The lights are on
Disney Infinity releases today (a Sunday release), a video game that requires the purchase of physical action figures to extend content. How do you feel about that?
It’s a trend that Skylanders started, but Disney’s not the only one who took notice. The Wii U has built-in near field technology that Nintendo is putting to use with Pokémon Rumble U. The upcoming Angry Birds Star Wars II also has an action figure component.
Are action figure add-ons the future of video games? I haven’t taken
the dive into Skylanders myself, nor do I have plans to tackle Disney
Infinity today, but I haven’t written them off. I like collectibles and I
suppose I would rather have a physical figure than digital DLC.
But how do you feel about it? Is it an exploitative business model? Or just a well-executed idea?
Email the author Kyle Hilliard, or follow on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and Game Informer.
How do I feel about Disney`s Infinity? It`s Disney, and I`m not 10. It`s a retarded rip off, and I`m not stupid.
Future of gaming? No. Future of toys? Yes.
Couldn't care less.
Well-executed idea? No. Exploitative business model for kids? Yes.
Got Skylanders and a few action figs that go with it, but I think that's where I'll draw the line. I would have to see something really cool to buy one of these games again. Pass.
it's a lame money grab aimed at kids and the parents of kids.
Covert collectable DLC, except they have an applicable resale price.
I've been somewhat curious about Skylanders and wouldn't mind trying it out. With that being said it seems like these games are squarely aimed at children and there's nothing wrong with that. It takes two thing little kids, especially little boys, like : action figures and video games, and combines them. And most games add in a magical world that only is seem to really understand. I'm too old to really get into these types of games and my kids are too young for me to buy them. In my day I was all about GI Joe and it would've been cool to be able to have a game that somehow utilized my you collection. I have no problem with these games whatsoever.
Well I look at it being a smart business plan. Being that parents would probably be forced to buy like a hundred dollars worth of these action figures to keep their kids from being attracted to all the mature games like Cod. Which have been becoming quite popular amongst younger children. I mean if I were a parent I would rather have my kid playing stuff like Infinity and Skylanders instead of Gears of War or the Last of Us.
I think the idea of using action figures to interact wit games is cool, and i'm fine with it, but it shouldn't be required in a game. one of the reasons i'm not particularly fond of infinity or skylanders is because they require at least one toy in order to play the game. I see that as just a money-making scam. Pokémon Rumble U and Angry Bird Star Wars II, however, make this optional. it isn't required to beat the game, and is more of just a bonus to the game. this is how the action figure/game thing should work, in my opinion. they should just be an added bonus to a game that just adds replay value. requiring it makes it look like a way for a company to earn some easy cash.
Same way i've always felt about paying to unlock on disc content, I don't like it.
It is both exploitative and well-executed. That's what makes it a profit monster.
Poor parents, they're going to get bugged for hundreds of dollars for collecting purposes.
Well I'm certainly not going to spend money on them.
It is a nice business model but it is way to expensive for the figures. I would prefer $10 for 4+ hours of content as DLC than spend $50 for 5-10 new characters.
It seems like a good way to pinch penny's out of a parent's wallet, but I don't think the trend is going to last long. At the rate they are pushing them out, it's not long before it dies out like an Activision game.