OrbitalBeard
Member
Sold. The downloads are in the millions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake
- Thread starter sanstesy
- Start date
Sold. The downloads are in the millions.
More_Badass
Member
You say average consumer and majority of the audience. I say only 2% of people who download F2P games actually pay money and only play for about a day, and only a tenth of that 2% account for the majority of the profits in F2P games.Yes, they are beneficial for the average customer and you just proved it with your second paragraph.
So 0.2% of the audience
Edit: a newer report from 2015 into 2016
... almost half of all the revenue generated in mobile gaming comes from just 0.19 percent of users.
Of the 0.19 percent who are spending money, very few of these are doing it often; 64 percent are making just one paid in-game purchase per month, while it’s just 6.5 percent making five or more paid in-game purchases, with the average spend per player being $24.33.
Conducted by marketing firm Swrve, the report looked at over 40 free-to-play games through February 2016, analyzing the uses of more than 20 million players.
You say average consumer and majority of the audience. I say only 2% of people who download F2P games actually pay money and only play for about a day, and only a tenth of the 2% that spend money account for the majority of the profits in F2P games.
So 0.2% of the audience
I don't know how often I will have to repeat myself. You just proved again why my point remains true and the F2P model is indeed beneficial for the average consumer.
ronaldthump
Member
Sold. The downloads are in the millions.
I think they'll be pleased. Already that millions of dollars. I doubt run was too expensive to make and itll keep selling
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.
But apparently this "shmuck who plays a game his phone on the bus to work" cares enough about wanting to specifically play Mario to post 1-star reviews and livid rants on Twitter about how terrible Nintendo is for charging for the game.
I can't help but think these complainers' nostalgia for Mario probably amounts to whatever they pirated on their R4 during the DS era.
ioriyagami
Member
The limitations that F2P imposes on design and monetization scheme are the closest thing to cancer for the videogames market in general. Just my 2 cents. I am glad that Nintendo is trying to change things.
Lord of Ostia
Member
The kind of consumer that won't spend $10 on a quality phone game is the kind of consumer who won't spend $200+ on Nintendo's next console, nor $50+ on their new games. Nintendo isn't trying to reach that market, they are trying to reach the market that is on mobile that is willing to shell out money for more of their products if they can be convinced that there is value there. The purpose of SMR is to encourage visibility for the brand so more people buy Switch.You won't encourage anyone to buy your products by alienating them and Pokemon GO is already demonstrating that the F2P model works very well for people to engage with your brand and as a result maybe convince them to buy your own products. Nintendo won't convince anyone that isn't already in that core market with the SMR model.
It's also a misconception that a set price will make your product seem high-valued and premium. It won't especially on the smartphone market place.
That was apparent from page one.Haha wow you actually went there.
Yeah there's no getting through to you.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I'm not sure what your point is. Complaining on the internet is basically a zero-cost, zero-effort activity. It's hardly surprising that people are doing it.But apparently this "shmuck who plays a game his phone on the bus to work" cares enough about wanting to specifically play Mario to post 1-star reviews and livid rants on Twitter about how terrible Nintendo is for charging for the game.
I can't help but think these complainers' nostalgia for Mario probably amounts to whatever they pirated on their R4 during the DS era.
But apparently this "shmuck who plays a game his phone on the bus to work" cares enough about wanting to specifically play Mario to post 1-star reviews and livid rants on Twitter about how terrible Nintendo is for charging for the game.
Why it's so difficult to understand? You receive a notification from Apple or you browse the app store on your iPhone and you see there is a Mario game. "Wow, it's free!" (unless you scroll to read all the details). You download it and start playing it. 3 and a half levels later boom! $10 or you can't play further! 1 star!
You don't need that much imagination to put yourself in these people's shoes.
Lord of Ostia
Member
Yes, there is obviously an audience who wants to get things for free and isn't interested in spending a dime. He's trying to explain to you that Nintendo isn't interested in that audience, atleast for SMR, hence why they priced the game at $10.I don't know how often I will have to repeat myself. You just proved again why my point remains true and the F2P model is indeed beneficial for the average consumer.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Why it's so difficult to understand? You receive a notification from Apple or you browse the app store on your iPhone and you see there is a Mario game. "Wow, it's free!" (unless you scroll to read all the details). You download it and start playing it. 3 and a half levels later boom! $10 or you can't play further!
