Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake

I was glad when they announced it would be a flat fee. I paid 10 dollars for, beat it in like an hour and now I feel ripped off. 10 dollars was way to much for the amount of content in the game.
It's what I thought I wanted and I was wrong. If they could have worked a F2P aspect into the game for the toad rally stuff or in game currency maybe it would have been different, can't really say.
 
Consumers in the mobile market need to be re-conditioned into expecting and accepting paying for titles. What the mobile market is now is an unsustainable garbage fire, and Nintendo is right to take the high road and go against the grain, the more 'premium' games that provide a more traditional flat fee, the better - there are many, many games that can't work in a F2P environment.
 
I was glad when they announced it would be a flat fee. I paid 10 dollars for, beat it in like an hour and now I feel ripped off. 10 dollars was way to much for the amount of content in the game.
It's what I thought I wanted and I was wrong. If they could have worked a F2P aspect into the game for the toad rally stuff or in game currency maybe it would have been different, can't really say.

No need to feel ripped off.

Request a refund from Apple and they will give you one.
 
I was glad when they announced it would be a flat fee. I paid 10 dollars for, beat it in like an hour and now I feel ripped off. 10 dollars was way to much for the amount of content in the game.
It's what I thought I wanted and I was wrong. If they could have worked a F2P aspect into the game for the toad rally stuff or in game currency maybe it would have been different, can't really say.

You're telling me you collected every single coin in every single level in one hour? Hot damn.
 
Consumers in the mobile market need to be re-conditioned into expecting and accepting paying for titles. What the mobile market is now is an unsustainable garbage fire, and Nintendo is right to take the high road and go against the grain, the more 'premium' games that provide a more traditional flat fee, the better - there are many, many games that can't work in a F2P environment.

This. I hope more will follow. If this was F2P I wouldn't have played it.
 
"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."

I am barfing everywhere. There is so much barf. I am the drowning. In barf. Because it's everywhere.

the consumers that don't want micro transactions probably don't bother with mobile gaming, until now.

Mario Run is the biggest app launch in history, so your arguments seem a bit outdated
 
You're telling me you collected every single coin in every single level in one hour? Hot damn.

100% completion is not the measure of a games length. The coins are a way to artificially make the game seem longer, like collectables in any game. If you enjoy finding them, that's fine. Your not the majority on that tho.

Also I didn't want to replay every level in the game searching for coins, because I had litterally just beat them. It's not like I'm going back to level one after 8-10 hours of other levels. It was like ok I guess I can replay this level that I already beat like an hour ago. The paths are still very similar, there is no variation in the level design other than the coin placement. It was just a very shallow feature.
 
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.

And this my friends is exactly the kind of shortsighted dissonance that brought us the election of Donald "drain the swamp!" Trump.
 
100% completion is not the measure of a games length. The coins are a way to artificially make the game seem longer, like collectables in any game. If you enjoy finding them, that's fine. Your not the majority on that tho.

Also I didn't want to replay every level in the game searching for coins, because I had litterally just beat them. It's not like I'm going back to level one after 8-10 hours of other levels. It was like ok I guess I can replay this level that I already beat like an hour ago. The paths are still very similar, there is no variation in the level design other than the coin placement. It was just a very shallow feature.

you won't get the full depth of the game unless you're trying to get those coins. they're the game's missions. it feels like an action puzzle game at times. unfortunately you don't get it. enjoy being in the "majority on that tho."

hold tight to that. oh it's such a precious thing
 
Nintendo doesnt really need the "trust" of people that are offended by a Mario game costing 10 bucks...lol.
 
100% completion is not the measure of a games length. The coins are a way to artificially make the game seem longer, like collectables in any game. If you enjoy finding them, that's fine. Your not the majority on that tho.

