New around here? When you sign up for a new account, please indicate why you want to join on the registration form so we can determine which applications are genuine and which are from spammers.
You must be 16 or over to participate in the Brickset forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

CUUSOO Corner

1356729

Comments

  • on principle, I won't vote for anything that has zero feasibility as a production model. Cavegod's AT-AT is an A+, as is the light-up motorized sand crawler (easily one of the best MOCs I've ever seen), but there's really no point in pushing either on Cuusoo. LEGO would have to gut them down to such an extent that they would no longer be what we love about them.
    Have to say I totally disagree with this mentality, just because they may not push to an 8K piece model doesn't mean that a cut down version would not be great. The UCS Falcon is over 5K, the biggest AT-AT so far released is what 1K? So are you saying that if they released a model with 5 x the amount of pieces as their current best shot at the AT-AT (based upon the general design of Cavegods) it would not be great?

  • @princedraven - but do you really think TLG need Cuusoo to be told that a UCS AT-AT would be popular? I'ld be literally amazed if they haven't already got some plans or worked out that for whatever reason its just not feasible. Also, if a 8000 piece ATAT got to 10,000 votes would a 4,000 piece AT-AT be acceptable or even come close in design?
  • ^ not saying it wouldn't be great, just saying that something with half the piece count would be a hollow shell of the masterpiece that was put forth as the example, so much so that you could say it's not even the same thing at all really, especially when one is talking about a MOC based on an already existing IP.

    At that point, you would just have a huge chunk of people complaining about the release model, saying it isn't good enough, isn't what they voted for, was dumbed down, changed, etc etc. It would, in my mind, lesson the lasting perception of the MOC, and the brilliance that it is.

    The absolute best MOCs, such as Cavegod's, can only exist as MOCs. That's just the reality of the limitations of productions sets.

    You are certainly entitled to disagree with my opinion and mentality on this topic, but you aren't going to change my mind. I'm not going to campaign against anything, but I'm going to stick to my definition of what I think is worthy of support.
  • edited April 2012
    @cheshirecat in some ways I do think TLG DO need to be told, the problem with Cussoo is that TLG are now being told (by 10,000 people) that they would be much better off building Eve online ships, which is actually not likely to be the best thing for them to make/sell.
    I do take the point of whether a cut down version would still be acceptable.

    @dougts firstly I had no intentions or wishes to change your mind :) everyone is fully entitled to their own opinions. Secondly I do appreciate where you are coming from and you are right any cut down version wouldn't come close to Cavegod's model, BUT, if I cannot have the 'real deal' (Cavegod, fancy selling!!), then I would be seriously interested in a UCS 5000 piece model.

    There is also an element of me that wishes to support these types of sets as I think it gives a message to TLG of what we as real Lego fans really want, no idea if that is a waste of time.
  • I'd be of the same mind as @princedraven - even if cavegod's MOC is prohibitively big in terms of piece count, I still want to communicate my desire of a UCS AT-AT to TLG, and this is a good platform on which to do this. I'd never expect to see the model released in its current form, but that's not to say that a 4k or 5k piece version wouldn't be spectacular - and it might be a real possibility if enough people got behind the idea, even if the specific model wound up different.

    I can certainly see the flip side though - I'm sure if the idea got to the review stage and ultimately passed, the creator might not be terribly happy having their name attached to a model that they saw as inferior to what they posted.
  • With most of these ideas everyone seems to love there is a simple solution: make one yourself. They're made of Lego so just study the photos and experiment yourself. Lego's not going to produce an 8000 piece set or a set where the licensing fees will eclipse profits; it's as simple as that. However, you have the capability of making anything yourself as long as there aren't custom molds required. Why the irrational need to see Lego produce a set that you can build yourself?
  • With most of these ideas everyone seems to love there is a simple solution: make one yourself. They're made of Lego so just study the photos and experiment yourself. Lego's not going to produce an 8000 piece set or a set where the licensing fees will eclipse profits; it's as simple as that. However, you have the capability of making anything yourself as long as there aren't custom molds required. Why the irrational need to see Lego produce a set that you can build yourself?
    Well said. I've been repeating this same general theme around these forums for months, though not as eloquently as you just did. MOC's have the ability to be better - MUCH better - than anything LEGO can produce as a production set. The sooner people can understand and accept that, the sooner Cuusoo can start become a much more useful tool. I won't hold my breath though...

