Oh yeah I forgot about that. It's still up there at number 95 right now too.
Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake
- Thread starter sanstesy
- Start date
Oh yeah I forgot about that. It's still up there at number 95 right now too.
They are selling at $29.99. This is a 7 year old game. Super Mario 3D World is charting too, but I guess that is less surprising.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
How does that explain anything I just said? Moreover, you do realize how ridiculous this sounds, don't you? How is a business model simultaneously pro and anti-consumer? Sounds like you're conflating satisfaction with proof that a model is only pro/anti to few people when that's not how it works.
Again that makes no sense going by my first comment. Just because someone can tolerate a business model, doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't anti-consumer (vice versa).
How does it in any way prove your point? You didn't prove anything. 2.85mil downloads doesn't signal any sort of dissatisfaction about the game, let alone the point about not being able to play past the $9.99 price tag. All you literally did was point to 2.85mil without any contextualization.
You glossed over the part where I mentioned transitioning from a mobile experience to a console game. They're trying to use the mobile experience of their console game counterparts as leverage to bring more people onto their platform and trove of games. We already saw this with Pokemon GO > Pokemon Sun/Moon where there was significantly more interest in the handheld game because of GO. And before this argument goes in circles, GO's F2P model is absolutely not even close to being the reason why Sun and Moon are doing so well in sales.
I think they are experimenting right now. They're not locked at making every game $10 forever. I don't blame Nintendo for seeing if they can get away with premium pricing, especially with their biggest IP and riding the sheer novelty of "Mario on a phone." For me, if this game had a stamina system or continuous roadblocks where you had to keep pumping money into it, I wouldn't spend a penny. This is obviously not the case for all gamers, but I think it finds a good middle ground for Nintendo fans who pay $40-$60 for Mario but don't game on mobile and those who just play F2P titles and pay incrementally.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
I'm confused. Hasn't Mario Run been very successful?
DecoReturns
Member
It's been successful, but OP feels that it could be more if it was F2P and that making money should be Nintendo first and foremost interest. Also arguing that's it's more Pro-consumer which I disagree.
I think Nintendo should use Moblie as a way to promote themselves. Pokémon did great maybe other titles can also benefit.
SinCityAssassin
Member
I'd rather have at least one guaranteed priced game I won't sink anymore money into.
Jubenhimer
Member
Free-to-Play isn't inherently a bad concept. The problem with the mobile market is that companies often use it for evil. Shit like energy systems, extra lives, and other shady skinner-box garbage are often used to condition the naive consumer into spending as much money on a game as possible to make up for the lack of good game design.
I don't actually mind the pricing model for Mario Run. While, I feel Nintendo can communicate it better, I think it's a fine compromise, and in a way, should slowly ease Mobile consumers into more singular pricing models for games. I think Nintendo should experiment more with Free-to-Play, they've shown they're typically much better at it than most companies, but I don't think they should jam every IP into the F2P box, and if they feel some games should be sold at a one time, more premium fee, that's fine.
I don't actually mind the pricing model for Mario Run. While, I feel Nintendo can communicate it better, I think it's a fine compromise, and in a way, should slowly ease Mobile consumers into more singular pricing models for games. I think Nintendo should experiment more with Free-to-Play, they've shown they're typically much better at it than most companies, but I don't think they should jam every IP into the F2P box, and if they feel some games should be sold at a one time, more premium fee, that's fine.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
They're doing both though.
guybrushfreeman
Unconfirmed Member
This whole thread makes no sense to me. So it's successful and that means they did it wrong? But other titles are doing it right because they're successful? Huh? So being successful means people like your product unless it's this product for some reason then it means people don't like it because it's successful because people like things that are successful but then not this one because..... what? It seems this model worked well, couldn't I also argue that other games should change their model to try and be as successful as this title?
nopenopenope
Member
.
Last edited:
Solid SOAP
Member
I think they could've implemented F2P in a way that was pro-consumer, even if it targeted whales. Maybe make it so if you die 5 times you have a 24-hour waiting period unless you buy lives? You could also find and obtain more lives in the game via coins and other means, but if you lose em all, you'd have to pay ala an arcade game. I actually think that kind of paywall could've inspired Nintendo to make the game have a more arcade-like design and approach, adding true tension to every jump and making each life truly valuable, as opposed to giving em out in droves ala NSMB.
Slurpy2k20
Member
The fucking sad thing is most people are willing to pay a $1 micro-transaction 100X and more, in the same fucking game, than pay a one time $10 fee. I've seen it with my own ideas. Stupidity of human psychology and short-sightedness. Only $0.99 for this stack of hay? OF COURSE! 5 Minutes later: $0.99 for this pile of digital wood? Sign me up!
Super Mario Run can also tap into that "market" because it is Mario, I already said as much since the beginning of this thread. But no, Minecraft is definitely not a good comparison because it's very much still a core game way too complicated & involved for anyone casual from the Angry Birds, Temple Run and Candy Crush audience which is not the case with SMR. SMR is in the runner genre, extremely accessible and as a result taps into multiple more potential audiences and is way more suited for F2P. That's why you see the backlash in reviews, because people actually want to play the game but don't want to pay for it. That audience would never think about even starting to play Minecraft as its just too complex and "deep".
