>>10273489>We didn't ask for $400 sets.I know the whole "Hurr inflation" thing is a bit overplayed, but everything is increasing in price, not just Lego. For a toy example in 2008 a Deluxe Transformer cost $10, 15 years later it's $25 for one. For a non-toy example, just look at how the MSRP for video games has been creeping up from $50 in the 360/PS3/Wii era to $60 in the Xbone/PS4/WiiU era to $70 in the Series X/PS5/Switch era.
Yes $400 for a lego set is a bit excessive but for something celebratory like the Lion Knights castle that comes with 22 minifigs and a variety of building techniques and 0 stickers I can let it slide the once. That's not to say I want $400 sets to be the norm, however. I still find shit like that $600 Eiffel Tower or those Football stadiums to be shit, and the Collectors Edition Hogwarts Express to be a complete disaster of a set. But for something that's supposed to be celebratory of Lego's 90 year anniversary and Classic Castle as a whole I can be okay with one really huge Lego set.
Honestly, if there's any set you could link to Lego's obsession with huge $400+ lego sets it's probably this one.
>$400 MSRP in 2008, making it the second-most expensive set after the UCS Millennium Falcon>Came with a buttload of figures and features>So popular they rereleased it again at $500>Its popularity led Lego to realize people like "More" so more big sets were on the horizon since then (The only sets prior to it that were more than $200 were the UCS Star Destroyer at $270, UCS Death Star II, Mindstorms NXT, and the UCS Falcon)>Pretty much every set that's been $400 or more has been Licenseshit or Objectshit with the exceptions being Lion Knights Castle and the Loop Coaster>Asides from the Death Star, UCS Falcon, Super Star Destroyer, and some Educational set for schools pretty much every set that's been $400+ has been within the last 5 years Once again another thing you can blame Star Wars on for ruining Lego.