  • ^ and ^^ I do agree alot of the models would look alot better as MOCs. Some though I can see working. Although I think it would still be better if you think your moc has real potential to just email it to lego.

    Ps @dougts Ive noticed you saying it. Esp to some people :-).
  • edited April 2012
    With most of these ideas everyone seems to love there is a simple solution: make one yourself. They're made of Lego so just study the photos and experiment yourself. Lego's not going to produce an 8000 piece set or a set where the licensing fees will eclipse profits; it's as simple as that. However, you have the capability of making anything yourself as long as there aren't custom molds required. Why the irrational need to see Lego produce a set that you can build yourself?
    You really think its that easy?? I think you are well over simplifying things and in the process robbing people like Cavegod of a lot of credit they deserve for their creations.

    Surely if it was that easy you would have your own UCS Enterprise and Bird of War you could post pictures of for us!
  • edited April 2012
    ^ yeah. To be clear, I don't say it to try and be negative or condescending. Rather, I'm a realist, so I say it in that light. I'd rather the discussions here about what LEGO should do stay more grounded in the plausible, when far too often they seem to drift into the realm of fantasy, which to me then becomes pointless and uninteresting (see the "what license should LEGO make" thread) My intent is to simply try and inject some common sense critical thinking into the debate, not to attack or be overly critical of any particular idea. Honestly, it often feels like a very uphill battle - there must be a lot more dreamers around than realists like me...

    ;-)
  • edited April 2012
    With most of these ideas everyone seems to love there is a simple solution: make one yourself. They're made of Lego so just study the photos and experiment yourself. Lego's not going to produce an 8000 piece set or a set where the licensing fees will eclipse profits; it's as simple as that. However, you have the capability of making anything yourself as long as there aren't custom molds required. Why the irrational need to see Lego produce a set that you can build yourself?
    So if you use this logic, then why have sets at all?
    Lego could just release boxes of bricks.
    Answer the question as to why they don't do this and you'll have the answer to the above.
  • edited April 2012
    there must be a lot more dreamers around than realists like me...
    I'm a realist in that I know I cannot re-create Cavegod's masterpiece, but I'm a dreamer that prays TLG work with him to release something similar that I could get in kit form :)
    Not sure if that is the best or worst of both worlds :)
  • ^^^It's in Lego's DNA to attract dreamers =)
  • So if you use this logic, then why have sets at all?
    Lego could just release boxes of bricks.
    Answer the question as to why they don't do this and you'll have the answer to the above.
    This is a red herring argument if I ever saw one. We all know the reasons why sets are made. But obviously, there is a finite limit to the scope and size of any set that LEGO can produce as a marketable product. It's a pretty basic economic principal at play.

    If @prof1515 was arguing against a 1000-piece model in the same way he's arguing against an 8000-piece one, then you have a valid point.

  • edited April 2012
    But obviously, there is a finite limit to the scope and size of any set that LEGO can produce as a marketable product.
    I guess what I said could be interpreted as a red herring depending how you interpret it - but essentially what I meant was that only very few people have the talents of the best set designers, sets are where Lego make their money, and sets are what people want. There are no unchangeable limits to this - so long as Lego can make money out of it, all's well and good.

    In 1999 the largest Lego set had under 1800 pieces. Now we have sets with over 5000 pieces.

    In fact, if you follow this trend, 8000 pieces looks entirely possible:
    Largest set in 1999: 1757 pieces
    largest set in 2004: 3096 pieces
    largest set in 2006: 3441 pieces
    largest set in 2008: 5922 pieces (Taj Mahal, which is still the largest)

    If the trend continues, we're due a set of about 9000 pieces around now. I'm not saying that it will, but why rule it out.

