Is TLG Backing Down Slightly On Their Prices?

[Blackjack]

Certain sets like 75016, 75017, 75021, and 75013 have been keeping closer to the $0.10 per piece standard most people use when judging sets, and others, like 75002 and 75015 actually have more pieces than the standard. Could this be a sign that Lego is lowering its prices slightly?

[TheOrcKing]

Sometimes I wonder if the price they place on a set has more to do with the overall size of the design itself and maybe its intricacy more than included parts. Like they look at the set and think "That's a $20 sized design" instead of "This set has around 200 pieces, so we should charge $20".

[Ed Mack]

Price is based on weight of the set, not pieces. More weight, usually more pieces, more money.

[StarCityBrickCompany]

Certain sets like 75016, 75017, 75021, and 75013 have been keeping closer to the $0.10 per piece standard most people use when judging sets, and others, like 75002 and 75015 actually have more pieces than the standard. Could this be a sign that Lego is lowering its prices slightly?

I think they have been playing with the numbers more nowadays. They know people look to the piece count to judge the value, so they will include a lot more smaller pieces.

[TheOrcKing]

There is also complexity on some parts that may be considered. This is one reason why Jabba's Palace and Rancor Pit are as expensive as they are. BIG Rancor comprised of unique and complex parts besides some odd bits of scenery.

[Anakinisvader]

Price is based on weight of the set, not pieces. More weight, usually more pieces, more money.

Lets just hope they don't come out with big fat minifigures.

[Blackjack]

I'm always peeved when they use many unnecessary, small pieces when they could have used one just as easily.

[Rich B]

Price is based on weight of the set, not pieces. More weight, usually more pieces, more money.

This exactly!! Also the type of pieces included in a given set can cause a set to cost more, for example sets with train track will cost more per piece since one piece of train track is much more expensive than a typical, more common Lego piece.

[cflannagan]

I'm always peeved when they use many unnecessary, small pieces when they could have used one just as easily.

Based on what Ed said (which I just learned, didn't know before) - it wouldn't make a difference for pricing. 100 pieces vs 1 big piece, if they create the same shape, will cost the same because it's still based on weight. Unless your concern is that it take far longer to build that shape using 100 pieces instead of one big piece, which in that case I agree but I don't mind.. I like the building process that is the lure of LEGO in general. ;)

[comicblast]

Certain sets like 75016, 75017, 75021, and 75013 have been keeping closer to the $0.10 per piece standard most people use when judging sets, and others, like 75002 and 75015 actually have more pieces than the standard. Could this be a sign that Lego is lowering its prices slightly?

Well, you know the Taj Mahal retailed for $299.99 I think, but the SSD retails for $399.99. The Taj has way more pieces (nearly 2,000), but it was still retailed for lower price. It probably has to do with the variety of the pieces that are in the set, the rarity of that piece/how many other sets have that piece, as well as the age group that the set is aimed towards. Another factor is probably the demand for the set. There's a reason why the DS is still around, and that it is priced at $399.99. That's because SW has an enormous fanbase, many of them adults, who are willing to pay for the DS.

[sadowsk1]

I don't think the TLG is backing down in prices. They base the price of the sets they sell on the pieces that are included and whether or not it's licensed.

[stephen_rockefeller]

I don't think the TLG is backing down in prices. They base the price of the sets they sell on the pieces that are included and whether or not it's licensed.

agreed

[Ed Mack]

I'm always peeved when they use many unnecessary, small pieces when they could have used one just as easily.

Yes...This is correct. I am building the Cafe Corner(YES...I DO BUILD LEGO SETS!!!) as we speak and the set has way too many small pieces. It should be a 1500 piece set.

[Alcarin]

Yes...This is correct. I am building the Cafe Corner(YES...I DO BUILD LEGO SETS!!!) as we speak and the set has way too many small pieces. It should be a 1500 piece set.

I dont understand... you guys want bigger pieces and then when something BIG is released you call it BURP and you cry 1 pieces walls on Castle sets....

Its contradiction.

I rather it has 3000 1x1 pieces than 100 pieces covering the whole building.

[Ed Mack]

Yes...This is correct. I am building the Cafe Corner(YES...I DO BUILD LEGO SETS!!!) as we speak and the set has way too many small pieces. It should be a 1500 piece set.

I dont understand... you guys want bigger pieces and then when something BIG is released you call it BURP and you cry 1 pieces walls on Castle sets....

Its contradiction.

I rather it has 3000 1x1 pieces than 100 pieces covering the whole building.

LEGO selectively chooses to use smaller bricks in non-weight bearing areas to bump up the piece count. This is a fact. I would rather use one 1 x 8 instead of four 1 x 2s. It will stronger and take less time to build.

[DominickSoldano]

But think about it, for builders you want a large variety of pieces so they are useful when MOCing. I'll take variety over a smaller number of larger pieces any day.

[Ed Mack]

But think about it, for builders you want a large variety of pieces so they are useful when MOCing. I'll take variety over a smaller number of larger pieces any day.

To each his own. I find too many smaller pieces annoying and a waste of time. The Modulars are full of BS piece manipulation.

[Alcarin]

Yes...This is correct. I am building the Cafe Corner(YES...I DO BUILD LEGO SETS!!!) as we speak and the set has way too many small pieces. It should be a 1500 piece set.