Also I didn't want to replay every level in the game searching for coins, because I had litterally just beat them. It's not like I'm going back to level one after 8-10 hours of other levels. It was like ok I guess I can replay this level that I already beat like an hour ago. The paths are still very similar, there is no variation in the level design other than the coin placement. It was just a very shallow feature.
Bruv, this isn't a regular Mario game where the coins are supplemental. Mario was always going to make it to the end of the level in an auto runner. The coins are literally the game and as far as reports say is where the depth, design, and difficulty is. As it is, it seems you're just mad there's not more backgrounds for you to watch Mario run through, try playing the game.
 
100% completion is not the measure of a games length. The coins are a way to artificially make the game seem longer, like collectables in any game. If you enjoy finding them, that's fine. Your not the majority on that tho.

Also I didn't want to replay every level in the game searching for coins, because I had litterally just beat them. It's not like I'm going back to level one after 8-10 hours of other levels. It was like ok I guess I can replay this level that I already beat like an hour ago. The paths are still very similar, there is no variation in the level design other than the coin placement. It was just a very shallow feature.

You were expecting full Mario experience for $10 which is already weird on it's own, but also fully knowing that this was a mobile runner game. Sorry it's your own fault for not really realising what you were getting into. You are supposed to hunt for those coins and play Toad Rally to get your fill of the game. It's a short bursts game and not intended to be a big engaging experience
 
I guess by OP's weird logic a hypothetical phone with a really cheap battery that has the drawback of randomly exploding on 10% of the users is very consumer friendly. Because for the average consumer (the 90% that don't get hurt) it's a very cheap phone.
 
I guess by OP's weird logic a hypothetical phone with a really cheap battery that has the drawback of randomly exploding on 10% of the users is very consumer friendly. Because for the average consumer (the 90% that don't get hurt) it's a very cheap phone.
Free to play games don't randomly explode lol
 
I'd rather have an upfront app price. Having it as 'dlc' means I have to buy it three times if my kids want to play the full game, whereas an upfront fee means only paying once with family sharing
 
I still think it feels like a 'typical' mobile title. It has all the trappings of one. Not saying that it's bad, but I don't think this is anything but a mobile game by Nintendo. Not a Nintendo game on mobile.
 
you won't get the full depth of the game unless you're trying to get those coins. they're the game's missions. it feels like an action puzzle game at times. unfortunately you don't get it. enjoy being in the "majority on that tho."

hold tight to that. oh it's such a precious thing

If you think moving a few coins around makes it worth the money, then so be. No need to be so salty about it. It sounds like your more upset than I am. I guess I'm going to go replay Uncharted 4, apparently I didn't actual beat the game because I didn't waste 10 hours trying to solve the "action puzzles" that are locating the games collectibles.
 
Bruv, this isn't a regular Mario game where the coins are supplemental. Mario was always going to make it to the end of the level in an auto runner. The coins are literally the game and as far as reports say is where the depth, design, and difficulty is. As it is, it seems you're just mad there's not more backgrounds for you to watch Mario run through, try playing the game.

More backgrounds to run through? Is that what you think of the design of Mario levels? I feel sorry for you then, youre missing so much of what makes Mario games great. Im glad Mario Maker let people make these really great "backgrounds to watch Mario run through".
 
You were expecting full Mario experience for $10 which is already weird on it's own, but also fully knowing that this was a mobile runner game. Sorry it's your own fault for not really realising what you were getting into. You are supposed to hunt for those coins and play Toad Rally to get your fill of the game. It's a short bursts game and not intended to be a big engaging experience

No, I was expecting a mobile Mario experience. Mobile does not mean short.
 
More backgrounds to run through? Is that what you think of the design of Mario levels? I feel sorry for you then, youre missing so much of what makes Mario games great. Im glad Mario Maker let people make these really great "backgrounds to watch Mario run through".
Why do you keep comparing a mobile game designed as a mobile game to a console game? Why do you think miyamato kept doing things with one hand? In this game, yes you're literally watching Mario run through backgrounds if you're not going for coins since it's an auto runner. But if that's what you want, maybe you should go back to uncharted.
 
