Reads the article* Wow, what a surprising turn of events *rolls eyes*
*Reads the comments* Wow, what a surprising turn of events *rolls eyes*

Just order the ones you want online. I paid roughly RRP+10% for the specific ones I wanted, if you want an entire set you can get it below RRP.

In order to save the environment, let's put collectable minifigs in paper boxes .. and then encase those in plastic to reduce theft.

I am curious as to how this will affect the scalping market for minifigures. Lego did a good thing making each box have three of each figure, thus removing 'chase figures' or less common figures. Locally, there have been resellers try to create artificial scarcity by targeting specific figures from sets and buying all of a particular one. E.G. falconer, brown spaceman, orc from S24, Knight from S23 and weirdly, Bugs Bunny. They cleared out every bugs bunny in a 100km radius within two days of release. A month or so later I saw someone list 500 bugs bunny figures for $15 (Retail is $6) I really hope they lost out big time on that venture, or that it takes them so long to recover the spend they deem it not worth it.
Removing the ability to identify what you get will hopefully discourage this behaviour even further, as they can't target specific ones easily in store and will have to spend the time at home to identify, or buy whole boxes.

I think Lego have missed the golden opportunity to make minifigs educational. Following the other recent release they should have just Braille embossed the boxes with the character name.

I saw the boxes and i missed feeling them up. I loved looking like a dork when i was going through a box full of bags. Especially because i was very good at it. The new boxes killed that for me, and make it more easier to resist buying cmfs. Only a Muppets nr2 will get me back into buying cmf series again

I used to play the lottery but it's a total ripoff. They don't tell you the winning numbers ahead of time to get the jackpot! Not fair. I shouldn't have to gamble with winning money, seriously. How does the lottery ever expect to make money for the real fans of money if they won't just let you buy the jackpot directly? So ridiculous.

It's kinda interesting to see that in Japan similar systems of blind boxes are a huge business. And either buy a sealed box at the standard price, or in some shops know what you buy at an extra charge. Or be patient and wait, likely miss out on the most desirable ones (you had your chance...) but get the less interesting ones for cheap. But despite how huge of a business it is, hardly ever have I seen opened (empty) boxes there. Undoubtedly it will happen there too, but not to an extent that it endangers the business.

Which makes me wonder: why are there so many a*holes everywhere else in the world?

I mean, it has been argued before Lego can't make nice boxes anymore because scumbags would rip them open for the nice parts. And now this.....

@TeriXeri said:
"People cannot CHEAT their way into BLIND bag products anymore and they resort to this?

I never liked any sort of random product, be it LEGO figures, card games, or digital loot boxes, but this still is no excuse.

Loot box does not mean "Loot the box"."

Regarding this situation: 'stupid is as stupid does, my mama always used to say.'

But!.... There's apparently a NEW WAY!

AdFanatics is reporting that it's possible to view the inside of the 'mystery box' by shining a phone light into one corner of the box whilst sticking your greedy eyeball in the opposite corner hole.

Some A-holes (oops!, meant AFOLS) have been doing this in Lego brand stores without trouble.

See ya at the stores with my best mini-flaslight!

JK, I buy a full set on ebay or BL.

Yet, I will try this to see if I can get an extra something cool.

@Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Rolodzeo said:
"I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯"
Indeed. At this price point what actual fun is there in not knowing what you're getting? And is it right to, in effect, force kids to gamble with their money...?"

I genuinely don't get that mind set. If you don't want the fun of finding out what's inside the unknown then why on earth are you buying things advertised as blind bags? As for gambling...how? Its not like you could get a really rare fig or a really common one, they're all made specifically for the series, they're all equivalent value. You pay to get a neat minifig, you get a neat minifig, there is no element of loss that would make it gambling"

A huge body of people have bought the CMFs without ever wanting the experience of a blind bag and I wouldn't call that unreasonable. I understand exactly why that would be--people bought them because they wanted the specific figures offered by the series, and often, worked to eliminate the randomness in the way because that was possible. I don't expect the line to thrive in the future now that buyers are being barred from cheating an unpopular system. Buying in for the randomness is also not generally why anybody participates in a lottery. People don't want the unknown prize if they don't have money to burn for it. They want a chance at the *specific* reward that's only on offer through random means. But people will always take the route of least risk if one allows them to circumvent the potential loss. That's what happened with CMFs.

And I think it is fair to call it gambling because there is no objective value in a pool of subjective rewards. Everybody will have a figure they want more than another, and everybody will likely be disappointed to receive some instead of others. Some figures are also easy to call objectively more lavish than others. A $5 price tag is pretty hefty for something you're not sure you'll like, so packaging that enforces blind buying asks the buyer to spend on something they may be unhappy with, and $5 per unit adds up too quickly. With foil packs, there was a loophole or an opt-out of sorts that allowed you to buy the figures you desired in store without added cost that aftermarket buying would entail. Now, it's aftermarket, potential random disappointment, vandalism, or nothing.

This is wrong, but what TLG are doing is also wrong. The best course of action is to just not buy them and write TLG you'll not take part in this blind bag craziness.

Walking to a toy store these days is like going to Vegas, with tons of shitty plastic toys you have no idea what's inside, made in China for 20 cents selling for $7. Tons of unwanted plastic, wrapped in 3 layers of plastic. Kids spending their allowance on gambling (Yes, not *your* kid as you're a good parent and educator, but kids clearly do that as the blind bags are still here).

Anyway, these are cool minifigures, but not cool enough to break the law for or gamble on. At least we have BL to buy the 1-2 we want.

If I were Walmart, I would just sell these pre-sorted. No shoplifting and more sales.

Okay... I could comment, but its already all been said.

I'm just going to say I'm disappointed in those people that claim to be lego fans who've done this.

LEGO should have seen this coming and stuck with the bags

As a law abiding citizen I disagree with vandalism and petty theft, but as a consumer I also disagree with $5-a-pop blind boxes. That stuff adds up, even assuming you get all 12 right off the bat. They should just be identifiable with a QR code or something and everyone would win.

@Brickalili said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Based! Blind boxes are one more way to unnecessarily rip off consumers even more. Write on the god damn box, what is inside and stop trying to make people buy doubles!"

No one is forcing you to get the whole collection and no one is punishing you for getting doubles. This idea that you must have all of them with no repeats and that Lego making it slightly more difficult for you to do that turns you stealing into their fault is just entitlement, plain and simple"

What the hell, is that even supposed to mean?! I certainly don't care for them, but people who might want to get all of them, shouldn't have to do this whole loot box gambling nonsense. I'm also not really advocating for stealing, as much as I'm advocating for opening boxes and checking, what's inside. And let's call it what it is, it's gambling aimed at kids (as if gambling isn't bad enough on it's own)!

I knew from day one that this would be the ultimate result of the switch to cardboard boxes. My local Target and Walmart have had torn open super mario character packs strewn about for the past year, and those aren't even that popular. The idea that people would walk into the store with a scale, as suggested by fans on social media, was one that always sounded like something most people would find a hassle, and the lack of any identification on the boxes was an absolute mistake on Lego's part. I'm sure lego has heard reports from retail stores about these issues with their previous blind box products, so I wonder if lego has come to the conclusion that whatever damage is caused by this is offset by the increased sales from more reasonable people* trying to complete the collection by buying randomly. My only hope at this point is that maybe enough retailers will complain and stop ordering cmfs to force lego's hand to make some kind of change.

As for people complaining that the bags 'ruined' the randomness, you could always buy them without feeling them. Ripping open the box completely removes that chance too, so it's still better all around for lego to change how they do this.

*the true most reasonable thing to do would be to pay a few bucks extra for them second hand, but I guess someone has to buy them at the store

All I can add is that at each and every one of the toy stores in my area that I go to has stopped selling LEGO CMFs. Not just because of the move to blind boxes but also because of it. From what I gathered by asking is that they simply haven't been selling well for quite some time now.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming!"

Or pattern-recognition, since this exact same thing happened with the blind boxes for the Vidiyo s1 minifigs.

What, Lego didn't expect this exact same thing to happen?

And this isn't an either/or situation. Stealing is wrong. Lego's poor decisions, which has the flow-on effect that's detrimental to retailers, isn't right either.

Let's be honest for a second.

When LEGO did this tactic with VIDIYO bandmates boxes, we saw reports of vandalized boxes and stolen minifigures. We condemned the people who did this and we assumed LEGO would rectify this issue in the future.

Fool me once, shame on you.

And now here we are with LEGO repeating the same tactic and seeing the exact same results. We still condemn the people who did this, but with lingering hindsight. LEGO knows what happened the last time they tried blind boxes, and here we are again, with more blind boxes.

I personally fall into the camps of "boxes suck," "theft is wrong," "I'll buy my figures third-hand if that means avoiding theft/vandalism/bad odds," and "LEGO's choice to repeat the same mistake twice was a bad one."

Fool me twice, shame on me.

@PjtorXmos said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Based! Blind boxes are one more way to unnecessarily rip off consumers even more. Write on the god damn box, what is inside and stop trying to make people buy doubles!"

