tiberium_blue wrote:I guess the only real way to tell would be to see some sales figures or whether or not we get a third wave of sets next year. Looking at the last annual report, kingdoms isn't even mentioned among the classic lines which are doing well.
I think we probably won't know unless someone explicitly asks the question to the group that test-marketed Kingdoms to kids.
Even if the "Kingdoms" lineup DID do poorly, I don't think it tells us that the standard castle-and-siege style sets are what's boring kids. Honestly, I think if we find out that Kingdoms didn't do well in 2010 (the year the castle came out), it would probably be due to a lack of originality in the theme. It didn't really tell a story with characters, and didn't have a unique spin on the "universe" of Kingdoms-- it's effectively "good knights vs bad knights".
But that's jumping the gun-- I don't know how well Kingdoms is doing, or how well the 2010 lineup did (in particular that set). Usually, the annual report notes themes that are hugely successful, or are outliers from their expected performance (IE, did far better or far worse than expected). So, my guess is that Kingdoms pretty much did on par with what they anticipated, and didn't do overly well or overly badly. But that's just a guess in lieu of any information from LEGO.
To address the question, though, I think we'd have to see what types of sets were test marketed to kids, and how they reacted to each one. If the flagship set were instead (as you suggest) a dungeon, or a dragon's lair, or a town, or a battlefield, in lieu of the standard castle/siege, would kids accept the lineup? My guess is that kids really WANT a "base" for their factions. From my childhood, and from watching other kids play, I find that that's really an important factor, regardless of whether it's castle, space, pirates, etc. And for a medieval theme, the "base" is a castle (or a "palace" if it's geared towards girls).
DaveE