Why did the Sets Keep Getting Bigger?

[Toa Alvarno]

I remember the original 2001 Toa were really small compared to newer sets. If you see comparisons between different versions of the Toa, you can definitely see a gradual growth. It's okay if sets are different sizes, but at some point, these differences become so big that they aren't to scale anymore. Besides the fact that Lego was adding newer joints to the sets, does anyone know why the sets kept getting bigger over the years? How did you guys feel about that?

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Probably two reasons.

 

- Lego knows kids love to buy things that are bigger and better

- They can charge more money if they're bigger.

[Pohatu: Uniter of Stone]

Price per piece has pretty much stayed the same, so that's good. I'm willing to pay a bit more for more parts, especially in constraction.

[Axilus Prime]

They can charge more if they're bigger.

 

That aside, though, a bigger set does leave more room for articulation and a complex build. And I like that. So I think it's good that they keep getting bigger.

[Zeddy]

Being able to charge more seems logical, but they could have just started charging more for smaller sets citing rising prices or whatever (though seems unlikely LEGO would do such a thing). I agree with Axilus that bigger sets allow for more creative designs and flexibility and the ability to add more articulation, improve pose-ability, come up with new part designs and just more parts in general. I would be (and was) happy to pay for all of the above.

[Irrie]

I dunno, in 50 years we might be seeing some life-sized contraction figures. 

Anyway, I like having bigger sets for the reasons stated above, but not so much when they get big then get small. It's really hard to pose 2010 Tahu so that he looks like the leader of the 2008 Nuva. 

[bioniclepluslotr]

Cause little figures don't get that knee joint.

[Zeb]

I dunno, in 50 years we might be seeing some life-sized contraction figures. 

Anyway, I like having bigger sets for the reasons stated above, but not so much when they get big then get small. It's really hard to pose 2010 Tahu so that he looks like the leader of the 2008 Nuva. 

I thought the Nuva currently look like their 2002 versions. (Or something similar... whatever the default mode for their adaptive armor looks like.)

Cause little figures don't get that knee joint.

Tell that to the Protectors.

[Iblis]

I entirely think that it is because more pieces give the designers more opportunities for creativity; a better looking product seems like it would have a better selling chance, additionally I know that many people felt that Bionicle sets were typically "very gappy"; so a more complete product if nothing else. Finally I suspect that I wasn't in the smallest minority that felt that the Toa Mata/Nuva torsos where very blocky & didn't offer many other uses.

 

But mainly that a larger set can look better & have more visual variation whilst having more parts being the same (aside form colour) across the sets. So production wise it probably is that bit cheaper even though the piece per dollar has scaled almost exactly the same.

 

 

 

I dunno, in 50 years we might be seeing some life-sized contraction figures. 

Anyway, I like having bigger sets for the reasons stated above, but not so much when they get big then get small. It's really hard to pose 2010 Tahu so that he looks like the leader of the 2008 Nuva. 

I thought the Nuva currently look like their 2002 versions. (Or something similar... whatever the default mode for their adaptive armor looks like.)

 

...I'm not entirely sure if this was the 'joke', but in case it isn't; posing 7116 Tahu with the rest of his Toa Team (whether they be '02 or '08 versions) looks silly simply because the aesthetic is so different. _{(I personally though that the Toa Nuva with Adaptive armour under "normal" conditions should look different to any of the sets we saw of them...)}

Mainly I bring it up again because it was a really annoying aspect about 2010 Tahu; he wasn't a good piece mine & I didn't really want to pose him around anything; I would rather a MOC of him with Golden Armour... & probably would disregard him losing his Nuva armour although I might accept that it wouldn't be compatible with his adaptive armour; but I'd rather utilise his adaptive armor as an explanation to why he doesn't resemble his Mata form as much.

Then again I really, really, didn't like any of the '08 Toa.

 

 

Cause little figures don't get that knee joint.

Tell that to the Protectors. 

 

^{Again in case this isn't a joke; Protectors are still small relative to other sets this wave, Protectors are significant;y larger piece wise than previous sets, thus they have knees.}

[Aanchir]

Probably two reasons.

 

- Lego knows kids love to buy things that are bigger and better

- They can charge more money if they're bigger.

I don't know how much that second factor actually matters since they also cost more to make, package, and ship if they're bigger. So it's not like higher-priced sets automatically equal greater profit. Of course, if the cost is increasing for other reasons unrelated to size (like the piece count, or the number of new molds being introduced), increasing the size of the models might help kids who don't understand these kinds of costs to realize that they're getting a better value.

 

That would explain why the $13 Hero Factory heroes in 2012 were three modules taller than the $9 heroes. It's not like including slightly longer leg beams actually added four dollars to the cost, but the $13 heroes had higher piece counts as well as beefier armor (including back armor). Making the already more expensive sets slightly taller (for a negligible cost) could help kids feel better about the purchase, so they don't feel like they're paying more for a set that's more or less the same size.

 

I think there could be other reasons too. For instance, sets with greater articulation can often require more pieces, but if the LEGO Group thought that kids responded well to the size of parts like the Toa Mata and Toa Nuva gearboxes and leg beams, they might have been hesitant to replace them with pieces half that size. Also, smaller pieces have less room for connection points. So instead of making the Toa Metru lower leg beams half the size of the Toa Mata leg beams and with fewer connection points, the designers might have decided to make them the same size as the entire Toa Mata leg beam with just as many connection points.

[Cambion]

Being able to charge more seems logical, but they could have just started charging more for smaller sets citing rising prices or whatever (though seems unlikely LEGO would do such a thing).

you mean like they did with the Av-Matoran?