No one is forcing you to get the whole collection and no one is punishing you for getting doubles. This idea that you must have all of them with no repeats and that Lego making it slightly more difficult for you to do that turns you stealing into their fault is just entitlement, plain and simple"

What the hell, is that even supposed to mean?! I certainly don't care for them, but people who might want to get all of them, shouldn't have to do this whole loot box gambling nonsense. I'm also not really advocating for stealing, as much as I'm advocating for opening boxes and checking, what's inside. And let's call it what it is, it's gambling aimed at kids (as if gambling isn't bad enough on it's own)!"

It would be gambling if there were 10 figs all the same and 1 unique one. It would be gambling if you might get just a pile of random parts instead of a minifig. Saying "hey it could be any of this selection of minifigs" and then giving exactly that is not gambling. That's just an excuse people are hiding behind to try and claim some moral high ground.
As is the idea that its targeted at kids; kids don't care about getting the whole set, kids don't care about getting doubles. Its all fun Lego treats to them. Its only AFOLs who have this weird obsession with getting one and precisely, only one of each and seem to be under the impression that any slight roadblock to that is some great heinous crime. It's all just entitlement

@Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Yes, we all predicted this. I don't understand why Lego didn't care.

OP/ED

Blind purchases have been in retail for years upon years upon decades. In a historical setting -- and I am thinking back to the baseball card sets and sticker books I used to try and complete -- the strategy was to encourage more sales for the company, sure, but it was also to encourage trading with your friends (thereby widening the sales circle even more). As a kid it was a kind of sport in itself to see what cards one could get to dangle in front of 'that guy' who wanted it REAL bad. At the time, I never considered it to be a form of gambling but of social interaction and a form of play or even making new friends on the schoolyard through shared interests. Of course theft and vandalism did occur then, too.

It is this social aspect, I think, that has been lost in the current generation, as is evidenced by much of the commentary here. What I am gathering (in broad strokes) is that uncertainty, trading and the social interaction that could come with it are all antiquated concepts that should be retired in favour of absolute certainty in obtaining what is wanted without a need to interact with anyone to obtain it.

It's kind of sad.

Why yes, the boxes are being ripped open locally....just like they were when they were in bags.

Nothing has changed. The 'problem' isn't the delivery method, it's the blind bag sales model, which promotes early gambling reward mechanisms in kids. Should Lego sell full sets online? Probably. Is cardboard that much better environmentally given so few countries have effective recycling processes anyway? Maybe not.

But is it time for the supposed grown adults in the fanbase to stop being creeps rubbing all the blind bags desperately searching for a minifig of a minor character that will just end up on a shelf with 200+ other minifigs? You bet your last jumper-plate it is. Grow up kids.

@Brickalili said:
As is the idea that its targeted at kids; kids don't care about getting the whole set, kids don't care about getting doubles.

Errr, no, that's nonsense. I have two children, a boy and a girl, and they definitely care what figure they want. I've spent many a minute patiently going through packs just to make sure I'm not wasting my money on a figure they don't want. The great thing is even my kids appreciate that CMFs have now become a lucky dip, but unlike at the local school fair this one costs more that 50p. With all the money I've saved this month I may invest in a few Lego advent calendars, as at least you have an idea as what's behind the cardboard doors...

"In today's episode of Reaping and Sowing"...

@Brickalili said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Based! Blind boxes are one more way to unnecessarily rip off consumers even more. Write on the god damn box, what is inside and stop trying to make people buy doubles!"

No one is forcing you to get the whole collection and no one is punishing you for getting doubles. This idea that you must have all of them with no repeats and that Lego making it slightly more difficult for you to do that turns you stealing into their fault is just entitlement, plain and simple"

What the hell, is that even supposed to mean?! I certainly don't care for them, but people who might want to get all of them, shouldn't have to do this whole loot box gambling nonsense. I'm also not really advocating for stealing, as much as I'm advocating for opening boxes and checking, what's inside. And let's call it what it is, it's gambling aimed at kids (as if gambling isn't bad enough on it's own)!"

It would be gambling if there were 10 figs all the same and 1 unique one. It would be gambling if you might get just a pile of random parts instead of a minifig. Saying "hey it could be any of this selection of minifigs" and then giving exactly that is not gambling. That's just an excuse people are hiding behind to try and claim some moral high ground.
As is the idea that its targeted at kids; kids don't care about getting the whole set, kids don't care about getting doubles. Its all fun Lego treats to them. Its only AFOLs who have this weird obsession with getting one and precisely, only one of each and seem to be under the impression that any slight roadblock to that is some great heinous crime. It's all just entitlement"

What's does the distribution of the items you can get in your lootbox have to do with it being classified as gambling or not tho?
Also idk if you had a lot of money as a kid or not, but I hated getting doubles as a kid back in the first waves of CMF. "bOo hOo aFols are cOmplAiniNg about mY fAvoUriTe cOrpOratIoN dOiNg uNetHicAl bUsiNesS prActiCe" is just such cope.

I assume you guys are think TCG packs should be opened prior to buying also? What a scummy practice! Here's an idea : if you don't like it, don't buy it. LEGO has every right to bundle its products however it wants. You have every right not to partake. But don't act like you have some kind of god-given right to know what's inside a package before you buy it : you don't.

This is just deplorable behavior, through and through.

At least five or so years ago, MEGA started just selling (some) of their figures in clear packaging, so you know exactly who you get. They often sell the most desirable figures in clear packaging and less valuable ones (save for one or so per wave) in the blind bag style LEGO does. As the prices rise on these figures, and they become licensed characters instead of just random yellow figs, I feel as if they should shift towards simply selling people the figure that they want by marking the packaging with the included figure. I’ve never been a fan of the blind bag style, and now I’m sort of repulsed by it, as it seems miserable and expensive, especially for children (who are at least nominally LEGO’s target demographic).

@ACubeInABox said:
"As a law abiding citizen I disagree with vandalism and petty theft, but as a consumer I also disagree with $5-a-pop blind boxes. That stuff adds up, even assuming you get all 12 right off the bat. They should just be identifiable with a QR code or something and everyone would win. "

I saw your movie: 'Law abiding citizen'. Pretty cool/wild/spooky what you do in there! Spoiler: but I thought you died at the end.

Jokes aside. I fully agree with you. I am totally against this practice but at the same time, the boxes should be identified. there are so many tastes in nature that no minifigs will be left behind but also nobody will have to buy many copies of something they don't want. At $1 blind bag 'might' be fine (and still) but at $5 it is not fine at all. I would have collected the CMF and I did not for that exact reason. I recently bought a box of 6 and was lucky enough to get the brown spaceman with space baby - I got one other minifig for which I had an interest and for the other 4 I would have rather gotten a different selection - I suppose that is the experience of many people and it is not fun at all.

@darthsutius said: "But is it time for the supposed grown adults in the fanbase to stop being creeps rubbing all the blind bags desperately searching for a minifig of a minor character that will just end up on a shelf with 200+ other minifigs? You bet your last jumper-plate it is. Grow up kids."

And given that every Lego set is the exact same plastic blocks on repeat, I assume, by your own logic, you stopped buying Lego at some point in 1994 or so?

@Brickalili said:
"As is the idea that its targeted at kids; kids don't care about getting the whole set, kids don't care about getting doubles. Its all fun Lego treats to them. Its only AFOLs who have this weird obsession with getting one and precisely, only one of each and seem to be under the impression that any slight roadblock to that is some great heinous crime. It's all just entitlement"

That's a load right there. You either don't know a lot of kids or have been extremely lucky. Kids DO CARE if they get doubles, especially if they bought it with their own money. Now doubles of a generic Lego set? That's a whole new ballgame, as there is exponentially more use for extra bricks versus a lone CMF.

@8BrickMario said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Rolodzeo said:
"I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯"
Indeed. At this price point what actual fun is there in not knowing what you're getting? And is it right to, in effect, force kids to gamble with their money...?"

I genuinely don't get that mind set. If you don't want the fun of finding out what's inside the unknown then why on earth are you buying things advertised as blind bags? As for gambling...how? Its not like you could get a really rare fig or a really common one, they're all made specifically for the series, they're all equivalent value. You pay to get a neat minifig, you get a neat minifig, there is no element of loss that would make it gambling"

A huge body of people have bought the CMFs without ever wanting the experience of a blind bag and I wouldn't call that unreasonable. I understand exactly why that would be--people bought them because they wanted the specific figures offered by the series, and often, worked to eliminate the randomness in the way because that was possible. I don't expect the line to thrive in the future now that buyers are being barred from cheating an unpopular system. Buying in for the randomness is also not generally why anybody participates in a lottery. People don't want the unknown prize if they don't have money to burn for it. They want a chance at the *specific* reward that's only on offer through random means. But people will always take the route of least risk if one allows them to circumvent the potential loss. That's what happened with CMFs.