    In fact, you could look at it this way - the size roughly doubles every 5 years. I'm not saying that I think we'll get a 12000 piece set in 2013, but it's not impossible.

    The boundaries are always changing. Lego produce sets which will sell, but the definition of 'what will sell' is a moving target, so it doesnt make any sense to rule anything out. The definitions of the type of sets which Lego can make money out of are not set in stone.
  • With most of these ideas everyone seems to love there is a simple solution: make one yourself. They're made of Lego so just study the photos and experiment yourself. Lego's not going to produce an 8000 piece set or a set where the licensing fees will eclipse profits; it's as simple as that. However, you have the capability of making anything yourself as long as there aren't custom molds required. Why the irrational need to see Lego produce a set that you can build yourself?


    So if you use this logic, then why have sets at all?
    Lego could just release boxes of bricks.
    Answer the question as to why they don't do this and you'll have the answer to the above.
    Marketability and cost efficiency are the reasons. Lego can make more money off a logo or a theme than they can off a box of bricks. That advantage, however, is negated by one-off licensing fees or by the limited sale of larger sets. Face it, an 8000-piece set is not going to sell as well as a smaller set nor is a single set going to recoup licensing costs as well as a fully thought-out and developed line.

    In some ways, Cuusoo has proven the lack of imagination on the part of many Lego fans. Some, like the designer of that western town, have demonstrated the kind of creativity I suspect Lego was looking for (though with any large model I wouldn't be surprised if Lego fears it will price out of the reach of too many consumers) while others have produced the kind of fanboi wishful thinking that may keep Cuusoo from resulting in much viable output.
  • With most of these ideas everyone seems to love there is a simple solution: make one yourself. They're made of Lego so just study the photos and experiment yourself. Lego's not going to produce an 8000 piece set or a set where the licensing fees will eclipse profits; it's as simple as that. However, you have the capability of making anything yourself as long as there aren't custom molds required. Why the irrational need to see Lego produce a set that you can build yourself?
    If I had the ability to make something half as impressive as that AT-AT I'd be one happy man.
  • Think we got the order mixed up .. see ^^

    Re the second bit, I also think it'll produce a lot of old nonsense amongst the good stuff.
  • edited April 2012
    As others have said, even if the AT-AT does hit 10,000 votes, the likelihood that an 8,000+ piece model will find its way into production is I think very slim. That having been said, it might give LEGO the extra push they need to give us a UCS AT-AT; even at around 5,000 pieces I'm confident we'd get something pretty spectacular a la Millennium Falcon. It might not be quite as good as the Cavegod original, but it'll still wow most of the UCS buying crowd I suspect...
  • You really think its that easy?? I think you are well over simplifying things and in the process robbing people like Cavegod of a lot of credit they deserve for their creations.

    Surely if it was that easy you would have your own UCS Enterprise and Bird of War you could post pictures of for us!
    I dont think it does. I think what this disscussion has acknowledge is how good @Cavegods model(s) is and that often as much as we want lego to make something like that. Really as builders are selves we can only really make. And then give me the instructions to :-D.

    In some ways, Cuusoo has proven the lack of imagination on the part of many Lego fans. Some, like the designer of that western town, have demonstrated the kind of creativity I suspect Lego was looking for (though with any large model I wouldn't be surprised if Lego fears it will price out of the reach of too many consumers) while others have produced the kind of fanboi wishful thinking that may keep Cuusoo from resulting in much viable output.
    This is exactly my problem. It is, at the moment, with a few exceptions that I can list a we want lego to make winge list. I would love for there to be Hunter Games lego sets but it wont happen and I dont think putting it on Cussoo would do it any good and it won't end up how I wish it to be so I will make my own.
  • You really think its that easy?? I think you are well over simplifying things and in the process robbing people like Cavegod of a lot of credit they deserve for their creations.

    Surely if it was that easy you would have your own UCS Enterprise and Bird of War you could post pictures of for us!
    I dont think it does. I think what this disscussion has acknowledge is how good @Cavegods model(s) is and that often as much as we want lego to make something like that. Really as builders are selves we can only really make. And then give me the instructions to :-D.

