It's like NeoGAF isn't the only place existing on planet earth, isn't it?
The "No" was meant as "No, they are wrong.". I'm not spinning and we can move forward still nicely.
Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake
- Thread starter sanstesy
- Start date
It's like NeoGAF isn't the only place existing on planet earth, isn't it?
The "No" was meant as "No, they are wrong.". I'm not spinning and we can move forward still nicely.
Hmmm...this is what I see when I go to an app page...
Damn, it's at 2.5 stars already? This must be the lowest rated among the big recent successes.
I sure as hell hope Nintendo commits to trying to make premium pricing on mobile more viable for large-scale profits than it is with at least some of their software, since no doubt some of their later games are going to embrace F2P because of course they are.
The mobile gaming industry made this huge damn mess and it irritates me to no end that many people just willingly submit to that garbage as the "new normal."
The mobile gaming industry made this huge damn mess and it irritates me to no end that many people just willingly submit to that garbage as the "new normal."
MegaManTrigger
Banned
This might just be the most ridiculous OP I've ever read.
You had a legitimate argument with profitability, but you completely lost a lot of people when you argued that F2P-models are pro-consumer. F2P can be very anti-consumer, and there are a wealth of research materials that show how F2P models are very manipulative in how they target people and drain money. If you're going to argue something substantial, don't just argue to be contrarian, provide legitimate reasons why they're pro-consumer. Otherwise, you just end up sounding very silly and not very knowledgeable.
So your entire argument for SMR not being pro-consumer is simply because that's not what you claim mobile audiences want? First of all, how are you the voice of reason for (likely) millions of people that you speak for them with regards to what they want? That's why you have the market in the first place, because they get to decide whether they want the game or not. Furthermore, this is based on what? Your argument easily collapses when you consider the figure of 2.85mil downloads occurred after the game's release. You haven't brought forth any citation or comparable scenarios to counter the point, especially considering that despite the stigma with mobile games, not all of them use a F2P model. A F2P model is simply one kind of business model in which to build a game around, but it's not the only way.
This doesn't even make any sense. You claim that the move will cost Nintendo in many ways, but you disregard the secondary effect seen in Pokemon GO, where the exposure of the game led to transitions to the actual console game experience (and in some cases led to console sales). However, just like your argument on why mobile audiences might not want SMR; you assume that because the game is not F2P that it means there are no added benefits whatsoever, which is not only wrong but also a very disingenuous argument to make as you disregard potential benefits that other models can bring to the table.
You had a legitimate argument with profitability, but you completely lost a lot of people when you argued that F2P-models are pro-consumer. F2P can be very anti-consumer, and there are a wealth of research materials that show how F2P models are very manipulative in how they target people and drain money. If you're going to argue something substantial, don't just argue to be contrarian, provide legitimate reasons why they're pro-consumer. Otherwise, you just end up sounding very silly and not very knowledgeable.
So your entire argument for SMR not being pro-consumer is simply because that's not what you claim mobile audiences want? First of all, how are you the voice of reason for (likely) millions of people that you speak for them with regards to what they want? That's why you have the market in the first place, because they get to decide whether they want the game or not. Furthermore, this is based on what? Your argument easily collapses when you consider the figure of 2.85mil downloads occurred after the game's release. You haven't brought forth any citation or comparable scenarios to counter the point, especially considering that despite the stigma with mobile games, not all of them use a F2P model. A F2P model is simply one kind of business model in which to build a game around, but it's not the only way.
This doesn't even make any sense. You claim that the move will cost Nintendo in many ways, but you disregard the secondary effect seen in Pokemon GO, where the exposure of the game led to transitions to the actual console game experience (and in some cases led to console sales). However, just like your argument on why mobile audiences might not want SMR; you assume that because the game is not F2P that it means there are no added benefits whatsoever, which is not only wrong but also a very disingenuous argument to make as you disregard potential benefits that other models can bring to the table.
James Scott
Banned
I do think they could've made a ton of money from being f2p, but I can't fault them for it.