And I think it is fair to call it gambling because there is no objective value in a pool of subjective rewards. Everybody will have a figure they want more than another, and everybody will likely be disappointed to receive some instead of others. Some figures are also easy to call objectively more lavish than others. A $5 price tag is pretty hefty for something you're not sure you'll like, so packaging that enforces blind buying asks the buyer to spend on something they may be unhappy with, and $5 per unit adds up too quickly. With foil packs, there was a loophole or an opt-out of sorts that allowed you to buy the figures you desired in store without added cost that aftermarket buying would entail. Now, it's aftermarket, potential random disappointment, vandalism, or nothing."

You had me at 'subjective rewards.' (*adoring sigh!)

If you're looking for a certain figure, try an official Lego store. The one by me opens up a few full sets to let "kids" trade.

You know, I'd quite like to have that Rivendell set. Tell you what, I'll drop into the nearest Lego shop with a few small cardboard boxes - one of them will have AU$800 in it, the others will have something that I personally, hand on heart, consider to be worth AU$800, the staffer at the desk can try their luck, we got a deal?

@Miyakan said:
" @Miss_Kitty_Fantastico said:
"You know, I'd quite like to have that Rivendell set. Tell you what, I'll drop into the nearest Lego shop with a few small cardboard boxes - one of them will have AU$800 in it, the others will have something that I personally, hand on heart, consider to be worth AU$800, the staffer at the desk can try their luck, we got a deal?"

That is the lovely thing, you make an offer, they can say 'no I don't like that offer. I won't take it.' So can the consumer.

But sure, and the Lego store will just rip them open to find the one they want, and you know, maybe take a few of the other ones too. Oh and they may or may not actually give you that Rivendell set in exchange, depends how honest they feel that day."

Yeah, that does seem a less than ideal outcome. I probably wouldn't go back to that store, they'd get no money, I'd get no Lego, sad outcome all round. I should probably just be up front about what's being offered, instead of trying to make it a gambling game.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @JulieHD said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

they are a multibillion-dollar corporation with many people involved in decision-making processes, not a person who could be victimized and blamed, hope this helps

also, making light of therapy-speak! not a great "joke" in 2023, "friend""

Ah, whoops! My bad. Next time, I'll add a "TRIGGER WARNING: YOU MAY GET CALLED OUT FOR BEING AN ENTITLED ASSHAT". Which is technically now, so that one's all yours, """"""""friend"""""""".

"

Its a toy, stop already. You pretend to be intelligent, and all you do is add to the nonsense. I get this bothers some people....but there are far bigger issues. Usually your comments are more intelligent.

@darthsutius said:
"... But is it time for the supposed grown adults in the fanbase to stop being creeps rubbing all the blind bags desperately searching for a minifig of a minor character that will just end up on a shelf with 200+ other minifigs? You bet your last jumper-plate it is. Grow up kids."

Oh, I sooooo did love standing there in the Lego brand store, rubbing and rubbing away at sticky, clammy bags. The first time, I was a little embarrassed, and couldn't concentrate.

But, then I started channeling Obi-Wan's force ghost voice. I would stand there doing my thing without a care in the material world, and with a far-off look in my eye.

The best is when the bored-lonely Lego moms would come up and ask what I was doing?! Good times.

Now, I have to send all my blind boxes over to @Ridgeheart for a good rub 'n tug..... But, it's just not the same. Sigh. :(

@Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

that the world is filled with nice, respectful people, and we are full on willing to respect the high price to pay for a gamble of getting a fig we want.

I don't know why this article was bothered to be posted, this is barely Lego news, more retail shoplifting news. Which is, nothing new. Just seems like someone is trying to stir up trouble.

Hasbro has reverted their decision to go """plastic-free packaging*""" after just a few months of collectors not buying their stuff.

Imagine what Lego fans could get if they wouldn't just accept everything Lego does.

Blind Boxes are a crime on the level of EA Games lootboxes which are in fact persecuted or banned by some governments.

*Note: Adhesive Tape, glue and Star Wars TVC Plastic Bubbles are not plastic apparently.

@PjtorXmos said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

The real victims are consumers. Shops are insured against theft of merchandise. Companies are not your friends!"
Shops are insured against theft of merchandise , so it's OK to steal from them ? Really ???

What's the matter with some of you.
Ya'll acting like 'blind bags/boxes' JUST started the other day.
Anyone remember baseball card packs.
Same thing. We bought as kids to see if we can score all of our fav players.
We'd get doubles, triples and trade with each other.
Card games, put 'em on spokes of our bikes.

I suspect that was folks (loser thieves) wanting to flip the figures.
And hey, if you can't get all the figs. tough. Get over it. You don't need to own every lego figure.

How many people actually collect one of every minifig in a series? I generally only want 1 or 2 of them from a particular series (if I like any at all). Occasionally, a particular relevant minifig might also make a nice/funny targeted gift for someone. In these cases, I only want to get that particular minifig without having to "gamble" and spend more money for stuff I don't have any interest in - this isn't an issue of getting 'repeat' figures.

Sure, one could always go to the second-hand market, but minifigs desirable for a particular theme often have greatly inflated resell prices. The old way of feeling for minifigs at least allowed for the chance that one could purchase their desired minifig at retail price without having to purchase multiple bags. With the current system, I and others like me will likely no longer purchase CMFs from retail stores and will resign themselves to second-hand markets (and their inflated pricing) to get any minifigs of interest. I also worry that resell values will now be even higher due to this increased supply-side scarcity imposed by the new boxes.

This entire post was really really cringeworthy. WHY are we blaming Lego for their products being easy to steal?!?

And using this as an excuse to push advertising partners is really really really kinda pathetic. Please focus on Lego content and reviews rather than hidden advertising... I already find myself checking this website less often since there is more advertisements for partners and automatic posts than lego set reviews lately...

Loot boxes just should be banned.

Lego has already made their money on this wave, but retailers are going to be apprehensive to stock future CMF series, so Lego is going to see sales on these future CMF series drop drastically

@Brickalili said:
"I genuinely don't get that mind set. If you don't want the fun of finding out what's inside the unknown then why on earth are you buying things advertised as blind bags? As for gambling...how?"
Others have responded to this by now, but another point it that it becomes even more like gambling once you have bought one figure ie. your odds of buying a different CMF lessen with each one you already have. We did Series 20 a couple of years ago, and it was disappointing, annoying and a waste of money when the 'feel test' failed and we increasingly got duplicates. Predictably, we used eBay and Bricklink to complete the set once the duplication became unbearable after about a dozen purchases.

That's not a criticism unique to LEGO, but of all the premium blind bags which have become popular in recent years. In my day it was Panini stickers, but their low cost, and the prevalence of other collectors, was part of the fun ("Got, got, got... need!" etc). Now kids' interests are so varied, there doesn't seem to be anyone to swap the CMFs with, so the boy's pocket money is at risk. He is, in effect, taking a punt – and even moreso now with the introduction of boxes intended to obviate the feel test and stack the odds entirely in the favour of LEGO and the retailer – rather than a 9yo boy. Sure, I understand that there's no compulsion to complete a set, but that's not the inference of how they're marketed.

So, the random factor – or 'gambling' – kinda sucks imho, and I do wonder what LEGO's research has shown them about potential revenues of blind boxes vs simply selling the figures visibly, so people can just buy the ones they want. I guess the random approach is about the more popular ones subsidising the lesser ones...?

I will never understand why Lego still sells these in blind boxes. Just let people know what the figure inside is on the packaging and all the problems will be solved.

@Brickalili said:
"But this is the thing that everyone who tries arguing with me seems to skirt around; what’s wrong with getting duplicates? You all seem to treat it like some poison pill if you get two of the same minifig, but why? It comes across as you liking the collecting more than you like the Lego which is just a baffling mindset to me"
Why? Because it's disappointing, annoying and a waste of money.

And no, we like LEGO more than collecting per se. And liking having different CMFs (and sets) rather than duplicates isn't a particularly radical viewpoint is it...?

I find it sad that the LEGO group in words claims to want to be more environment friendly but in action encourage ”wasteful” behaviour - having consumers buy in excess to get the product one wants. I also wonder if there is a lost cost for retailers for opened boxes (not stolen products), having personel watching over them by the counter or investing in lockable cupboards/cases.

I support the ”boxes with code” idea. (Dot-system, QR-code or some other symbols). That way people that buy the product for the PRODUCT can get what they want while people that pay for the EXPERIENCE of surprice can get what they want. I think mainly FOLs (small customer group) would have the interest and go through the hassle of searching for info on decifering the codes - so wouldnt have large effect on sales?! While main customer target group = gambling children, would still buy more products. ;)

@Brickalili said:
"Why is it disappointing? With one of the Panini sticker books you mentioned, you end up with duplicates and you have nowhere to put them because that space in the book is taken. With CMFs you get duplicates and now you’ve got two cool minifigs, neat. People keep using this “duplicates bad!” argument but never explain why, certainly not to the extent it would justify blatant theft"
It's disappointing rather than "neat" because we want a different figure each time. That desire is seemingly something shared by other people, and the premise of the collections – otherwise they'd all just consist of one figure. However, in no way does disappointment justify theft.

