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.
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.