[Kopekemaster]

 

Being able to charge more seems logical, but they could have just started charging more for smaller sets citing rising prices or whatever (though seems unlikely LEGO would do such a thing).

you mean like they did with the Av-Matoran?

 

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought of when I saw this thread. If you're meaning actual, volumetric size, sure, they're getting bigger (as is the price), but I've noticed that LEGO sets in general have been having less pieces per price tier, and the price tier has, often, been increasing. (E.g., the price teir that used to be "9.99" is now usually "12.99", and the actual number of pieces hasn't increased (in many cases, it seems that it has decreased).)

[Aanchir]

 

 

Being able to charge more seems logical, but they could have just started charging more for smaller sets citing rising prices or whatever (though seems unlikely LEGO would do such a thing).

you mean like they did with the Av-Matoran?

 

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought of when I saw this thread. If you're meaning actual, volumetric size, sure, they're getting bigger (as is the price), but I've noticed that LEGO sets in general have been having less pieces per price tier, and the price tier has, often, been increasing. (E.g., the price teir that used to be "9.99" is now usually "12.99", and the actual number of pieces hasn't increased (in many cases, it seems that it has decreased).)

 

I think if you've noticed any kind of reduction in price per piece in recent years you're probably mistaken, because in most cases there isn't one. Just looking at the new BIONICLE in particular: the Protectors cost the same amount as the Toa Inika, Barraki, and Toa Mahri. They actually cost less if you factor for inflation. And yet they have more pieces on average than any of those sets did.

 

The idea that LEGO used to be much cheaper is a huge misconception.

[Kopekemaster]

I know it's probably a cliched example, but compare the original Tahu to the Stars Tahu. Or the post-rebuilding Matoran (or any other Matoran, practically) to the Av-Matoran.

But another thing that I sort of referenced in my previous post, but didn't really expand upon. The price points have been rising, obviously, whether or not the piece count rises with it (which, it may be noted, I do see for some sets). But, as this happens, the low price point sets, such as the Voya Nui Matoran ($4) rise to become not-so-low price points, such as the Av-Matoran ($7). And, even if the piece count does rise with it (which, in that specific example, they don't), are we really getting that much more out of the sets? I'm not sure.

 

I suppose what I might be saying is that I am probably less eager to buy something of the same "price point" (post-expense-change) when it costs more, even if I might be getting more pieces from that purchase.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Kopekemaster

[Iblis]

Just looking at the new BIONICLE in particular: the Protectors cost the same amount as the Toa Inika, Barraki, and Toa Mahri. They actually cost less if you factor for inflation. And yet they have more pieces on average than any of those sets did.

The idea that LEGO used to be much cheaper is a huge misconception.

 

 

The price points have been rising, obviously, whether or not the piece count rises with it (which, it may be noted, I do see for some sets). But, as this happens, the low price point sets, such as the Voya Nui Matoran ($4) rise to become not-so-low price points, such as the Av-Matoran ($7). And, even if the piece count does rise with it (which, in that specific example, they don't), are we really getting that much more out of the sets? I'm not sure.

 

I suppose what I might be saying is that I am probably less eager to buy something of the same "price point" (post-expense-change) when it costs more, even if I might be getting more pieces from that purchase.

 

I understand people not wanting to buy a more expensive set simply because its more expensive, even if it does come with more parts per dollar.

 

I just want to make it clear to others that are worried about less bang for their buck.

 

There are a few anomalies and other things going on here, but generally Pieces per Dollar we are doing pretty well; especially once you take inflation into account. Also for those of you that don't use US, http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ is great in my experience.

[Zidonaro]

I guess kids likes big sets more ? That and so they can make more money.

 

But I do believe smaller sets(with actual mobility, not just still figures like the Toa Mata were) would be actually better ? Their price would probably be low and we would still be getting more pieces. Remember the 2.0 line ? Those guys were 200% better than the original heroes, and yet they cost the same price ! 

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

I guess the increasing piece/price count was a factor in the largeness of the sets. The parts did get considerably larger too. 

 

-NotS

[bonesiii]

Why did the Sets Keep Getting Bigger?

Knees and elbows, friend, knees and elbows.

[Zeb]

 

Why did the Sets Keep Getting Bigger?

Knees and elbows, friend, knees and elbows.

 

Yeah, in order to give models more articulation, they needed to give the figures more elbow room by making them bigger.    

[Banana Gunz]

Larger sets just look more "powerful" I guess; they make more of a statement. I personally like smaller sets, but I feel that it was a natural progression. The mata were small because they didn't need to be big, but with the introduction of more articulation, the figures increased in size and kept that way for a while. With newer sets, well... not so much. The three fifteen dollar sets are a bit smaller than the larger ones (I believe) to add more versatility in set size/pricing. They're pretty basic in size and don't depart too heavily from HF sizes to my knowledge.

[Blueblur21]

Size matters. I will forever regret not picking up the incredibly awesome Skopio XV-1.

[Manducus]

Easy.

 

The bigger. The badder. The better.

[Sir Kohran]

Could it be that Lego's bleak financial state around when the first Bionicle sets were designed necessitated smallness?

 

Larger sets obviously cost more to make and package, and whilst the 'answer' to that may be that they also sell for more, Lego sets generally weren't selling at that point and there was no guarantee Bionicle sets would sell at all. There was also already quite a bit being spent on new molds for masks and tools, so piece counts and sizes were kept minimal, resulting in compact and small sets. Once Bionicle proved to be a strong seller and Lego's overall finances improved, sets steadily increased in size.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Sir Kohran