@Banners said:
" @Brickalili said:
"Why is it disappointing? With one of the Panini sticker books you mentioned, you end up with duplicates and you have nowhere to put them because that space in the book is taken. With CMFs you get duplicates and now you’ve got two cool minifigs, neat. People keep using this “duplicates bad!” argument but never explain why, certainly not to the extent it would justify blatant theft"
It's disappointing rather than "neat" because we want a different figure each time. That desire is seemingly something shared by other people, and the premise of the collections – otherwise they'd all just consist of one figure. However, in no way does disappointment justify theft."

Agree. If you like getting duplicates of the same figure, you are the odd one. Minifigs are not trading cards.

Well, looters and lootboxes. 2023 in a nutshell.

@Banners
@Brickalili said:
"(...)why is getting two of the same one disappointing?"
Sometimes, when a 'discussion' has been going on for a while, one needs to step away for a minute and consider the other party's view of the situation.

Banners: Brickalili is saying that getting ANY minifigure, even a duplicate, is an ok thing; you "knew" what you were getting when you ponied up for the blind bag\box.

Brickalili: Banners is coming from the (you have to accept, very common) point of view that some people want a complete collection of the CMFs, and do not want to "waste" money on, and experience disappointment at, getting duplicates. Not everyone has a close circle of peers to swap duplicates with, nor has the time to sell them on the secondary market.

It's a lovely September we're having, ay? :-)

I don't think this is right, but it's nothing new or surprising in my opinion. I'm using my local B&M as an example here - I remember someone did a number of the Vidiyo blind boxes, but it's not just LEGO either. Someone went through the My Hero Academia constructable blind boxes and opened a lot of them (as they were open I looked for the one I wanted and got it). But even non-blind items get treated like this, I'm sure we've all seen regular LEGO sets opened on shelves before. And how many LEGO (or other) magazines have we all seen with the gifts removed?

I'm not really blaming anyone like the shops or even LEGO for this, it's solely the fault of the people who think this is acceptable and, let us be honest, parents of kids who let their children run riot and treat stock as if it's their own property.

@bananaworld said:
"Sometimes, when a 'discussion' has been going on for a while, one needs to step away for a minute and consider the other party's view of the situation."
Indeed. Rather like a CMF in a box now, I'll leave it there.

@Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Brickalili said:
"But this is the thing that everyone who tries arguing with me seems to skirt around; what’s wrong with getting duplicates? You all seem to treat it like some poison pill if you get two of the same minifig, but why? It comes across as you liking the collecting more than you like the Lego which is just a baffling mindset to me"
Why? Because it's disappointing, annoying and a waste of money.

And no, we like LEGO more than collecting per se. And liking having different CMFs (and sets) rather than duplicates isn't a particularly radical viewpoint is it...?"

Why is it disappointing? With one of the Panini sticker books you mentioned, you end up with duplicates and you have nowhere to put them because that space in the book is taken. With CMFs you get duplicates and now you’ve got two cool minifigs, neat. People keep using this “duplicates bad!” argument but never explain why, certainly not to the extent it would justify blatant theft"

The problem with this argument that no one said panini stickers were a good and perfect thing.

I hate duplicates from figs what I don’t want or just figs what I don’t want, because it’s waste of money. And stickers had the same problem but at least they were/are cheaper.

So my question is, why should I give money for things what I don’t want? Just to encourage Lego to be more greedy? No thanks.

@Brickalili said:
"Why is it disappointing? With one of the Panini sticker books you mentioned, you end up with duplicates and you have nowhere to put them because that space in the book is taken. With CMFs you get duplicates and now you’ve got two cool minifigs, neat. People keep using this “duplicates bad!” argument but never explain why, certainly not to the extent it would justify blatant theft"

Why do you keep buying different Lego sets? Surely you can buy the same set every time, you've still got two cool sets.

For collectors and the like Lego should just sell complete sets (not 3 complete sets), not sure why we need this justification that duplicates are good.

My local toy store has a loyalty card, buy 5 and get a 6th for free. I bought 6 and got 3 werewolves, the one figure I was the least interested in. So off to BrickLink I go...
There is no excuse for shoplifting or vandalism in stores, but if nothing else this move has spoiled the fun of rummaging around those bags trying to find the tell tale part that guaranteed what you were getting.

Blind bags is just a bad idea in a world of entitlement, supposed cost of living crisis and untoward thieving types, of which we are surrounded.

Blind bags is the sort of thing that feeds the side of society we wish didn’t exist.

If any company does this sort of thing then at least do it in conjunction with law enforcement agencies. Plonk a Bobby (policeman) near the boxes and all of a sudden blind bags could help rid us all of the scum amongst us.

Oh, that assumes the police actually do their jobs .

It’s frustrating as all this article has done is highlight horrible sides of our communities that we are all a bit exasperated with

@vzarmo said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Brickalili said:
"But this is the thing that everyone who tries arguing with me seems to skirt around; what’s wrong with getting duplicates? You all seem to treat it like some poison pill if you get two of the same minifig, but why? It comes across as you liking the collecting more than you like the Lego which is just a baffling mindset to me"
Why? Because it's disappointing, annoying and a waste of money.

And no, we like LEGO more than collecting per se. And liking having different CMFs (and sets) rather than duplicates isn't a particularly radical viewpoint is it...?"

Why is it disappointing? With one of the Panini sticker books you mentioned, you end up with duplicates and you have nowhere to put them because that space in the book is taken. With CMFs you get duplicates and now you’ve got two cool minifigs, neat. People keep using this “duplicates bad!” argument but never explain why, certainly not to the extent it would justify blatant theft"

The problem with this argument that no one said panini stickers were a good and perfect thing.

I hate duplicates from figs what I don’t want or just figs what I don’t want, because it’s waste of money. And stickers had the same problem but at least they were/are cheaper.

So my question is, why should I give money for things what I don’t want? Just to encourage Lego to be more greedy? No thanks.

"

So just don’t buy the blind bags then. Simple. If you don’t want to run the ‘risk’ of getting duplicates for some reason then don’t buy the things that give you that ‘risk’

My opinion on the what’s wrong with having duplicates; cmf figs are very (over)designed figures and a lot of times they do not have reusable parts in a good way. Of course good figbarfers can make great figs with anything, but some people just want their figs to match their lego-universe. Whether it be Marvel, Pirates, Space etc etc in that case you just can’t do nothing really with some minifig parts, so you don’t want them. We all have tons of plastic bricks we won’t ever use, so why add more to it. Some people just want those pieces of Lego that they can use

This is just the price you pay for such a brazen anti-consumer product strategy as blind boxes, doubly unethical when your target audience is children and you're basically training them to gamble with their money. At least with the bags one could feel for the figure you wanted. This? Least surprising thing since water being wet. Playmobil recently released a series of collectible Naruto boxed figures, and they have the picture of the character inside very big and clear on the front, and I've not seen a single one damaged. People are perfectly okay with paying a few bucks for a figure, as long as it's a figure they actually want.

@Brickalili said:
" @vzarmo said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Brickalili said:
"But this is the thing that everyone who tries arguing with me seems to skirt around; what’s wrong with getting duplicates? You all seem to treat it like some poison pill if you get two of the same minifig, but why? It comes across as you liking the collecting more than you like the Lego which is just a baffling mindset to me"
Why? Because it's disappointing, annoying and a waste of money.

And no, we like LEGO more than collecting per se. And liking having different CMFs (and sets) rather than duplicates isn't a particularly radical viewpoint is it...?"

Why is it disappointing? With one of the Panini sticker books you mentioned, you end up with duplicates and you have nowhere to put them because that space in the book is taken. With CMFs you get duplicates and now you’ve got two cool minifigs, neat. People keep using this “duplicates bad!” argument but never explain why, certainly not to the extent it would justify blatant theft"

The problem with this argument that no one said panini stickers were a good and perfect thing.

I hate duplicates from figs what I don’t want or just figs what I don’t want, because it’s waste of money. And stickers had the same problem but at least they were/are cheaper.

So my question is, why should I give money for things what I don’t want? Just to encourage Lego to be more greedy? No thanks.

"

So just don’t buy the blind bags then. Simple. If you don’t want to run the ‘risk’ of getting duplicates for some reason then don’t buy the things that give you that ‘risk’"

You don't get it: we WANT CERTAIN CMF content. They're cool minifigs! What we DON'T WANT are dupes or figs we're not interested in. Bags gave us an opportunity, boxes don't.
That's why people open them (and steal by that chance).

Can't find a simpler way to explain.

It seems to be very much the case (which a lot of these threads are) "this is my opinion, everyone else should think the same".

Some people like duplicates, some do not. It could be really simple for Lego to sell complete sets (and stop the secondary market) or just let the shops sell single bags/boxes. Lego could easily do something to satisfy everyone.

The CMF features exclusive minifigures, that's why people buy them.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

The victims here are the retail outlets and consumers.

In what way is that comment victim blaming?

