Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lego price per part over the years

brickinsights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#161

Post by gpspake »

exar0815 wrote: post #140
sandreas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEGO is indeed pretty expensive these times. Not every set is that bad, but the most cars are not only expensive, but not even the best sets on the market... There is a lot of comparisons, but the most convincing one maybe the LEGO Ferarri (42125) vs. CADA Italian Super Car (C61042W) video[1] of "Held der Steine" (german youtube channel). The LEGO is "parts only" - the CADA is remote controlled with led lights near d…

Just one "Datapoint", but I have a colleague that works in injection molding. Granted, he works on the "other end" of the size scale (complete car underbodys in one part), but he always said it was more or less a given fact that the two companies wo had "dialed in" their molding processes to near perfection and quality were Lego and Games Workshop in the UK.

LEGO has always had that rep as the injection molding MVP but I have to say I've been really impressed with bandai. They really dominate the model kit space and I find myself noticing how high quality they feel. I've built a bunch of gundams, Star wars, Pokemon, and one piece kits and they were all super fun. I also like how they kind of inspire me to customize them which I don't feel as much with Lego kits these days (I still love Lego but the kits are so good oob I just leave them as is)

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#162

Post by sumtechguy »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #103
ryukoposting wrote: post #47

I made a script last year that scraped LEGO pricing data from their website. Besides finding out that the Bugatti Bolide Technic set is a pretty good deal as a parts bag, I found that there's only a weak correlation between set size and PPP. The Dots sets throw a wrench in things, of course, and large Technic sets often have expensive electronic and pneumatic parts that must be considered. My conclusion was that PPP…

I had no idea this was even a thing. I always just think “would this set make me $x happy to have?” Of course, the answer is never “no” so I think I probably am not very bargain conscious when it comes to LEGO. And I may have a problem.

I have sort of got out of lego because of this very issue. Some of the end sets look cool but do not feel 'lego' anymore to me. Take something like the latest millennium falcon. I have the previous version of that behemoth that someone gave me. Most of the set is 'filler'. Basically empty void with a fragile shell on the outside that looks cool and incredibly tedious to put the gribblies on. The worst of these was the star wars star destroyer. It was huge. But mostly empty void on a frame and hundreds of very tiny decorative parts. The newer incarnations look a bit better but, I feel sort of ripped off. The Lamborghini looks very lego'y. I just do not want a lime green one. Precisely because of that detracts from the lego'y bit of it. Those pieces are pretty much only good for that one set. Lego has leaned hard into the model style of 3d puzzles with their sets. It probably saved their company. But it at this point is getting rather silly price wise. I can get the knock off brands and have a much more interesting selection of models if I want to go that way.

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#164

Post by makeitdouble »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #142
makeitdouble wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another tip: the quality difference between a Lego brand piece and its doppleganger from an AliExpress shop exists, but is usually negligible. I never saw a piece that doesn't fit, and the difference was mostly color and durability, where the no-brand technic bricks would fail earlier than the Lego ones when (ab)used for mechanically straining purposes, like a coat hangers, cup holder etc. The more interesting part:…

How about regulations on plasticizers and chemicals that your kids will put in their mouth ? Or the environmental impact, for which an EU company will care much more and be regulated for ?

Technic bricks (or really pins, axles, wheels) are a nightmare for any house with small kids either way, I think food grade plastic is irrelevant on that side.

On the environmental impact it's a good point, especially EU regulations. I'm not sure yet how much Lego's stance is marketing and how much it actually makes a difference, especially as they also have a factory in China and the bricks I'd get would come from there, but one can hope.

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#165

Post by dan_hawkins »

noneeeed wrote: post #147

I wonder how much the trend towards smaller pieces has affected this. There seem to be many more very small detail pieces in the kits now, which makes for lovely detailed models, but increases the part count without increasing the size noticably. One of my frustrations with trying to get my kids into lego is the proliferation in these one and two stud pieces in relatively small kits that are otherwise perfect for kid…

Regular LEGO sets are not intended for small kids, Duplo sets are. Every LEGO set comes with suggested age range or suggested minimum age on the box.

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#166

Post by thomastjeffery »

TylerE wrote: post #92
thomastjeffery wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet it's more likely that a given Lego set that is missing pieces was produced, packaged, shipped, and sold, nearby other piece-missing sets. In other words, I would not expect the distribution of Lego sets that are missing pieces to be evenly or randomly distributed.

One thing they do on the big sets is give you extras of the small stuff. Like if you need 10 of a 1x1 tile of a certain color, maybe they give you 11, or even 12.