You don't need that much imagination to put yourself in these people shoes.
How is this any different than all the other games that say free and then ask for money after 15 minutes on the app store? Fuck these people who expected it to be free.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I actually disagree with this.The kind of consumer that won't spend $10 on a quality phone game is the kind of consumer who won't spend $200+ on Nintendo's next console, nor $50+ on their new games. Nintendo isn't trying to reach that market, they are trying to reach the market that is on mobile that is willing to shell out money for more of their products if they can be convinced that there is value there. The purpose of SMR is to encourage visibility for the brand so more people buy Switch.
I think there's a wide and obvious disparity between how the general public values things like mobile games and consoles. Just because someone disregards the former doesn't mean they're hopeless towards the latter.
How is this any different than all the other games that say free and then ask for money after 15 minutes on the app store? Fuck these people who expected it to be free.
What very popular game does that?
Edit: are you talking about classic F2P games? That's an optional spend, again not very difficult to perceive the difference between optional and mandatory to play further.
Take a look at any F2P game OTs here. You'll see people victim to the "alright I'll spend just once more so I didn't do all that for nothing" everywhere. And tears afterwards, wanting to stop, but not actually stopping because of all that has been obtained so far, and thus the need to go on so that it doesn't all go to waste, and spend more, goto1."
You don't have to look far. And these forums have members that are aware of those things, and extremes still happen. Now extrapolate that to everyone else. It's disgusting.
Now chosing to sell a full game at a full mobile price instead of micro-transactions is bold but it should be praised. It gives me the option to not have to deal with F2P bullshit on a mobile game, and I'll gladly pay for it. Few successful games have done it (Room, Valley, Threes), but that's generally proof of confidence and quality.
With a F2P game I'm pretty sure I'll mostly get something crappy or abusive. With full-payed games I'm pretty sure I'll get something I can finish without spending another dime, and with good quality. And I want more of that second option.
You don't have to look far. And these forums have members that are aware of those things, and extremes still happen. Now extrapolate that to everyone else. It's disgusting.
Now chosing to sell a full game at a full mobile price instead of micro-transactions is bold but it should be praised. It gives me the option to not have to deal with F2P bullshit on a mobile game, and I'll gladly pay for it. Few successful games have done it (Room, Valley, Threes), but that's generally proof of confidence and quality.
With a F2P game I'm pretty sure I'll mostly get something crappy or abusive. With full-payed games I'm pretty sure I'll get something I can finish without spending another dime, and with good quality. And I want more of that second option.
LouisaFerre
Member
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.
Is this a real response? The entire point of #3 was that "consumer benefit" is an incredibly vague thing, and you can make the case that consumers benefit from SMR's pricing model by not being subjected to microtransactions or game design that is intended to be exploitative for the purpose of trying to push microtransactions. Trying to make some quantitative comparison by claiming that one provides "more benefit" makes no sense unless you rely on the assumption that the metric you arbitrarily pick has a self-evident superiority. Your response to #4 also confuses me. It's not a rebuttal. The idea that the average consumer is targeted in every instance is demonstrably false in just about every market with multiple products or competitors. Companies choose a target audience to pursue based on their long term goals as well as feasibility of catering to that audience. Super Mario Run is not targeted towards the Free To Play audience. It is targeted towards the audience that is willing to pay for it, which obviously exists based on the "Top Grossing" chart. Just because two games, or two pieces of any sort of software are sold on the same platform does not mean that they are targeting the same audience. Just because you see two items in the same department store does not mean they are targeting the same audience. Nintendo chose not to target the audience you think they should have with this particular game, but I've yet to see why that is an outright rejection of that audience(as they have the option of making a F2P Mario game later on if they so choose), or why this decision inherently goes against Nintendo's long term goals or strategy. For #5, I only reiterate my point. A market and an audience are both a lot more specific than just the people who have the ability to use the product.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Most games that are asking you to spend money ten minutes in are posing an option. It'll obviously expedite your progress, but usually you don't actually get gated from the rest of the game. There's an obvious difference between annoying little adverts selling you timer cool-downs and being gated from the rest of the game.How is this any different than all the other games that say free and then ask for money after 15 minutes on the app store? Fuck these people who expected it to be free.