They've talked a lot about the value of their software and making Mario free on iPhone would make the next 2D Mario being $50-60 would seem a bit weird.
I do think a mix would probably be a good idea
They've talked a lot about the value of their software and making Mario free on iPhone would make the next 2D Mario being $50-60 would seem a bit weird.
I do think a mix would probably be a good idea
CountAntonius
Member
Get a grip.
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
That's probably true. To preserve the value of their console games, they probably do have to be careful about how they approach mobile, both in terms of content and pricing structure. Not to say a f2p for Super Mario Run would have made Super Mario Switch or Super Mario Maker Switch a failure at $60, but I think it makes sense to price Super Mario Run like an eShop game in terms of the overall brand.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
As someone with young children, I personally vastly prefer this to anything with microtransactions. Definitely a game I can feel at ease letting my son play.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Couldn't you apply the same logic to Pokemon and GameFreak/TPCi? Not sure why it would be weird for Mario but good for Pokemon.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I think this was one of the main reasons Nintendo opted to skip F2P for this title, as they knew it would likely appeal to families and children. F2P is a really horrible business model for that audience and I'd argue it's also unethical .
reelbigtink
Member
The poster probably took it too far but the entitlement casual mobile gamers have been imbued with over the years does need to be challenged. A lot of work went into the game and it's well worth $10+. People have to be reprogrammed to see that somehow.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
They are anti-consumer to the minority but pro-consumer to the majority.
Yes, my argument is it isn't pro-consumer because the majority finds it anti-consumer.
And people downloading the game 2,85 million times is not a point that proves your point, it's a point that proves my point. People want to play and like the game but can't because it's behind a pay-wall.
What added benefits are there for Nintendo by the game not being F2P other than pleasing core gamers that have a mobile device?
It won't gain traction and other mobile companies will still have way more success with the standard F2P model. The audience is completely different and has completely different demands.
You are not counting the toad rally mode that is infinite... also in a 60$ nsmb games you don't get 6x the levels...
MegaManTrigger
Banned
People will never be reprogrammed. All they're gonna see is "free game" and assume they'll never have to pay a cent. Furthermore, people have different ideas of value. It's not as simple as reprogramming people to see worth in software.
funkystudent
Member
You just know Animal Crossing mobile is going to be free 2 play as fuuuuck.
Raging Spaniard
If they are Dutch, upright and breathing they are more racist than your favorite player
One of the worst OP's Ive ever read on GAF, really sad.
Ive been in mobile for many years and I can tell you for a fact that the mobile FP2 ecosystem is, by default, meant to placate to the 1% of consumers, the whales. I call it evil, but thats a strong word, lets just say that its anti consumer by design. Every game design decision is catered towards someone who might potentially spend hundreds of dollars in the game.
Its also a system that, again, by design, is a race to the bottom. Blatant plagiarism is rampant. Generic game design based on excel sheet and monetization is whats "typical" and completely rejects competent game design. You have a literal handful of games that attempt a tiny bit of innovation and 90% of the industry remaking that same game, changing the art, and hope to be the ones that get lucky and break into the top 25. Its happened with every big game and will continue to do so, hell, the mobile landscape in silicon valley is primarily that.
So no, dont pretend to say Nintendo is wrong for not placating to a horrible, unsustainable model. Even less when they release a great product thats already doing phenomenally well.
Ive been in mobile for many years and I can tell you for a fact that the mobile FP2 ecosystem is, by default, meant to placate to the 1% of consumers, the whales. I call it evil, but thats a strong word, lets just say that its anti consumer by design. Every game design decision is catered towards someone who might potentially spend hundreds of dollars in the game.
Its also a system that, again, by design, is a race to the bottom. Blatant plagiarism is rampant. Generic game design based on excel sheet and monetization is whats "typical" and completely rejects competent game design. You have a literal handful of games that attempt a tiny bit of innovation and 90% of the industry remaking that same game, changing the art, and hope to be the ones that get lucky and break into the top 25. Its happened with every big game and will continue to do so, hell, the mobile landscape in silicon valley is primarily that.
