Designing your game around microtransactions is not pro consumer.
Edit: Page 6, so this has likely been discussed a bunch.
Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake
- Thread starter sanstesy
- Start date
Designing your game around microtransactions is not pro consumer.
Edit: Page 6, so this has likely been discussed a bunch.
Just means they should have provided two options.
Don't ignore the traditional F2P market, but give everybody the choice of paying for the full package / unlimited playing up front.
If they have a brain I doubt it is as soon as they saw the effect Pokemon GO had on the 3DS & Sun/Moon. It is factually not suited for anything that wants to engage with the majority of its audience which the Mario brand clearly can & which is ultimately Nintendo's plan.
No, it isn't on both accounts.
2 and a half stars on the iOS store is terrible.
Davey Cakes
Member
Exactly. This isn't even new to Nintendo.
Enraged kiddos is not the same as flopping.
OrbitalBeard
Member
That doesn't mean it's flopping.
NightShift
Member
It's not the best business wise but I like it. I hope it turns out well for Nintendo so we get one step closer to a better market.
GiantBreadbug
Member
Pretty half-baked analysis of the situation considering they haven't even talked about any game besides this one and it's been out for one day. Then again lots of people do the armchair analyst thing hilariously wrong when it comes to this company.
Nintendo isn't ignoring the traditional F2P market. They merely opted not to go that route for this game.
There will be F2P Nintendo mobile games in the near future. Hell, there's an F2P Nintendo mobile game out right now making lots of money.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
No offense, but no one (including you, and including me) really knows the potential of this business model. It wasn't so long ago that F2P looked like a ludicrous model. After all, why would anyone give away so much of a game for free when you could charge them up front? How could, say, a F2P MMO possibly make more money than a monthly subscription fee?
Maybe Nintendo could make more money with a now-conventional whale-hunting F2P model. Maybe it'd last for a long time, maybe it would flop and taint Nintendo's other brands. Maybe consumers really hate paying $10 for mobile Mario. Maybe they can be trained to accept it, just like they were trained to accept F2P. Maybe Nintendo can prosper by following in the footsteps of some traditional Japanese gaming companies who switched to mobile. Maybe their corpse will join the pile of failed F2P-focused companies.
I can totally see Nintendo having a long-term success with Mario by charging $10, then charging for new consolish DLC over time. It might fail or be less profitable than alternative models, but I think it's weird to be so dismissive so quickly. The market reaction might be correct in the long term. It might also be as dumb as that time Nintendo stock shot up because of Pokemon Go, then subsequently fell because investors didn't realize Nintendo wasn't reaping most of the profits.
The truth is, just like in Hollywood, nobody knows anything.
More_Badass
Member
Much like how the internet polls can be easily manipulated, App Store ratings are the same. It's topping the Top Grossing list, with a single $10 IAP
The reviews aren't indicative of performance, just like how Monument Valley's rating plummeted after releasing a $2 expansion
More_Badass
Member
When an app is updated, the app page only shows the reviews and rating for the newest version by default.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Absolutely. I'm not wholly discounting those reviews.
Business models get replaced by new business models if they are more beneficial for the average customer.
The business model that SMR embodies is not beneficial for the majority of its customers.
It also isn't exactly new either.
This is the funniest thing I've read all week.
This model isn't even remotely new. Tons of mobiles games and apps are like that.
Even XBLA games used to do that, I don't know if it's still the same there, but this isn't a new model by any stretch of the imagination.
No, business models get replaced if their more benefecial for the seller and that the consumer is a sucker enough to buy it.
As much as I would like to play Super Mario Run all the way through for free, by being a game that people have to pay, it allows Nintendo to design a game that is up to their standards and isn't bogged down by anti-consumer design that plague the mobile market. Y'know, design choices that frustrate and pressure players into paying to get past time limits that prohibit progression, or really tough spots in the game.
Your average mobile gamer doesn't want to pay for games, sure. I even myself think that they're asking too much for what they're offering with the game, but if they value putting out a quality product more than they do making as much money as possible, more power to them.
Your average mobile gamer doesn't want to pay for games, sure. I even myself think that they're asking too much for what they're offering with the game, but if they value putting out a quality product more than they do making as much money as possible, more power to them.
