Linkstrikesback
Member
Yuck.
Yuckkkkkkkkk.
Animal crossing with f2p trappings is so obvious in implementation but I hate it even in concept. Same for gacha emblem, which is hr most likely result of that being f2p.
Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake
- Thread starter sanstesy
- Start date
Yuck.
Yuckkkkkkkkk.
Animal crossing with f2p trappings is so obvious in implementation but I hate it even in concept. Same for gacha emblem, which is hr most likely result of that being f2p.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
Take these numbers with a grain of salt, but Sensor Tower (a mobile tracking company) is claiming 5 million downloads and an estimated 5 million in revenue in the first 24 hours (http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/super-mario-run-5-million-downloads-1201944212/)
This is by no means Supercell Profits, but I can't imagine this game was a lot of money for Nintendo/DeNA to make considering they're reusing a lot of assets. Plus this game has some evergreen aspect to it. Even if they only got 2.5M sales that's still 2.5M sales that can be converted at some point.
This is by no means Supercell Profits, but I can't imagine this game was a lot of money for Nintendo/DeNA to make considering they're reusing a lot of assets. Plus this game has some evergreen aspect to it. Even if they only got 2.5M sales that's still 2.5M sales that can be converted at some point.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
This is what I learned from this thread, and my heart is broken.
And there's my Trump voter insult done. "Most people want F2P"? Most people are idiots, that's how we got our President-Elect. That pricing model is predatory and BAD FOR PLAYERS.
Tactical RPGs aren't a bad fit for mobile so I was kind of excited at the potential for a Fire Emblem game on phones...until I learned it was F2P. You think I wanna pay $60 to not even get a PART of the game?
You are right about that but Im talking specifically about their mobile strategy, they have released 2 products with huge success and we have countless post of how bad they are doing it.
I don't really see a problem with it- it's just digital marketing to rake in some awareness for the next mainline Fire Emblem on Switch. Were you really expecting a full, proper Fire Emblem game on mobile? If Nintendo went mobile-only with a full game and reduced a mainline game to an FTP whale hunt, that's when I'd give up on FE.
The only way this thread makes sense is if Sanstesy is someone that works for a mobile game Gacha making company and has been drinking the kool-aid for far too long.
It's pretty clear what Nintendo is trying to do and it's too early to say if it was the right call, financially or not, but it was definitely consumer-friendly, whether the average iPhone user realizes it or not.
It's pretty clear what Nintendo is trying to do and it's too early to say if it was the right call, financially or not, but it was definitely consumer-friendly, whether the average iPhone user realizes it or not.
RoninChaos
Member
I like how the op things the best thing for the consumer is to be showered in ads and micro transactions. Super Mario run had the biggest App Store debut of all time so they must be doing something right. Maybe not trying to make their game an effort to play or a complex frustration was a good start.
Lol pro consumer to shove ads and micro transactions down our throats. Jesus.
Lol pro consumer to shove ads and micro transactions down our throats. Jesus.
jts
...hate me...
Sorry if this just feels like a drive by post, but while the disscusion is nice the people criticizing Nintendo mobile strategy right now make me remember this:
Fake Edit: Sorry if the image its tiny, im on mobile and cant find a better one.
michaelius
Banned
Maybe just maybe those people live in countries where 10$ could buy you 3 dinners or in some cases several days worth of food.
This is really the issue most customers are having. Most of the arguments posted in this thread are valid but irrelevant.
It's akin to a $5 box of pasta that actually is 24oz rather than the usual 16oz, contains double the protein of normal pasta, and always cooks up al dente. I love pasta and would consider buying this. And, in the scheme of things, $5 is obviously not a lot of money. But most pasta costs $1-$2, so folks are going to say "pasta for $5? I'm out" without considering any other value-related aspects.
A day-one download record is of questionable value, especially given the pricing model, and the fact that there are no ads. As others have pointed out, we need more data to judge how much of a success this game really is. Let's give it time.
Need I remind you that most users of F2P games pay nothing at all?
I'll gladly take the out of touch version which provides me with a better game with a more consumer friendly pricing strategy, thank you.
Seriously, when did we start arguing that a company should be as greedy and exploitative as possible? I mean, if you're a shareholder sure, but as a consumer, in what way does that benefit you at all? Super Mario Run has already recouped the development costs for sure. And the strategy is to promote the traditional experiences Nintendo will offer on the Switch, where they control pricing and messaging and don't need to share 30% of their revenue with Apple or Google.
Nintendo is one of the very few developers who still champion the quality of a game first and foremost, rather than the profitability of it, of it and from what some people here are saying, they think that's a bad thing. Clearly, microtransactions have completly twisted some peoples perception of consumer friendliness.
