Rent LEGO Sets Online

[Hapori Tohu]

Have you ever wanted to to go rent a few LEGO sets and return them later, just like Netflix? Me neither. But if you're weird and do, you should check out <a href='http://www.pleygo.com' target='offsite'>Pleygo</a> , a new rental service for everyone's favorite building sets. There's a few different plans for different sizes of sets to fit everyone's budget. Don't ask me how they deal with dirty or missing pieces, because I'd like to know that too. It's interesting to say the least.View the full article

[Meiko]

Is this a joke or is it legit?

[Toa Smoke Monster]

This is an odd service alright.

 

All I know is that if I get a Lego set, I'd want to keep it. I wouldn't want to get a set if I had to return it later on. But that's just me.

[GarryTheSkrall]

No charge for "lost" pieces, huh? Man, they really didn't think this through well at all. I mean, parts do get (legitimately) lost, especially by little kids, but... it just feels like kind of a bad idea. Assuming it's legit, of course.

Edited August 18, 2013 by GarryTheSkrall

[Phyoohrii]

It's an interesting idea, what would interest me is the owner of the set would get some cut of the service each time the set is rented, or whether you just get a cut to begin with. Anyway all this sort of shared ownership (uhoh) is really interesting stuff, something along these lines...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRYOQj_t16g

WARNING: Excessive Australianness.

 

Course there's going to be lots of issues with trustworthiness of customers, so would be interesting to hear what measures they would implement on that front. Anyway it's only a US service currently, but wish them all the best, and curious how successful this model will be.

 

[Kumata]

I really can't see this working for an extended time

 

Even if parts didn't get 'lost', what about the mistreatment of bricks? I mean I used to chew on pieces all the time when I was a kid. Or they could come back covered in mud, paint, glue...

[Van Hohenheim]

weird? check.

want this service? ehh...

 

when I get a set, I want to build it, then mix it in with my huge mess of a torn-up MOCing collection. I'd hate having to return the sets.

[Vorahk1Panrahk2]

Well... it would give me a chance to play with those sets I've gotten a chance to hold in my hands! But, yeah, this is a strange service.

[Hitoshura]

Why would anyone want to ren Lego sets? If I wanted a set, i would go buy it myself. Unless it's a big set, but really?

[Art Vandelay]

I'm sorry, but this just isn't a good idea, in my opinion. There will be some people that steal pieces, and some will get legitimately lost. Aside from that, who wants to rent a Lego set? I would hate to have to return a Lego set, especially since the only thing I ever do with them is build and then display or later use its pieces to build MOCs.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Trydeltix

[Gatanui]

This should be great for researchers who want to find out the effects of children chewing on plastic. Seriously, though, when I get a LEGO set, I like to keep it, not give it away soon enough, even more so when I was a kid.-Gata

Edited August 18, 2013 by Gatanui

[Hitoshura]

Or children eating it. Don't ask. It does happen.

[Meiko]

I'm sorry, but this just isn't a good idea, in my opinion. There will be some people that steal pieces, and some will get legitimately lost. Aside from that, who wants to rent a Lego set? I would hate to have to return a Lego set, especially since the only thing I ever do with them is build and then display or later use its pieces to build MOCs.

Losing/stealing pieces is likely part of the rental agreement and probably has a fee attached.

[BBBBalta]

Losing/stealing pieces is likely part of the rental agreement and probably has a fee attached.

I didn't look closely at the terms, but on the site's front page it says "no charge for lost pieces."

[Dorek]

This is... strange, but kinda cool?

[Aanchir]

