Omega Kirby
Member
Did the OP study marketing?
Cause we all here can easily "observe" the market and state the obvious like "F2P will sell more than premium."
Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake
- Thread starter sanstesy
- Start date
Did the OP study marketing?
Cause we all here can easily "observe" the market and state the obvious like "F2P will sell more than premium."
You keep comparing indie games to a Mario game. Stop. There is an audience for this price model but it is extremely limited and not suited for one of the biggest brands in gaming where the potential is on a whole different level.
peetfeet
Member
I as a consumer avoid games that have microtransactions to better or fasten the experience like the plague, I would rather pay one price after demo-ing the game for the whole game and no ads. I don't see how this is anti consumer, it isn't, adding microtransactions to enable the consumer to play the game properly and make it playable more than once a day, is. It's just to milk their customers.
Of course it's mentioned in the app description.
Team Filler
Member
That somebody needs perspective is about the only thing I agree on.
Super Mario Run is good for what it is.
Just my personal opinion here but I don't think they could have done much better since I've yet to play a mobile platformer with "traditional" controls that wasn't at best frustrating to play with virtual buttons compared to a physical controller. I think Nintendo sees the same thing and doesn't want to compromise on one of the things that makes Mario games so great: the impeccable controls. The compromise? an autorunner spin-off.
But it's free. Until it suddenly it isn't anymore. And asks you for $10 to continue. That's the main issue here.
It's really not that difficult to understand the perception even we are willing to pay money for games.
The gatcha machine could be a question mark block. Pull down on Mario and release to have him hit the block from below!
Bronze Block = 3*
Silver Block = 4*
Gold Block - 5*
Rainbow Block = 6* (Event-Exclusive)
Ninja Scooter
Member
That wasn't a change in the value of a cup of coffee, the change there was making shit like lattes and frappuccinos mainstream, and having people place a higher value on those. A standard cup of coffee is still relatively cheap, but it's not what some people want anymore, and much like gaming/casuals, I wonder if there are some people who would have never drank a plain cup of coffee before who now can't live without their venti double mocha java lattes. You are never going to convince those people to be happy with a $1 cup of black coffee.
Almost like a *gasp* demo.
i guess drug dealers are pro consumer since they supply their customers with "what they want" as well. it's depressing and incredible that people say mobile ft2 schemes are pro consumer with a straight face.
as a general thing, and not specifically something relating to nintendo - there is something to be said about having an ethical business model, instead of a manipulative exploitative one. it always baffles me how pro corp gaf is.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Then make your observations and contribute to the discussion.
It saddens me a little to realize that we live in a world where general public would spend 0.99 for 1000 times rather than 9.9 for 1 time. If I were Nintendo I would immediately start an iPhone ambassador program, granting unlimited access for previous purchasers and begin charging everyone else 0.99/life.
By the way, can anyone imagine an Animal Crossing mobile title with realtime turnip market and micro transactions? It would be a nightmare for wallets.
By the way, can anyone imagine an Animal Crossing mobile title with realtime turnip market and micro transactions? It would be a nightmare for wallets.
The lengths some people will go to complain about something. Damn!
It seems like they're setting up the game to have seperate world packs at $10 a pop. Should prove profitable for them.
No, it didn't flop but you can clearly see by the response the limitations an upfront price on a smartphone game sets on its overall potential success.
Companies that make free to play games come and go. In the end the lasting impression is "that was a free to play game". Nintendo wants to build something bigger with inherent value that can transfer to ther products. Nintendo have experimented with a lot of things. But I promise you this, if this game had micro transactions they would not of seen a penny from me. I did however drop the money this game asked for without hesitation. I do however take issue with its inability to family share, that was not made apparent why buying and I think they should of made that clear before the purchase. I blame apple mostly as Nintendo changed the their iap model and apple agreed. However we were never told the consumer about the parts of this agreement that were anti consumer.