100% completion is not the measure of a games length. The coins are a way to artificially make the game seem longer, like collectables in any game. If you enjoy finding them, that's fine. Your not the majority on that tho.

Also I didn't want to replay every level in the game searching for coins, because I had litterally just beat them. It's not like I'm going back to level one after 8-10 hours of other levels. It was like ok I guess I can replay this level that I already beat like an hour ago. The paths are still very similar, there is no variation in the level design other than the coin placement. It was just a very shallow feature.
Getting the coins is the meat of the game.
It's a huge part of the design.
You may not like it but it's what the game is all about.
Just like the other modern 2D Marios.
 
Getting the coins is the meat of the game.
It's a huge part of the design.
You may not like it but it's what the game is all about.
Just like the other modern 2D Marios.

I downloaded the game today and got all 9 coinsets on the first 3 levels and it was a lot of fun although sometimes a bit too much trial and error based in terms of just not knowing where the coins are until you've passed them or they are hidden in some random block. That being said, I'm still wary of the $10 purchase price. We will see if I have the itch to keep playing.
 
I downloaded the game today and got all 9 coinsets on the first 3 levels and it was a lot of fun although sometimes a bit too much trial and error based in terms of just not knowing where the coins are until you've passed them or they are hidden in some random block. That being said, I'm still wary of the $10 purchase price. We will see if I have the itch to keep playing.
Yeah, it IS a lot of trial and error and memorization but the beauty of the game is getting all the sets of coins and the highly replayable Toad Rally mode.
Some of the later level coins require crazy technique to get them.
 
Yeah I can imagine it getting pretty insane with later levels. That alone will probably make me take the plunge and buy it soon because I do feel the challenge is there.

Edit: I will also say the idea of someone paying $10 for this game and laughing at the idea of collecting the coins is kind of hilarious to me. It's obvious that is where the bulk of the game challenge and replayability is.
 
I think Nintendo could make an absolute killing for 2-3 years if they decided to go full Zynga with their mobile games. I also think there would be a pretty good chance that they would be completely out of business within a decade if they did that.

The mainstream f2p industry is extremely fickle, quality is no guarantee of success, and even developers who find success with one title haven't been able to reliably move their audience to a new title when sales start to fade. Nintendo is on top of that world right now, but only because of the novelty of having a company with their pedegree working in that space. It won't last forever.

As to the number of levels, it seems like the system they have set up is similar to the Rayman runners, and it also seems like those offered more variety. I haven't played myself yet though, I'm waiting for the Android version.
 
Consumers in the mobile market need to be re-conditioned into expecting and accepting paying for titles. What the mobile market is now is an unsustainable garbage fire, and Nintendo is right to take the high road and go against the grain, the more 'premium' games that provide a more traditional flat fee, the better - there are many, many games that can't work in a F2P environment.

This this and a thousand time this.
"Mobile consumers" are mostly garbage that don't understand a thing and need to be taught the value of software (and hardware).
 
I was glad when they announced it would be a flat fee. I paid 10 dollars for, beat it in like an hour and now I feel ripped off. 10 dollars was way to much for the amount of content in the game.
It's what I thought I wanted and I was wrong. If they could have worked a F2P aspect into the game for the toad rally stuff or in game currency maybe it would have been different, can't really say.

Guess I'll be skipping this then. Thanks for the impressions.
 
Guess I'll be skipping this then. Thanks for the impressions.

I haven't even bought the game yet but I spent well over an hour on the first 3 levels going for the sets of coins. It would seem like that poster just ran through the entire game without trying any of the difficult mechanics which isn't a great impression (being nice here) unless that is how you would go about playing it.
 