My dad was reading to me about this a while ago. It seems like a really great way of parting people from their money, but not much more than that. The whole reason LEGO is such a great toy is that it doesn't lose its value after playing with it for a while — you can continue to use the same parts over and over indefinitely, and they actually add to the value of any new products you buy since you'll be multiplying your building options.Just glancing at the prices for the plans available shows just how impractical this is. For $39 a month, the largest plan, you can get some very impressive LEGO sets. However, you will be forced to return each one before you can get another set! With a policy this restrictive it will be no surprise when a kid gets bored of playing with the same set, because they will quickly exhaust any options (at least, any options they have the building experience to take advantage of) that the pieces of that set afford. A kid can pay to keep the set, of course... with the fee being the same fee they would pay in a toy store to buy the set new, on top of the monthly subscription fee they'd have to pay to keep receiving new sets.A better policy as a parent would be to just buy your kids sets and take care to teach them the value of those sets. Sure, your kid will beg for the big $120 set every year, but in that case it will teach a more valuable lesson to teach them what that means: "We can get you that set now, but that be your only new set for the next three months." Huzzah! Your kid now gets a valuable lesson on delaying gratification as well as permanent ownership of a toy with lasting value. All that for about the same price you would have paid for three months of the Pleygo service.A year of the Pleygo service with the highest-value plan, "borrowing" one set at a time, will cost you $468. That's about the same amount as it would cost to buy every LEGO City set from the first half of this year! Beyond that, it's more than twice what you'd pay to get every one of this year's Hero Factory sets! Unless you are a parent who absolutely cannot teach their kids to take "no" for an answer when walking through the toy aisle, you'd be kidding yourself to think that you'd save any money with this service. You'd still be paying through the nose for your kid's LEGO habit — the only difference is that you and your kid would not own a single thing you paid for with that money.

[Timelady Gallade]

What Aan said.

 

Also, you are kidding me right?

[Sumiki]

I saw this a little while back and thought it was perhaps the silliest concept I'd heard of in a while. As a business model I don't see how this is going to be successful.

[Ektris]

Yeah, renting stuff (games, movies, books, etc.) is a huge thing right now...But for toys? And LEGO at that?It's not going to go over well.~|ET|~

[Toa Zaz]

This actually sounds like something I'd like (although the whole workings of it sound hopelessly impractical what with stolen and broken parts, etc). But I wish they'd charge for individual rentals, and not a monthly fee.

[Underscore]

Well, to me, the satisfaction of a lego set is building it. When I'm done, I keep it on display for a while, the mix it with all of my other legos to build things. And I've already got enough to build with as it is. I wouldn't recomend this for people who don't have many legos, but for people who don't really do anything with it after they build it.

 

But that's just me.

[Logan Tec]

no fee for missing pieces. you could find a set that is composed with ball joints just the ball and get it. i see stealing issue here.

[Manterax Prime]

Yeah, that "no fee foe missing pieces" thing is what's likely to be the downfall of this service, not that isn't already a really bad idea.

[Aanchir]

The actual policy is that you will not be charged for NORMAL loss. If a lot of parts go missing I think they'll be a bit more suspicious. The terms of service also state "I will notify Pleygo of any damage or missing pieces that were lost during the time I rented the LEGO set and understand that I might be charged the full amount of the set to replace it."Another interesting note... if you hold onto a set for longer than nine months then you will be charged the full retail price of the set. It doesn't sound too bad until you realize that you will have been paying for your subscription for the entirety of those nine months. No matter what set you rented or what plan you're on, you will have already paid around twice the retail price of the set, and will then be expected to pay it again! Needless to say this is how a rental fee is typically expected to operate: the high rental costs are meant to encourage people to return the product they rented before. However, unlike a movie rental where a kid can only watch the same movie so many times before they get bored, I can imagine a kid getting mighty peeved if you get them a LEGO set only to take it away after a few months.

[bonesiii]

No, just no, and no.

 

You pay to get the set, admittedly at a deal, but you can do that with owning sets if you want to deal-hunt. Maybe not as much, but when you grow out of your own sets YOU can make money on it by selling it at a garage sale or online, and recoup some of your losses and maybe (if it has become a collector's item for example) even make a profit. This way you get nothing for giving it away when you're done (to the "owner"). Baaaaad deal.

 

Of course, this assumes the customer is honest and does send it back intact. If it's true there's no punishment for "lost" parts, then the "owner" could also be robbed incrementally. It sounds like a lose-lose to me. The idea of shared ownership isn't bad, but this seems like a poor application of it.

[~Shockwave~]

This is rather strange. I personally love to make small mocs to set on my desk or shelves. Most sets of mine are dismantled after building them unless I see some significant value in the finished product... And most system based purchases are mostly for the figures anyway... So... No, not for me. Seems a bit odd really...

[xccj]

Sounds like a good idea for maybe other types of toys, where kids would get bored after a week or so. But, as pointed out, that is usually not an issue for Lego.

