By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

“It’s just small DLCâ€Â and “but they all do it!!â€Â aren’t adequate defenses for locking content behind purchases of crap outside of the game. And it doesn’t have to be toys, publishers have made deals to put that crap in other shit too. It’s all crappy, but the content in Amiibos is worse, more prevalent, and locked behind something Nintendo controls via artificial supply and demand, etc. If Diablo IV has content locked behind buying a bag of shitty pizza rolls, I don’t have to support it, but at least I can go to literally any grocery store and buy it. Amiibos are not the same thing.

Pay online, I mean everyone does it right? Does that defense also apply here? I’m guessing not.

This is such a stupid excuse on calling out a company because a gaming company makes toys that link to their games. Really think about what you are saying.

I will disagree with you on this Amiibo hate. I like them and I know many who like them as well. To each their own. Don't like them, don't buy them. Its completely optional content.

You are worried about an optional $15 toy being anti consumer because it offers a in game skin, yet are forced to pay a fee to play half the game you already paid for online access. You have your priorities completely wrong. 

Disagree to agree with your statement.

It's not just a skin, it's often been stuff that has an impact on gameplay for example Samus Returns has a harder difficulty mode but it's locked behind an amiibo which for a lot of people is a way they'd like to replay the game so important content. And for people who decide to play a game like that years after it comes out getting the amiibo required for stuff like might not be cheap which results in piracy being the best way to experience games like that which is always a bad sign.

Last edited by Norion - on 20 May 2023