How did Pokémon Shuffle Mobile do?
That's still a thing? I doubt it's doing too well.
Also TPC/Game Freak seems to have slowed down on mobile games because outside of Pokemon Go, they've all been failures and forced to end the services within a year.
Currently #5 Top Grossing app
Ah never mind then! This one doesn't seem to be one of those failures.
Lord of Ostia
Member
You are right that there is disparity, but I'm talking specifically about the crowd who only plays mobile games that are free and won't spend money (either upfront or at all) on any type of game. Those are probably the loudest complainers about the game, and the people Nintendo is least interested in. There's a difference between someone not wanting to spend money at all vs. someone who doesn't want to spend money on mobile but will on console. I do realize that. The OP doesn't make that distinction.I actually disagree with this.
I think there's a wide and obvious disparity between how the general public values things like mobile games and consoles. Just because someone disregards the former doesn't mean they're hopeless towards the latter.
More_Badass
Member
Currently #5 Top Grossing appHow did Pokémon Shuffle Mobile do?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
What? No it's not. That's Pokemon GO that's #5.Currently #5 Top Grossing app
The kind of consumer that won't spend $10 on a quality phone game is the kind of consumer who won't spend $200+ on Nintendo's next console, nor $50+ on their new games. Nintendo isn't trying to reach that market, they are trying to reach the market that is on mobile that is willing to shell out money for more of their products if they can be convinced that there is value there. The purpose of SMR is to encourage visibility for the brand so more people buy Switch.
Again, it only makes sense that you won't convince anyone to engage with your brand by alienating them from your brand at first. This goes way beyond Nintendo's hardware & software market. The problem is most people that are willing to buy SMR are more than likely already part of your console market because they are conditioned to that model. But as soon as you make a title F2P, the range & amount of audiences you can reach becomes humongous (especially if you have a brand like Mario) and if you only convince even a small percent of these people the resulting benefit is really big. And that is ultimately the goal, you won't ever convince everyone or even the majority to engage with your brand.
Pokemon GO being F2P and successfully propping up 3DS & Sun/Moon are only proving how true this is.
Yes, there is obviously an audience who wants to get things for free and isn't interested in spending a dime. He's trying to explain to you that Nintendo isn't interested in that audience, atleast for SMR, hence why they priced the game at $10.
It is only in their best interest and they won't ever reach the goal they set themselves by limiting their brand like this.
Solid SOAP
Member
I'm gonna buy it because I'm a sucker for Mario and I'm willing to bet it's a solidly made game, but the $10 price-tag was a very weird move, especially considering you can't play the damn thing offline, ultimately making a premium-priced game not feel very premium.
That, and what if when I eventually move onto a new phone or something? What if when phones become outdated? It feels like I'm buying something I don't actually own, as opposed to purchasing something for, say, the 3DS, where I definitely will always own that system. Even buying games off the eshop feels more like ownership simply because I don't need an internet connection to play them; one download and I own them forever. I'm not keeping my phone around just to play Mario Run.
We'll see how the actual sales go. I can't imagine it selling poorly, but I don't expect this thing to be a gangbusters blowout for Nintendo. It'll be a cute endeavor that mostly kids will enjoy. Few adults are gonna shell out $10 for a Mario game they can play on their phone when they can play Angry Birds for free.
That, and what if when I eventually move onto a new phone or something? What if when phones become outdated? It feels like I'm buying something I don't actually own, as opposed to purchasing something for, say, the 3DS, where I definitely will always own that system. Even buying games off the eshop feels more like ownership simply because I don't need an internet connection to play them; one download and I own them forever. I'm not keeping my phone around just to play Mario Run.
