Talk:Mega Brands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compatibility[edit]

Are Mega Bloks compatible with Lego bricks? I think some pirate brands, like old swedish "Byggis" (Buildie) even used that in their slogans, and supposedly, even was allowed to use that slogan in favour of court. (unsigned comment by 195.198.149.132)

The mini and micro sizes are compatible and the maxi size will stack on top of duplo bricks just as it will stack on top of mini size mega blocks. At least here in the uk mega blocks like most lego compatible stuff uses the term "works with the leading brand" to avoid actually mentioning lego on the box. Plugwash 28 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)
Yeah, that's common, but I believe byggis even could use the term "compatible with lego style bricks", not sure, though... 85.226.122.227 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are compatible, but the Mega Bloks are loose on Lego bricks and fall off easily. M2K
I'm not sure, but are MEGA-blocks multi-size compatible? (Try sticking normal LEGOS on top of DUPLOS. They'll stick, one DUPLO stud per 4 LEGO studs.) If they are I think we should mention it. geeky 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are definitely compatible. I have a large box of Legos that is actually about 1/3 Mega Bloks, and they all work fine together. —99.99.216.248 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patent[edit]

e 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC) The page says "LEGO itself allowed the design patent to expire years ago." Patents expire on their own timeline, based on the date granted or the date applied for, LEGO didn't have any control. LEGO could have applied for new patents on different aspects of the design, but that isn't what the entry says... I've changed it to "all relevant LEGO patents have expired." Was this article written by the CEO of Lego inc? The tone of the last part of the article is very pro-lego, anti megablocks.

Biased against Mega Bloks?[edit]

This article takes great pains to make Mega Bloks sound like they're poorly designed and constructed all around. I've never known anyone to experience such problems with them, and their figures are far more detailed than Lego's. Even the older figures were, at worst, comprable to Lego's. I'm not sure I'd label the Dragons series as "unsuccesful" either. In fact, Mega Bloks has cornered a significant portion of the building blocks market (especially with Dragons, their former flagship line), prompting Lego to make its fuss in the first place. It would also be helpful to mention how Mega Bloks deviates from lego, going for more realism in their Dragons and Pyrates sets and less complex construction. The recent movie deals with Narnia and Pirates of the Carribean are worth mentioning as well.

Mega Bloks actually is poorly designed. Have you ever bought one set from them? They don't even stick together and stay that way for a long time. You have make repairs all the time, I ended up glueing the pieces together. I never experienced such thing with Lego models. Mega Bloks is no more than Chinese clone toys. Just like Geomag is way better than Magnetix. Canadians can't really do this stuff. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.166.197 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this article is now biased towards megabloks, and I am sure there is negative stuff out there, from what I have heard, anyway. Omega ArchdoomTalk 07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megabloks were a scam of lego, what do you expect? Of course it's going to be biased, they ripped off the design of the LEGO group, and it was a blatant violation. Megabloks KNEW that it was a copyright infringment, they just didn't care. They sell their blocks for cheaper in order for other people to buy them more. LEGO FTW. 75.157.50.79 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, all lawsuits, which have been based off trademark not copyright have failed. Lego has a clear interest in protecting their intellectual property so it would seem surprising if Megablocks really were infringing on Lego's intellectual property in some way and yet Lego hasn't tried to take them to court Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mega blocks have proven to be an unending source of frustration for me and my brother. the pieces come apart if u so much as breath on them, and the figures are hard to manipulate, so a lego sword fight is much easier to do. the only good thing is their weapons, and they look better in a lego minifigs hands. though, at least they aren't making obvious bionicle knock-offs (the ones i've see had the red turaga's mask wrong. they gave hime the white ones. lol, if ur going to counterfit, at least get it right.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantokachao (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks like I'm not the only one who feels that way. =P I remember my once-lovely Dragons: Crystal Wars set I had a few years ago; I practically killed myself building the big castle; and at least one part of the castle always collapsed the instant I tried playing with it (or try to pose the minifigures). Ultimately, the only thing I liked about the set was the three dragons (the only things that were really playable though the Vorgan dragon's arm sometimes fell off) that got me to buy it. Still, that's no reason to stick any bias, whether positive or negative, into the article. Oh yes, and Phantoka, next time, please sign your posts. You can do so by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thank you.--Twilight Helryx 01:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my bad...--Chaos of Air, ONLINE (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

The page had been vandalised on 21 May 2006, by someone with a very poor grasp of the English language, naturally. This would account for the bias that you noticed. Some of the vandalism was repaired on 23 May, but I've reverted the page to the version of 18 May to fix the rest of the damage. It pays to check the page history when you see rubbish like that. 81.157.157.235 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mini and micro[edit]

What's the difference? Are minis like DUPLO and micro like LEGO? Is there something larger than the micro and mini sizes? Like QUATRO? -ErinHowarth 19:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi which afaict was the orignal mega block size is bigger than duplo (each stud covers four times the area iirc), mini is like duplo, micro is like lego. I'm not sure what nano is like because it is not availible on this side of the pond. Plugwash 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, histories merged.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


MEGA Brands → Mega Brands — According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) the title should be 'Mega Brands'.—Jameswa21 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. No need for all-caps since this is not an acronym. --DAJF (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Honda Ads with self-assembling "blocks"[edit]

There was recently an ad released in Australia for the Honda Jazz which used self-assembling blocks taking up various shapes and ending up in the car. Apparently this theme was done several years earlier with the Honda Element in the USA. Having seen the Jazz ad myself, I think I'm disqualified from updating this page with any major content, but nowhere is the Jazz ad labelled as "...by Megablocks" or anything of the sort. As far as I'm aware it's a "generic brand x" assembly.

I did a 5-minute google search and found lots of discussion about the ads being Megablocks, but no first-hand source of information, whether it be an official press release or otherwise interview of a megablocks and/or Honda representative stating it's Megablocks and not Lego or some other generic CGI-created block system. Given it's more than likely full CGI, I'm not sure how the claim can be substantiated that it's Megablocks specifically.

I've added "citation needed" accordingly. --60.240.84.239 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one's produced anything in 7 months I'll remove the line. Rojomoke (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEGA Brands vs. Mega Brands[edit]

Though I understand the thinking behind the change from MEGA Brands to Mega Brands, I've noticed that the company's press releases give the name as MEGA Brands. Numerous PDFs are available via their website showing this, but here's one as an example: http://media.megabrands.com/pdf/corpo/en/20100324.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.139.85 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links removed?[edit]

Why is external linking to a Mega Bloks discussion board not permitted? The Wiki page for LEGO features similar external links, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.139.85 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Arts License?[edit]

On November 30, 2010, it was announced that Electronic Arts and Mega Brands, Inc. have agreed to a licensing deal whereby the latter company will produce sets based on the video game series. Might a mention of the license agreement be added to this article?

Here's a link to the announcement: http://media.megabrands.com/pdf/corpo/en/20101130_.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.129.94 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek license[edit]

Mega Bloks has the license to produce Star Trek themed building sets. On LEGO's customer ideas submission site, all Star Trek themed submissions are quickly shut down with an explanation that another company has the license. (And I bet every one makes someone at LEGO burn with envy at how the company doesn't have that license.) Bizzybody (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a source really.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mega Brands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mega Brands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Lego & K'nex mentioned ?[edit]

In the first sentence of the last paragraph, both Lego and K'nex are mentioned.

Why?

The way that sentence is written, it implies other Lego and K'nex info will be mentioned --- and it isn't.

To me, the mention of Lego and K'nex is a non sequitor and should be removed.

Thoughts. 2600:8800:C89:EA00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mega_Brands&oldid=1208968736"