Seriously, when did we start arguing that a company should be as greedy and exploitative as possible? I mean, if you're a shareholder sure, but as a consumer, in what way does that benefit you at all? Super Mario Run has already recouped the development costs for sure. And the strategy is to promote the traditional experiences Nintendo will offer on the Switch, where they control pricing and messaging and don't need to share 30% of their revenue with Apple or Google.
Nintendo is one of the very few developers who still champion the quality of a game first and foremost, rather than the profitability of it, of it and from what some people here are saying, they think that's a bad thing. Clearly, microtransactions have completly twisted some peoples perception of consumer friendliness.
The race to the bottom on mobile is a big problem IMO. The argument here from OP is that it's anti consumer because consumers are using F2P. That doesn't really make sense to me since almost all games are F2P so there's no choice.
The race to the bottom is hurting both Devs and customers alike. The vast majority of games don't get any attention and we've started to see some Devs move away from it recently. When you also go F2P the design of the game is also heavily influenced to support the model, aka Gacha.
I don't see the problem with more than one model here. In fact offering a choice is pro consumer in my eyes. I don't do F2P due to the aggressive tactics and inability to enjoy the full game. I will likely be buying Run on Android when it's out though.
The race to the bottom is hurting both Devs and customers alike. The vast majority of games don't get any attention and we've started to see some Devs move away from it recently. When you also go F2P the design of the game is also heavily influenced to support the model, aka Gacha.
I don't see the problem with more than one model here. In fact offering a choice is pro consumer in my eyes. I don't do F2P due to the aggressive tactics and inability to enjoy the full game. I will likely be buying Run on Android when it's out though.
Linkstrikesback
Member
The obvious question to that is why do people people​ in that position even have an Apple device that could buy the game in the first place?
jts
...hate me...
And yet, the most popular F2P games stay in the top grossing apps for months, if not years, showing how much on average people drop on those games, and even if most of that cash comes from the big whales who drop thousands of dollars (on a single game!) while other players have a completely different, grinding-filled, ads-ridden experience designed to compell you to spend money constantly or feel behind, and never really achieve completeness.
It's an all around disgusting business model that no decent game designer should have to cater to.
More_Badass
Member
LuigiBlood
Member
Probably already said but I'm not going to read the whole topic for that.
Too bad, Nintendo has already said many times they're doing it for brand awareness.
Of course money is still a thing, but not their priority, Nintendo wants to do things long term.
And it works. Nintendo did succeed at that. And they happen to sell their game, as a game. Holy shit, a game costs money. (Even if I do admit $5 could be the better price here.)
Also, lose mobile consumer trust? I don't think you're thinking what you should be thinking about.
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
pro consumer, ahahahaha.
You can afford expensive electronics like a tablet or a smartphone, but $10 for a game means severals days without food??
TylerDurden4321
Member
Your last sentence plus the brackets say it all, their brand awareness and positive image could be way better, if they wouldn't come off as the makers of "yet another endless runner", that is polished but not worth what it costs! Defintely not that much more than all the other endless runners from the likes of Ubisoft for example.
Nintendo should have made THE most charming, best playing endless runner, make it $3 for all levels and have ads for the Switch and how much more awesome and charming Mario will be on that device. "If you liked the looks here, you MUST get a Switch".
People are ok with paying money for something if it's common in a context/platform, they would have been ok with paying 40 bucks for a "real" Mario game on a console, because that's what they agreed to buying a console - extra awesome gameplay at extra cost.
Fucking lol. You can't make this shit up. LMAO.
Pro-consumer doesn't mean anything and you don't have any data on that to back up your theory. Aldo 'the mobile audience' doesn't exist, it is much more complicated.
This whole debacle just goes to show how detached from reality many gamers are. So much misinformation spread around everywhere and people not understanding basic stuff about the mobile market.
I mean have posts on every page saying how people will not accept this business model of a game that is the top grossing game in the store lol.
I mean have posts on every page saying how people will not accept this business model of a game that is the top grossing game in the store lol.
LuigiBlood
Member
It can always be better. I'm not saying they should make it filled with microtransactions (and I damn prefer not), but Nintendo is selling their game as a game, which I am totally fine with. Nintendo is in their logic of selling their game as a premium price because it's Nintendo, which, again, I'm fine with.
But the OP post is still quite filled with bullshit that I just can't agree with. My only issue with this is the price ($5 would be the sweet spot for most people... if it was available on Android I would buy it anyway if I like it lol). Other than that, it's been A+. Nintendo reached the goal they wanted in the first place.
Captain Star
Member
You're upset that this billion dollar corporation isn't trying to fuck your wallet harder?
F2P leads to inherently bad incentives.
You are wrong.
Good game design is important in creating an awesome experience in console, mobile or anywhere. If the game design has to be constricted to incorporate the IAPs or ads model, then the game is no longer designed to provide you with a good experience but is instead tailored to sucking you money.