 

Money and theft issues aside, if I were a kid in this position, I would hate the feeling of getting a totes awesome set and then having it taken away shortly afterwards.

 

[Kanakalackin]

Honestly, it's an interesting concept, but it is implemented extremely poorly.Legos are meant to be built to play with, true, but what happens to them after you build it time and time again? Boredom.The reason that movies, books, and video games can be rented is that there is a "preview" before you make the final decision to buy the product. And there is only so much you can do with a movie or game before you get bored with it.With the way that they're running this company, they'll be teaching kids how to be bored with legos. I can see it now:Parent: here, a lego set for you to play with!Kid: Yay!*several weeks later*Kid: I'm bored.Parent: Why don't you play with that lego set?Kid: I can't do anything with it.*8 months later*Parent: Okay, I have to give the lego set back.Kid: No! It's mine!This company makes playing with legos difficult. Something a child should never experience when using legos. Legos are supposed to be fun. What these people have done, they make it a bit lame.

[Steve the Squid]

So far Zaz is the only one who hasn't just made some comment about the lost parts policy or about how "I like to build my sets and then keep them".

 

I too like to "keep my sets", but cmon guys. Who else here wouldn't like to get a chance to build the Ultimate Collector's Edition Death Star for a LOT less than it costs to get one?

 

I got the UCS Millenium Falcon (don't ask, I'm not rich, it has to do with my jewish grandfather and me not having a bar mitzvah), and I gotta tell you, it is fun to build that. It takes DAYS. The first time I built it, I took 2 weeks, but I've managed to get my time down to 4 days, and that's building ALL DAY STRAIGHT. That's a lot of building time you get out of one set, one rental.

 

Unless you own that set, chances are you will never get to build that monstrosity in your whole life. But now, for a relatively small fee that's a tiny fraction of the cost of the set (especially now, since it's out of production), you can build it! I think that's pretty cool. At some point in my more adult life, I would like to get to build sets like the death star, and Pleygo will probably be how I'd do it.

 

IMO, more than half of the appeal of UCS sets like that is the fun of building them, and the rest is for display purposes. Nobody buys them for the parts :I

[Aanchir]

So far Zaz is the only one who hasn't just made some comment about the lost parts policy or about how "I like to build my sets and then keep them". I too like to "keep my sets", but cmon guys. Who else here wouldn't like to get a chance to build the Ultimate Collector's Edition Death Star for a LOT less than it costs to get one? I got the UCS Millenium Falcon (don't ask, I'm not rich, it has to do with my jewish grandfather and me not having a bar mitzvah), and I gotta tell you, it is fun to build that. It takes DAYS. The first time I built it, I took 2 weeks, but I've managed to get my time down to 4 days, and that's building ALL DAY STRAIGHT. That's a lot of building time you get out of one set, one rental. Unless you own that set, chances are you will never get to build that monstrosity in your whole life. But now, for a relatively small fee that's a tiny fraction of the cost of the set (especially now, since it's out of production), you can build it! I think that's pretty cool. At some point in my more adult life, I would like to get to build sets like the death star, and Pleygo will probably be how I'd do it. IMO, more than half of the appeal of UCS sets like that is the fun of building them, and the rest is for display purposes. Nobody buys them for the parts :I

I guess you have a bit of a point. Perhaps the issue we're having is the way we're thinking about this: as a mechanism for renting sets INSTEAD of buying them rather than renting sets in ADDITION to buying them. A $39 fee to "rent" an extremely expensive set that you only plan on building, showing off, and then returning seems reasonable enough.Overall, though, the service seems to be targeted towards kids, not AFOLS, and towards parents who consider LEGO "too expensive" to buy on a regular basis. That's what's leading me to think it's being marketed as an alternative to buying LEGO for kids. And as that, it's a rather poor substitute.