I dont understand... you guys want bigger pieces and then when something BIG is released you call it BURP and you cry 1 pieces walls on Castle sets....

Its contradiction.

I rather it has 3000 1x1 pieces than 100 pieces covering the whole building.

LEGO selectively chooses to use smaller bricks in non-weight bearing areas to bump up the piece count. This is a fact. I would rather use one 1 x 8 instead of four 1 x 2s. It will stronger and take less time to build.

Yeh but everyone or majority dislikes when for example LEGO uses castle stuff you know those panels for walls and BURPs...

[Fcbarcelona101]

I for one like as many pieces as they can put in! If it takes longer that's even better as I really enjoy spending time building the sets. On the other hand I can understand those who prefer less quantity of smaller pieces.

[@rtisan]

Well, you know the Taj Mahal retailed for $299.99 I think, but the SSD retails for $399.99. The Taj has way more pieces (nearly 2,000), but it was still retailed for lower price. It probably has to do with the variety of the pieces that are in the set, the rarity of that piece/how many other sets have that piece, as well as the age group that the set is aimed towards. Another factor is probably the demand for the set. There's a reason why the DS is still around, and that it is priced at $399.99. That's because SW has an enormous fanbase, many of them adults, who are willing to pay for the DS.I agree with this. The SSD sells because of the "iconic" look of the set. Not saying the Taj Mahal isn`t iconic, it certainly is, but when placed on display the SSD looks like a bigger set IMO. It is much longer, and thus viewers may see it taking up more space giving the impression that it is overall a larger set with more pieces. We all know this isn`t the case, but the extra couple $100 and the fan base of SW sets is what allows the set to sell. Just like Tower Bridge, which has about 1000 more pieces then the SSB but retail in Canada is $200 less.

[Ed Mack]

Yes...This is correct. I am building the Cafe Corner(YES...I DO BUILD LEGO SETS!!!) as we speak and the set has way too many small pieces. It should be a 1500 piece set.

I dont understand... you guys want bigger pieces and then when something BIG is released you call it BURP and you cry 1 pieces walls on Castle sets....

Its contradiction.

I rather it has 3000 1x1 pieces than 100 pieces covering the whole building.

LEGO selectively chooses to use smaller bricks in non-weight bearing areas to bump up the piece count. This is a fact. I would rather use one 1 x 8 instead of four 1 x 2s. It will stronger and take less time to build.

Yeh but everyone or majority dislikes when for example LEGO uses castle stuff you know those panels for walls and BURPs...

I'm not talking about Castle pieces...just run of the mill parts. When you use 30 2 x 2s instead of ten 1 x 6s, see my point?

[Blackjack]

Well, you know the Taj Mahal retailed for $299.99 I think, but the SSD retails for $399.99. The Taj has way more pieces (nearly 2,000), but it was still retailed for lower price. It probably has to do with the variety of the pieces that are in the set, the rarity of that piece/how many other sets have that piece, as well as the age group that the set is aimed towards. Another factor is probably the demand for the set. There's a reason why the DS is still around, and that it is priced at $399.99. That's because SW has an enormous fanbase, many of them adults, who are willing to pay for the DS.The Taj Mahal retailed dor $299.99, and had 5,922 pieces!

[TheOrcKing]

Well, you know the Taj Mahal retailed for $299.99 I think, but the SSD retails for $399.99. The Taj has way more pieces (nearly 2,000), but it was still retailed for lower price. It probably has to do with the variety of the pieces that are in the set, the rarity of that piece/how many other sets have that piece, as well as the age group that the set is aimed towards. Another factor is probably the demand for the set. There's a reason why the DS is still around, and that it is priced at $399.99. That's because SW has an enormous fanbase, many of them adults, who are willing to pay for the DS.

The Super Star Destroyer, besides having a really long set name, contains a LOT of plates and hinges. Large and/or long plate pieces affect pricing quite a bit; only so many plates can be molded in one go compared to the smaller parts. The Taj Mahal was comprised of mostly smaller pieces and plates with a handful being large. And majority of parts were white which I think is one of the easiest colors to mold with besides straight black.

[TheOrcKing]

I for one like as many pieces as they can put in! If it takes longer that's even better as I really enjoy spending time building the sets.

On the other hand I can understand those who prefer less quantity of smaller pieces.

I love many pieces but there are portions of a build where they could have just used say a 1x8 brick instead of four 1x2's. That's why to me the Small Cottage from this year is not that great of a parts set; most of the bricks on the house are 1x3's. I'd rather have (or need) 1x4's or 1x6's in my builds. The small parts are great for equally small areas but not so much when you need to build something along the lines of a modular house.

[TheOrcKing]

Yes...This is correct. I am building the Cafe Corner(YES...I DO BUILD LEGO SETS!!!) as we speak and the set has way too many small pieces. It should be a 1500 piece set. I only found a couple of odd spots with Cafe Corner that I thought Lego could have done better with but I am pretty impressed all around. Market Street was a tiring and inconsistent build. I was fine with all the 1x4's but what the heck was with the random placement of all those grill bricks (among others)? It annoys me in the design when it seems like they can't even follow their own pattern.