So no, dont pretend to say Nintendo is wrong for not placating to a horrible, unsustainable model. Even less when they release a great product thats already doing phenomenally well.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I really hope they handle it responsibly. Seems like the type of game that could cause a lot of problems for children and parents, if monetized improperly.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
You have a curious definition of pro-consumer...
LouisaFerre
Member
Nintendo probably doesn't want it to be F2P for the same reason they rarely discount their first party games at the rate other publishers do. They see it as devaluing their product and IP and they don't think that fits with their long term strategy, even if other marketplaces use price drops to their benefit.
Frankly, I don't really see why you want Nintendo to maximize profit at the expense of their existing strategy, fanbase, and likely the quality of their output. The people who want mobile-F2P titles already have plenty to choose from, and Super Mario Run will likely still make more than enough money to make it a worthwhile endeavor, so unless you're a shareholder who happens to have little to no investment in the actual products you're funding while seeking to make as much money off of your contribution as possible, why would this be preferable to you?
Frankly, I don't really see why you want Nintendo to maximize profit at the expense of their existing strategy, fanbase, and likely the quality of their output. The people who want mobile-F2P titles already have plenty to choose from, and Super Mario Run will likely still make more than enough money to make it a worthwhile endeavor, so unless you're a shareholder who happens to have little to no investment in the actual products you're funding while seeking to make as much money off of your contribution as possible, why would this be preferable to you?
Vital Tundra
Member
Hell yeah it is, but Im hoping it connects with the next AC game on Switch for added goodies.
Perfectly put
boiled goose
good with gravy
Consumers want f2p.
SmR is not f2p
Anticonsumer!!
Wat?
That's not what anti consumer means. Plenty of mobile games are 9 bucks. Not everything has to be priced the same
Ive been a big critic of SMR for other reasons but this is silly.
SmR is not f2p
Anticonsumer!!
Wat?
That's not what anti consumer means. Plenty of mobile games are 9 bucks. Not everything has to be priced the same
Ive been a big critic of SMR for other reasons but this is silly.
Ninja Scooter
Member
No people would rather pay zero, which is what most do. It's hard to break consumerss out of that mindset once it's been established. And at the same time, it's seemingly hard for enthusiasts (I.e. Gaffers) to understand the mindset of someone who doesn't put a premium on gaming as a hobby and just views it as a fun time waster.
reelbigtink
Member
But they were reconditioned from expecting to pay $60 for a game to mictotransactions. It's seriously not too much to ask $10 for a full Mario game. And if it IS too much perhaps Nintendo should stick to Switch software and consider premium mobile gaming a bust. Reading some of the app store reviews is embarrassing. I would say people are trolling but I personally know people who deleted the game in anger over being prompted to pay.
I can only dream. Especially since that game does F2P so well if you don't want to spend money.
As responsible as Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival.
reelbigtink
Member
If they're the same folks who are too stingy to pay $10 up front I don't feel sorry for them being unwittingly nickeled and dimed to death by Nintendo.
What is a reasonable value for a Mario level then?
SMW had what, 90 levels? That was when SNES games ranged from like $40-$80 on average. Far worse value than Mario Run.
NSMBU has like 84 levels and it was $60. Again, SMR is a better value.
Mario Maker 3DS has around 100 pre-made levels I believe, and it was $40. That's around the same value as SMR.
This doesn't take into account any of the extra modes in any of these games, but my point is, SMR is a good value compared to other Mario games. The issue is that the people complaining about the price are used to getting everything for 99 cents, or free. They don't realize there are whales out there paying hundreds of dollars per game to support their mobile games (and they probably wouldn't care if they did know.)
More_Badass
Member
There are indie games that have sold millions of copies on mobile. Just because the game isn't at the level of a F2P game doesn't mean it doesn't have an audience on mobile.