You are right. This is an audience that has a completely different outlook on the content and functionality that they value. Lots of people are happy to watch a 30-second Rogue One trailer if it means they get an extra life, and others are happy to pay 99c for a few revives. It's a model that's a lot more flexible than GAF's outdated "one price fits all" attitude.
The general public doesn't do that. The general public plays a lot of games for free and maaaybe spends $0.49 once to get a new set of lives and not wait 4 hours for the next set for free.
Lord of Ostia
Member
He's comparing them because they have an identical pricing model and are some of the top grossing apps on the store. Indie or not doesn't matter, almost every successful mobile game is an 'indie' game because most were not originally made by traditional publishers or developers. You are missing the point, Nintendo purposefully chose $9.99 as a means of giving value to their games on mobile. You don't think Nintendo knows that making the game free to play and having tons of microtransactions would lead to more money made from the app? Of course they do. Their goal isn't to make as much money from SMR as possible to the detriment of everything else, it's to establish themselves as a high value presence on mobile and encourage sales of their consoles and console software.
Ninja Scooter
Member
That's not the world we live in. The world we live in is one where a vast majority of mobile gamers spend nothing (or close to it), so yes some of them would rather spend that then $9.99, because to them gaming is just not as important as it is to you or I. I'm sure some of them have some hobby they they do sink a lot of money into (car restoration, cooking, scrapbooking) that they do spend a lot of money on that I personally find to be a complete waste of time. We could debate back and forth fruitlessly about whether or not these people are "right" in their completely subjective opinion that a video game (yes even one made by Nintendo!) is not worth $10 but I'm not sure where that gets us. I do, however, think there is any interesting discussion to be had here about Nintendo's forray into mobile and what it means for them and the gaming market if people can get over their stubborn need shit on mobile consumers just because their perspective is different.
More_Badass
Member
Potential and actuality for two very differnt things. We're talking a paid game on mobile, and the expectations and audiences are different on this platform, whether it's indie, AAA/classic port like XCOM and Baldur's Gate, or a Mario runner.
If we're talking about the audience for and expectations about premium mobile games, and paying $5, $7, $10 for a mobile game, the only data points are indie games, ports, and board game adaptations. On this platform, Mario (and it being a runner) is the outlier here.
moltonasty
Member
The price outrage is so bizarre to me, but I guess that's the point of this thread lol
Like, its 10 dollars for a full game..why people prefer being interrupted by ads or paying micro transactions that add up to more than $10 in the end is beyond me.
Like, its 10 dollars for a full game..why people prefer being interrupted by ads or paying micro transactions that add up to more than $10 in the end is beyond me.
This is why the whole "mobile phones will take over gaming" thing is a fantasy. People just don't want to pay for games, its all nickel and dime, the only big money is made if it sells insane numbers and even then only if it cost you nothing to make. But its not a platform for games that require any decent amount of development time. Because the consumers mindset just can't support it.
Because it's an option vs. paywall/forced. It's a perception issue. Starting with the fact that you download the game for "free".
Davey Cakes
Member
I can see the argument against the "free to start, then pay premium price" model but I feel like Nintendo should experiment with different pricing schemes to see what works, especially since there are multiple genres to consider. They can find the right fit by testing out the market.
Is there really "outrage" over the price though? I mean, I'm sure a large portion of the potential audience for SMR would end up spending more than $10 under a F2P model anyway.
Nintendo is still new to this so all the power to them to offer premium games at full price, on top of more traditional efforts. If it ends up not working they can always adapt.
In my own personal case, I'm not buying the game simply because I don't really care for the gameplay, and I have plenty of other Mario titles I'd rather play. I'm not really into mobile games and at best I play the time-waster stuff on the train or bus (though I rarely find myself in that situation anymore). If price were the issue it wouldn't affect me since I'm sitting here with $15 in my iTunes account from two Christmases ago. If anything, I'm LOOKING for something to buy with it but I don't want the game, period.
