Results of the Summer LEGO® Review

At long last, we’re thrilled to announce the results of the Summer LEGO® Review in a video message to all of you. In June, four LEGO CUUSOO projects entered the first of what will be regular quarterly reviews of projects that successfully reach 10,000 supporters. These four projects— Back to the Future™ DeLorean™ Time Machine, EVE Online™ Ships – Rifter, The Legend of Zelda™, and the Modular Western Town—have gone through a lengthy review process.

21103 Back to the Future™ Time Machine
It is with great pleasure we reveal that the next LEGO CUUSOO set will be the Back to the Future Time Machine, based upon the LEGO CUUSOO project by m.togami and Sakuretsu. As one of the earliest projects on the site’s global open beta, headlines of a potential Back to the Future LEGO set was seen on popular sites including Gizmodo and Brothers Brick, helping LEGO CUUSOO gain massive appeal.

The final product is still in development in coordination with our license partner, Universal Partnerships & Licensing. We’ll show the final model and you’ll be able to order your own copy when it becomes available in mid-2013 (exact dates and pricing to be determined).

What does the review process look like?
The review process goes through four distinct stages; Brand Fit Analysis, Business Case Development (including License Agreements if applicable), Model Design, and then a Final Review, where the findings of all prior stages are reviewed together. Check out this blog post for more detailed description of the review process.

How did we arrive at our decisions?
We know you are interested in more information about the decision process, and what has happened with each project. Though we cannot share all details of our business decisions, here is what we have decided to share about each project:

Back to the Future DeLorean Time Machine
by m.togami* and Sakuretsu
After analyzing the supporters of the Back to the Future project, we learned that this product has a broad, worldwide appeal. The model presented in this project is built very closely to the LEGO Group’s design standards and has therefore provided a strong base to design the final product. It has a high play value and it fits well with supporters’ price expectations.

For these reasons, the Back to the Future project has passed the LEGO Review, and has been selected for production as the next LEGO CUUSOO set. The final product, pricing, and release dates are still being determined.

EVE Online Ships – Rifter
by czar
The supporters we received for the EVE Online Ships – Rifter project allowed us to examine the feasibility of another gaming-related product. However the Rifter presented a more challenging business case when considered alongside other potential products in this Review period. Therefore, the LEGO Review Board has decided that this project does not meet the requirements for the business case.

Modular Western Town
by mb_bricks
The Modular Western Town project conflicts with an ongoing project at the LEGO Group. As a result, the project does not meet the business case requirements and has not passed the LEGO Review.

The Legend of Zelda
The Legend of Zelda project shows broad support among gaming enthusiasts . This project has provided great inspiration and concept work for what could be a very nice product.

However, multiple new element moulds would be required to create the minifigures for such a product, and the expense of these moulds means that the Legend of Zelda project does not pass the LEGO Review on the basis of the business case.

Please note: If a project does not pass the LEGO Review please do not interpret that as an indication that we will not consider similar projects in the future.

Fall Review in Progress
The Fall Review is currently in progress, and the Winter Review period has started as of Monday, December 3. The next review deadline is Monday, February March 4, 2013. Best of luck on your own projects’ journeys to 10,000!

Back to the Future Films are trademarks and copyrights of Universal Studios and U-Drive Joint Venture. Licensed by Universal Studios Licensing LLC. All Rights Reserved.

* Disclosure: The BTTF project was one of the first projects on the global version of LEGO CUUSOO, beginning during the closed alpha version of the site in the summer of 2011. One of the collaborators on this project, Masashi Togami, is a part-time contractor of CUUSOO System, our partner company that operates the LEGO CUUSOO platform. Masashi will donate his 1% royalty to the Michael J. Fox foundation for Parkinson’s Research.

9 thoughts on “Results of the Summer LEGO® Review

  1. Wow. After waiting 6 months for these results, I am very disappointed. The Modular Western Town conflicts with an ongoing project? No it doesn’t. You don’t have one. You have a Modular NORMAL town, but you don’t have anything similar to this. The Legend of Zelda doesn’t pass because "multiple new element molds would be required to create the minifigures for such a product?" You ALWAYS have to make new molds. Exo-Force had new types of hair that haven’t been used since, and Ninjago and Lord of the Rings also had several new minifigure accessories. Flawed reasoning there, too. Also, MINGLES made a 3D printer design for them, so you could save money by not having to make the molds for this set like you would for every other set. "The Rifter presented a more challenging business case when considered alongside other potential products in this Review period?" What, do you just make on set per review? That’s the only way I can see this conflicting, as once again this is completely different not only than all the other sets in review, but also than any other set you currently have available. The only thing I am happy with is BTTF passing. I didn’t think you could actually make something pass after hearing your flawed reasoning abut everything else. You could have easily said the same things for that and be left with nothing. I mean, REALLY!?! After reading my comment, just look back on your decisions. They were stupid, weren’t they? We are ready to forgive you; just review them again without making the same stupid decisions and getting off on the same rabbit trails. Nice fail, guys. I can’t recall ever waiting 6 months for such terrible news. I really liked this site when I first found out bout it, but after seeing the results of this review, I don’t have high hopes for it.