    In some ways, Cuusoo has proven the lack of imagination on the part of many Lego fans. Some, like the designer of that western town, have demonstrated the kind of creativity I suspect Lego was looking for (though with any large model I wouldn't be surprised if Lego fears it will price out of the reach of too many consumers) while others have produced the kind of fanboi wishful thinking that may keep Cuusoo from resulting in much viable output.
    This is exactly my problem. It is, at the moment, with a few exceptions that I can list, a we want lego to make whinge list. I would love for there to be Hunter Games lego sets but it wont happen.

    I dont think putting it on Cussoo would do it any good. What is the likelyhood that I will even be able to claim the right for the models? I cant and I think that fact will be a nasty surprise for some people. I wonder who gets the one percent the kid who create the models for mine craft or minecraft themselves. Its minecraft and there is one really annoyed person out there. People put these I want Zelda concepts up there and think they will make a ton of money off of it and lego will do all the hard work for them. Well it wont make a lot of money and Lego should not have to make everyones demands.

    I dont think, before I get shot, thats why everyone puts up their models some people genuinely want to share it with the world. But I think its why you see some stuff up there.

    Im going to breathe now :-D
  • Sorry can that second one be deleted please
  • edited April 2012
    I am overjoyed and depressed. The Shaun of the Dead project has not passed the review of the LEGO jury. Though in good news the EVE Online Rifter has passed 10,000 supporters.

    Please let me know what you think of either of these events.
  • I am disappointed but not surprised that The Winchester did not pass LEGO review.

    And I'm massively underwhelmed with the EVE Online design which, like the Minecraft set, is unlikely to appeal to anyone other than EVE fanboys.

    So I'm actually doubly disappointed, then....
  • Feel really bad for the designer of the winchester. it was a really nice looking set but as the others say its not to much of a shock it didnt pass.

    EVE looks terrible and really only appeals to fans of EVE
  • Meh, I think the Eve stuff will be short lived, even if they made a few. I would get them to add to the star ship collection but that's it. The Winchester was a big collectible loss, not surprised but still a loss. SO now we have to wait and find out what the next modular will be.
  • edited April 2012
    The Minecraft project got a dramatic overhaul for the final product, I imagine the EVE ship will too, at least to some extent. All that weight in the front + the plus the huge gap down the center would probably make it prone to falling apart when played with in the current state.

    And as far as the Winchester goes, any negative backlash for cancelling it will be far less than the potential bad press and angry parents calling for Lego boycotts and the like that undoubtedly would have happened. If the Friends line can cause a media stir, this would have 10x more the controversy.
  • The problem now is that with a little publicity, even the dumbest models can get to 10,000 votes, by people who have no intention of ever buying them.

    The solution is simple. Model it like Kickstarter. To 'vote' for the model, you have to pony up the cash for it, which commits you to buying it if it hits 10,000 votes (or whatever magic number they would come up with). If it doesn't, you get your money back. That will bring 'shill'/publicity votes down to zero. It will be harder to reach 10,000 votes for sure, but only the cream of the crop models would get there. I don't know why they didn't do this in the first place.

    With this model in place, the Winchester never would have even come close to 10,000 votes.
  • @bandit awesome idea have you suggested it to the Cuusoo team?
  • The solution is simple. Model it like Kickstarter. To 'vote' for the model, you have to pony up the cash for it, which commits you to buying it if it hits 10,000 votes (or whatever magic number they would come up with). If it doesn't, you get your money back.
    ++

    I've only recently learned of Kickstarter. I like the model, and agree it could work here as well. Good idea.

