> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.