LEGO should have foreseen this entirely predictable consequence of their packaging change. Accepting that is in no way excusing the lawless behaviour of a feral proportion of society.

Is this a US thing? I've never seen people pull this in any of the stores I go to here in the netherlands

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Brickulator93 said:
"What did they think was going to happen?"

Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

I think the victim here are the customers who have to either pay more (the lootbox / tcg card pack practice is a predatory one) or pay an overprice on the secondary market for the things they want. I think the most elegant solution would be to just have them be boxes with what is inside, and you just buy a sealed wolverine if you want one.

I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

@Brickalili:
What is so hard to understand? For some of us, it is NOT about collecting the entire series and having to deal with getting duplicates, rather it is about getting a particular minifig from a series without having to pay for multiple bags/boxes for a higher chance at getting that minifig (and deal with potentially not getting that particular minifig anyways since it was already absent from the store shelf and also having to sell the other minifigs that one had NO INTEREST IN to begin with). In my opinion, the entire randomness of the box design actively discourages trying to purchase a particular CMF from retail stores and will likely also further drive up resale prices.

@RebelScum74 said:
" @Brickalili said:
As is the idea that its targeted at kids; kids don't care about getting the whole set, kids don't care about getting doubles.

Errr, no, that's nonsense. I have two children, a boy and a girl, and they definitely care what figure they want. I've spent many a minute patiently going through packs just to make sure I'm not wasting my money on a figure they don't want. The great thing is even my kids appreciate that CMFs have now become a lucky dip, but unlike at the local school fair this one costs more that 50p. With all the money I've saved this month I may invest in a few Lego advent calendars, as at least you have an idea as what's behind the cardboard doors..."

I agree, my 7-year old son not only definitely cares about getting duplicates but also which specific character he gets. For example, if I went to a store and bought three blind boxes I would spend $18 CAD + tax. I can already see the dissapointment in his face if he gets Agatha, Kate and She-Hulk, so no, I won't take the risk, is a waste of money. I much rather spend that money in a product where I know what I'm getting for my bucks.

@Brickalili said:
" @Banners said:
" @Rolodzeo said:
"I think it's better to just sell the minifigs without them being in blind boxes. Everybody winds except maybe LEGO, who might earn a tiny bit less money. I wonder if they could survive the hit ¯\_(?)_/¯"
Indeed. At this price point what actual fun is there in not knowing what you're getting? And is it right to, in effect, force kids to gamble with their money...?"

I genuinely don't get that mind set. If you don't want the fun of finding out what's inside the unknown then why on earth are you buying things advertised as blind bags? As for gambling...how? Its not like you could get a really rare fig or a really common one, they're all made specifically for the series, they're all equivalent value. You pay to get a neat minifig, you get a neat minifig, there is no element of loss that would make it gambling"

Do you have any clue on what the definition of gambling is?

"Gambling (also known as betting or gaming) is the wagering of something of value ("the stakes") on a random event with the intent of winning something else of value, where instances of strategy are discounted."

Unless you buy a new/unopened case of 36, which guarantees 3 of each minifigure, you are gambling your money.

More desirable characters also end up costing more on the second hand market. Take the Orc from series 24, for example. There are people who have purchased hundreds of them to create massive Orc armies, limiting the overall supply on the market. I doubt there are many people building an army of soccer/football referees.

The fact that you can't understand that some people don't want duplicates (or that some people only want hundreds of a single character), or that people want different things than you, baffles me.

@Vindic8ed said:
"(...)If so, the move to be 'greener' is just smoke and mirrors; i feel like they would have been 'greener' by staying with the original packaging."
I haven't seen the plastic bags in the blind boxes, but if they are present, I suspect they're the same trans clear plastic used in the bags in regular LEGO sets (the ones they're supposed to be replacing with paper bags).

If so, that plastic is theoretically recyclable if deposited in a plastic bag recycling bin (as one might find in supermarkets).

This is marginally better than the foily bags the CMFs used to be in; they could be taken for recycling in far fewer places.

@Vindic8ed said:
" @Brickalili (...)The fact that you can't understand (...) baffles me."
Despite several people attempting to explain it to them, Brickalili's wilful inability to see another point of view is indeed utterly baffling. That block button is looking sooo tempting.

@Brickalili said:
" @jkb
Then buy from a secondary seller who’s already bought and opened the blind bags who can show you exactly what you’d be buying (something recommended by this very article). Expensive? Probably. But less expensive than buying randoms over and over again hoping to get the one you want

@LordDunsany
Basically the same argument to you. If you want a specific one, there’s ways of getting it that don’t involve randomness. If you’re going for random blind bags anyway then that’s on you really.

@Vindic8ed
That is an extraordinary broad definition of gambling you’ve got there. And it still doesn’t fit CMFs because they tell you exactly what you’ll be buying: it’ll be one of those minifigs right there on the cover. It’s not like video game lootboxes which could contain anything, high or low value"

Here's a simpler, more refined definition for your feeble mind:

"To take risky action in the hope of a desired result."

Whether you still think thats too broad or not does not change the simple fact that that is the definition of gambling.

They tell you exactly what you're 'buying' when you purchase a lottery ticket too, or any other form of gambling: a chance at more money or a chance at nothing. Playing the lottery is on par with CMF because you are purchasing a piece of paper in hopes of getting something you want. You are guaranteed that piece of paper, the outcome of what's on that piece of paper is a mystery.

When you purchase a CMF box/bag, you have a chance at getting something; whether or not it's something you actually want is a mystery.

The blind bags/boxes are not so exciting or much fun for kids/collectors after they’ve gotten the same minifigure for the third time. LEGO should make it clear which minifigure is in which package, thereby reducing the cost and frustration of collecting a complete set/buying only the ones you want/army building. I think in the end they’d end up selling more minifigures.

After buying COLTLBM19: King Tut, The LEGO Batman Movie, Series 1 for the fourth time, I printed-out a picture of the collection and spent an hour at a toy store feeling the bags to pick up the rest of the collection (which I think amounted to 15 minifigures at that point). That wasn’t much fun, but it saved me the expense of buying any additional unwanted duplicates.

For the lego Batman CMF Series 2, I bought the set off eBay from someone who had already sorted through the figures and built complete sets. That worked out so well that I bought the DC and both Marvel CMF Series off eBay.

Frankly, I’m okay with paying someone a perfectly reasonable $10 for providing the service of assembling a complete set and another $5 to ship it to me. It’s a win-win-win situation for LEGO, the eBay seller, and me.

When this article gets the inevitable "Most commented article of the year" award or whatever, I think we need a special recognition award for @Brickalili for single-handedly fueling at least half of these comments. Seriously, I lost count of how many loops of the same argument this place went through already.

@Brickalili said:
It’s not like video game lootboxes which could contain anything, high or low value

It's exactly like video game loot boxes. I'll use counterstrike as an example. Each season, they release a new loot box with 10-15 skins. You know exactly what skins are up for grabs before purchasing the box. The boxes are named after each season too, so you know what skins you have a possibility to win when deciding which season's box to purchase.

Whether or not you get a desirable/valuable skin is completely up to chance (example, CMF Orc vs. Referee). The more you purchase, the higher chance you have of getting something worth while.

Just saying, a few years ago I went to buy a blind-bag Mega Halo figure for a friend and was able to find its “high-value” golden Master Chief fig because it had a specific code on the back that designated it, long after Lego stopped putting identifiers on the bags, and more specific than the vague batch codes on these boxes…

From what I can tell here, there are four types of CMF buyers:
- People that buy blind on a whim and don’t care what they get (altruistic if naïve)
- People that buy blind and seek the social aspect of trading (requires a community to enable)
- People that buy for the sake of having a hoard of complete sets (a niche group)
- People that are only interested in specific minifigs (probably most people)

Really, just having reliable specific codes on the boxes could have avoided all of this. Want the “thrill” of a random pull? Don’t look up what the codes mean. Want a specific minifig? Do a Google search and do a quick hunt. Yeah, with identification there’s always a risk of scalpers buying out particular figures, but the alternative corners the general audience to buy aftermarket for any specific thing at all.

Being ripped open & leaving the contents, I can deal with, but stealing the contents is still theft. This not on Lego, just a degrading society, thinking it is fine to take the items they want.

What I did with my son with the blind bags was we made it fun to guess, and when we got duplicates we either saved some of the accessories for our other figs. or we saved the duplicates for his friends from school birthdays, his cousins, etc.
Even on Halloween I’d save a couple in case I ran out of candy.
But I set a budget and we’d only buy 10 bags when a new series came out.
If we didn’t get the one we wanted the most I taught him it’s ok, you still had fun and have nice figs to mix and match. He was never disappointed.

@sipuss said:
"... I think we need a special recognition award for @Brickalili for single-handedly fueling at least half of these comments..."
Presumably they'd prefer to receive an award they have already...? ;-)

When people complain about the blind boxes on Lego social media, I've seen Lego respond that the intention is for kids to trade their duplicates with their friends. That's not acceptable to me as a parent. I'm buying toys for my kids that they want and that I agree with; I'm not buying extras with a nebulous plan to trade dups later.

