Amiibos Are The Biggest Rip Off Since Horse Armor

"Since DLC first arrived on the scene, gamers have been understandably skeptical about it. Complaints have ranged from DLC being overpriced, on disc content being paywalled, and customers being prevented from a full experience unless they bought DLC. Nintendo has proved that gamers are indeed willing to accept all of these things, as long as the DLC is wrapped in a pretty package."

[iplay1up2]

Uh, not just Nintendo. Skylanders anyone? Now the new Lego game too. Yeah, its not just Nintendo. I have not bought any amigo, and I do not want to. If I were a collector I would, but I am not.

[Ramon3MR]

But I must have them lol

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Yeah, because horse armor totally gave multiple rewards across several different games to increase its value, on top of being highly collectable...pfft.

I've only got two of the things and they've already more than surpassed what I paid for them in value.
In Hyrule Warriors alone, out of just Shulk and Link, I've gotten several million Rupees and valuable weapons for use and resell, and gold mats that would have taken a long mission's worth of time, and substantial luck, to obtain otherwise.

That's not even close to being like the horse armor fiasco, no matter how you try to spin it.

[JustinWeinblatt]

First, explain to me why any content on my game cartridge should be blocked.

Next, explain to me why the only way to unlock that content on my cartridge should require me to buy 10 dollars worth of plastic.

After that, explain to me why these pieces of plastic that are required to play content that is already on my cartridge should be produced in limited quantities, so that only a certain amount of players with the game can play the content regardless of their willingness to pay.

Amiibo are not as bad as horse armor. They are worse.

Horse armor was simple cosmetic flair with no impact on gameplay. Worth 2 bucks? Hell no, but you weren't missing out by not buying it. Meanwhile Amiibo inherently limits game content to a certain number of people. There is absolutely no reason that everybody who wants to play the content on their game card should not have that ability, even if they don't want to play it. Even IF I was willing to pay 13 dollars for a character in Codename Steam I couldn't unless I want to spend 50 bucks. That is a viciously anti-consumer policy.

Suppose Link wasn't in the default Smash roster, and the only way to play as him was through buying an Amiibo, of which only 10,000 were produced. Can you imagine the backlash Nintendo would get for that? The only difference here is that less people care about Codename S.T.E.A.M., but that in no way means the policy is any less deplorable.

Maybe the Amiibo will pay off in time, but that in no way excuses preventing customers from getting the content they want, when there is no reason that Nintendo could not make it available to every person. Completely unacceptable and indefensible.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

You're comparing one completely non-essential weapon, the spinner, on a Warrior with many weapons (one of which is yet another weapon of the same Lightning element as the spinner, which is arguably more user-friendly, the Gauntlets), to having Link locked behind a paywall in Smash, when he's an essential character in the series.
Not a valid comparison.
Nor is comparing them to something like the disk-locked content of a game like Destiny, where that content was needed to enhance replay value.
Amiibo content, by and large, does not inherently ruin the value of the games they work in, because they are not essential content.
And yet, at the same time, making that one small investment nets you non-essential gains across multiple titles, cosmetic and otherwise.
They're a small reward, which grows into a larger one over time, for an investment.
Asking for those same rewards with no investment is the equivalent of asking for free high level gear in an MMO because you didn't want to invest the time needed to acquire them.
Offering Amiibo content without an Amiibo would also be a slap in the face to consumers who decided they did want that non-essential content enough to make the investment, which is even more anti-consumer because it not only discourages people from buying them due to no small perk incentive, it also makes those that bought them previously not want to buy any more of them because they get nothing out of it.

This is not horse armor.
Nor is it worse than horse armor.
Never has been, never will be.

[N4g_null]

You can't train horse armor.