[WilTimSon]

But that's a learned behaviour, and one learned specifically thanks to decades of marketing. Sure, LEGO is quality, but it's not some unbeatable gold standard. At some point it simply becomes one of those things where people ask for Coke instead of Pepsi, even if they can't tell them apart - brand loyalty trumping the desire to simply get the product.

[chipdart]

> But that's a learned behaviour, and one learned specifically thanks to decades of marketing.

I am not sure this is an accurate assessment. Lego has a reputation because it built that reputation over decades of solid and reliable delivery. Pseudo-Lego brands built a reputation of competing on price while trading off quality and reliability.

The real question is whether the price delta between Lego and pseudo-Lego can justify the quality delta. That's surely subjective up to a point.

[sandreas]

> Lego has a reputation because it built that reputation over decades of solid and reliable delivery.

Really? I'm not sure about that. I think LEGO built a reputation, because it was patented until 2008 and competitive products were not even a thing.

Mould King was founded 2012, also more than a decade ago.

> Pseudo-Lego brands built a reputation of competing on price while trading off quality and reliability.

This maybe true for chinese rip-offs, but the more modern approach is innovative, even with licensed models (see CADA MASTER Mercedes-AMG ONE 61503 or Mould King 12025 Orient Express). Features like LED lights, remote controls, remote controlled doors or REAL steam have not been approached by modern LEGO sets.

[ryukoposting]

Where did LEGO have a patent? It certainly wasn't the US. Mega has been here for decades. LEGO tried to sue them under copyright law but lost. My experience with non-LEGO bricks has been extremely mixed, averaging negative.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

Show me a lego ripoff that has the same quality and thoughtfulness in parts and we can discuss.

My experience with the 5 brands I tried has been horrendous: parts don't stick together, parts are too small, parts are incorrect.

[ryukoposting]

I think the "LEGO tax" is as much about consistency as marketing inertia. With name-brand LEGO, you know what you're going to get quality-wise. Alternative brands can be unpredictable. I would know; I still have all my LEGO from when I was a kid, and since my family isn't made of money, a lot of them aren't actually LEGO.

Alternative brands can VERY hit-or-miss, and when you miss, you can end up with some truly atrocious pieces. When I was a kid, Mega Bloks was the most common LEGO alternative (in the US, at least), and all of those pieces are terrible. The colors are washed out compared to LEGO, the plates aren't as rigid, and some of the bricks are a mess of scratches and dents.

Consistency is even a problem within individual sets. I also had a couple of LEGO-compatible sets that were made by Hasbro in the mid-2000s, and the part quality is excellent. The pieces have held up really well over the years, and Hasbro's yellow pieces are indistinguishable from LEGO's yellow. Hasbro came correct... except for their wheels, which are the sort of hideous dirt-cheap abomination that even Mega Bloks never stooped to.

Some brands are awful. Some brands are great. Some brands (like Hasbro) somehow managed to put "awful" and "great" inside the very same box. A brand's quality may change wildly over time. Some brands come out with their own extensions to the LEGO "standard," and then never provide a complete system of compatible parts. Sticking to name-brand LEGO offers a much more predictable experience.

[sandreas]

That's what I think. And even if the quality of the parts was less good, it's just not worth the LEGO price in many cases.

The video I linked shows the difference.