Hello! I know that Bricklink employees sometimes read these massages, so I wanted
to highlight my thoughts on the recently announced guidelines for BDP Wave 6
(and supposedly beyond).
I have loved the Bricklink Designer Program, and I mean no disrespect when I
say this. But I believe that excluding Modulars from the BDP is a mistake.
Like many, the 2 things I look for in a BDP submission are #1 "Is this something
I would actually buy?" and #2 "is this something Lego would not otherwise
make?" Let's see how modulars fit into these questions.
First of all, would I buy it? Like many, I have to be very picky with my Lego
purchases. So as cool as many themes are, I have chosen city building as my lane,
and I can't branch out much. With that in mind, my first questions when looking
at BDP submissions are "would I actually buy this for my Lego City?"
"does this fit in my city?" (Mainly in terms of scale, I don't have
room for Brickcross, Studgate, Old Engine Shed, etc.) I am always happy to see
fans of themes I don't collect get great models from the BDP! But the occasional
Modular every 2 or 3 themes would be nice for collectors like myself. Spreading
them out actually helps me not miss them!
For the second question, there are many modulars in the BDP that Lego would not
make normally. Looking at the submissions from Wave 5 I voted for, I see a few
examples. I can't see Lego making a Cargo Delivery Depot within the next
5 years and they won't make it as complete as the one in the submission.
I can't see them ever making a Canal Lock. And then there's the Old Quay.
Normally, I skip the super large sets, them being way out of my price range.
But I'd make an exception for that one, since it offers so much that I'd
never get from any official Lego set.
Bricklink mentions how customers could confuse BDP modulars with the official
"Icons Modular" theme, but that doesn't make sense to me. Those who
know enough about the BDP to buy the set already know that it isn't an "official"
modular. So the only ones who would get "confused" are those who see
others posting about the set, and ask where they can get one too. Will they be
disappointed that they can't buy it? Yes, but that just speaks to how much
money lots of people are willing to spend on the sets that come out of this program.
Lego would be wise to increase its visibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I don't think most modular fans would mind if these sets were more widely
available. I wouldn't mind!
So unless Lego plans to make more Modulars themselves, I see no reason to limit
about a third of the BDP designers and buyers from making and buying what they
actually want, in the way they actually want it! And even then, removing them
from the BDP also takes away the chance for incredibly unique modulars we could
not get otherwise.
just learning of this now, and I'm glad modulars are being removed from BDP
- it's gotten pretty bloated and unoriginal having everyone's rejected
Lego Ideas modulars being shoved into the BDP roster
I understand that perspective, especially if you aren't a fan of buildings
and/or modulars. But I don't quite agree.
There is still a category for "buildings" that in waves 1-5 included
modulars. The BDP tries to not have more than 1 from the same category in a single
wave. There have been quite a few buildings chosen for the BDP, but only 1 has
been a modular since the long-term program kicked off. Thus, we'd probably
still be getting the same amount of buildings, they just wouldn't be "modulars."
The issue is that a lot of people who want buildings often want them in modular
form. This restriction is essentially like asking buyers to provide their own
baseplates and other parts to "modularize" a building that very well
could have already been a modular if not for this restriction. Not every building
has to be a modular, but those that could be now have to arbitrarily change.
just learning of this now, and I'm glad modulars are being removed from BDP
- it's gotten pretty bloated and unoriginal having everyone's rejected
Lego Ideas modulars being shoved into the BDP roster
I understand that perspective, especially if you aren't a fan of buildings
and/or modulars. But I don't quite agree.
There is still a category for "buildings" that in waves 1-5 included
modulars. The BDP tries to not have more than 1 from the same category in a single
wave. There have been quite a few buildings chosen for the BDP, but only 1 has
been a modular since the long-term program kicked off. Thus, we'd probably
still be getting the same amount of buildings, they just wouldn't be "modulars."
The issue is that a lot of people who want buildings often want them in modular
form. This restriction is essentially like asking buyers to provide their own
baseplates and other parts to "modularize" a building that very well
could have already been a modular if not for this restriction. Not every building
has to be a modular, but those that could be now have to arbitrarily change.
I'm glad they are going. The modulars are a LEGO product and not a BDP product.
Why pay non-LEGO employed designers a small fortune to design a product that
undermines their own series?
Hello! I know that Bricklink employees sometimes read these massages, so I wanted
to highlight my thoughts on the recently announced guidelines for BDP Wave 6
(and supposedly beyond).