Unless major retailers complain to Lego, they are going to keep putting out blind boxes. The retailer bought the product, so Lego got their payday.

CMF Series 25 is undoubtedly already in production for release on Jan 1 2024; there's NO WAY they're going to altruistically take them out of the boxes and change the packaging in such a short amount of time.

I've been a Marvel Comics fan since 1983. I think all of the figures in this Marvel Series 2 are fantastic, but unless my local Lego store is offering open boxes for sale (I haven't gone to check because it's an hour away,) I don't expect to buy any more CMF. I have plenty of other Lego themes to keep my interest.

This why I bought an unopened case.
It is very sad for our community that people resort to this behavior.

@Ridgeheart said:
"Victim-blaming! Not a great look in 2023, friend."

The victim is anyone dragged into participating into the gambling blind box system. Lego is not the victim, of the perpetrator of the harmful activity.

@graymattr said:
"When people complain about the blind boxes on Lego social media, I've seen Lego respond that the intention is for kids to trade their duplicates with their friends. That's not acceptable to me as a parent. I'm buying toys for my kids that they want and that I agree with; I'm not buying extras with a nebulous plan to trade dups later. "

If you can't get the figures he wants, if he's real young, just tell him Santa couldn't get all he wanted from his wish list. Santa tried but there's so many children to get presents. Something like that.
But the toys he still got are fun and enjoy those special times with him. He'll understand and playing with mom or dad with his toys is something he'll cherish.
As he gets older, it won't matter to him in the slightest.

If he's an older kid, just tell him we can save a little more money and get the figures he wants off of eBay.
Looking at prices on there now, you can get a whole set for close to retail. Or if wants specific favorite figures, they're not too far off the retail price. He can save his allowance. Do extra chores, etc. He'll appreciate it more when he buys it with his own money. It'll be fun too.

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
No, when you buy a CMF blind bag you -will- be getting one of the CMFs advertised on the packaging. There is no chance. There is no wager. You aren’t going to run the risk of missing out. You get exactly what you have paid for. That my friend is not gambling, that is commerce

@Martin_S
Yes I have and I really didn’t approve of that at all. Glad they haven’t pulled that kind of artificial scarcity again, if they were doing that with every series I’d be agreeing with a lot more people here

@sipuss
Just doing my part XD

"

That is only true if you are the first person to go through an unopened case. As soon as people start purchasing figures from a case, you are no longer guaranteed to get any one of the advertised figures on the packaging. It only takes one person to go through the case before you and get the same three figures, which means of the 12 advertised figures, you only have a chance at getting one of the 11 that remain, which you have no way of knowing since it's a blind buy.

It's also false that "You aren’t going to run the risk of missing out." Any place--Lego being the prime example--that limits how many you can buy, immediately guarantees the chance of you missing out on 7-9 of the figures (since limits tend to be between 3-5).

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
Shifting the goalposts a bit there my friend. You’ve gone from saying the system is wrong to the system is wrong…because of these people being entitled and greedy. But pointing out the real issue here is people being entitled and greedy is what I’ve been saying so hey, welcome to the club, glad to have won you over! :D
But also, people opening the blind bags doesn’t actually disprove my prior point. You get yourself a sealed one and there’s no chance that it will contain nothing, or a random pile of bricks, or Jack Stone. You’ll be getting one of the CMFs advertised on the packaging. That’s not a risk, that’s getting exactly what you pay for"

That's not changing the goal posts at all. You said there is no chance. There is absolutely chance, and I gave *one* example of that.

I never said anything about whether I think the system is wrong or right, either. I simply gave definitions and examples of gambling.

There is absolutely risk. You've claimed that all CMFs are of equal value but they are not. In terms of production costs, sure they all cost 10 cents to make. In terms of actual market value that is far from the truth, which means there is a chance you are getting something that is nearly worthless or something that's worth a lot of money.

I also never said anything about people opening blind boxes, I said unopened cases (a case contains 36 boxes, each of which contains a single minifigure). I'll re-word my previous scenario, which, as i said, is only one example demonstrating "chance."

Each case of 36 minifigures is guaranteed to contain 3 of each minifigure (12 different figures). If some lucky (or unlucky, depending on what they're after) soul legitimately purchases three blind figures from that case and they all happen to be the same, there are only 11 different figures (33 total) remaining in that case, which means there's at least one figure the next person has zero chance of getting.

The chances of getting any of the remaining figures obviously goes down even further as more purchases are made.

The entitlement in this comments section is awful…

I want something so I will vandalise everything to find what I want because I am most important and must have my toy.

That is not ok.

Unfortunately blind boxes are an “acceptable” fact of life, I don’t like them but that is what it is.

Please do not condone vandalism and stealing.

@huw please can we not have people arguing that these actions are ok, just because they do not like the situation

@captainpie said:
"The entitlement in this comments section is awful…

I want something so I will vandalise everything to find what I want because I am most important and must have my toy.

That is not ok.

Unfortunately blind boxes are an “acceptable” fact of life, I don’t like them but that is what it is.

Please do not condone vandalism and stealing.

@huw please can we not have people arguing that these actions are ok, just because they do not like the situation "

I think very few people are condoning vandalism.

I think most of us can understand why it's happening regardless and see this as an expected and perhaps a darkly satisfying outcome even though it's wrong. The CMF blind packaging has always been unpopular and now that it's being forced, we're seeing people fight against it by crossing the line. Many here are just spectating and agreeing that LEGO played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. I don't vandalize or steal or respect those actions at all. But I can't help but feel like this proves the blind-package system to have always been a bad idea since few people wanted to comply with it to begin with and are now getting more aggressive with it being forced.

Not saying this is exactly the right thing to do, but y'all defending a multi-billion dollar company like someone stole your granny is insane. You know they did this in the first place just to earn more money, not to protect the environment, right? They're actively trying to screw you over as a costumer and you're defending them with nails and teeth

You know the best thing about stuff you WANT but can't afford or is otherwise difficult to obtain? You don't NEED it! That's the best thing! :-)

@Brick_Guardian said:
"Not saying this is exactly the right thing to do, but y'all defending a multi-billion dollar company like someone stole your granny is insane. You know they did this in the first place just to earn more money, not to protect the environment, right? They're actively trying to screw you over as a costumer and you're defending them with nails and teeth"

I'm saying stealing is wrong. Not to defend some company, but because once people are willing to steal things like this from stores, then a portion of those people will perhaps go on to steal from other places. Including people's houses. The less people start with small crime, the less will go on to large crime that has a greater chance of affecting people in a more direct manner.

There is a simple solution to this problem. Stores just need to install CT scans in the Lego aisle. Then you could have the Lego sets billed to your health insurance.

Is it really too much to ask that you’re health insurance should cover you’re Lego addiction? If they are willing to help alcoholics and drug addicts, it’s only fair that they help us as well.

For those of you skipping to the end (for shame! there's some delicious banter), here's the summary so far:

1. Cardboard = bad
2. People = bad
3. Stores/corporations = bad
4. You might be able to look inside the boxes by flashing a light in one corner, and looking in another.
5. Your welcome.

@Miyakan said:
" @Nanenroe said:
" @RaiderOfTheLostBrick said:
"Also, side note, have any fellow Aussies found these yet? I’m refreshing the Bricks Megastore and Big W websites daily and I can’t find them anywhere. "

The LEGO online website says 1 October for us :-(
"

Same in New Zealand. We get Minifigures a month later than the US.
Which for me means they will be released the weekend after my child is born. I think I will be able to sneak away to grab a box at some point."

Congrats! Congrats! It's life-changing. My (formerly) little guy brought me back to Lego. It's so great. They love to smash. You love to build. Endless fun and laughing ahead!

Just talking about this inspires me to build a really tall, crazy-ass tower with mixed-up multi-color bricks that barely has any balance, and is just waiting for an excited, little pair of hands. "Again." "Again!"

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
Your example only works if that person cares which minfig they're getting though. Like, okay, there's one figure they can't get but if they don't care about getting that figure or just want to buy a CMF to have any of them then they haven't lost out on anything at all. This is the problem in doing what you're doing and stretching the definition of gambling to breaking point.
Let's say you and I both go to a restaurant and order meals of equivalent value, but when they both come out I like the look of yours more. By your definition that means we've in fact not gone to a restaurant to have a nice meal but have in fact been gambling the whole time because I and I alone hold a higher secondary value in one of the options. And that's just ludicrous "

Are you really that dense? Have you not been paying attention to what anyone has said to you? Nearly every person on here has said that they care which minifigure they get when they are paying their hard earned cash (kids included).

I am not stretching the meaning of gambling at all, I'm using the most basic definition of the word.

Lmao...your restaurant analogy is ludicrous and is not comparable at all. For that to have any merit, the menu would have to have 12 items all priced the same and we wouldn't get to pick what they give us.