I was glad when they announced it would be a flat fee. I paid 10 dollars for, beat it in like an hour and now I feel ripped off. 10 dollars was way to much for the amount of content in the game.
It's what I thought I wanted and I was wrong. If they could have worked a F2P aspect into the game for the toad rally stuff or in game currency maybe it would have been different, can't really say.
Congrats, you beat the game at kids difficulty level. Now grow a pair and play the real game.
 
Consumers in the mobile market need to be re-conditioned into expecting and accepting paying for titles. What the mobile market is now is an unsustainable garbage fire, and Nintendo is right to take the high road and go against the grain, the more 'premium' games that provide a more traditional flat fee, the better - there are many, many games that can't work in a F2P environment.

Entering a market with the expectation that you can change consumer behavior is the #1 way to get run the fuck out of town.

Nintendo will probably do fine with Super Mario Run. They would do far better if they focused on a F2P model (even if it comes at the game's detriment).
 
I see it's not only analogies you're bad at 😂

You need it to get explained to you? Several people in this thread wrote that the F2P business model isn't pro consumer because it's made to get people to pour unhealthy amounts of money into the game with microtransactions. To which OP responded that for the average consumer, who doesn't pay anything, it's pro consumer because it's free. That logic is what my post was referring to.
 
To clarify something, i don't think you fully understand Nintendo's mobile strategy. Mobile, as of now at least, is first and foremost a marketing platform.

They are using it as a way to introduce new audiences to their IPs. Then, they leverage that increase awareness to up-sell consumers into their "owned" ecosystems, which as of now, is more valuable to their current company structure (I.e their size of in-house talent, mostly assets from studios they own. Assets = people and IP.)

This has pay dividends so far... Pokémon is their most successful platform launch in IP history, and Mario has 20million "opt-in" registrations. That's 20 million people they can now re-target to convert to their future titles. And at $10 for a mobile purchase, they minimize risk of devaluation of the software within their own ecosystem... it's less of an up-sell for consumers now aware.

So, nailing it.

Mass revenue off mobile isn't their stated objective yet, maybe down the line but that's an entirely different strategy and they are aware of that. But for now, they can keep their company structure and size and leverage new awareness with younger demos (and parents), that mobile will bring, instead of Having to restructure their studios to support real, full time mobile development (much smaller teams, with a focus on post launch (so fewer new launches) and life-cycle monetization which is mostly data driven and not design driven, think major layoffs and more data scientists).
 
Another way to look at it, it's similar to how major publishers have re-imagined "Betas"- which are primary marketing and acquisition tools (I've seen ranges of 40-50% of Beta players "near launch" concert to purchases. Drive beta, drive pickup).

Nintendo doesn't have the titles nor the infrastructure to do large scale Betas - your mind would be blown at the cost and resources it takes to do one with millions of players - so in their case, they fish where their audience is (mobile), with a similar strategy but a much more efficient delivery method (where apple carries much of the infrastructure costs, and dev costs are significantly lower) and targeting is much better for them since it's this young demo that they are hemorrhaging on their owned platforms.
 
Not everything has to be the same. The game is getting plenty of sales and downloads. I applaud Nintendo for not polluting their game with or and ripping people off with microtransactions. Nintendo creates premium products, if you want them you pay a premium price, if not then don't play them. The world would be a lot less interesting if every mom and pop became a wal-mart, or if every restaurant was a McDonalds regardless of how profitable those things are. Good for Nintendo for not further diluting the value of their games for a quick buck, I wish more firms would follow suit. The idea that every. Single. Thing. Anyone does should be solely based on maximizing profit is frankly insulting. If some entitled babies want to rage because they feel entitled to free software (not really free if a decent experience is walled behind microtransactions) then they don't have to play. Clearly given that it's the top grossing game on the apple store plenty of people have done so. Who cares about the bad reviews from butthurt Cheapskates when most of them have nothing to do with the games quality?
 
100% completion is not the measure of a games length. The coins are a way to artificially make the game seem longer, like collectables in any game. If you enjoy finding them, that's fine. Your not the majority on that tho.