I have loved the Bricklink Designer Program, and I mean no disrespect when I
say this. But I believe that excluding Modulars from the BDP is a mistake.
Like many, the 2 things I look for in a BDP submission are #1 "Is this something
I would actually buy?" and #2 "is this something Lego would not otherwise
make?" Let's see how modulars fit into these questions.
First of all, would I buy it? Like many, I have to be very picky with my Lego
purchases. So as cool as many themes are, I have chosen city building as my lane,
and I can't branch out much. With that in mind, my first questions when looking
at BDP submissions are "would I actually buy this for my Lego City?"
"does this fit in my city?" (Mainly in terms of scale, I don't have
room for Brickcross, Studgate, Old Engine Shed, etc.) I am always happy to see
fans of themes I don't collect get great models from the BDP! But the occasional
Modular every 2 or 3 themes would be nice for collectors like myself. Spreading
them out actually helps me not miss them!
For the second question, there are many modulars in the BDP that Lego would not
make normally. Looking at the submissions from Wave 5 I voted for, I see a few
examples. I can't see Lego making a Cargo Delivery Depot within the next
5 years and they won't make it as complete as the one in the submission.
I can't see them ever making a Canal Lock. And then there's the Old Quay.
Normally, I skip the super large sets, them being way out of my price range.
But I'd make an exception for that one, since it offers so much that I'd
never get from any official Lego set.
Bricklink mentions how customers could confuse BDP modulars with the official
"Icons Modular" theme, but that doesn't make sense to me. Those who
know enough about the BDP to buy the set already know that it isn't an "official"
modular. So the only ones who would get "confused" are those who see
others posting about the set, and ask where they can get one too. Will they be
disappointed that they can't buy it? Yes, but that just speaks to how much
money lots of people are willing to spend on the sets that come out of this program.
Lego would be wise to increase its visibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I don't think most modular fans would mind if these sets were more widely
available. I wouldn't mind!
So unless Lego plans to make more Modulars themselves, I see no reason to limit
about a third of the BDP designers and buyers from making and buying what they
actually want, in the way they actually want it! And even then, removing them
from the BDP also takes away the chance for incredibly unique modulars we could
not get otherwise.
Just my opinion, what do you guys think?
I somewhat agree with this. First of all, the modulars designed for the BDP
have been some of the best sellers which leads to the question, why are modulars
no longer allowed?
My first thought is that LEGO will begin producing 2 modulars under the LEGO
brand each year and therefore will be able to sell to a wider audience without
giving a percentage to the designers of the BDP.
Another thing is that in the early days of the BDP, more creative designs (ie
something that LEGO hadn't even considered making would end up as a set (ie
the Safe). LEGO may be trying to spark more creativity in the BDP designers due
to complaints of each series having modulars, trains, castles, and buildings.
I could be wrong with all of this but if these ideas are implemented, I'm
ok with the lack of modulars from the BDP program.
With the recent falling out I've had with some members of the Lego LAN as
well as being a victim of abuse from some AFOL groups, I can't help to think
that the limitations now put on submissions may have something to do with me
seeing how all the things Lego NOW does not want to see are things that I'm
really good at and have a history of submitting to the Ideas program.
The language of the limitations also feels like they are going to disallow MILS
stuff as it has "technic connection points".
IF I am the root cause of all these new rules, all I can say is that I'm
sorry and Lego is crapping on all AFOLs because of a few bad ones in Texas.
If Lego didn't cause the abusive groups by giving them incentives to be abusive
and greedy with constant access to deeply discounted and free stuff for publicity,
then Lego wouldn't have to "amend" their MOC submission rules all
the time.
Just seems like greed is the root of all the problems that decent people have
when they did nothing wrong but are constrained by Lego to work within ever stricter
confines. Lego limitations is one of the reasons why I've started to look
at other block makers.
With the recent falling out I've had with some members of the Lego LAN as
well as being a victim of abuse from some AFOL groups, I can't help to think
that the limitations now put on submissions may have something to do with me
seeing how all the things Lego NOW does not want to see are things that I'm
really good at and have a history of submitting to the Ideas program.
The language of the limitations also feels like they are going to disallow MILS
stuff as it has "technic connection points".
IF I am the root cause of all these new rules, all I can say is that I'm
sorry and Lego is crapping on all AFOLs because of a few bad ones in Texas.
If Lego didn't cause the abusive groups by giving them incentives to be abusive
and greedy with constant access to deeply discounted and free stuff for publicity,
then Lego wouldn't have to "amend" their MOC submission rules all
the time.