We'll see how the actual sales go. I can't imagine it selling poorly, but I don't expect this thing to be a gangbusters blowout for Nintendo. It'll be a cute endeavor that mostly kids will enjoy. Few adults are gonna shell out $10 for a Mario game they can play on their phone when they can play Angry Birds for free.
Pokemon Go was also something big.
There have been a ton of F2P Pokemon games on mobile, some even linking with arcades in Japan. All failed and did nothing to prop up Pokemon sales at all.
EDIT: Also what helped Pokemon Go be as big as it was is how unlike any other mobile title in the world, it resonated with millions of people. It was unprecedented for a mobile title to hit number 1 top grossing game across every territory it was out in at the same time.
There have been a ton of F2P Pokemon games on mobile, some even linking with arcades in Japan. All failed and did nothing to prop up Pokemon sales at all.
EDIT: Also what helped Pokemon Go be as big as it was is how unlike any other mobile title in the world, it resonated with millions of people. It was unprecedented for a mobile title to hit number 1 top grossing game across every territory it was out in at the same time.
More_Badass
Member
Oh, got my Pokemon games confused. You're rightWhat? No it's not. That's Pokemon GO that's #5.
More_Badass
Member
There are hundreds of mobile games that aren't like that, that you could also spend time with. Or is this the first you've tried? I did notice quite a few posters in the OT saying how this is the game that finally got them to play a mobile game, so you never knowI'm glad Nintendo hasn't gone with what the masses want. You are probably correct OP but those practices are disgusting and why this will be the only mobile game I intend to actually spend a bit of time with
Potential and actuality for two very differnt things. We're talking a paid game on mobile, and the expectations and audiences are different on this platform, whether it's indie, AAA/classic port like XCOM and Baldur's Gate, or a Mario runner.
If we're talking about the audience for and expectations about premium mobile games, and paying $5, $7, $10 for a mobile game, the only data points are indie games, ports, and board game adaptations. On this platform, Mario (and it being a runner) is the outlier here.
No, it's not.
Rayman Jungle Run is free to try on Windows and I have a platformer on Android that is free to try and then asks you to pay after the first three levels.
Actually, the free to start freeware model is quite standard on Windows. Standard enough that most people probably don't actually care that Super Mario Run is free to try and that anyone that does care are likely outliers and wouldn't spend any money in the game in the first place.
Why it's so difficult to understand? You receive a notification from Apple or you browse the app store on your iPhone and you see there is a Mario game. "Wow, it's free!" (unless you scroll to read all the details). You download it and start playing it. 3 and a half levels later boom! $10 or you can't play further! 1 star!
You don't need that much imagination to put yourself in these people's shoes.
I get that there's an initial sticker shock element involved, and from what others have said it sounds like this has something to do with App Store limitations and retaining user attention by not sending them to the store twice for a demo and the full version.
I probably won't ever really get the mindset that leads to such vitriolic reactions though. But I guess I'm an outlier. I've paid money on other platforms for multiple games that I previously got free on iOS just so I could play them without any f2p BS.
Consumer's buy it, so it must be consumer friendly! Nothing that reaches the mass-market could possibly be anti-consumer, right? You can make an argument that Nintendo could make more money going FTP, but trying to warp that into FTP games being more consumer friendly then pay and forget games is disingenuous.
The money's only there for a few, but it can be argued that nintendo could be one of the few.
Is there even a lot of profits from FTP titles? Iirc a very very large majority of FTP games on iOS don't make much money at all. Also a system designed to buckle and dime the consumer is not pro-consumer, it's anti consumer.
The money's only there for a few, but it can be argued that nintendo could be one of the few.
There are hundreds of mobile games that aren't like that, that you could also spend time with. Or is this the first you've tried? I did notice quite a few posters in the OT saying how this is the game that finally got them to play a mobile game, so you never know
This is the first in a while (outside of Game Dev Story really) that I intend to play. I already don't find the idea of gaming on my phone particularly appealing, and my problem is that I have no real patience for digging around the app store when there are already so many things to play elsewhere in the console space where I don't have to do that. Super Mario Run being by Nintendo is really the only thing that drew me into trying this game, and I'm very glad that it's actually pretty good because Nintendo purposely didn't do all of the monetization stuff that the other games try to pull.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Eh I dont agree. They bout to flip how this shit work. They couldve released 5 games all at once and all 5 would take the top 5 spots. Yall buggin
Pokemon GO being F2P and successfully propping up 3DS & Sun/Moon are only proving how true this is.