Really? On Android you can see also the older reviews. And that seems disingenuous somehow. So if a developer is not happy with the rating all he has to do is to build a new version?
Wouldn't it essentially devalue their IP? Nintendo is trying to change the mobile market by saying that yes our games are worth a premium purchase to say *its not what they want* says who a loud minority? We have no idea how successful the title is yet it can exceed Nintendo's expectations, having a price on their games means when it does capture mind share it possibly helps ease the consumer if they do decide to buy a Nintendo console and purchase full priced games.
And as some have said Pokemon GO has gone the F2P route and has done well I think its wise to pick and choose which IPs gone this way,
And as some have said Pokemon GO has gone the F2P route and has done well I think its wise to pick and choose which IPs gone this way,
Noone is really arguing that "buy the game if you wanna play it" is such a new model
modern mobile F2P structures are not beneficial for the average consumer
they are predatory and manipulative, exclusively catered to less than a percent of players termed whales, with huge efforts put into making the free experience just bearable enough that enough people play it to inflate popularity and catch said whales
More_Badass
Member
You can see those too, but you have to switch to "All Versions" on the App Page.
For example, Game of War's rating that you see while browsing is 4.5 stars from 531 reviews. Switch to All Versions and it's 4 stars from 101,000 reviews
It's also why devs will ask if you can review the app when they release an update because that rating won't show on the App Store while searching and they basically have to build it back up. Like the HBO Now app currently doesn't have a rating because there aren't enough reviews for the current version, while All Versions shows 2.5 stars from 6,780 ratings
Yes, they are beneficial for the average customer and you just proved it with your second paragraph.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Man... People told me mobile games are fine and good and dandy, but if they can make someone or even many to really believe that micro transactions-filled games are actually pro-consumer, then phew... That is really something else.
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
Nintendo has never been about race to the bottom pricing.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I'm gonna say no to the OP.
Nintendo can and will make f2p games that have millions of downloads and huge revenue in IAP....
What they are doing first is using their platform with Apple to carve out a market for full purchase games. Then they can sell those alongside later f2p games and make all the money from all types of players.
Nintendo can and will make f2p games that have millions of downloads and huge revenue in IAP....
What they are doing first is using their platform with Apple to carve out a market for full purchase games. Then they can sell those alongside later f2p games and make all the money from all types of players.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
It's not really disingenuous. It's better than say what Amazon does where they show reviews that are a decade old mixed in with ones a year old. Absolutely unhelpful to be told how constantly updating products were years ago.
Polygonal_Sprite
Gold Member
Devaluing their IP by giving them away for free on mobile would be much worse.
Nintendo have to show mobile consumers that their games are so much better than the competition. I think Mario Run will have a long sales tail as people share their positive experiences on social media.
Nintendo have to show mobile consumers that their games are so much better than the competition. I think Mario Run will have a long sales tail as people share their positive experiences on social media.
Alcotholic
Banned
The 1-2 star reviews are pretty pathetic, honestly. I felt like I got my fill of the game through the first 3, then I went back and replayed some of the levels to collect more of those coins. I could tell that the game has a ton of content if you spend time with it. Otherwise just rushing through will give you the wrong impression. It's just $10 as well. It's not much at all.
Some were suggesting buying the game per world, but I would think that's an even worse model. You would sprint through all the levels, then buy the next set within 15 minutes. This is a game meant to be replayed multiple times. Collecting all the black coins and whatnot- challenging yourself.
Some were suggesting buying the game per world, but I would think that's an even worse model. You would sprint through all the levels, then buy the next set within 15 minutes. This is a game meant to be replayed multiple times. Collecting all the black coins and whatnot- challenging yourself.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
I disagree with a lot of the assumptions you're making here:
* Business models get replaced by new business models. In fact, pretty much every video game business model in existence is being used--and prospering--somewhere.
* F2P is a "new" business model. It's highly derivative of shareware.
* F2P is more beneficial for the average consumer. Beneficial by what metric?
* That there's an "average consumer". No decent analyst or marketer is going to try to target that group, because it doesn't exist. The App Store, and every store, are aggregates of many types of consumer with a panoply of different preferences.
* That consumers now are representative of consumers for all time. How much of a market did you think the Wii had before it was released?
