>>8696844#4 (cont)
My problem with the licensed themes comes in three forms.
My first problem with it is the lack of imagination it gives to children (I mentioned it above read number five to remind yourself if you have no idea what I’m saying now).
My second problem with it is the cost, yes I know they have to pay for the licence but the sets are so much more and for a child with limited pocket money it just starts looking unfair. We all want Darth Vader and Chewy minifigs but this sort of purchase is at least 20% more than the cost of a non-licensed set (and can go even higher).
Average that out over the five years a child will normally collect LEGO (6-11ish) and they will have a much smaller collection. This smaller collection will again be tailor made to their theme and will allow little in the way of original building (wait I'm going back to point one again, sorry). It’s just that a child’s pocket money is special and to charge the most for the sets he (or she) is most likely to want seems a bit miserly.
My final and biggest problem with the licensed themes is the sheer number of them and the question of what could have been build instead. We have so many licensed themes that last a short while and then disappear; why go to all the trouble to release a theme when it lasts such a short amount of time?
Instead of having designers working on ‘Prince of Persia’, 'Toy Story' and ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ sets for a year why not have a range that is worth something and doesn’t leave the collector felling like a jilted lover dumped halfway through their fourth date (the date just after they had put out)?
Imagine what LEGO could have designed without their overreliance on licensed themes?