What's hilarious is that people want a price drop in the near future. Always a race to the bottom, right? Even for Nintendo, a company that almost prides itself on retaining value in its software?
Is there really "outrage" over the price though? I mean, I'm sure a large portion of the potential audience for SMR would end up spending more than $10 under a F2P model anyway.
Nintendo is still new to this so all the power to them to offer premium games at full price, on top of more traditional efforts. If it ends up not working they can always adapt.
In my own personal case, I'm not buying the game simply because I don't really care for the gameplay, and I have plenty of other Mario titles I'd rather play. I'm not really into mobile games and at best I play the time-waster stuff on the train or bus (though I rarely find myself in that situation anymore). If price were the issue it wouldn't affect me since I'm sitting here with $15 in my iTunes account from two Christmases ago. If anything, I'm LOOKING for something to buy with it but I don't want the game, period.
What's hilarious is that people want a price drop in the near future. Always a race to the bottom, right? Even for Nintendo, a company that almost prides itself on retaining value in its software?
You won't encourage anyone to buy your products by alienating them and Pokemon GO is already demonstrating that the F2P model works very well for people to engage with your brand and as a result maybe convince them to buy your own products. Nintendo won't convince anyone that isn't already in that core market with the SMR model.
It's also a misconception that a set price will make your product seem high-valued and premium. It won't especially on the smartphone market place.
Besides the point...why would it be anti-consumer? Its 10 dollars you get the complete game. I don't get why this is even on discussion. My guess is in lieu of the negative reviews which are completely stupid to begin with.
I've seen so many occurences of F2P games draining wallets that I'll always be in favor of pay-upfront games on mobile platforms.
Nintendo releasing a 10$ complete game instead of a F2P energy-based game is a breath of fresh air to me. They're obviously not wrong since they're the top grossing app at the moment. And I'll actualy fork out those 10 bucks when it's available on android, whereas I wouldn't spend 10 bucks on a F2P game that would just get me closer to the next moment I have to spend 10 more bucks.
F2P and all its abusive iterations is destroying mobile gaming. I'm very glad Nintendo is going against the grain and showing respect to their customers with their choice to ignore F2P mechanics. You get a full quality game for a price, take it or leave it. And that's how it should be.
It's conforting to see some studios still respect their audience with their new products, no matter the platform. And it's actually nothing new from Nintendo. They've been having decent and respectful DLC practices, like 12 bucks for 16 tracks and many vehicules/characters, as opposed to single emotes for 10 bucks a piece.
So no, Nintendo didn't make a mistake with that price, they still make good money from it, they don't disrespect their audience doing so, and they actually prove that you can be successful on mobile without shady practices.
Nintendo releasing a 10$ complete game instead of a F2P energy-based game is a breath of fresh air to me. They're obviously not wrong since they're the top grossing app at the moment. And I'll actualy fork out those 10 bucks when it's available on android, whereas I wouldn't spend 10 bucks on a F2P game that would just get me closer to the next moment I have to spend 10 more bucks.
F2P and all its abusive iterations is destroying mobile gaming. I'm very glad Nintendo is going against the grain and showing respect to their customers with their choice to ignore F2P mechanics. You get a full quality game for a price, take it or leave it. And that's how it should be.
It's conforting to see some studios still respect their audience with their new products, no matter the platform. And it's actually nothing new from Nintendo. They've been having decent and respectful DLC practices, like 12 bucks for 16 tracks and many vehicules/characters, as opposed to single emotes for 10 bucks a piece.
So no, Nintendo didn't make a mistake with that price, they still make good money from it, they don't disrespect their audience doing so, and they actually prove that you can be successful on mobile without shady practices.
Weltall Zero
Member
At this point I don't even know what people mean by "pro-consumer". It mostly seems to mean "pro-me" (and people like me by extension). So if I don't like a game, canceling it is "pro-consumer", and if I like paying money to win, then P2W is "pro-consumer". DLC, F2P and pretty much anything people are willing to pay for can be "pro-consumer" or "anti-consumer" depending on who is talking.