I'm admittedly out of the loop when it comes to Pokemon GO, but you keep saying this and it's really making me curious. Did Pokemon GO really have that big of an effect on Sun and Moon?
I'm admittedly out of the loop when it comes to Pokemon GO, but you keep saying this and it's really making me curious. Did Pokemon GO really have that big of an effect on Sun and Moon?
It actually did, yeah. Nintendo came out and said it was one of the fastest selling and beating out Black and White. But TPC/Nintendo also did a great job with the flow of new information of Pokemon Sun and Moon, right down to the timing of region variants. It was smart and full of synergy. Hardware sales were even up, and ORAS and X/Y even came back into the NPD charts over the summer and those games are a year or two old.
KojiKnight
Member
There are hundreds of mobile games that aren't like that, that you could also spend time with. Or is this the first you've tried? I did notice quite a few posters in the OT saying how this is the game that finally got them to play a mobile game, so you never know
And how many of those are top grossing?
I'm admittedly out of the loop when it comes to Pokemon GO, but you keep saying this and it's really making me curious. Did Pokemon GO really have that big of an effect on Sun and Moon?
It certainly be surmised that Pokemon Go increased brand awareness and demand for a full fledged title. But we don't have any hard data to support any claims about its effects on Sun and Moon aside from circumstantial data.
ZSaberLink
Media Create Maven
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.
Isn't this a bit premature? The game's been out for a bit over 24 hours, and thus far has a 10% conversion rate on people purchasing the game (which is great btw). We'll see if that lasts though. Nintendo thinks IAP and everything else is anti-consumer (which it is). Counting on whales is often preying on people who have no self-control. Some can probably afford it, sure, but I'm sure plenty can't.
We clearly know there is a market on phones that wants free games. That's fine. However, there is likely also a market for paid products. Minecraft Pocket Edition still seems to do well at $7. Mario Run is likely going to be a good barometer that proves whether there is a decent enough market for these kind of things.
Nintendo never likes going with the flow, and thus they're trying something different. If they don't now with their first title, they'll never be able to.
Also like others said, Nintendo's mobile games are for brand awareness, not just for profits. They have an ulterior motive, thus they're trying something different.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Yeah, I haven't even heard any outrage about the price, at least not much to be worried aboutPricing outrage? It sold half a million copies in a day, no?
More_Badass
Member
What does that have to do with quality?And how many of those are top grossing?
What about us gamers though who hate avoid the normal mobile FTP games because they are either unbalanced in favor of those who pay or end up costing way more longterm if you want to enjoy the game without ads, grinding ect.
I wish years ago I could have paid $9.99 for Sonic Dash vs all the money I spent in that game. I don't even want to think about it.
I wish years ago I could have paid $9.99 for Sonic Dash vs all the money I spent in that game. I don't even want to think about it.
I've posted this in other threads already so sorry if this is a rerun for some.
I agree with the OP in the fact that this should not have been a single in-app purchase. But I disagree that F2P was the only logical way to do it.
I feel that it would have been fine if they simply had:
1) given us all of World 1 for free, and
2) sold additional worlds for $1.99 each.
The folks spending $9.99 now would have had no problem buying all 5. But they also would have picked up additional business from folks who just wanted a little bit more. $2 is a typical amount for an in-app purchase, so it would not have seemed as alien to the casual mobile crowd.
But honestly, I think the bigger issue with Super Mario Run in general is its design as a score-attack game. Let's be real, that is what it is. I love that sort of game, but most casual gamers nowadays are looking for a game where they complete a level and move on to the next one. SMR is not that sort of game, and if someone plays it with the intent of just completing all the levels, they are done within an hour.