  • Agreed, making people put their money where their mouth is helps ensure Lego isn't wasting their time. An added bonus is that it keeps the kiddies off the voting too meaning some colorblind mishmash of parts is less likely to get votes too (though thankfully most don't anyway).
  • @bandit awesome idea have you suggested it to the Cuusoo team?
    Heh, no, but with the massive success of Kickstarter over the past year (which is really the same idea), I would think they've thought about it. The original idea was great and all, but as we've seen, it's just too easy to game the system in its current format. If the idea is to actually sell sets and make money, which I'm assuming it is (they at least have to break even on the deal), I don't see how they can't end up going down this path. The Winchester would hardly have sold at all (in my opinion), and I'm dubious of this EVE ship and even the mine craft model as well.

    They know what the total production cost of doing a set is, so once a set is given primary approval, it could be given a monetary figure it needs to reach to go into production. Then you could either pledge the estimated price of the set at a minimum (or maybe all early adopters get a discount), or they could allow extra 'levels' like kickstarter does where you can pledge more and get more.

    It doesn't really matter either way -- if a set were given primary approval and received enough support to cover production costs (or some minimum number Lego came up with), it would go into production. Everyone who made initial pledges would get their copies, and then whatever they sell over and above that after the fact is gravy.
  • Or maybe they could have a 2 tier system, where the first tier is just plain old votes like it is now, gamed or not. Then once a set reaches 10,000 votes, it goes to internal review, the final model is roughly designed (since a lot of the final designs will/are different than the originals), and *then* it goes to a kickstarter like campaign like I described above.

    Then there will be far fewer possible sets you'd be able to tie your money up in, they'd be more likely to succeed (after having passed one round), and you'd have a better idea of what you were actually going to get -- being able to see the more fully realized/designed model.

    This will also let them be able to directly correlate numbers between the 1st and 2nd tier -- ie. people putting money where their mouth is. 10,000 votes for My Little Pony, but only 17 people willing to pay for it? Yeah - fail.
  • I (almost) can't believe how quickly and repeatedly people forget that lego is primarily a kids toy. The above idea is absolutely nuts for a product mostly made for children which lego and cuusoo, even with its age restriction, is.
  • ^I think this is the conundrum. Cuusoo is a site where adults can submit and vote for ideas, but ultimately those ideas need to appeal to Lego's core audience (6-11 year olds). But I thought the whole point of cuusoo (as trialled in Japan) was to create sets that would attract fans outside of Lego's current fan base? (eg Space fanatics, diving enthusiasts) so the whole 'core audience' things just doesn't sit well. If adults/AFOLs are submitting and voting for the ideas, it's more likely that these ideas will appeal to adults.

    Take minecraft for example. It's core audience is obviously not 6-11 year olds, yet is unlikely to offend or contradict TLGs brand values, so it has passed. I think TLG need to clarify what they expect from the site, and potential projects (and get rid of the non-starters).
  • EVE Online is actually much more mature than it lets on. The chats are not monitored for profanity or adult content. It is a very hard, complex game - I cannot imagine anyone 6-11 understanding and playing it successfully. Even though its rated T Teen 13+, the interactions with other players are not rated.
  • I (almost) can't believe how quickly and repeatedly people forget that lego is primarily a kids toy. The above idea is absolutely nuts for a product mostly made for children which lego and cuusoo, even with its age restriction, is.
    And why is that? It's basically a pre-order mechanism. If there's enough interest (ie. enough pre-orders) the set gets made, otherwise it's shelved. It's a way for Lego to gauge *actual* interest in the model, and not 'fake'/dubious interest. Are you implying 10 year olds won't be putting in their credit card number to buy the set? 10 year olds don't do that anyway -- their parents do.

    These are all super exclusive (so far) sets that won't see mass market distribution. I don't see the majority, if any, of them being made for the 'core 6-11' demographic anyway. How many 10 year olds are going to buy a Back to the Future or EVE Online set? Zero.

    If it's the overall model you think is nuts, you obviously haven't seen the massive success that is Kickstarter.
  • The Winchester set was rejected? Boooh. Why turn away a potentially big market? Leave out the Lego brand and start up the Cuusoo brand.
  • Leave out the Lego brand and start up the Cuusoo brand.
    What does that even mean?
    Cuusoo is owned by LEGO. You want them to spin it off just so you can have "lego" sets of gory movies?
  • Its a common practice in many industries to create a secondary or tertiary brand to enter niche sections of the market. Similar to Lexus for Toyota entering luxury cars. Same goes for the large hotel chains, which have the luxury resorts under a separate brand. It allows you to venture into new territory under a new name and explore without totally risking or compromising the main brand.