  2. Congratulations to the BTTF team, but for the others, a six month wait for what amounts to "just no" seems utterly demoralising, both to them, and to everyone else with a project.Could you, for example, address the widely held view that the Saloon could have supported the upcoming Lone Ranger series as a top-end set?Or that the Rifter had the support of the EVE developers and that the business end should have been easier, not harder?The business case seems to be the sticking point, and most of us have little insight into that. So we learned from the Zelda set that too many new moulds really do make a difference – please help us learn from the other projects too.

  3. @weboh….hhmm Under the Modular western town I think you should look at the "Lone Ranger" sets coming out very soon… Sorta in conflict there1 Mold per piece cost 10,000$ to make… In the end then, regardless of weather or not they already have a 3D model, 5+ new molds means a lot of doe!… (Which they probably wont make up in selling it)@the rifter set, This just means that The other projects beat it, within target age range, playability, and licensing.I hope you don’t sue Cuusoo or something :D

  4. @sirtakkata I didn’t know they were making The Lone Ranger sets, but they don’t conflict; they compliment. How cool would a town like that be for The Lone Ranger? It doesn’t matter what the molds cost. (DON’T STOP READING HERE, READ THE WHOLE COMMENT FIRST). The point is, they ALWAYS make new molds. Take for instance, The Lord of the Rings, or any of the other series I mentioned. They have about as many new parts in a set as it would take to make The Legend of Zelda set. And having a 3D model would help, because then they wouldn’t even have to make it themselves; they could just email the designs to a company that does 3D printing (like MINGLES did here: ) or just buy a 3D printer for $10,000. The other sets didn’t beat the Rifter in licensing at least, because the people who posted the idea on Cuusoo were a part of the company that it needed to be licensed to. As you can see, their reasoning was flawed. I would sue Cuusoo if I had a case… Oh, wait! This is America! You don’t need a case to win a lawsuit! Silly me.

  5. As a big fan of Back to the Future and EVE Online this was an engaging contest that has lasted for MUCH longer then expected. I wish we could be given more of a peek behind the scenes to know what makes a project work and why this one required such deliberation. m.togami has my congratulations! I hope as the official line goes into production further development will produce a more DeLorean model though. It breaks my heart to not see the Rifter scrapped and with such a short explanation that to my ear sounds akin to, "There can only be one and the DeLorean will sell better."Offical package or no personally I will have been looking into procuring the parts for my own model Rifter.

  6. Hi everyone – we hear you and do empathize with the frustration of not having the LEGO CUUSOO projects you supported pass review or be selected.Each project in the review is first reviewed independently on its own merits. One may be selected for production per review period. If others pass also they can be queued for later. However in this scenario the LEGO Review Board has made the decision that the three projects did not pass the review for the reasons noted.LEGO CUUSOO is an experimental platform, breaking new ground for the LEGO Group. We’re in an extended "open beta" period where we are learning how to best take your ideas and transform them into products for a broad audience. Decisions on what project(s) to produce are ultimately business decisions. While we wish we could produce every project that reaches 10,000, it’s unfortunately not possible.

  7. <html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:lucida console, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>But as I stated before, the reasons noted were flawed. That’s the only thing I’m frustrated with. If you gave good reasons, we wouldn’t be frustrated.</span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: ‘lucida console’, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: ‘times new roman’, ‘new york’, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"></div></div></div></div></body></html>

  8. Tim, thanks for taking the time to reply. I think that many people are frustrated that the reasons for rejection were not explained in very much detail, rather than because their favourite didn’t get chosen.Since you’ve raised the issue of being "in beta", I would like to offer the feedback that you need to be less opaque about the decision-making process. Saying "No, failed business case" is not enough detail to help anyone do something different next time.Apart from the Zelda set ("too many new moulds"), we’re not left with any more information about how to avoid rejection.Could you please do more of a post-mortem on rejected designs, to highlight what could be done differently on future designs to improve their suitability? And also highlight which parts of those projects were acceptable?The process is a very slow black-box at the moment, and *that* is what is frustrating people.

Comments are closed.