The biggest limitation to that is that the selection of extra pieces is probably not as random as the set of missing pieces, especially since they focus on smaller pieces - presumably to accommodate the ones you lose after buying a full set.

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#167

Post by ryukoposting »

WilTimSon wrote: post #134
beAbU wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can compare LEGO with not-LEGO... Firstly it feels a little sacrilegious, but religion aside quality is often uncomparable and there was this common meme from my childhood that your parents did not love you if you got knockoff LEGOs. Part of the reason why we buy LEGO is because it's LEGO. Buying some other brand (regardless of quality) does not hit the same way.

But that's a learned behaviour, and one learned specifically thanks to decades of marketing. Sure, LEGO is quality, but it's not some unbeatable gold standard. At some point it simply becomes one of those things where people ask for Coke instead of Pepsi, even if they can't tell them apart - brand loyalty trumping the desire to simply get the product.

I think the "LEGO tax" is as much about consistency as marketing inertia. With name-brand LEGO, you know what you're going to get quality-wise. Alternative brands can be unpredictable. I would know; I still have all my LEGO from when I was a kid, and since my family isn't made of money, a lot of them aren't actually LEGO.

Alternative brands can VERY hit-or-miss, and when you miss, you can end up with some truly atrocious pieces. When I was a kid, Mega Bloks was the most common LEGO alternative (in the US, at least), and all of those pieces are terrible. The colors are washed out compared to LEGO, the plates aren't as rigid, and some of the bricks are a mess of scratches and dents.

Consistency is even a problem within individual sets. I also had a couple of LEGO-compatible sets that were made by Hasbro in the mid-2000s, and the part quality is excellent. The pieces have held up really well over the years, and Hasbro's yellow pieces are indistinguishable from LEGO's yellow. Hasbro came correct... except for their wheels, which are the sort of hideous dirt-cheap abomination that even Mega Bloks never stooped to.

Some brands are awful. Some brands are great. Some brands (like Hasbro) somehow managed to put "awful" and "great" inside the very same box. A brand's quality may change wildly over time. Some brands come out with their own extensions to the LEGO "standard," and then never provide a complete system of compatible parts. Sticking to name-brand LEGO offers a much more predictable experience.

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#168

Post by TylerE »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #166
TylerE wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing they do on the big sets is give you extras of the small stuff. Like if you need 10 of a 1x1 tile of a certain color, maybe they give you 11, or even 12.

The biggest limitation to that is that the selection of extra pieces is probably not as random as the set of missing pieces, especially since they focus on smaller pieces - presumably to accommodate the ones you lose after buying a full set.

Probably not, but it seems I tuitive that the smaller pieces are the most likely to be lost.

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#169

Post by chipdart »

WilTimSon wrote: post #134
beAbU wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can compare LEGO with not-LEGO... Firstly it feels a little sacrilegious, but religion aside quality is often uncomparable and there was this common meme from my childhood that your parents did not love you if you got knockoff LEGOs. Part of the reason why we buy LEGO is because it's LEGO. Buying some other brand (regardless of quality) does not hit the same way.

But that's a learned behaviour, and one learned specifically thanks to decades of marketing. Sure, LEGO is quality, but it's not some unbeatable gold standard. At some point it simply becomes one of those things where people ask for Coke instead of Pepsi, even if they can't tell them apart - brand loyalty trumping the desire to simply get the product.

> But that's a learned behaviour, and one learned specifically thanks to decades of marketing.

I am not sure this is an accurate assessment. Lego has a reputation because it built that reputation over decades of solid and reliable delivery. Pseudo-Lego brands built a reputation of competing on price while trading off quality and reliability.

The real question is whether the price delta between Lego and pseudo-Lego can justify the quality delta. That's surely subjective up to a point.

Re: Lego price per part over the years

#170

Post by deadbabe »

bombcar wrote: post #62
deadbabe wrote: post #53

Someone should figure out how to quantify how “creative potential” a piece has so you can measure how reusable pieces in a set will be for building unique things.

I suspect you could do something quick and dirty with "connectors" - a 1x1 brick would have two connectors, a 2x4 brick would have 16. Apply some form of modulo by piece count (8 1x1 bricks are more "creative" than a single 2x4) and you'd be close.

I suspect you’re right, and would like to add that perhaps the physical weight of the piece may also provide some insight. Small light weight pieces with many connectors likely have large amounts of use cases. Big pieces with small amounts probably not as much.

The axis upon which connections attach to may be another important variable.

Post reply on HN