We'd both get a random meal, and in the most basic sense of the word gamble, that's exactly what we'd be doing: gambling, taking a chance, hoping for something we'd actually eat versus starving the rest of the night. Moreso if there are items on the menu that neither of us cared for.

When the food comes out and one of us gets tarantula soup (yes, that's a real thing) while the other gets chicken and potatoes, there will be some disappointment at the table. I guarantee the former would want to trade. (If you fancy both if those things great, but there's one I would not try. This takes me back to one of my original comments that stated, not everyone has the your same take on what they like or want.)

You'd be lying if you said there was not *some* disappointment after you dropped $15 and only got three of the same, least versatile figure from the series, which means you care, to some degree, about which figures you get.

@StyleCounselor said:
"For those of you skipping to the end (for shame! there's some delicious banter), here's the summary so far:

1. Cardboard = bad
2. People = bad
3. Stores/corporations = bad
4. You might be able to look inside the boxes by flashing a light in one corner, and looking in another.
5. Your welcome. "

6. The process of acquiring CMFs may be considered gambling

@Brickalili said:
"
Your example only works if that person cares which minfig they're getting though. "
Which has been well-established that it's the overwhelming majority of consumers. Unless the package has already been opened (or you have x-ray vision), the only thing not a gamble is that there will be Lego parts inside.

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
And I keep pointing out that if you really care that much about getting specific minfigs with no chance of randomness…stop buying blind bags where there’s a chance of randomness."

You're literally explaining the very basic definition of gambling. "Chance" and "randomness" is what makes it a gamble.

I'll post one of the definitions again, with slight modifications (that do not change the meaning at all): Gambling is the [purchase] wagering of something of value on a random event with the intent of winning [receiving] something else of value, where instances of strategy are discounted.

Gambling is a form of commerce. Even if you 'lose', you are trading one thing (generally currency) for another thing (the hopes of something 'better', but for the sake of this argument, the dopamine your brain releases). It's no different than going to a movie theater. When you buy a ticket to see the movie, you're not receiving a physical item. You won't own anything after leaving.

Going back to your statement though: a lot of people do end up buying the exact figures they want on the second hand market because they don't want to gamble their money (take a chance) at getting something they'd be disappointed with .

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Treb_Draalbucc said:
"that's a good way to get yourself charged with shoplifting..."

On the one hand, I don't think us Lego-fans will fare particularly well in prison. Most of us will fruitlessly push at cell-walls, frustrated at the fact that they don't break apart like we're used to. We'll claw at the ground, hoping to find the loose tiles. We'll anxiously look around for any red buttons or levers that hide Technic-functions simulating an explosion.

But don't resign yourself to fate. Harness all of your creativity and expertise, Master Builders. The shivs we'll craft will be EXCEPTIONAL."

I will use my shiv to carve new and exciting brick elements out of soap.

My soap-brick MOCs will be the belle of the ball at ConBrickCon. :O

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
But there is no chance. You will be getting one of the exact things the packaging tells you is inside. There no chance you might get nothing, or something different entirely. You know exactly what you’re getting into. If you don’t like the minifig you get that makes it buyer’s remorse, not gambling. Your ‘definition’ could be applied to anything, it’s literalism to the point of absurdism
"

It's not my definition, it's the definition. Not only is there chance involved, but you admitted to it in one of your comments with a scenario I gave.

Chance: "a possibility of something happening"

When you purchase a CMF figure, there is a chance, or possibility, that you will get one of 12 figures.

If there is one figure I want, and I purchase one blind CMF box, that's a simple version of gambling. The odds of me getting the figure i want are 1-12 (compared to other things, such as the lottery, those odds are pretty high). Those odds change depending on how many other purchases have been made from a given case of figures prior to my purchase.

You're dancing around basic facts of the English language as well as basic financial concepts because it doesn't fit your narrative. There's really nothing else to discuss because you cannot grasp these concepts.

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
But there is no chance. You will be getting one of the exact things the packaging tells you is inside. There no chance you might get nothing, or something different entirely. You know exactly what you’re getting into. If you don’t like the minifig you get that makes it buyer’s remorse, not gambling. Your ‘definition’ could be applied to anything, it’s literalism to the point of absurdism
"

I think at this point that everyone including you should accept that your definition of gambling is different to almost everyone else here, and you are perversely not going to accept that fact.

You keep harping on about knowing the outcome makes it not gambling, and wanting a specific result doesn't make it gambling. Guess what, I know every single outcome on a roulette wheel before I play. A roulette wheel is most definitely gambling, but why? Spinning the wheel doesn't make it gambling. Paying someone to spin the wheel doesn't make it gambling. Paying money to spin the wheel, and hoping for a specific outcome does.

So I guess for you it isn't gambling. You are paying for a thing from a pool of things, and don't care what specific thing it is. It's like you are paying the person to spin the wheel just to see it spin. For anyone that does care what one they get, it is gambling. The fact that they care what they get makes it gambling.

In short, I shall now refer to blind box buying as a form of gamaliling.

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
But there is no chance. You will be getting one of the exact things the packaging tells you is inside. There no chance you might get nothing, or something different entirely. You know exactly what you’re getting into. If you don’t like the minifig you get that makes it buyer’s remorse, not gambling. Your ‘definition’ could be applied to anything, it’s literalism to the point of absurdism
"

If i draw a card from a deck I know there are 4 suits of ace to 10, a jack, a queen and a king, and perhaps some jokers if its a new pack, but drawing a card from the top of the deck, I am not guaranteed to get what I want, exact same thing here, except it's 1 in 12 and not 1 in 52.

Roulette, Poker or Slot Machines show the winning outcomes beforehand as well but certainly not guaranteed.

The only thing that differentiates this from casino games, is of course that you still get a minifig for the money, but it's still 1 out of 12, and chance on duplicates when buying more.

And in the example if a store has put a CMF box of 36 on shelf, even if you just want 1 specific character, there's still 33 out of 36 chance to not get it, 12 different ones even less so. with chances declining drasticly the more a box gets moved around/sold out over time.

(even if 1 person might get lucky with knowing the position of figures on a brand new sealed box being just put on a shelf, and get what they want, the next customer definately will not be so lucky)

In conclusion, 99.9% of people buying CMF is in fact gambling.
The 0.1% left are people like @Brickalili , who doesn't care what they get as long as LEGO price them the same.

@Brickalili said:
"

@Miyakan
Eh, poor comparison; you know every segment of a roulette wheel but you're only putting money on one and don't get anything if you guessed wrong. CMFs are more like having a roulette wheel where you pay to spin and wherever the ball lands you win the exact same number of chips. You can use those chips to go actually gamble somewhere else and maybe you'll win big or lose it all on that but the result of the roulette wheel has been the same. has the better example, where you know what all the cards are, have no idea which one you'll draw but everyone gets to walk away with a card. What's the gamble there, I paid for a card, I've got a card?"

Not a poor comparison. It highlighted the fact that the gambling comes from wanting a specific outcome. Shall we say then that the roulette wheel gives you a random colour chip then. You get a chip whatever the outcome. But it is gambling if you go into it wanting a 'red' chip. The cards matches closer to minifigures, but says the same thing.

Gambling is if you pay money and want a specific outcome. Hence, you just wanting 'a minifig' is not gambling even though you get a random one. But someone wanting 'Wolverine' will be gambling.

The glue used to seal the boxes is not very strong at all. I find that the flaps open easily when handling the box. You barely dig under the flap and push through with you finger, and "pop" there goes the flap opening. I blame LEGO for their adhesive choice.

@drewchadwick_gmail_com said:
"I just returned a bunch after I gently opened them with a sharp blade, got what i wanted, gently resealed with hot glue, and returned the rest. Followed the rules and played nice and all was fine in the end.
"

This bothers me more than the open boxes. Returning opened boxes carefully disguised as sealed boxes hurts anyone who goes to the store after you expecting a fair, random pick.

The idea of the Secondary Market as a solution is pretty poor. It's expecting another company to fix the problem with TLG.

I never understand what Lego gets out of the secondary market (or that was before they bought BrickLink).

Lego could just sell complete sets on their website/stores and get much more of a profit than selling the items at 25% to wholesale. Lego can still sell blind boxes to wholesale, but they would have an enticing option themselves for buying direct. Plus the one person that likes getting duplicates would still be happy.

@Brickalili said:
" @Miyakan
As I’ve said before, if we stretch that definition I can term everything as gambling. Any situation or scenario where someone doesn’t get what they want. You’re gambling right now with every post because clearly what you want is for me to agree with you and I’m not. And if you have to stretch the meaning like that then he word loses all meaning altogether"

No one is stretching the meaning of the word. Every argument that's been presented fits within the parameters of the meaning of the word. If anything, you're shortening the meaning to fit your agenda.

Gambling includes chance, randomness, the exchange of goods, and removing strategy, all of which are happening when purchasing CMF. Lego has 'perfected' the latter by using boxes instead of bags, forcing consumers to spend more money to increase their odds of getting what they are looking for.