Just seems like greed is the root of all the problems that decent people have
when they did nothing wrong but are constrained by Lego to work within ever stricter
confines. Lego limitations is one of the reasons why I've started to look
at other block makers.
I am a huge Modular and BDP fan. I have over 200 BDP sets and a couple of each
of the modulars. But here is the truth. BL and Lego had a good thing with the
designer sets and yet some mentally dysfunctional person in a position to make
executive decisions is slowly destroying the investable/collectable and novelty
of the entire BDP system. In a few short years we have seen 2,500 creep up to
30,000.
I personally don't want anything to do with the BDP if they remove modulars
because its takes away the novelty and the artistic value of those who makes
submissions. It should be an open platform of any design and any theme, don't
forget here it is us users that vote on what we want!. Secondly if the set threshold
ever exceeds a 30,000 set production limit I am 100% done with my support on
the program. I may as well keep those funds, wait for double points day and go
to the lego store and buy traditional sets.
Don't try and fix what is not broken. Use you ears to listen to your fan
base, which is also the same resource of revenue.
I personally don't want anything to do with the BDP if they remove modulars
because its takes away the novelty and the artistic value of those who makes
submissions. It should be an open platform of any design and any theme, don't
forget here it is us users that vote on what we want! . Secondly if the set threshold
ever exceeds a 30,000 set production limit I am 100% done with my support on
the program. I may as well keep those funds, wait for double points day and go
to the lego store and buy traditional sets.
Don't try and fix what is not broken. Use you ears to listen to your fan
base, which is also the same resource of revenue.
There are already rules in place though that rule out many popular licensed themes,
LEGO in house themes, minifigures packs, and so on. All things that people would
vote for. LEGO is just adding to the list to keep a distinction between their
output and fan output. Nothing is stopping fans creating their own modular buildings
or MILS plates, it is just that LEGO won't produce their designs and pay
them very well for the designs.
I am a huge Modular and BDP fan. I have over 200 BDP sets and a couple of each
of the modulars. But here is the truth. BL and Lego had a good thing with the
designer sets and yet some mentally dysfunctional person in a position to make
executive decisions is slowly destroying the investable/collectable and novelty
of the entire BDP system. In a few short years we have seen 2,500 creep up to
30,000.
The telos of Lego is to be built, not to be someone's investment. I think
it's good that BDP sets are available to more people than previously. Hopefully
many of them will actually get built or their parts used in other builds.
With the recent falling out I've had with some members of the Lego LAN as
well as being a victim of abuse from some AFOL groups, I can't help to think
that the limitations now put on submissions may have something to do with me
seeing how all the things Lego NOW does not want to see are things that I'm
really good at and have a history of submitting to the Ideas program.
The language of the limitations also feels like they are going to disallow MILS
stuff as it has "technic connection points".
IF I am the root cause of all these new rules, all I can say is that I'm
sorry and Lego is crapping on all AFOLs because of a few bad ones in Texas.
If Lego didn't cause the abusive groups by giving them incentives to be abusive
and greedy with constant access to deeply discounted and free stuff for publicity,
then Lego wouldn't have to "amend" their MOC submission rules all
the time.
Just seems like greed is the root of all the problems that decent people have
when they did nothing wrong but are constrained by Lego to work within ever stricter
confines. Lego limitations is one of the reasons why I've started to look
at other block makers.
I really doubt their decision is down to their attitude towards any one person.
With the recent falling out I've had with some members of the Lego LAN as
well as being a victim of abuse from some AFOL groups, I can't help to think
that the limitations now put on submissions may have something to do with me
seeing how all the things Lego NOW does not want to see are things that I'm
really good at and have a history of submitting to the Ideas program.
The language of the limitations also feels like they are going to disallow MILS
stuff as it has "technic connection points".
IF I am the root cause of all these new rules, all I can say is that I'm
sorry and Lego is crapping on all AFOLs because of a few bad ones in Texas.
If Lego didn't cause the abusive groups by giving them incentives to be abusive
and greedy with constant access to deeply discounted and free stuff for publicity,
then Lego wouldn't have to "amend" their MOC submission rules all
the time.
Just seems like greed is the root of all the problems that decent people have
when they did nothing wrong but are constrained by Lego to work within ever stricter
confines. Lego limitations is one of the reasons why I've started to look
at other block makers.
I really doubt their decision is down to their attitude towards any one person.
USA, Massachusetts
Canada, British Columbia
United Kingdom, England