Good game design is important in creating an awesome experience in console, mobile or anywhere. If the game design has to be constricted to incorporate the IAPs or ads model, then the game is no longer designed to provide you with a good experience but is instead tailored to sucking you money.
Skittzo0413
Member
The primary goal of Nintendo's mobile titles is to help drive their dedicated hardware business, and they have said this time and time again. A post in the other thread made a very good point about why this game is priced the way it is:
Nintendo knows the current state of the mobile market is incredibly toxic to their primary business model ($200-300 hardware and $40-60 software) so one of the goals for SMR is to help expose more people in that mobile market to a more traditional game pricing structure, in the hopes that some of them will start to understand that quality demands a certain price tag.
This wouldn't be achieved with IAP and microtransactions, which would only further drag down the perceptions of mobile games and the entire mobile market. If Nintendo was interested only in profit from their mobile business this could make sense, but they have repeatedly stated that the major focus is on exposing people to their brands in order to encourage them to buy titles on their dedicated hardware. And it's proven to work very, very well with Pokemon S/M.
Nintendo knows the current state of the mobile market is incredibly toxic to their primary business model ($200-300 hardware and $40-60 software) so one of the goals for SMR is to help expose more people in that mobile market to a more traditional game pricing structure, in the hopes that some of them will start to understand that quality demands a certain price tag.
This wouldn't be achieved with IAP and microtransactions, which would only further drag down the perceptions of mobile games and the entire mobile market. If Nintendo was interested only in profit from their mobile business this could make sense, but they have repeatedly stated that the major focus is on exposing people to their brands in order to encourage them to buy titles on their dedicated hardware. And it's proven to work very, very well with Pokemon S/M.
Or it could just be that almost every other mass-market mobile game's IAP cost far less.
Why are so many of you assuming that it has to be one extreme or the other? There are ways to price a F2P game without being exploitative. Don't assume that every F2P game is engaging in questionable tactics.
Just the simple act of charging $2 per world instead of $10 all at once would have felt more in line with the market. They could have even chosen to allow, once per day, to watch an ad to play the next course for free. That would not only have allowed folks to enjoy the entire game without paying, it would have provided a constant stream of revenue, and also kept word of mouth going for at least the 21 days it would take to complete the game this way.
That means very little. It doesn't tell us what period of time that covers, nor does it tell us conversion rate, revenue amount, or number of paid users. Yes, it was successful on day one, but whether it's as successful as the company and the investors were hoping remains to be seen, and won't be evident for at least a few weeks. Nobody should jump to either positive or negative conclusions yet. It's too soon.
Thats BS imo - Nintendo will offer new levels and updates for free to all people who bought the game - you pay once and get Access to everything. You pay per World idea would end up costing way more if they start adding more content.
Sure they would likely make more money on such a scheme but it would be worse for the customer.
Honestly if 10 bucks are too much for a customer...then that customer just isnt part of Nintendos target group with this game. Thats fine - there are million of gamers who will buy it, especially since they will keep expanding it.
Its too soon to be positive about the strongest AppStore launch ever ? Suuure....
Jubenhimer
Member
Only when the company is employing shady tactics. You can do a F2P game that's fair and encourages you to pay for it without manipulative mechanics. Rusty's Real Deal Baseball is a good example of how F2P should be done.
Living the Dream
Member
Is this the most reviewed game ever on the App Stire? Almost 43,000 reviews. Everyone else barely has 1,000
Starchasing
Member
Exactly!!!
Nintendo is trying to get new costumers for Switch, casual gamers , lapsed gamers, kids of lapsed gamers or kids in general.
All those people moaning because the game is not free or 99 cents are not costumers that Nintendo wants.
Nintendo wants costumers that are willing to spend money on games and hardware. Will it work? we will know in a few years. One thing we know for sure, people get tired of things and love new shinny gadgets.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
If there's anything that Super Mario Run shows, it's that mobile touches on such a wide market that it literally doesn't matter what business model Nintendo picked.
I suspect they could have gone any number of ways and made just as many people annoyed, and made a shitload of money. Mobile gaming's reach is so strong and wide, I suspect it's outside of the traditional understanding of video game analysis. We're used to console install bases of 20-60 million, but the reach for Super Mario Run is 10x those numbers. A few petulant reviews from mobile gamers (who rate everything down that costs money, by the way - that means nothing) isn't really going to stop the momentum and interest.
Ultimately, a platform with such a massive reach is too complex to be drawn into narrow confines. Super Mario Run will be a lot of things, with some small mistakes, and some very massive successes. It's huge both for Nintendo's revenue, future options, and brand relevance.
I suspect they could have gone any number of ways and made just as many people annoyed, and made a shitload of money. Mobile gaming's reach is so strong and wide, I suspect it's outside of the traditional understanding of video game analysis. We're used to console install bases of 20-60 million, but the reach for Super Mario Run is 10x those numbers. A few petulant reviews from mobile gamers (who rate everything down that costs money, by the way - that means nothing) isn't really going to stop the momentum and interest.
