In fairness those are 11,000 1x1 plates. I was shocked at the $1k price tag and wouldn't buy this set but it's actually on the cheaper side of $0.10/brick compared to the rest of their Star Wars sets.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are comparing apples and oranges. The €250 set with 11k pieces consists of 99% 1x1 tiles. Yes, this death star is ridiculous, but your comparison is too.

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fine take this example then, its both larger and has more pieces, still not 1,000 bucks.

https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/eiffel-tower-10307

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

The World Map has eleven elements with a count over 100, four of which count over 1,000, with the highest count being 3,064.

The Eiffel Tower has twenty two elements over a count of 100, with the highest count being 704.

This new Death Star on the other hand has only four elements over a count of 100, with the highest count being 191.

I agree it's quite the sticker shock, but it's not as if Star Wars hasn't dominated the high end Lego set market for many years. While the Eiffel Tower is much cheaper when considering price per piece, it stands in a category of its own both in terms of size and style.

Even so, comparing a wall decoration, a historical building, and a futuristic spacecraft is largely pointless as they aren't likely to attract the same audience. People will buy what they like. Lego is a hobby, these days more for adults than children. It's not right to gripe about people enjoying themselves.

[–] JordanZ@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

You’re paying the Disney tax on the Death Star. Also price by weight is a better judge of cost. There is actually an article that covers both.

https://bricknerd.com/home/how-much-extra-do-we-pay-for-licensed-sets-8-24-2023