I don't agree with the logic I can see how people do. I myself would rather pay 1 price and get a product I don't have to worry about paying for more down the road with. F2P might be profitable for casual folks but I'm happy its being done this way. Since smart phones were capable of games people have been crying for Nintendo to go mobile get with the times etc. Now they do and everyone is mad at the cost, its simple don't purchase the extra levels. Much like DLC no need to complain speak with your wallet.
dickgumshoe
Member
The fact that you are advocating exploiting people with an addiction problem is grossing me out.
Alcotholic
Banned
"Just bearable enough".
Is that the phrase that rings in your head as "pro-consumer"?
OrbitalBeard
Member
I'm a pretty big proponent of Capitalism but this type of comment / belief is why a lot of people aren't.
?
Literal scams do not benefit consumers
mobile F2P games provide about as much entertainment as does scraping a lottery ticket, and are designed to take advantage of all psychological weaknesses possible to squeeze money out of people
it's free because it's bait
Waiting for energy bars to recharge, checking in daily whether you want to or not to make sure you squeeze out every bit of free secondary currency you can. Being limited to short burst play sessions because you would have to pay real money to keep playing. Scrounging your freely earned secondary currency so you don't have to miss out on limited time events or pay real money to buy the secondary currency. Watching commercials to get an extra chance after you lose a life. Spamming your friends on Facebook for minor amounts of free secondary currency.
This is all so beneficial to the average customer. /s
Take my $10 and let me get on with the game.
Sure it does. But Nintendo knows the mobile environment, and so far has chosen to avoid the manipulative nature of microtransaction city in an effort to be up front and honest about how much a consumer is paying.
But the more important part here is that Nintendo striving to sell premium priced games on iOS is a GOOD thing for game developers who want to sell on mobile. As it is, developers of all sorts are pressured into selling their game for free by the market that demands it. That much is clear by the outrage at spending $14 when they'll easily throw way more at a game through microtransactions without realizing it.
The mobile market pricing model demands things be 99 cents or less, and that sort of devalues the work we developers do.
Exactly.
Not only that, but it's done fantastic in its first day. We're hearing a vocal group complain about the price, but let's see how it goes over time.
KojiKnight
Member
To properly whale hunt, you have to fuck over consumers on the mobile market... If you don't fuck them over, you give no reason for them to possibly become whales.
If $10 is too much for them to become customers, then expecting them to become dedicated console gamers is too much as well. As for this hurting Nintendo brand wise? Ask Square Enix if it's hurt them for their full fledged FF ports.
If $10 is too much for them to become customers, then expecting them to become dedicated console gamers is too much as well. As for this hurting Nintendo brand wise? Ask Square Enix if it's hurt them for their full fledged FF ports.
No assumptions.
1. It's a new model for that specific market. I said nothing else.
2. F2P was a new business model for the gaming market. SMR's model isn't.
3. Beneficial by the metric that you have the option to play the game completely for free.
4. The average consumer is the majority of your audience and every marketer is going to try to target that group. And they are doing it right now with the F2P model. Yes, individual people have different preferences.
5. It is representative of the market Nintendo is entering. The Wii was creating a completely new market itself. Completely different circumstances and situation.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Whether or not we like it, the key that that stands out among that description is that the game remains free. To many consumers, that's benefit enough to put up with the poor gameplay loops or annoying timers. If you're just some shmuck who plays a game on his phone while on the bus to work, it's not really any skin off your nose if you need to wait until your lunch break to play again. That's not to say microtransaction loops are pro-consumer, but I certainly get why people put up with them.
7DollarHagane
Banned
No, the mobile market just wants everything for free. They were right to charge for their game and not design it to be a grind fest to encourage microtransctions.
That whole trend is terrible and the less people doing it the better. Those are barely games. If a game is designed to annoy you into paying it's not a game.
The other difference is that this game isn't some endless running game or puzzle game that never ends. It's designed levels made to work with a touch screen.
That whole trend is terrible and the less people doing it the better. Those are barely games. If a game is designed to annoy you into paying it's not a game.
The other difference is that this game isn't some endless running game or puzzle game that never ends. It's designed levels made to work with a touch screen.
ronaldthump
Member
Sold? Or downloaded?