Okay. Here goes. For the record, I do appreciate your interest in making your case here, man.
I'm going to stop your right there.
These are not building systems. Here's what does make the cut as a building system within the TLG product line:
- LEGO System
A "building system" isn't defined by the parts that are used, or even by the stylistic language of the molds. If they were, there would be a million different "systems" since TLG started making stackable bricks in 1949.
No, what defines a system is ther means by which it utilizes connections. The "LEGO System" uses stackable bricks covered in studs. The "Technic" system uses pins, axles, and perforated beams. The Mixels system uses a certain size of ball joints that is incompatible with other systems. The Clikits system used some sort of weird button-type thing - again, incompatible with other systems. And CCBS uses a different, proprietary size of ball joint. That's what the system is; it's how everything connects. You can integrate other systems into CCBS, just like you can integrate others into Mixels, LEGO System, and Technic. But nonetheless, CCBS is defined by ball joints.
I know that this sounds subjective, but it's not. This is how they're defined internally by TLG.
...If you see the progression we have had since the very first Slizers, RoboRiders and BIONICLE Generation 1, I think we have learned a lot. The way they were put together was liked by many fans, but it wasn't a System at the time. (Emphasis added)
-Steen Lindeberg, Marketing Director and Story Team member for Bionicle G2.
There ya go.
This is not really accurate, especially if you consider the nature of the constraction pricing model used in the years that the theme was around. Back then, you typically had three tiers of sets: a 10 USD tier that gave you a pretty bare-bones figure - essentially what you described, though there were still plenty of auxiliary pin add-ons, even at that level. A bit further up, you had a 12 USD tier, which typically had a detailed technic-built weapon, an armored back, and seven or eight inches of height. Finally, you had "XL" sets, which cost around 20 USD and were even larger/more detailed.
Sure, back in 2011, you wouldn't see CCBS sets with armored backs and detailed accessories; that's a reason to reflect on how far the system has come, as far as I'd say.
Sounds awesome. Nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with using "more plastic than any other Bionicle figure" if the figures in question offer a price per part ratio that's light-years ahead of what we were getting in G1. G2 offered a supplement to CCBS, a system that didn't inherently need to be fixed in the first place by the standards that yoiu've detailed.
Huh? Are you referring to the idea that bigger sets cost more to make? The issue is, they also retail for more...
They are, for sure; according to Bricset, only three SWC sets ghave somehow cracked into the top fifty CCBS sets as far as price per part is concerned. That said, as others have mentioned, the theme is licensed; further, the theme has been forced to create a ton of new pieces to match the formative aesthetic of Star Wars, and that usually drives up the price.
Chewbacca is a licensed set that comes with seven new recolors, a dual-molded new mold, and four unique prints. He stands at over 11 inches tall and has 19 more pieces than Vader. He was also released over two years later. Inflation, when combined with more pieces and a larger figure, leads to a pricier set. Here's a pic of Chewie right up against his cheaper SWC buddy.
A smattering of folks have mentioned that this doesn't really reflect TLG prices, so it's not super relevevant ghere. That said, Vezon & Fenrakk was $30 in the US when it came out.
See, I don't disagree; the issue is that constraction has always been this way. The standard is the "LEGO System" of studs and such, not constraction, so the sets in question will pretty much always seem overpriced in comparison.
So yeah, I don't think that any of these issues are unique to CCBS. If anything, we're getting better value for our dollar (or Euro, or Pound, or whatever) with CCBS; just compare last winter's elemental creatures with any similarly priced set from the G1 days. If the standard is set at plenty of new molds, recolors, play functions, and total parts, those guys blow almost anything else out of the water.
When do I think that we should replace CCBS? In my opinion, not for a long, long time. Outside of an increase in integration with system and Mixels, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to ditch constraction's mainstay any time soon.
The object that you built isn't really close to a CCBS skeleton; there aren't any connection points for technic, nor any mechanism for keeping the ball joints from sliding. I can build a 2x1x2 brick if I stack two 2x1x1 bricks, but that doesn't make the former redundant.