Which ones are the worst?

Post by ***CRAZYHORSE*** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:03 pm

The thing with Peaches IMO is just that as soon as you put then next to some yellow minifigs they just don't seem right they look ugly compared to the lego minifigs. It's like if everybody would stink no body would matter like 500 years ago when people took a bath twice a year.
And also the peach collor makes them look more "human" like and less fun. The yellow skin color just makes you smile. Peach color makes them more human so it would be kind of weird to rip little "human" minifigs apart and laughing at it and it wold be a little weird to let liitle "humans" slaughter each other with guns and blades and enjoying it. The yellow skin color just makes them more less human so you can more easely enjoy killing them. If a minifig dies it brings a smile on your face.

Post by **stubby** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:58 pm

Professor Fairfield wrote:Another Edit: Upon reading the thread, and making a conclusion, wow, just wow. So a "peach" is just a LEGO guy that isn't yellow? Gee, the idiocy of this board's militant LEGO purism even rages within the boundaries of LEGOs. Just pathetic. Oh, and it's obvious why you guys didn't include the black minifigs that LEGO used for Sports sets: Because you can't bear to let political incorrectness draw attention to how stupid your bitching about non-yellow minifigs actually is. Luckily, I'm aware it's that stupid, regardless.

Hello: satire. Please refer to topic #777.

Peach hatred is based on a simple fact: militant racism against figures made to look like white people is inherently hilarious. Racism against dark-skinned people? We've already got that in the real world, what's the point of making a lego version. Anyway set #10123 teaches us that brown and yellow minifigs get along just fine.

Professor Fairfield wrote:Well, I stand corrected then. I suppose they really are shit. The sort of fanboyism that runs rampant here is still obnoxious even if it's warranted, however, because I wish that there truly was another construction brick company that was able to compete with LEGO on equal grounds, the better to stop LEGO from price-gouging. It's not that I hate LEGOs. I love them, but I deplore exploitive capitalists wherever they occur, and a love of LEGOs doesn't inspire me to forgive that, because those capitalistic policies make it all the more painful that I can't afford the LEGO sets I crave.

Price gouging is when a company is already making a ton of profit and they crank up the price anyway because you don't have any other options. LEGO, on the other hand, has been losing on the order of a quarter-billion dollars a year for a big part of the last decade. They weren't charging enough to meet costs; it was the opposite of price gouging. LEGO bricks cost a lot because the high-precision molds are extremely, extremely expensive to produce, and their profit margins are insanely small.

Post by **Greenkey15** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:57 pm

It isn't militant racism if they struck first. They first took over sports, which nobody really cared about. But then they took over Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and all the other movie-based themes we knew and loved. If anything, that's militant racism against the yellows from the other plastic toys. And yes, they look like shit next to yellow guys. And yes, it is funny to make fun of people made to look like white people. But lego minfigs are just meant to be yellow. That's final.

EDIT: Mega Blox had peaches before lego did, too. I know this for a fact.

Post by **Professor Fairfield** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:01 pm

stubby wrote: LEGO bricks cost a lot because the high-precision molds are extremely, extremely expensive to produce, and their profit margins are insanely small.

Yeah, but guess what? Plastic is really, really abundant. We buy it simply to use what it contains, and then throw it away. Imagine how common and cheap it would be if it was all recycled instead. So even if you have to spend a lot to make a mold, you can mint as many bricks as you want from the plastic that you buy.

So if LEGO needs to make a profit, fine, but there are multiple ways to do so. There are many people who prefer to build free-form with large collections, rather than build official LEGO models with instructions and gimmicky new pieces, so LEGO could just as easily profit from that demographic by producing and selling massive quantities of bricks en-mass.

Post by **IVhorseman** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:09 pm

^^^ they do. unfortunately, that demographic is pretty small. Sure they may buy eight times as many bricks as the average user, but are only a sixteenth of the population.

Also, the plastic LEGO uses is... fairly high quality. Not to mention the actual molds for the plastic being insanely expensive.

Post by **stubby** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:31 pm

Professor Fairfield wrote:
stubby wrote: LEGO bricks cost a lot because the high-precision molds are extremely, extremely expensive to produce, and their profit margins are insanely small.
Yeah, but guess what? Plastic is really, really abundant. We buy it simply to use what it contains, and then throw it away. Imagine how common and cheap it would be if it was all recycled instead. So even if you have to spend a lot to make a mold, you can mint as many bricks as you want from the plastic that you buy.

Unfortunately, no. After a certain number of moldings, the molds wear out and no longer have the precision to produce bricks that stick together with Lego reliability. The most important cost of producing Lego is in finding a way to make back the cost of machining a specific mold, before that mold wears out. And there are a million other overhead costs of storage and shipping that come into play long before the cost of the plastic itself even shows up on the list.

Believe me, there are a lot of very very smart business managers at Lego who spend their every working day looking at the costing and market opportunities from angles none of us have ever even considered. If a Lego version of Bricklink was enough to sustain the company by itself, we'd see a lot more emphasis on the bulk-bricks section of shop@home. But bulk-brick sales only appeal to an existing market already in place; the retail playsets are the products that create the market in the first place.

Post by **Cpt. Zipps** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:01 pm

The Worst thing about MegaBloks is that they make one large POOP piece for something where Lego would make several very useful ones.

I vote MagaBloks but Peaches can die in a hole.

Post by **dilanski** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:43 pm

Greenkey15 wrote:Mega Bloks have actually mades some good pieces, like a round stud with a hole and clip, and a round stud with a hole and rod. They are useful. Peaches only have 2, maybe 3 parts. The Head, The Hands, and (possibly) the Torso. None of which are useful for anything other than peach-flavored minifigs. I vote Peaches are worse.

OMG die noober-blok suppotrter die!

Post by **tahthing** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:09 pm

mega bloks have some decent pieces but they break <a href='http://tinyurl.com/y42zurt'>alot</a> and some times don't stick properly, but with a large lego collection theres no need for thease poop bricks, the large lego jet engine is one great example, instead of putting the fan in perminatly they made it removeable makeing whats left good for makeing artillarly and other kinds of jets.

Post by **warman45** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:16 am

megablox has 2 key advantages.

1. dirt cheap means good for making battlefields (especially the castle pieces.)

2. good to have someone who looks unique to fight against (DIE MAGABLOX MEDIEVAL GUYS WITH LEGO GUNS!)

of course they like to make 1 brik for what should be 5 and they also don't have AS good quality for MOST of their pieces (theres is no problem with the castle pieces.)

as well Megablox you should be thanking. without it Lego would hold a complete monopoly and could charge a lot of money for a single brick (like the raise on pick a brick except higher!)