Pricing isn't everything. If SMR was designed as a 32-course game where the focus was simply clearing levels, it might have gone over better, even at the same price.
EDIT: Their approach could also have been different, more reflective of the mobile market. They could have released two separate apps: a $9.99 paid version that contained the full game, and a free demo that only contained the 3 levels and was clearly marked "LITE" or "DEMO." That is in your face and impossible to miss. Many folks' outrage stems from the fact that they see "free with in-app purchases" and assume that it's free-to-play, because that's how almost every other game is.
The difference is that all those other games' prompts for money can be ignored if desired, and you can continue playing them. You might have to wait 10-30 minutes, you might have to perform a different task to earn in-game currency, but most F2P games allow you to play for free somehow, rather than putting up a full-stop paywall.
I agree with the OP in the fact that this should not have been a single in-app purchase. But I disagree that F2P was the only logical way to do it.
I feel that it would have been fine if they simply had:
1) given us all of World 1 for free, and
2) sold additional worlds for $1.99 each.
The folks spending $9.99 now would have had no problem buying all 5. But they also would have picked up additional business from folks who just wanted a little bit more. $2 is a typical amount for an in-app purchase, so it would not have seemed as alien to the casual mobile crowd.
But honestly, I think the bigger issue with Super Mario Run in general is its design as a score-attack game. Let's be real, that is what it is. I love that sort of game, but most casual gamers nowadays are looking for a game where they complete a level and move on to the next one. SMR is not that sort of game, and if someone plays it with the intent of just completing all the levels, they are done within an hour.
Pricing isn't everything. If SMR was designed as a 32-course game where the focus was simply clearing levels, it might have gone over better, even at the same price.
EDIT: Their approach could also have been different, more reflective of the mobile market. They could have released two separate apps: a $9.99 paid version that contained the full game, and a free demo that only contained the 3 levels and was clearly marked "LITE" or "DEMO." That is in your face and impossible to miss. Many folks' outrage stems from the fact that they see "free with in-app purchases" and assume that it's free-to-play, because that's how almost every other game is.
How is this any different than all the other games that say free and then ask for money after 15 minutes on the app store?
The difference is that all those other games' prompts for money can be ignored if desired, and you can continue playing them. You might have to wait 10-30 minutes, you might have to perform a different task to earn in-game currency, but most F2P games allow you to play for free somehow, rather than putting up a full-stop paywall.
ZSaberLink
Media Create Maven
Watch the reviews and wait some weeks. And I already said it will make them money but the opportunity cost & overall opportunity on their brand will be huge by staying behind an atypical "pay-wall".
Fireproof and Ustwo are not games from the Mario brand. The audience is so much bigger and as a result completely different and that's why this disconnect exists. I addressed this in the OP.
Also I don't think you know how reviews work. Typically if you don't have a "do you want to rate Mario run" in the game, the people who will review the app will either review it 5 stars or 1 star. Why? Because you either have to be so impressed you want to leave a review, or pissed off and want to leave the review (and there's always more of these). If you merely like or dislike the game, you're much less likely to leave any reviews. This kind of stuff happens all the time at launch lol.
Devaluing their IP by giving them away for free on mobile would be much worse.
This doesn't happen. Look at Pokemon Go. Completely free to play and the IP is more popular than it's ever been (see above for its positive effect on Sun Moon sales).
ZSaberLink
Media Create Maven
You keep comparing indie games to a Mario game. Stop. There is an audience for this price model but it is extremely limited and not suited for one of the biggest brands in gaming where the potential is on a whole different level.
Is this a better example then? Minecraft Pocket Edition, priced at $7, sold 30 MILLION units by the beginning of 2015. Mojang explicitly used the word "buy".
Yes, there is a paid market out there on iOS. What titles can tap into that market is question.
https://mojang.com/2015/01/youve-bought-pocket-edition-many-many-times/
I don't know how often I will have to repeat myself. You just proved again why my point remains true and the F2P model is indeed beneficial for the average consumer.
The fallacy, or to be kind the point of contention, being that the model is therefore beneficial for the average consumer. The argument being that it encourages bad game design, IE an inferior product.