    This might be the only way TLG can abandon all restrictions and go for the forbidden fruits, such as warfare based sets.
  • Its a common practice in many industries to create a secondary or tertiary brand to enter niche sections of the market. Similar to Lexus for Toyota entering luxury cars. Same goes for the large hotel chains, which have the luxury resorts under a separate brand. It allows you to venture into new territory under a new name and explore without totally risking or compromising the main brand.

    This might be the only way TLG can abandon all restrictions and go for the forbidden fruits, such as warfare based sets.
    That is a very high-risk strategy for an iconic brand, though.
    Even "Toyota" is not synonymous with "car" the way "LEGO" is with "plastic toy brick".
    What then becomes the differentiator between "LEGO but not called LEGO" modern military sets and those crappy knockoff brand sets they sell at TRU, I don't even know the name. (I'm not being a snob here, I own and am happy with some of the old Megabloks military sets, but there is some other company making really terrible ones right now.) You see, in a way LEGO would be contributing to the erosion of their own brand dominance because a thing would exist with the quality of LEGO (since LEGO would make it) but not labeled LEGO, and then the consumer becomes less trained to respond to that single, iconic brand...
    Not saying it couldn't happen or couldn't work, but it would take some serious brass to roll the dice like that with the jewel in the crown.
  • edited April 2012
    lets have the brickset effect strike agen and get this model made or at least ready for lego to review it http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/96
  • It's on the home page, it would be nice if the effect pushed it to its goal!
  • edited April 2012
    Cuusoo is owned by LEGO.
    Actually, I don't think that's true.

    Cuusoo is an independent organisation, and is a social-media-like platform for members to come up with ideas for things they would like to see created; it's been running for around 10 years in Japan, with multiple different products having been developed in that time. It certainly isn't exclusive to Lego-based products.

    They describe their business as:
    - Design, development and operation of web platforms for user-driven product development
    - Planning, production and development of communication tools and software applications
    Lego may have partnered with Cuusoo, but it isn't true to say that 'Cuusoo is owned by Lego'.

    Companies they have worked with include:
    FUJI Film Corp.
    Fujitsu Ltd.
    LEGO Japan Co., Ltd.
    LEGO System A/S
    LG Electronics, Inc.
    Mitsubishi Electric Home Appliance Co., Ltd.
    NEC CASIO Mobile Communications, Ltd.
    NEC Corp.
    NTT Docomo, Inc.
    Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
    Olympus Imaging Corp.
    SHARP Corp.
    Sony Corp.
    Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Japan, Inc.
  • ^^ Oooh, only 79 to go!
  • ^^^ Only 58 to go!
  • Cuusoo is owned by LEGO.
    Actually, I don't think that's true.
    I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
    However, I do think a second brand for LEGO is unlikely...

  • ^^41 now.
    This'll be at 10,000 within the next hour.
  • Just had a good look at a load of models on Cuusoo and voted for some. Lots of very good models on there, but so many covering the same topic, theme or object. For example, I voted for this Mini Cooper lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/1642 and there are other versions. Now Mini enthusiasts may well buy a Lego model as a one off as VW Beetle owners have, but they quite possibly won't be searching through to find every Mini model on Cuusoo. There's a number of Jedi Temples as well. Maybe Lego needs to look at sometimes pooling votes for an idea. Obviously not 10,000 in total because there'll be people voting for each version.
    Or different vote thresholds for models extending ranges already available. For example there's a Leaning Tower of Pisa fits in the Architecture line. Does this really need 10,000 votes for it to be considered? Or is 10,000 votes in this case just used as a mechanism to stop Architecture models having to be considered too often?
  • edited April 2012
    ^^ 20 to go
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories