Support NeoGAF

[CronoShot]

Nintendo's not really aiming for the biggest profits with their mobile games though, they're out to get people to transition to their systems (notably Switch).

It's free to try and so millions of people will download it regardless. And they don't care about the people complaining that it's actually $10, because if they won't spend $10 on Mario for their phone, they're probably not going to spend $60 for Mario on their console.

 

[yyr]

every other quantitive measure, ie downloads and revenue, say you're wrong.

If that were true, we would not have this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1325843

 

[mrlion]

Everything in this thread is speculation, even the OP. I wouldn't continue the discussion until there's numbers that prove otherwise or prove the OP's point.

In the meantime, its all guessing. Just because you saw a success in different apps doesn't mean you know how the model works.

 

[Nanashrew]

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. 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, simple as that.

Okay, I want to know how you would make an F2P Mario Run game without ads or wait times and without most of the BS in F2P games.

One person in this thread already suggested making options like $1.99 a world and $10 for the whole game. That seems reasonable but that's where the F2P ends and you essentially own the full game at the end of the day and it makes little difference as those people will likely still complain.

They gave coins a purpose to use in the in-game store to build your kingdom. Making that full of microtransactions disrupts the loop of having you replay the levels and Toad Rally for more coins. It also deprives you of the fun because nothing in the store really offers you an advantage in the actual gameplay if you were just able to purchase it all with microtransactions.

I suppose characters could be priced. But you can unlock them in the game by completing world tour, building a house, collecting a couple of coins or toads, or collecting just about everything, which also contributes to the loop of replaying the game and mastering it. Yeah, it's a grind for some and could be better.

Mario Run seems to have a tight loop that they didn't want to disrupt with F2P.

However, I could also see the game getting more characters and expansions down the road. So maybe then they could also do the pack of $1.99 per world or a larger price like $5 or $10 for all the new worlds in a package.

 

[Debirudog]

it feels like consumers are just shocked by the 10 dollar paywall, that they'll complain and be outraged over the model. The truth is that consumers don't know what's actually worth for them because most of us don't know economics.

 

[Terrell]

I've seen posts about how Nintendo is "leaving money on the table". Well, just because the money is there to be taken doesn't mean you should take it.
I mean, by that logic, corporations should just do whatever they want, whenever they want, without consequence, because they should never leave money on the table, regardless of what it requires.

See for example: EA and Dungeon Keeper Online. By this logic, EA made a great decision with that game to maximize its potential earnings and any feelings we have about it or the company that made that apparently have no long-term impact. See also: Early AAAccess games from major publishers, $60 games loaded with microtransactions, etc. Anyone saying Nintendo is making a mistake here has essentially forfeit their right to dress down other publishers who are just maximizing their revenue streams. Y'know, like you're encouraging Nintendo to.

And yeah, going with the standard F2P model is not a long-term strategy, the market has already shown that. You eventually burn people out and permanently lose a customer. For companies who aren't trying to build or maintain a permanent brand, that's fine. But Nintendo IS, so that matters to them.

I consider it admirable when a company believes in its principles and bucks the conventional wisdom of doing business the reprehensible way, especially when it doesn't financially harm them.

 

[BooJoh]

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.

Mario is huge, yes, but why? Because people have played it and know it's great. Where have they played it? On consoles/handhelds. Was it free there? Hell no, unless they pirated it.

So why should a historically buy-to-play series suddenly be completely free just because it's on mobile? The only answer I'm seeing is "Because most mobile games..." or "Because I don't want to pay..."

So it just sounds like everyone who was begging for Nintendo games on mobile didn't just want to be able to play Mario without having to buy a Nintendo system, they wanted to play Mario for free because every other game is handed to them for "free" and they're simply too blind to see how badly f2p has polluted the mechanics of their games.

And investors? They wanted Nintendo on mobile because they wanted them to pollute their games with that selfsame f2p tripe so they could rake in the $$$ by exploiting loyal fans and new customers alike.

If Nintendo went third party (not something I'm in favor of) and put Mario games on Xbox and Playstation you'd see people happily forking over $30-$60 for Mario games on non-Nintendo systems. On mobile? The audience nope'd out of there the moment they saw a price tag. It just sounds like good old-fashioned entitlement to me.

 

[8bit]

Nintendo are going to be fine, they can afford to play by their rules.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I completely disagree. Nintendo should stick to their guns and hopefully try and increase the price of games people are willing to pay for on mobile. They have the IP to do it. Having Apple backing a reasonably pricey game should help.

A race to the bottom for pricing doesn't help the people making games, and it certainly doesn't help game design.

Btw - Nintendo can get rid of all these 1 star reviews by just releasing an update to SMR when attention to it has cooled. This will mean that people need to leave new reviews and people are far less likely to be outraged after launch.

 

[Randomizer]

The casual Mobile crowd are the worst, most fickle gamers in existence and should never be catered to. Also the whole F2P ecosystem is held up by <1% of the playerbase, it's the complete opposite of pro-consumer. In fact it can be downright immoral how they use techniques that encourage addicitive behaviours amongst certain users.

Enthusiast moble gamers are used to paying at least $5 for the best, highest quality games so they will not find a problem paying $10 for an extremely well polished game.

 

[Skux]

it feels like consumers are just shocked by the 10 dollar paywall, that they'll complain and be outraged over the model. The truth is that consumers don't know what's actually worth for them because most of us don't know economics.

They don't need to know economics. All they need to know is that they aren't willing to pay $10 for a game when there are free and cheaper alternatives.

 

[Timeaisis]

First is all, how the hell do you know what consumers want?

Second of all, you really don't understand the term anti-consumer.

 

[atr0cious]

If that were true, we would not have this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1325843

Nintendo breaks records but not enough, oh no! All Nintendo has done is show people have no clue about how viable the market actually is. And that's just an estimate based on noise. Hell, many investors and speculators didn't even know Mario run was coming out until the latest trailer.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Numbers is what will really matters

 

[To Far Away Times]

I'd much rather have Nintendo quality at $10 than clash of clans or whatever as an IAP game.

Maybe it doesn't maximize profit but I can't complain.

 

[leaf_]

Why are people so obsessed with Nintendo's profits even against their own self interest? Every once in a while there's always these kinds of threads :|

 

[Veitsev]

Nintendo's goal is to transition people to their own platforms.

It isn't to maximize short term profit and devalue their own brands by giving them away.

 

[Gaspard]

Personally i'd rather pay a flat fee but I guess that's just me being new to the mobile ecosystem.

I hope the Animal Crossing and FE games utilize the f2p system without being "crystal" powered or something.

 

[Nessus]

I think the bigger problem with Mario Run is the price. $10 feels like a major-ish purchase for something that is still fairly close to a traditional endless runner and doesn't have very many levels.

If it were $5 there would still be people complaining but $5 is much more of an impulse purchase which is where mobile games need to be to really succeed I think.

 

[oti]

Now I'm wondering if investors are going to be even more pissed since Nintendo isn't just using the F2P IAP whale garbage tactics they love because that makes more money.

Pretty sure they just want to see Clash of Clans but with Mario. They don't care about a healthy brand, they just want more $$$$$$$$ in the short-term.

 

[DR2K]

They don't need to know economics. All they need to know is that they aren't willing to pay $10 for a game when there are free and cheaper alternatives.

Not equivalent though, which is why people will pay more for an Apple device or first party products. Mario has the same clout. This isn't an opinion, this is just how consumers view said products based on buying habits and reputation.

 

[SalvaPot]

Why are people so obsessed with Nintendo's profits even against their own self interest? Every once in a while there's always these kinds of threads :|

Because they want to play Mario on Playstation or Xbox and don't realize its never going to happen.

 

[MCN]

It just shows that the average mobile gamer is a fucking idiot who will actively go against their own interests and wellbeing if they're told it's best for them.

Much like Trump voters.

 

[Aztechnology]

If it hasn't been clear already. Super Mario Run showcases again the disconnect between the core console gaming community (NeoGAF, gaming press & forums, etc.) and the usual casual audience (which is Nintendo's main audience on mobile).

Guess what - not only is the established F2P model with micro-transactions way more profitable (which should be Nintendo's only interest), it is also more pro-consumer in the mind of everyone not in the gaming bubble.

When Nintendo announced that SMR will be a title that you have to pay only once for and you get the whole game, people in the gaming community were positively surprised at the "pro-consumer move" in comparison to the typical whaling model mobile titles established.

But is it really pro-consumer? No, it isn't because that isn't what consumers on mobile devices want. They want the ability to play the whole game for free, no matter how many "optional" micro-transactions, advertisements and pop-ups fill up the game. And that is not a bad thing. It is best for the audience that mobile devices have and more importantly for companies them wanting to make a lot of cash.

And worst, it will cost Nintendo in multiple ways. Not only do they make way less money, they will also lose mobile consumer trust, lose the typical word-of-mouth effect that results in the legs F2P titles typically enjoy and worst destroys Nintendo's main strategy of mobile titles affecting their console software efforts as it was the case with Sun/Moon. Hey, Pokemon GO was F2P with micro-transactions!

Super Mario Run will still make good money but its potential is completely wasted by not going completely F2P and it will be the same for every future mobile title if they don't adapt. The model SMR uses is good for lesser known titles that have a core audience but not for one of the biggest known brands in gaming and a huge potential audience.

Seeing as F2P filled with micron-transactions in a title like this ends up being predatory due to the audience I really like that Nintendo did this. In fact I hope to see more consumer protections put in place that continue this trend and lead to 3DS quality type games on mobile.

 

[nopenopenope]

.

 

[User Name Here]

But is it really pro-consumer?

Yes, because you pay $10 and not $100+ more or less over time.

 

[MCN]

Uh, regular and hobbyist gamers are just as bad. Look at the preorder threads or people who'll bend over backwards to defend terrible practices just because they want a shinier experience.

We're more like Hillary voters - everything is burning down around us, but we think everything is OK because we're still going to win in the end, because who would vote for the other guy?

 

[LordKano]

Right now Super Mario Run is a huge success so I don't think it's a mistake at all.

 

[spekkeh]

Aside from that the OP sounds like a shifty drug dealer (it's business capiche, I'm only supplying what the market wants), he seems to somehow have completely missed that Nintendo is trying to change the market. They're busy creating a healthy ecosystem for themselves to thrive in. Creating a transformative design means specifically not giving the consumer what they say the want. One of the reasons they started with Mario is because it's pretty much the only IP in the world strong enough to make markets shift.

 

[pinkurocket]

It's about time a huge IP enters the mobile market like this. The market is dominated by F2P models which are crap and exploitative. Super Mario Run sets an example and gives hope to future developers and ones that have gone this route before so that the mobile market can actually become more respected and new standards are set.

 

[jts]

#1 grossing app already

Hail to the king baby.

 

[Debirudog]

They don't need to know economics. All they need to know is that they aren't willing to pay $10 for a game when there are free and cheaper alternatives.

If they prefer to shell out more money for "cheaper" alternatives that drain your money in the long term. I think the price is a bit steep but I think this model is much more preferable than say cutting the entire game up.

 

[meerak]

You're suggesting the unthinkable - Nintendo knows it's largely impossible to incorporate microtransactions without sacrificing the game in some respect, and they are among the last companies who'd ever do that.

It's like asking Miyamoto to make a VLT.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

We're more like Hillary voters - everything is burning down around us, but we think everything is OK because we're still going to win in the end, because who would vote for the other guy?

pls don't compare me to a Clinton voter

 

[LAA]

Nah I don't think so.
Think it's commendable Nintendo care about more than just making the most profitable possible. If anyone can do it, Nintendo should be able to make the idea of paid premium apps more of a norm anyway. Square enix I believe were wanting to do more premium paid apps good.
I'm sure console gamers will be happy with how it's priced and etc. anyway, though the always online thing is the worst about it and don't know if it will get updates adding stuff for free or paid.
Like others have said, think it's a good thing Nintendo bring about the idea not every app has to be free and have some annoying microtransaction economy drilled into it, which frankly just ruin a lot of games and if they were just fully paid without that I'd probably play them more.
Felt depressed looking at the top 100 games on the play store yesterday. Games that were rips off each other, a game that seemed a blatant rip off of spiderman, (wouldnt be surprised if it was actually spiderman and just edited slightly) and a bunch of them were all written poorly.
Nintendo has never been one to chase trends, at least fully anyway, personally I'm happy with them doing more paid premium apps and I'd rather it more than f2p any day and I'm sure a significant audience would too.

 

[Cuningas de Häme]

Aside from that the OP sounds like a shifty drug dealer (it's business capiche, I'm only supplying what the market wants), he seems to somehow have completely missed that Nintendo is trying to change the market. They're busy creating a healthy ecosystem for themselves to thrive in. Creating a transformative design means specifically not giving the consumer what they say the want. One of the reasons they started with Mario is because it's pretty much the only IP in the world strong enough to make markets shift.

This. Nintendo has taken the monumental task of changing the mobile market for something better.

They should be applauded for that, like every other company that tries to make pricing fair to customers (some are tad expensive, but it's better than pay 700€ in Clash of Clans).

F2P games contain ads that I'm fairly sure are pointing to scam sites (seen some really dubious ads). Is that what you people want Nintendo to do?

I just don't understand people anymore. They are so happy to take a rusty crowbar in their butt if the person holding it is from a gaming company. They defend Sony and Microsoft with their scam of you having to pay to play online games. They applaud when mobile gaming companies trick kids to pay obscene amount of money in "F2P" games.

Modern human has this weird thinking where it thinks that it should have everything for free or at minimal cost. Companies shouldn't get any money but still they need to make products for people who don't want to pay for them.


And one thing, Nintendo prefers to use term "Free to Start", just like Super Mario Run. They don't use the term "F2P" because that is misleading.

 

[yurinka]

I don't really understand how charging a set price is anti-consumer compared to microtransactions.

The microtransactions way allows you to test and enjoy the full game before deciding if it's worth to pay for it or not.

The other way charges you having tested only a small portion of the title (if you have the demo), so it's more possible you pay for something you don't like. In any case, the SMR way is more consumer friendly than to charge you $60 for something you didn't play before.

This. Nintendo has taken the monumental task of changing the mobile market for something better.

Sure, Nintendo invented the mobile gaming too?

Nintendo will earn a lot of money but won't changing anything because they aren't doing anything new.

Demos for premium mobile games existed since more than 8 years ago, and almost every big console/PC publisher released premium games of some of their popular IPs in mobile, and many of them had good profits with it. This is why Nintendo comes to do the same the other big publishers did before.

 

[Jonneh3003]

Nintendo's not really aiming for the biggest profits with their mobile games though, they're out to get people to transition to their systems (notably Switch).

It's free to try and so millions of people will download it regardless. And they don't care about the people complaining that it's actually $10, because if they won't spend $10 on Mario for their phone, they're probably not going to spend $60 for Mario on their console.

Yeah for sure and we saw that effect with Pokemon Sun and Moon.

 

[TannerDemoz]

Guess what - not only is the established F2P model with micro-transactions way more profitable (which should be Nintendo's only interest), it is also more pro-consumer in the mind of everyone not in the gaming bubble.

When has Nintendo not done its own thing and followed the norm though?

 

[Harmen]

I feel mobile gaming would benefit from a steam-like game orientated storefront to make it more appealing for people that like higher quality games with set prices. I don't like the current app stores very much but I do sometimes buy higher priced games (Square Enix has an excellent lineup on mobile, for example).

 

[LordCiego]

Sorry if this just feels like a drive by post, but while the disscusion is nice the people criticizing Nintendo mobile strategy right now make me remember this:

Fake Edit: Sorry if the image its tiny, im on mobile and cant find a better one.

 

[The_Lump]

Had thought this was Nintendo's attempt to find a middle ground and bridge the gap.

If you want to make a cheap/F2P game then you are inevitably going to have to compromise on quality or it isn't sustainable.

If you want to make a 'Nintendo quality' game then you are going to have to charge more to secure your development costs.

The compromise is a smaller/simpler Nintendo quality game with a higher cost than an average non-F2P game but a much lower cost than a full-sized Nintendo experience.

Makes sense to me. If this is what they need to do to make it a sustainable business model for them - given their self imposed commitment to quality - then it's fine by me.

 

[vareon]

But is it really pro-consumer? No, it isn't because that isn't what consumers on mobile devices want. They want the ability to play the whole game for free, no matter how many "optional" micro-transactions, advertisements and pop-ups fill up the game. And that is not a bad thing. It is best for the audience that mobile devices have and more importantly for companies them wanting to make a lot of cash.

There is nothing to say on pro or anti consumer with modern F2P business model or SMR's approach.

Do people really think Nintendo and more specifically DeNA, of all companies, somehow missed this? That a random GAF poster saw what they didn't? They chose this model knowing the exact consequences, and they think they can handle it.

 

[cws]

Nintendo already said just because SMR is a paid to unlock game it doesnt mean that there upcoming mobile games wont be more in line with traditional f2p mobile game. They decide on a game to game basis.

Arent we overreacting a bit ? Nintendo/DENA have collected and access to more data to figure out what business model make sense for which game.

Its in Nintendos best interest - longterm - for the generation of f2p mobile players to have "access" to a Mario game while have them also realize that they wont get this type of game from Nintendo for free.

 

[yurinka]

When has Nintendo not done its own thing and followed the norm though?

Two examples: when decided to focus on milking their IPs with more sequels instead on new IPs, or when decided to do the same as the other big publishers and to bring their popular IPs to mobile.

It's about time a huge IP enters the mobile market like this. The market is dominated by F2P models which are crap and exploitative. Super Mario Run sets an example and gives hope to future developers and ones that have gone this route before so that the mobile market can actually become more respected and new standards are set.

Most huge IPs from EA, Ubi, Activision, Take-two, Square-Enix, Sega, Capcom, etc. already were on mobile. And many of them as premium games. Nintendo followed their example instead of the opposite. Nintendo isn't setting something new.

 

[ASTROID2]

I wonder what would happen if someone made an app that had a one time price option and a micro transaction option. I wonder how many people would go for the micro transaction version and end up spending more on the app.

 

[Striek]

Sorry if this just feels like a drive by post, but while the disscusion is nice the people criticizing Nintendo mobile strategy right now make me remember this:

Its funny but not really accurate. Nintendo has forecast for its worst year of sales in 16 years (pre-Gamecube). All in all they don't have enough customers.

The whole reason Nintendo is balls deep on mobile and theme parks and licensing lately is not because they're doing well.

 

[cws]

Its funny but not really accurate. Nintendo has forecast for its worst year of sales in 16 years (pre-Gamecube). All in all they don't have enough customers.

The whole reason Nintendo is balls deep on mobile and theme parks and licensing lately is not because they're doing well.

Or it could be because WiiU has been dead for a while and they are about to launch a new system in a couple of months.

This isnt them being balls deep in mobile at all - they are taking their time with releases and not going for the quick buck and obvious exploitation strategies even if they could.

 

[Human Trashcan]

Guess what - not only is the established F2P model with micro-transactions way more profitable (which should be Nintendo's only interest),

Maybe not, maybe they actually give a shit and don't want to make the same unethical trash that every other f2p mobile developer pumps out filled with slot machines. It's a pretty wild concept, I'll grant you, but consumer handwringing of what companies should do to make the most money is really weird to me. Be glad they at least make a show of giving a shit about the games they make.

 

[llehuty]

Nothing as pro-consumer as time walls that you can open with money, right?