Why didn't they ever make Disney Infinity figures of

>Disney Infinity

File: bo16t0ztj1cu1eycbxrp.png (153KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 800x449px

>>85069264
Because instead of focusing on cool figures that people wanted they decided to use Infinity as a way to promote their upcoming films so we ended up getting a lot of shitty figures no one asked for instead of cool shit like some Gravity Falls figures, or even that one Spider-Gwen figure

>>85069264
They were going for 4.0. But it's like >>85069390
said.

>>85069390
This. Did ANYBODY want fucking Lone Ranger? My Uncle who is a Disney super fan wanted Robin Hood and shit, but he wouldn't believe me when I said it's all Pixar shit, and this was before it devolved into Marvel and Star Wars editing.

>>85069918
>editing
Fuck, I meant advertising.

>>85069918
It died for this very reason. They were mandated to create toys of characters that the suits wanted to push, with no regard with whether those would actually sell. As a result, they ended up producing a ton of figures that no one was buying (Yondu, especially) and lost lots of money.

>>85069918
>Jack Sparrow
>Tonto
>Mad Hatter

Three figures of Johnny Depp seems ludicrous to me

>>85070163
Johnny Depp is as Disney as Mucky Mouse and way more relevant to their brand than Star Wars.

>>85070251
I agree

and Mucky ain't all that relevant

File: KPInfinity.jpg (61KB, 616x887px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 616x887px

>>85069264
I just wanted my KP figure.

>>85069424
Oh no, sooner than that.

They were apparently supposed to be out by now.

Infinity has its own style that works well for some characters and not so well for others. They should have tried to make the Marvel and Star Wars figures look more like their film versions since that's really what they're banking on.

>>85071159
Weren't the 3.0 Marvel releases all movie-based? With the exception of Symbiote Spider-Man, which was originally a 2.0 release anyway.

>Ultron
>Hulkbuster Armor
>Steve Rogers
>Ant-Man
>Black Panther
>Vision

And the 2.0 characters were mostly based on the cartoons, which they were also promoting (with the exception of the GotG figures, which were based on the movies).

File: 1462962806711.jpg (40KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x360px

>>85069264
after Phineas was the lowest selling i guess they decided not to do TV Disney characters anymore
what's disappointing there was no Hercules, Simba or Tarzan
and sucks for Maleficent and Alice we got the live action movie versions instead of the classic versions, but weird we got classic Baloo instead of the live action one
they should have put Pixar in a separate pillar if they were gonna make half the Disney cast them

>>85069264
I want Star and Marco figure!!

Why do people treat this babby shit seriously? Is there something I'm missing? It looks like everything we used to reject as kids, as clearly an obvious no-thought cash-in tie-in product.

>>85070040
that's.. fucking retarded. You support characters by selling toys, you don't use toys to push hype for characters.
i mean maybe if they're real toys that actually do something, and thus get people excited for that character. like when we were kids, and they put out action figures based purely on comics, not on any currently running adaptation, and because of that they were usually a lot cooler and included characters and VERSIONS of characters from comics storylines, which were more mature and awesome, so we got attached to those characters, yeah. But not statuettes.
and all those suits are still in their big cushiony chairs, because nobody does anything about it

>>85072100
Are you not familiar with /toy/? Are you not familiar with the Amiibo craze?