Also I didn't want to replay every level in the game searching for coins, because I had litterally just beat them. It's not like I'm going back to level one after 8-10 hours of other levels. It was like ok I guess I can replay this level that I already beat like an hour ago. The paths are still very similar, there is no variation in the level design other than the coin placement. It was just a very shallow feature.

Collectables are kind of the meat and potatoes of 2D platformers and the coin placement makes you play the same levels differently.
 
It's not surprising to see Nintendo fumble their mobile effort. Instead of catering to the market as it is, they're trying to force the market to change. I don't have a problem with a 10 dollar price tag, but I play video games... guess what: people who only play phone games aren't paying 10 dollars for a phone game. And offering 3 levels for free before asking for money for the rest of the game feels deceptive.
 
It's not surprising to see Nintendo fumble their mobile effort. Instead of catering to the market as it is, they're trying to force the market to change. I don't have a problem with a 10 dollar price tag, but I play video games... guess what: people who only play phone games aren't paying 10 dollars for a phone game. And offering 3 levels for free before asking for money for the rest of the game feels deceptive.
"Phone games" are video games, unless you thnk "personal computer games" aren't video games as well

And just because one plays on mobile doesn't mean they don't also play on console and PC (ie people on this forum)
 
100% completion is not the measure of a games length. The coins are a way to artificially make the game seem longer, like collectables in any game. If you enjoy finding them, that's fine. Your not the majority on that tho.

Also I didn't want to replay every level in the game searching for coins, because I had litterally just beat them. It's not like I'm going back to level one after 8-10 hours of other levels. It was like ok I guess I can replay this level that I already beat like an hour ago. The paths are still very similar, there is no variation in the level design other than the coin placement. It was just a very shallow feature.

I don't wholly disagree with you, but while I generally loath finding collectables in platformers, I really enjoy them in this game. I think it's a combination of them being easy to actually find (but difficult to catch) + the overall short level length. It feels much more like an execution challenge—and a well-designed one at that—than a scavenger hunt.
 
Not hidden micro transactions and having just one nominal fee to unlock the entire game is textbook pro-consumer. Not only that, it's kid friendly and parents can pay the one time fee to unlock the entire game and their child can play it to their hearts content.

So I think your entire premise is wrong.
 
Nintendo is experimenting with different types of models, really. It doesn't even matter if this one doesn't have F2P, to be honest. Another game will and another game won't.

There's a market for multiple types of models on mobile including free to start like Mario Run, as explained by a lot of people in this thread. Mario Run isn't F2P cause they chose not too and that is fine.
 
Not hidden micro transactions and having just one nominal fee to unlock the entire game is textbook pro-consumer. Not only that, it's kid friendly and parents can pay the one time fee to unlock the entire game and their child can play it to their hearts content.

So I think your entire premise is wrong.

The OPs premise is also based on the assumption that Nintendo is producing mobile games primarily to generate revenue in the mobile market, whereas several of us in this thread and Nintendo themselves have clearly pointed out that is not the case.

The primary goal of these games is to expose more people to Nintendo brands in such a way that it drives them to their dedicated hardware ecosystem, and based on Pokemon driving amazing 3DS sales and unprecedented mainline Pokemon sales I think this is a very, very sound strategy.
 
Maybe just maybe those people live in countries where 10$ could buy you 3 dinners or in some cases several days worth of food.

If food is scarce for your budget then maybe you shouldn't buy a super expensive device that amounts to 233 meals. Using your metric and logic.
 
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.
Selling gameplay content isn't necessarily bad either, Again, it's all about execution, and giving the player a fair deal. I again point to Rusty's Real Deal Baseball, it's a game about haggling a salesman to get a cheaper price on baseball mini-games. If you're good, you'd only need to spend around $15 on the whole game. This works because it gives the player a fair shot at paying what THEY feel a game should be worth, rather than punishing you for not spending more money.
 
Top Bottom