It's become an useless label that is only good to have people apply it to (or remove it from) stuff they love (hate), since it's by definition a positive label and getting people to accept that your loved thing is "pro-consumer" (or that your hated thing is "anti-consumer") automatically makes you win the discussion.
newtypepilot
Member
I disagree that F2P is "prosumer". In fact, it's quite the opposite as microtransactions are designed to exploit people with impulsive tendency or addiction problems. As for whether this game is worth $10, that's really hard to say because people's perception of value is different. Mario fans will probably think it's worth it while non mobile gamers may think $10 is pretty expensive for a mobile game.
However, with that being said, I am bothered that this is listed as "free" when it's really not. It's pretty misleading because only the first few levels are free, so it's really more of a demo. You have to expand the description in the app store in order to see a small statement that says "only a portion of the game is free". This is pretty shady as I rather have the game listed as a paid app.
I've read that future levels will be added in but will that cost extra?
However, with that being said, I am bothered that this is listed as "free" when it's really not. It's pretty misleading because only the first few levels are free, so it's really more of a demo. You have to expand the description in the app store in order to see a small statement that says "only a portion of the game is free". This is pretty shady as I rather have the game listed as a paid app.
I've read that future levels will be added in but will that cost extra?
dickgumshoe
Member
The F2P business model isn't pro consumer. It is a business model which is dependant on people who get addicted to these games and waste hundreds or thousands on these games. Other people who play these games for free benefit from the addiction of others. Their game experience is subsidized by addicts.
It's a highly unethical business model in general, and especially if the games are designed in a way to lead the player into an addiction and to spend a whole lot of money.
It's a highly unethical business model in general, and especially if the games are designed in a way to lead the player into an addiction and to spend a whole lot of money.
Ninja Scooter
Member
This is not an issue limited to games if you really think about it. The rise of "cord cutting", YouTube, music and movie streaming services has change the entire perception of what value people put on entertainment. Yes an increasing number of people expect gaming to be cheap/free, but gaming might have to adapt to that in some way, much like the music industry has had to adapt to people's expectations that music be cheap (pay $10 for any album you want) or free (YouTube, pandora).
More_Badass
Member
It does for the audience that buys mobile games. Which is sizable enough that a series like The Room has sold over 8 million copies on mobile alone.
It's a post-truth world where words no longer have meaning and ruining words with a good strong definition to mean nothing.
Again, it's not sizable enough for the Mario brand and the audience Nintendo wants to engage with. These comparisons don't work.
Every mobile game they make does not have to be F2P with mirco transitions just like all mobile games on the market are not like that, they will prob do it with some, but didnt want to do it with Mario.
Pokemon GO does it, I know thats not all Nintendo but it still shows they have done it
Pokemon GO does it, I know thats not all Nintendo but it still shows they have done it
More_Badass
Member
Clearly it is the audience Nintendo wants to engage with when they decided to release a $10 mobile game (well, free with an unlock) rather than one with microtransactions.
Wow! I knew this one was popular, but I didn't realise it was THAT popular! :O
Pretty much what I've been saying for years.
OrbitalBeard
Member
But it's not flopping.
IsntChrisL
Member
Nah, fuck that. I loathe everything you just said. Any game that seeks out whales is not pro-consumer. This game just smashed Pokémon Go's debut on one platform. I'm glad there aren't more fans out there screaming for more microtransactions in their games.
Yep. And I believe Nintendo talked about that as much before as well.
Though heck, Mario Run is no different from their Free to Start philosophy they've been experimenting with for awhile now, even in some 3DS games.
I'm really surprised anybody would refer to F2P as being pro-consumer. These games are designed lure people into dropping large amounts of cash to fund an addiction. They are basically the Poker machines of gaming. The games are usually less fun for people not throwing money at them and offer huge advantages to those that do i.e. paying to win. It's toxic culture both from the perspective of ethical business practice and creating a level playing field for gamers.