I'm sure that doesn't hurt, but these days LEGO thrives because of their relentless promotional brand tie-ins. It's not just LEGO anymore. It's LEGO Star Wars, LEGO Batman, LEGO Harry Potter, LEGO Disney's Frozen, LEGO Toy Story 4, and so on.
Its also worth noting that some of LEGO's competitors don't worry too much about IP laws. You can buy a clone brand X-wing for 50% of the cost of the genuine set, but the quality is significantly lower in my experience.
Admittedly a revolver and not a semi-auto, and I don't know if it's from a current or recently discontinued set. But it's definitely from a modern set.
edit: link to the specific piece: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=1356...
The BrickLink page lists the revolver as part of a bunch of western and cavalry sets, that is, historical sets. Click "Item Appears In: 7 Sets" to the right.
Typical police equipment are handcuffs, megaphones, walkie-talkies, traffic paddles and coffee cups. The criminals might carry gold, banknotes, dynamite or crowbars and other tools.
The most gun-like thing in current sets is the huge net shooter (larger than a minifig and not portable at all) that really isn’t very gun-like at all.
Not even the minifig prints include suggestions of guns.
0. https://www.amazon.com/PLAYMOBIL%C2%AE-6872-Police-Command-C...
https://www.quora.com/When-did-LEGO-set-start-containing-con...
The introduction of weapons was gradual, and except for Batman, they are either historical or futuristic.
From my observations as a foreigner in Denmark, historical or fantasy weapons like swords, spears, shields, clubs acceptable and common. A 6 year old might have a wooden one, and be seen anywhere in the city. A 16 year old might have a foam and fibreglass one, and be seen LARPing in the woods at the weekend. A gun that isn't clearly a water pistol is a rare sight.
Even though Lego sets do sometimes include weapons, even very gun-like weapons, to me there is still a pretty clear line Lego draws. Their City sets don’t include guns and guns are the exception, not the rule, otherwise.
Look at Lego’s competitors if you want to get an idea of what Lego could be doing. Obviously those are looking for their niche, so that’s to be expected. They have modern and 20th century military equipment sets and I could never imagine Lego releasing sets like that.
That line got me thinking. I think you are right and I've never seen a police minifig with a weapon.
Often the knockoff sets are around 25% of the Lego price—I bought a Lepin Porsche for >$80 instead of $300. And the quality was 85%-90% of Lego. So slightly lower, but at a quarter of the price—and price is a feature.
E.g. if you gave a group of kids a "classic" set and another a themed set, with no further instructions, would the first group produce more "creative" designs?
I think the critics of the branded sets undervalue the Piagetian concept of scaffolding, basically that having the Harry Potter superstructure allows kids to riff on a variety of concepts that actually may be more "creative" than the random geometric blocks.
E.g. "What if we built a jail around Voldermort instead of killing him" seems like an equally valuable expression of creativity as "I made a vaguely car-shaped thing, but it has six wheels instead of four and has those little lever bricks instead of a steering wheel."
- Older set has a big baseplate which enables a child to start building a new structure easily
- Older set has well-pronounced architectural elements like arcs and slopes and feels like a solid structure, newer set feels airy and ad-hoc
- Older set has minifigs with a simple paint, newer set has cartoon-like characters
- Older set has a more realistic colour scheme, newer set again feels cartoonish
- Older set has a specially designed backside for playing and putting minifigs
E.g. there are vastly more "Friends" kits, the Lego house brand targeted at girls, than Disney princesses.
Ninjago has become a perennial answer to the sword fighting action that Star Wars only delivers intermittently.
Lego's new "Hidden Side" brand seems clearly targeted at being a Lego-owned alternative to Harry Potter with alternative schools, trains, buses, etc.
I also get the sense that the 3rd party licenses are actually more focused towards the "Adult Fan of Lego/AFOL" community, e.g. the $200 Stranger Things kit, the $399 Disney Castle, and the $799 Millenium Falcon seem priced well above even what generous parents will spend on birthday/holiday gifts.
It would be interesting to see the sales breakdown between in-house and licensed brands and how it's shifting over time.
So if their license free sets sell better, then it would stand to reason they make more profit off of these.
It should be easy to determine if they are more profitable assuming some kind of percentage going to the brands. If the mark-up is lower than a small percentage they are likely not more profitable, otherwise likely they are more profitable on a unit basis (per set).
Funny that you mention LEGO Friends. In the German adult LEGO community lots of people don't understand LEGO's strategy with Friends and often shop owners on YT videos claim that they don't sell well enough for them.
But they seem to get sold more elsewhere than in the LEGO specific shops.
I was only about some plastic bricks, ecommerce would suffice. I really think it is the kind of fantasy/DIY/inspiration that you only get from direct experience.
LEGO is the new hardware store.