[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.