Give an actual definition (with source) of the word gamble that has the very specific/narrow parameters you claim are required for it to fall into that category. It seems like your biggest requirement for it to be considered gambling is that there has to be a loser, or at least a chance to lose. Your claim is that you cannot lose when you purchase a CMF because you are getting a CMF no matter what. Show me an actual definition of the word that says there has to be a chance to 'lose' in order for it to be considered gambling.

One thing I will agree with, when you really do "stretch" the meaning of the word, everything in life is a gamble. IE, you're "gambling" with your life everytime you step into a cross walk. Many people use synonyms to describe what is happening in their life. The word does not lose meaning.

The word gamble didn't come around until 2-300 years after the word 'gaming' had already been in use. So claiming it diminishes the meaning of the word when it can be used synonymously for various scenarios is ridiculous.

That being said, purchasing a single CMF while hoping for a specific one is gambling, and is on par with how the word is used in the gaming industry (vs. my last scenario of stepping into the crosswalk).

Additional supporting evidence as to why this is considered gambling. There have been multiple studies about "blind bags" (and similar systems) and the effects it has on the brain. The whole reason companies (and the gaming industry) do it is to make more money, and the only reason people 'accept' it is because of the release/high it gives. Companies use that high against the consumer to keep them playing the game and get more money out of them.

There are also several documentaries that dive into this as well. One of them interviewed people who "gamble" on the slot machines. The ones who do it on a regular basis aren't doing it to win anything, they're doing it because it's fun, because of the high they get; they are 'gaming'. Are they no longer gambling at that point since they cannot 'lose'? The same, 'reverse' argument can (and has been above) used with CMFs when looking for specific figures vs. not having a care in the world.

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
Yes, you’ve demonstrated exactly why using it like that is wrong; if you’re going to say “these are wrong because they’re gambling aimed at children” then use a definition where everything could be described as gambling means everything is bad for children.
Like, a book might give me hint of what’s inside with the blurb but I might still buy it and not enjoy it. So…books are gambling, because hey I took a chance and didn’t get a result I favoured,
I could buy that chocolate milk and end up not liking the amount of chocolate flavouring in it. Hey, I took a chance and didn’t get what I wanted, so gambling.
That playground looks pretty nice but you know it turns out I couldn’t get as high on the swings as I wanted. Took a chance I’d get something I’d like and didn’t get it, so gambling.

In this world of yours where CMF blind bags are gambling aimed at children and therefore morally bad, so are books, chocolate milk and playgrounds. Does that sound sensible or logical to you? This is why I keep pointing out you using the stretchiest definition of gambling isn’t accuracy, it’s absurdism.

@Ridgeheart
But will I have a cool wizardly beard by then? "

That's a lot of irrelevant fluff to avoid answering my question[s].

You claim you want to be "provid[ed] logical points" yet you have failed to provide any yourself. Multiple people have given valid, logical arguments yet you continue to fail at providing any verifiable evidence for yours.

I'll ask again and simplify the question for you: what is the definition of gambling and where did you get it from?

Until you answer this, we cannot have an actual debate on whether or not CMFs are gambling (whether or not the "blind bag" practice is good or bad is something entirely different).

@Ridgeheart said:
"Days turn to weeks turn to months. Seasons follow eachother in an endless succession. Babies are born in springtime, dance as youths during the summer, reflect as adults during the fall and crumble into dust as winter comes around.

Months turn to years turn to decades. Wars break out, brief and fragile moments of peace bloom where we may mourn the dead, until we forget and once again return to our comforting default state; war.

Decades turn to centuries turn to millennia; thousands, millions of years pass by in the blink of an eye. Waves erode cliff-faces, sharp winds sand down the mountains. Continents drift apart and reunite, like ex-lovers after one too many drinks. Stars fall, planets collide, the heat-death of the universe approaches.

But somewhere in the cold and lifeless void of space, somewhen billions of years from now, loooong after the very last of the stars have gone out, @Brickalili , @Vindic8ed and @Miyakan will STILL continue to argue over the definition of "gambling".

Honestly, it's kind of comforting at this point."

The universe will end in the Big Rip, and they will still be arguing. Whoever eventually wins will cause such reverberations through the void, it will restart the universe, and the cycle will repeat without end.

What is happening now, has happened before. And it will happen again.

@Ridgeheart said:
"Days turn to weeks turn to months. Seasons follow eachother in an endless succession. Babies are born in springtime, dance as youths during the summer, reflect as adults during the fall and crumble into dust as winter comes around.

Months turn to years turn to decades. Wars break out, brief and fragile moments of peace bloom where we may mourn the dead, until we forget and once again return to our comforting default state; war.

Decades turn to centuries turn to millennia; thousands, millions of years pass by in the blink of an eye. Waves erode cliff-faces, sharp winds sand down the mountains. Continents drift apart and reunite, like ex-lovers after one too many drinks. Stars fall, planets collide, the heat-death of the universe approaches.

But somewhere in the cold and lifeless void of space, somewhen billions of years from now, loooong after the very last of the stars have gone out, Brickalili, Vindic8ed and Miyakan will STILL continue to argue over the definition of "gambling".

Honestly, it's kind of comforting at this point."

Glad we can provide some comfort in the cruel world. But I shall have to rip part of it away. For me it will end. I have added the points I felt were still missing in the comprehensive discussion and don't have much more to say. It makes me kind of miss the debating assessments we did in high school. You never expect to actually win the other team over. But you aren't really debating to win them over. You are debating to win the teacher or judges over.

What is surprising to me is how many people are still reading the comments at this point. And I shall leave each of them to be their own judges and decide which team was successful in influencing their opinion.

@Brickalili said:
" @Vindic8ed
Ah so I lay out exactly why your stretching of the term results in absurd realities like books being morally bad for children and your only response is to prevaricate, avoid and go "no you!"
Yeah, it's not me who's doing the dodging my friend ;)
If the only way you can try and say blind bags are morally bad for being gambling aimed at children also results in playground being morally bad gambling aimed at children, then you do not have a logical argument"

DNS uses port 53 for both TCP and UDP traffic. This statement is just a relevant to this conversation as anything you've said up to this point.

"Dodging" ...lmao... You have failed to answer the question yet again; a question I've asked multiple times since my very first comment in this discussion.

Enjoy living in ignorance. ;)

@Brickalili said:
"... I point out that if simply not liking getting exactly what you paid for makes a thing gambling then literally anything all the time is gambling..."
Finally, something agreeable. Getting out of bed is a gamble. Taking a shower is a gamble. Riding in a car, on a bus/bike/train/plane/boat/submarine/UFO is a gamble.

Buying something referred to as a BLIND bag is a gamble. Unless you know EXACTLY what is inside the package...guess what? IT IS A GAMBLE.

Life is full of gambles... a bunch of gambles with varying levels of risk/reward/consequence.

this comment section is unhinged and I cannot look away, this is better than anything on netflix

@Fush said:
"this comment section is unhinged and I cannot look away, this is better than anything on netflix"

This comment is better than anything on Netflix!

@Brickalili
You say the blind bags are gambling because they're a thing of chance.
I point out they are not, you are guaranteed a minifig exactly as promised.

You are guaranteed 1 of 12 figures. There is a chance you will get an orc or there is a chance you will get a referee. The probability of getting any of the advertised figures is 1 in 12. You are not guaranteed all of the figures. It is a random event. Chance, the literal definition "something may happen", is occurring here.

I cannot find a single definition of the word that says "in order for something to be considered chance, one of the possibilities has to be nothing" or "there can be no guarantees with chance".

@Brickalili
You say its still chance, because some people want a specific CMF.
I point out that if simply not liking getting exactly what you paid for makes a thing gambling then literally anything all the time is gambling.

This is not a logical argument. Feelings, or liking/disliking the outcome has nothing to do with the base argument. You're getting exactly what you pay for when you play any game of chance just like you do when you pay for a CMF. When you pay/play a game of chance such as roulette, there is a possibility that you won't get anything. You only get a chance at one outcome, but you're paying for all of them, the positive (more money) and negative (no money). You're getting exactly what you pay for whether you 'win' or 'lose'.

@Brickalili
You...yell that I haven't listened or made logical arguments.

I haven't yelled anywhere. And you haven't listened. I still haven't seen a source for your very narrow, specific definition of gambling, or what that definition even is. It's literally the first sentence of my first comment.

@Brickalili
Seems to me I've made perfectly logical arguments my dude. You just don't like 'em.
Huh, guess by your own logic that means you have a terrible gambling problem XD

More irrelevant fluff not related to the argument.

@Brickalili
Rrright, but if the only way you can defend the position of “blind bags are wrong because they’re gambling” is to go with a hyper literal definition of the word gambling then you reduce your argument to absurdity. Okay, blind bags are gambling…so are books, chocolate milk and playgrounds. You saying those are all now bad for children? It’s just a way of trying to look logical without using any actual logic

More irrelevant fluff and no actual logic. You keep bringing in unrelated 'information' into the discussion. The morality of the practice is not being discussed, not by me at least (yes, your above comment was made for @DaBigE , but you've directed the same comment towards me too).