While many LEGO pricing decisions are egregious, this one is surprisingly fair. Build quality is also much better. Looks more like what it's supposed to be, colors are more uniform, and the treasure chest isn't just a brown crate

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

I do sometimes wonder if we calculate the prices of sets wrong, like, realistically we should allocate a portion of the cost for the design and research thst goes into a LEGO staff member (or more likely team) making the set, and then the actual cost

But maybe that's me getting myself twisted up with how small sets seem reasonable but the large sets feel insane until you factor in Dev time

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 day ago*

    That absolutely does count for something, and with the first set you can tell that there just wasn't as much thought put into the animals. The crab looks more like a red dot with legs holding scissors, and same for the shark's underdesigned fins and splotchy coloring in some portions like the tail

    The newer one feels less like a cartoonish playset, and more like it could have been designed by a genuine marine biology enthusiast with an affinity for sleek shaping techniques

    Neither sets are bad for their prices

  • source
  • parent