People complaining about having to pay for an unlock or content has less to do with the price of the game or even the brand, and more because they have to pay for something. When a $2 expansion causes an angry mob to flood a game with 1 star reviews, that becomes clear IMO
People complaining about having to pay for an unlock or content has less to do with the price of the game or even the brand, and more because they have to pay for something. When a $2 expansion causes an angry mob to flood a game with 1 star reviews, that becomes clear IMO
OrbitalBeard
Member
Ugh, don't remind me about that one.
Well, I'm talking mainly about young children. I feel F2P can be done well, but it can also be used in a very manipulative fashion. I don't really care to see Nintendo become that type of company.
Wolfgang Jr
Banned
Agreed; even with AFTER 'biggest iOS launch ever', something smell off:
Show that investors still don't think Nintendo "get's it"
Yeah, but that game was GOOD.
Show that investors still don't think Nintendo "get's it"
Yeah, but that game was GOOD.
People need perspective. You have been conditioned, since you ever first experienced a game, that you have to pay an upfront price to play that game.
The people on smartphones come from a completely different background and as a result are conditioned to a completely different model where you can play the game for free with added bonuses by paying real money.
One isn't objectively right or wrong but majority consumer demand on smartphones clearly dictates that the latter model is tenfold more successful; for consumers and for businesses.
The people on smartphones come from a completely different background and as a result are conditioned to a completely different model where you can play the game for free with added bonuses by paying real money.
One isn't objectively right or wrong but majority consumer demand on smartphones clearly dictates that the latter model is tenfold more successful; for consumers and for businesses.
Good thing that game failed.
OP did you buy the game? if not I see your whole post as
1- You don't really want to pay for stuff (which is fine) but don't write something that feels like a concern troll.
2- You couldn't afford the 10 bucks which is fine, people with debts and stuff sometimes cant afford mere 10 dollars.
1- You don't really want to pay for stuff (which is fine) but don't write something that feels like a concern troll.
2- You couldn't afford the 10 bucks which is fine, people with debts and stuff sometimes cant afford mere 10 dollars.
I'm not buying this argument.
These same type of people had problems paying for an expansion to Monument Valley for $2. Two dollars. It still has a strong audience though despite those people.
We can balk at the price point Nintendo chose for Super Mario Run, but these people were never going to pay for it to begin with.
These same type of people had problems paying for an expansion to Monument Valley for $2. Two dollars. It still has a strong audience though despite those people.
We can balk at the price point Nintendo chose for Super Mario Run, but these people were never going to pay for it to begin with.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you had to pull to get those two things out of the OP. The OP is making general market observations, not speaking to his or her own personal preferences.
James Scott
Banned
I don't see Pokémon Go as close to a traditional Pokémon game as Super Mario Run is but I guess you have a point
DigitalScrap
Member
I'm going to have to disagree here. People had to be reprogrammed to think that $3 was an acceptable price to pay for coffee, then the price has steadily risen from there (with the new Starbucks Reserve places selling drinks that cost $10-$12 for one coffee drink).
People's perception of value is certainly malleable, and marketers have known this for a long time - you have to change their behaviors and then their perception of what "value" is changes.
The coffee example is just one of many that I could give where the vast majority of people had a well defined perceived conception of what something is worth, and someone comes in and disrupts that and changes the entire industry (I mean damn, Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds are getting away with charging over $3 for a latte now).
MisterHero
Super Member
F2P is fine in small doses. If Nintendo goes with f2p as other games do, I'm out. Retail games or bust.
More_Badass
Member
Another counterpoint would be Wayward Souls. A $4 game that would increase its price with every major content update
And every time that happened the game would rise up the Top Paid App charts
There's an audience on mobile for paid games. There are dev studios with multiple games that had done nothing but paid games and been hugely successful. It's just obviously not as big as the F2P audience.
James Scott
Banned
I do think it would be wise to add more content. Like in February of March when Super Mario Switch is rumored to release they can add two levels and/or lower the price a bit.
Maybe a more "endless runner" mode where they link the levels in a world to make a long one that's played in one go.
Maybe a more "endless runner" mode where they link the levels in a world to make a long one that's played in one go.