LEGO is expensive—there’s no need to debate that
Lately, I’ve seen several articles again that present Mould King’s giant Building Block sets as an affordable alternative to LEGO Star Wars. And if you just look at the numbers, it’s impressive at first glance.
A good example is a large Mould-King cruiser with 6,685 pieces and a length of about 1.2 meters, which visually bears a striking resemblance to a Venator from Star Wars. Some of these models are available for just over 200 euros. The official LEGO Star Wars Venator 75367 has 5,374 pieces, is 109 centimeters long, and normally costs 649.99 euros at LEGO.
Of course, your first thought is: Why should I pay three times as much?
And to be perfectly honest: LEGO is expensive. I say that myself often enough. I don’t buy many sets until they’re marked down by 35 or 40 percent. So, in my opinion, not every LEGO MSRP is automatically justified.
But “more stones for less money” isn’t the whole story.
That’s exactly where I often find the comparison too simplistic. With an official LEGO Star Wars set, I’m not just paying for plastic and bricks. LEGO officially partners with Lucasfilm, develops its own product, pays its employees, covers marketing and distribution costs, and, of course, the license plays a role as well.
In contrast, many alternative models deliberately avoid using terms like “Star Wars,” “Venator,” or “Star Destroyer.” The model is given a different name, even though everyone can tell at a glance what it’s based on.
That doesn’t automatically mean that such a set is illegal. That’s exactly where I want to be especially careful. Legally speaking, it’s not just a matter of whether a Building Block is allowed to be compatible. Depending on the product, design rights, trademark rights, and copyrights may also come into play. Whether a specific model infringes on any rights is therefore a case-by-case matter and not something I’d like to assess in general terms.
I’m generally totally fine with alternative Building Blocks
I’m not trying to say at all that only LEGO is allowed to make Building Blocks. On the contrary, I think competition is a good thing. If CaDA, BlueBrixx, Mould King, or any other manufacturer develops a great model of their own, I think that’s perfectly legitimate.
And if another manufacturer offers better-quality parts, more features, or a significantly better price, then LEGO has to accept that criticism.
My personal line is drawn when the main selling point of a product boils down to: “It looks almost exactly like the well-known original—only much cheaper.”
With MOCs, it gets even more personal for me
A second point is the topic of MOCs, or “My Own Creations.” A really good MOC can take months of work. Someone designs the model, tests different stages of construction, corrects errors, and sometimes creates hundreds of pages of instructions.
If a manufacturer works with a designer like that and pays them: wonderful. That’s exactly how it should be.
But if someone were to simply copy someone else’s design without asking the original designer or involving them, I personally wouldn’t think that was right—regardless of whether the party affected is LEGO, a small MOC builder, or any other company.
“LEGO is a billion-dollar corporation”—that doesn’t convince me
I hear this argument quite often when it comes to this topic: LEGO is big enough and can handle it.
But to me, that’s a strange line to draw. Let’s imagine the whole thing the other way around: A small company develops a really good spaceship, invests money in design and development—and then a huge corporation builds something that looks practically the same, only cheaper. Would we still say, “It doesn’t matter”?
I probably won’t.
That’s why I want to apply the same standard even when the company in question is LEGO.
My conclusion: It’s okay to criticize LEGO—but cheaper doesn’t automatically mean better
I can understand anyone who says, “650 euros for a LEGO Venator is just too much for me.” For me personally, the MSRP would also be too high, and that’s exactly why I use Price Comparison sites, discounts, and deal alerts.
I can also understand if someone would rather build a model with 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 pieces from another manufacturer. Alternative Building Blocks aren’t a problem for me.
I just think that during a Price Comparison, we shouldn’t forget what goes into a product: in-house development, licenses, a designer’s work, and intellectual property.
My personal principle would therefore be quite simple: Competition, yes. Original ideas, yes. Authorized MOCs, yes. But just because a product is expensive doesn’t automatically make creating the most exact copy possible morally right in my eyes.
I’d actually be interested to know where you draw the line: In the end, is it just the price and the model that matter to you—or does it also matter who designed it and paid for the license?