>>7525656I'm going to make some baseless speculation about the direction towards more complexity and LEGO not returning to "simpler times".
Like I said in others posts, I consider LEGO's increased complexity in both part types and part number, increased build complexity and more difficult techniques to be a major driving factor behind kids not taking their sets apart and building something else.
Now some posters have said this isn't so - while others have agreed. For the sake of the discussion I'm going to assume it is indeed so.
This, from a business point of view is a very good thing. Since each set now doesn't double as another toy. So if the child wants another toy he'll be less likely to make one out of his existing parts and instead will ask for another.
Using pieces that only work when using advanced building techniques, staying away from bricks on plates building - this works to effectively limit the usage of a child's part inventory.
If before he could make "a new toy every day" out of a set number of parts, today, with the same number of parts he can produce fewer builds and must navigate a higher barrier of difficulty in order to produce those builds.
This I believe drives children to abandon the idea of "let's build something new out of what i have" and instead push for "daddy daddy buy me a new set" which means more of a profit.
I could be wrong, this is just speculation, but if I were a business that only cared about business (like they do today) this would certainly be a direction I would explore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOVe1HJadcoThe days in that video are long gone. Back then LEGO wanted to push into the toy market and they used the idea of "a new toy every day" to promise parents a system that alleviated toy costs in the long run because it allowed for creative play. The whole point is that the sets are not "one and done".