And we have to repeat that Nintendo's main goal is to market their brand on smartphones and in that case standard F2P makes way more sense as SMR has easy potential to get downloaded in the billions (in years to come) if it would be just that. In comparison, 30 Million engaging with your brand is peanuts when it comes to that audience embracing your IP. And that's why a straight-up paywall without a demo would have been even worse.
Nothing ridiculous about it. There are pros and cons to every business model just like with the model SMR is embracing, difference being that that model has way lesser benefits for the average consumer.
Let's turn this around, just because you can tolerate the SMR business model doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't anti-consumer. No model is pro-consumer other than publishers outright gifting the product to you and customers choose what model is most beneficial to them. Pretty simple.
I already contextualized that in previous posts. People are downloading the game and want to play it but can't because the game is behind a paywall. As a result they complain on social networks and you can see that in the 2,5 star rating. I won't repeat myself again and again.
I'm again repeating myself. You don't transition people from a mobile experience to a console game by alienating the majority of that audience from your brand in the first place by putting the game in a model they don't like. This is not how you win customers.
If you truly believe Pokemon GO would have been even close to the success having had a paywall then there is no point in arguing with you. F2P was essential for that game and it will be essential for future Nintendo smartphone projects if they want the majority of that smartphone audience to engage with their brand.
What is the difference between a full unlock and a demo? The word used?
OrbitalBeard
Member
This has already been addressed later in the thread. Keep reading.
App Store reviewers have always had bad taste.
I don't think it's anti-consumer, more like the contrary if anything.
I mean, the three friends I know that downloaded it basically said the same fucking thing to me; that they're glad that they only had to pay the entry fee without having the game nickel and diming them ever after. :lol
I mean, the three friends I know that downloaded it basically said the same fucking thing to me; that they're glad that they only had to pay the entry fee without having the game nickel and diming them ever after. :lol
How would you like Nintendo to communicate it better? On the App Store download button you have an option of price, free or get. SMR is get but highlights what you get for free and what you pay for content in the description and in the tutorial.
There is again a distinction to be made. More niche IP's like Fire Emblem, Advance Wars and so on can easily be priced-titles because they will never have the reach Mario or Pokemon would have. Almost no one would complain about them being behind a paywall because they would only/mainly attract core gamers in the first place; meaning people that are already conditioned by the console gaming environment.
Which is not at all the case with SMR.
Are there ANY numbers on IAP transactions?
Because downloading a free Mario game in the millions is not surprising. I want to to know the conversion rate to paying customers.
Game went down half a star since last night. There's no end to trash F2P games with 4-5 star rating averages. Clearly there is a disconnect here.
Because downloading a free Mario game in the millions is not surprising. I want to to know the conversion rate to paying customers.
Game went down half a star since last night. There's no end to trash F2P games with 4-5 star rating averages. Clearly there is a disconnect here.
Iced Arcade
Member
I hate ads and f2p junk... I'd willingly pay the $10 no problem if it was on android.
I would argue that it's too early to call whether Super Mario Run was successful or not.
Sure, it was downloaded a lot on day one, and quite a few people bought it also. But let's see the numbers for MONTH one and then judge.
Also keep in mind that success is often judged by actual sales compared to expectations. I'd be ecstatic if any of my games ever sold 100K copies (my biggest seller to date moved about 4-5K, and that's two SKUs combined). But some analysts were expecting millions of people to buy this.
Also, the average review score on iTunes is down to 2.5 stars. This is because more users have voted 1 on it than any other rating (5 is 2nd place). For those users that bothered to write a review in addition to giving it a star rating, the most common complaint is hitting the paywall after the 3rd course. Many of them believed that the game was F2P going in, and feel duped when they find that not to be true.
I clipped your post here because that is as far as most users will ever read.
Just about every time you see "get" that means F2P. So that is what was expected by many.
The sad truth: people don't read.
I want to continue to reiterate on something because if you ignore Pokemon GO every Pokemon F2P failed and had their services ended within a year or two, and provided absolutely no boost to Pokemon sales period. It's not been good at all for Pokemon on mobile that they're slowing down making games for mobile. Go being an exception here.
By no means does brand or being F2P mean the product will be a success or not, or that will even reach people or convert people. What helped Pokemon Go be a huge success was that for the first time, they made a mobile game that resonated with millions and became an unprecedented top grossing app worldwide. It tapped heavily into nostalgia and the dream of catching Pokemon in the real world.
We don't know the fate of Mario Run at this moment, it's far too early to tell. If it is cut off at the heels, Nintendo will learn. And it's not like they won't have other models. They've been experimenting with a variety of F2P and free to start models for awhile now just on 3DS in preparation for mobile. Some good, some bad, but most very good.
