What I meant "selling people" meaning Pleygo, and what I meant "renting people" meaning customers who rent Lego sets from Pleygo.Anyway, I wonder if Pleygo would want their sold Lego sets back from its customers because you rent something from a company, you have to give it back to the company, or otherwise, you have to pay for the thing that you rented with more money and/or some other consequence like that. It's like borrowing something from somebody, but you have to pay for it to do it.
What are you talking about "selling people" and "renting people"? There's one company, that rents out lego sets. If you like the set, you can buy it from them instead of giving it back. That's all; no "selling people" or "renting people" And in case you're confused, this is not an official LEGO Company service. Pleygo isn't affiliated with TLG as far as I know.
I never heard about something like this before. Anyway, why would the selling people have other people rent Lego sets? I mean, would the people who rent the Lego sets want to keep them and/or something like that? And really, why would the selling people have the renting people rent Lego sets? And also, why do the selling people do that?
That's exactly how the system works. You pay Pleygo a monthly fee for a Lego set, they send you a set, you send it back when you're finished with it and they send you a new one. As long as you continue to pay the rental fee, you can continue to use the set. If you decide you want to keep the set instead of ever returning it, you can pay the full price of the set to own it and, if you then choose to stay in the program, they will send you a new set. If you send back an incomplete set, it is at Pleygo's discretion whether they will charge you the full price of the set to replace it.I agree with my brother that the primary thing this service will accomplish is parting credulous parents from their cash. It may seem like a cheaper option to rent a set rather than pay full price to keep it, and parents may be attracted to the notion of a house that isn't full of Lego, but you're ultimately paying a fairly steep cost for the ability not to own a product. Lego sets are fairly good at maintaining their monetary value if no parts are lost, and meanwhile the "play value" of a Lego set gets exponentially greater based on the size of your existing collection. Paying the $40 monthly fee to rent a $300 set may seem economical, but at the end of the rental period you are poorer by a multiple of $40 and you still don't own a single Lego brick. Add in the likelihood that parts will get lost (and based on the demographic they are aiming at, parts are likely to get lost) and the condition that lost parts may cost you the full price of the set, and the whole operation begins to look a little shady.