Ultimately, a platform with such a massive reach is too complex to be drawn into narrow confines. Super Mario Run will be a lot of things, with some small mistakes, and some very massive successes. It's huge both for Nintendo's revenue, future options, and brand relevance.
Already Torn
Banned
Flappy Bird was the king
Even if we assumed this game came in way below expectations, which I don't think is a safe assumption, I think it's okay to try some experiments and fail as long as there are some safe bets involved.
There's really not much downside to trying a few new things, because maybe you will hit something that works.
Certainly the first major mobile f2p games without stamina were risks, but boy look how much Clash Royal and Pokémon Go are making.
There's really not much downside to trying a few new things, because maybe you will hit something that works.
Certainly the first major mobile f2p games without stamina were risks, but boy look how much Clash Royal and Pokémon Go are making.
AstroNut325
Member
I'll buy it since I want to support games that offer everything upfront. I want to support games that don't rely on micro transactions and other predatory practices.
But I'm not paying more for Mario Run than I paid for Minecraft.
But I'm not paying more for Mario Run than I paid for Minecraft.
Davey Cakes
Member
Nintendo's diversifying efforts are admirable, IMO.
They can afford to put out one or two games under this "premium pricing" model to gauge interest, while also offering other F2P and F2S (free to start) games. They have enough properties to really experiment. Mario is premium. Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem will be F2P likely. They've also put F2S games on the 3DS in the past, like Rusty's Real Deal Baseball. I think it's smart to test the waters in this fashion, so long as Nintendo still makes money. So far it's seemed to work out for them.
I'm not even buying Super Mario Run but I recognize that the full game is probably worth $10. If you pursue all of the game's alternative challenges, it really extends the value. I've only played the demo and I was impressed by how well it conveyed the gameplay and scope. It was enough to determine if I wanted a full experience (which I didn't). MAYBE Nintendo could've afforded to make the World 1 Castle free as well, but that's it. I'm otherwise supportive of going premium for a well-polished runner with a satisfying amount of content.
They can afford to put out one or two games under this "premium pricing" model to gauge interest, while also offering other F2P and F2S (free to start) games. They have enough properties to really experiment. Mario is premium. Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem will be F2P likely. They've also put F2S games on the 3DS in the past, like Rusty's Real Deal Baseball. I think it's smart to test the waters in this fashion, so long as Nintendo still makes money. So far it's seemed to work out for them.
I'm not even buying Super Mario Run but I recognize that the full game is probably worth $10. If you pursue all of the game's alternative challenges, it really extends the value. I've only played the demo and I was impressed by how well it conveyed the gameplay and scope. It was enough to determine if I wanted a full experience (which I didn't). MAYBE Nintendo could've afforded to make the World 1 Castle free as well, but that's it. I'm otherwise supportive of going premium for a well-polished runner with a satisfying amount of content.
User Name Here
Member
More_Badass
Member
You have to switch to All Versions. Game of War has 101,000, Clash Royale has 215,000, Candy Crush has 893,000, Clash of Clan has 2,000,000
So not even close
i'm talking about incentives. f2p leads to bad incentives, for example it makes more sense to work on cosmetics or f2p mechanics than meaningful game-play content. it's bad incentives all the way down. The problem with saying that it can be done in a good way is that you rely on hoping that the devs will do the right thing. it's much better to have a system that lead to good incentives from the get go - like one time purchase: incentive is to actually make a good game.
jts
...hate me...
This one could as well be $10 USD upfront but have a demo. Its the same thing.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Why should Nintendo's only interest be profit generating? Profits are healthy for reinvestment and for improving products down the line, but if you're running a company or business line (I assume you are only referring to mobile here) solely in the interests of profits and not counting any other metric as an indicator of success something is wrong. Nintendo's own metric of success for mobile isn't profit generation anyway, it's driving sales to their own platform, which should be the core business. Mobile needs to be profitable on its own and not lose money, but mobile isn't the *focal* point of profits.
It's too early to make that conclusion, Nintendo's long term goal with mobile isn't profit-generating but to lead people over to their dedicated platforms and to develop long-term relationships with their customers. I think you'll have to wait and see what happens with Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem before you can call Mario Run a failure in that regard, but Nintendo's absolutely right for making it clear that the next evolution of the 2D Mario platformer is a premium product that people should expect to pay a premium price for. If Mario on mobile was a completely different genre of game I think you might have a point, but for the long term it's important that Nintendo maintains the value of 2D Mario platform games.
It's also pro-sumer from the point of view of everything else - just because you give people what they want doesn't necessarily mean it's good for them. I'd call that pro-firm, not pro-consumer. As we already know what the real costs are (in time, in money, in inefficient spending) of many freemium business models in games.