Movalpolos
Banned
They are just experimenting with this. I'm pretty sure other titles will be the more traditional mobile MT system.
SuperDowns
Banned
OP is just loud.
LordOcidax
Member
I think that The Mario Run model is awesome... The traditional model is pure garbage.. sorry OP. I hope that other companies follow the Nintendo route after the Mario run success.
App store reviews are bizarre. You can get 5 stars but the written review gives it a 2 out of 5 and call it crap. Other times like here, you get 1 or 2 stars and asking it to be free.
Pokemon GO was clearly set up to be the first real effort as a smartphone game from the Pokemon Company and they said as much. And it showed. Absolutely no comparison.
And of course only being F2P doesn't mean it will be a success? It's just the first requirement when you want to reach the majority of the audience on smartphones, which is the goal Nintendo wants to achieve.
AquaWateria
Member
Lots of mobile gamers feel entitled to have everything free even if it's a quality product.
Which to me is idiotic and shows how screwed up the mobile market is.
Which to me is idiotic and shows how screwed up the mobile market is.
You're ignoring the fact that the F2P model often seeps into the game design in anti-consumer ways. When I pay a one-time fee for a game and keep getting my ass handed to me by a tough boss, I know that the game is just supposed to be difficult. When I play a F2P game and keep getting my ass handed to me by a boss, only to be prompted to BUY AN INSTANT REVIVE FOR JUST $.99! BEST DEAL!, I have to question whether the game is actually hard or just intentionally cheap in order to get more money.
The only reason you're viewing SMR's business model as "anti-consumer" is because mobile consumers have been tricked over the years into thinking exploitative F2P games should be the norm.
ZSaberLink
Media Create Maven
Btw, that's the problem of this thread. I can see the argument where the business model isn't the right one for Nintendo's purposes for Mario Run. However, your overall argument has had multiple main problems.
1. You've tried to argue that this is "anti-consumer". It's not. However, it may be a bad business model for what they're trying to do. That could be true.
2. Business models are made for the benefit of the business and its (often short-term) profits. They are not made for consumers. Nintendo eschewing profits is atypical, but well within their right.
3. Nintendo doing something very different from the competition is nothing new. Everyone laughed at the Wii and it succeeded. Same reaction to the Wii U and it flopped. Trying a somewhat legacy pricing model on a new platform is an experiment. It may work, or it may not. Without someone experimenting, things will never change, and it'll eventually decline.
4. EVERY OTHER GAME THEY'VE ANNOUNCED WILL BE FREE TO PLAY. Both Animal Crossing & Fire Emblem have been announced to be f2p, and Miitomo & Pokemon Go (although not entirely theirs) already were. They're experimenting with Mario. If it fails, Nintendo will learn. If it works, then great, they've shown there is some market.
5. Very few people actually leave reviews. That's why apps are typically just rated 1 or 5. The silent people here might be totally fine with it for all we know. Once again, way too early to tell.
Keep in mind that even playing the 3 levels may give them the itch to play Mario on some other platform. Maybe they pull out the old Wii and NSMBWii or something. That's still brand awareness. I agree that getting them hooked on a F2P Mario may do that better, but Nintendo decided to try this out and that's totally their right. Nintendo is also thinking longterm, where they think this business model simply won't work for a lot of their games. If they want to have any sort of up-front pricing model, is it not a good idea to test the waters for the long-term? See if there is some sort of premium market there on phones?
LordOcidax
Member
This is the truth. Agree 100%.
Ugh, you still have to protect the whales from predatory practices. This is like saying that because the average American knows better then to take out predatory loans, fuck the ones that do and let's cerebrate the business that are smart enough to take advantage of it. The big mobile F2P publishers make their money off of whales, and often those are people that really can't afford it.
To be honest the biggest wall between a Mario game and a wider audience wasn't $10 but the gaming system entry price.
TyMiles2012
Member
Likely, since games on mobile and game consoles are of completely different ecosystems. Nobody expects F2P games on consoles and are glad to cough up a fee to play on an exclusive device. I think Nintendo's plan for mobile is only to entice people to getting their systems for the full experience. I'm in the minority that the $10 is perfectly fine for what the game is, but most people won't want to cough up any money up front simply because it's a smartphone game. Will Nintendo unlock everything for free and just place ads in their game instead? Possibly, but not likely.
1. I've never said anywhere it's anti-consumer.
2. This is mainly not about money profitable benefits, it's only an added benefit for Nintendo either way. Going F2P is a profit for the business in almost every possible way.
3. There is no decline in the F2P model other than individual games declining which goes for any business model. I have no problem with this experiment as long as Nintendo realises this soon enough.
4. It's funny because Fire Emblem would have no problem with adapting the SMR model.
Otherwise, it's bad brand awareness because they are actively alienating that audience.
CouchMaster
Member
Pro-consumer and what consumers want are two completely different things, especially when it comes to f2p gambling.
This thread just reads like you want to play the game and don't want to pay for it. Your only evidence is the reviews, and every other quantitive measure, ie downloads and revenue, say you're wrong.