[Steve the Squid]

 

So far Zaz is the only one who hasn't just made some comment about the lost parts policy or about how "I like to build my sets and then keep them". I too like to "keep my sets", but cmon guys. Who else here wouldn't like to get a chance to build the Ultimate Collector's Edition Death Star for a LOT less than it costs to get one? I got the UCS Millenium Falcon (don't ask, I'm not rich, it has to do with my jewish grandfather and me not having a bar mitzvah), and I gotta tell you, it is fun to build that. It takes DAYS. The first time I built it, I took 2 weeks, but I've managed to get my time down to 4 days, and that's building ALL DAY STRAIGHT. That's a lot of building time you get out of one set, one rental. Unless you own that set, chances are you will never get to build that monstrosity in your whole life. But now, for a relatively small fee that's a tiny fraction of the cost of the set (especially now, since it's out of production), you can build it! I think that's pretty cool. At some point in my more adult life, I would like to get to build sets like the death star, and Pleygo will probably be how I'd do it. IMO, more than half of the appeal of UCS sets like that is the fun of building them, and the rest is for display purposes. Nobody buys them for the parts :I

I guess you have a bit of a point. Perhaps the issue we're having is the way we're thinking about this: as a mechanism for renting sets INSTEAD of buying them rather than renting sets in ADDITION to buying them. A $39 fee to "rent" an extremely expensive set that you only plan on building, showing off, and then returning seems reasonable enough.Overall, though, the service seems to be targeted towards kids, not AFOLS, and towards parents who consider LEGO "too expensive" to buy on a regular basis. That's what's leading me to think it's being marketed as an alternative to buying LEGO for kids. And as that, it's a rather poor substitute.

 

You do make a point about the marketing, which I agree is a bit messed up.

 

For example, I think that they should do something more drastic for parts lost; but honestly, I can't think of anything that's fair and still deters stealing. But if you think about it, there is not many parts you can steal that would be worth the rent price; maybe pleygo can have a list of parts that would cost extra to replace. Minifigures come to mind, because I think that children putting "cool" minifigures in their pockets when their parents aren't looking will become a problem, especially with expensive minifigures like the ninjago snake people.

 

But also, think about the price. $15 a month? That's a mere $180 a year. I know for many years, I've gotten at the very least $180 in legos for my birthday and christmas combined; I've gotten $180 on just one holiday on rare occaisons too. And that's not even coming close to factoring in how much lego I spend my allowance on.

 

For $180 a year, you can entertain multiple kids, too. Both kids can take turns building the set, and they can play with it together. When I was a lot younger, there were some sets that I would get just to play with, even though there was never a time in my life when I bought the sets and didn't make other things out of them. I remember that I loved playing with an Alpha Team base, because it had play features and stuff. For kids that like to just build the set once and play with it, I don't think it's a bad idea.

 

But that's after you look past the questionable business practices; I hope that somebody on BZP or another Lego site tries it out and reviews it soon, because I think we're all interested in the quality of the program. Heck, I think that the company should give free trials to some prominent lego blogs, because that would get them the publicity they need to get past all the speculation.

[fishers64]

I think half the point of Lego is building it, putting it in your closet, and then pulling it out later to do creative stuff. This ruins that.

[Gatanui]

I think half the point of Lego is building it, putting it in your closet, and then pulling it out later to do creative stuff. This ruins that.

Yeah, also you'd kind of have to force yourself into playing with it while you have it. Though I have to admit Steve the Squid makes a very valid point I hadn't thought of, but as Aanchir also pointed out, that's something that may work for AFOLs, but probably not for kids.-Gata

[Makaru]

Can we talk about how poorly photoshopped that front page is, and how bothering it is that a "Lego renting company" can't even get a family to pose together in front of real Lego?

[believe victims]

Can we talk about how poorly photoshopped that front page is, and how bothering it is that a "Lego renting company" can't even get a family to pose together in front of real Lego?

 

On that same note, I'm trying to figure out what exactly is reflecting on the table, because none of it looks like the humans actually sitting at it OR the LEGO sets photoshopped onto it.

Also, it seems an odd choice to take a picture of a family playing Dominos to edit considering that LEGO is usually neither a family activity nor something one throws there arms up in celebration of completion.

[Makaru]

You clearly have never sat down with the Pehlkes Makarus when we play Full-Contact Dominoes.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Makaru

[Queen of Noise]

You clearly have never sat down with the Pehlkes Makarus when we play Full-Contact Dominoes.

 

I have. I was a little uncomfortable with the nudity.

[Lenny7092]

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?

Edited August 23, 2013 by Lenny7092

[Steve the Squid]

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?

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.

[Lenny7092]

 

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?

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.

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.