I've got mixed emotions about this one. On the one hand, I certainly want to see kids encouraged to get into the hobby - and if the only kits on the market are those with 300+ parts apiece, the process of exterminating the younger generation of modelers will continue.
On the other hand, when a company like Revell issues yet another reboxing of a 50- or 60-year-old kit (that Iowa-class fossil has now reached 60) and calls it a "new" kit, consumer deception is taking place. Consider, instead of the 8-year-old kid, the guy who's built one of the Revell Bismarcks and buys the Missouri assuming he's going to find something similar in the box. Nowadays it's highly unlikely, in the U.S. at least, that he'll be able to look at the contents of the box in advance; he has to make his decision on the basis of the box (which may or may not have some photos of the finished model on it - and those photos may or may not reveal just how primitive the kit is), or an ad on the Web. (I buy almost all my kits on the web these days.) That purchaser is quite likely to think he's been ripped off, and I don't blame him.
In the case of Revell (Revell-Monogram of the U.S., at least), I have a sneaking suspicion that the people currently running the company know so little about scale modeling that they genuinely aren't aware of how awful the contents of some of their boxes are. (Another example: the recent reissue of the Treasury-class Coast Guard cutter kit, this time as the Taney. Apparently it's disappeared from the catalog again, but in its most recent incarnation Revell was claiming that the real Taney "is currently stationed in the Atlantic" (or words to that effect). In fact the Taney was decommissioned for the last time in 1986 (that's 27 years ago, folks), and since 1988 has been on public exhibition as a museum ship at Baltimore. Did Revell know that? I doubt it.
Another firm that's in the middle of this issue at the moment is Airfix. In the past few years it's been releasing some really nice newly-tooled kits - at reasonable prices. At the same time, it's been reissuing 40- and 50-year-old kits in nice new boxes. There are so many Airfix 1/72 Spitfires available that I, for one, can't sort them out. (I think - I'm not sure - there are two different Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk.I's, one that's a couple of years old and one that dates from the 70's.) I'm a big Airfix fan, and I sympathize with the complexities of its current financial situation (long live Airfix), but....
To their credit, the manufacturers have come up with a few measures that alleviate this situation somewhat. One is the stamping of "New Tool" on the box art. (We will shortly reach the point where that phrase will mean significantly less than it does now, as those "new tool" kits sit on the shelves for five or ten years.) Another is Hobbyboss's idea of marketing - and clearly labeling - "easy assembly" kits that are designed for beginners. (Back in the days when I was working in a hobby shop, marketing campaigns like that were notorious for not working. But maybe things have changed.) It's been suggested in various places that the manufacturers ought to be required to put the original release date of the kit on the box. And, of course, there are reviews in magazines and on the web. (But where can one find an objective, knowledgeable review of that old Revell Missouri?)
I don't have a solution to the problem. I don't suggest that only brand new, state-of-the-art kits ought to be allowed (by - well, who?) on the market. But I do wish there was a simple way for modelers to find out what they're getting before they pay for it. I really think we ought to be able to do better than the classic shrug of the shoulders and "caveat emptor."