Except for Nintendo when they laid out their whole reasoning for going mobile.
One could argue SMR isn't really about selling the game rather than selling value.
Basically, what he said.
Nintendo's mobile efforts not being typical mobile-F2P titles is a mistake
- Thread starter sanstesy
- Start date
One could argue SMR isn't really about selling the game rather than selling value.
Wowfunhappy
Member
This doesn't really work.
F2P relies on a few whales spending enough money to subsidize the majority paying for free. That means the upper limit on how much an individual can spend needs to be a lot higher than $10.
If everything can be unlocked for $10, why would anyone ever spend more than that?
The Hermit
Member
Yup
This and Pokémon Go are Trojan horses
Also F2p ggo against the whole idea from Iwata that mobile is devaluing games, so in the long run it would hurt Nintendo's console and games.
On the topic of F2P and whales, Pokemon Go uses a different model that most F2P games don't do. See, most F2P games do have a habit of going after only whales, they aim narrow and big. Meanwhile Pokemon Go aims small and wide. What this means is anyone can afford to buy the microtransactions instead of just the whales. And Pokemon Go has made serious profit from that wide net.
Nintendo is open to F2P and free to start type of games and found on the 3DS eShop. TheMisterManGuy on the previous page (50ppp) brought up Rusty's Real Deal Baseball and that's a great example of doing F2P well. There are other good and bad examples as well as they experiment with the model.
Nintendo's not unaware or purely against the model, it depends on the implementation and if they feel it works for the game they're making. They simply chose not to have F2P in Mario run, and in all likely cases because they felt it would interfere or disrupt the gameplay loop they're going for with SMR. The meat of the game are the coins, they are the in-game currency to build your town, and they are collectables for unique challenges for unlockables and replayability. Shoving microtransactions into that would disrupt the loop which they likely felt was no good.
Nintendo is open to F2P and free to start type of games and found on the 3DS eShop. TheMisterManGuy on the previous page (50ppp) brought up Rusty's Real Deal Baseball and that's a great example of doing F2P well. There are other good and bad examples as well as they experiment with the model.
Nintendo's not unaware or purely against the model, it depends on the implementation and if they feel it works for the game they're making. They simply chose not to have F2P in Mario run, and in all likely cases because they felt it would interfere or disrupt the gameplay loop they're going for with SMR. The meat of the game are the coins, they are the in-game currency to build your town, and they are collectables for unique challenges for unlockables and replayability. Shoving microtransactions into that would disrupt the loop which they likely felt was no good.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Being saying this day 1 since Nintedo announced they were going mobile - people called such a statement stupid, glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way
Skittzo0413
Member
I mean, Nintendo themselves have quite clearly and explicitly said this too, several times. And it very clearly works, looking at Pokemon. I'm not sure why anyone is doubting it at this point.
That isn't really the case at all.
SturokBGD
Member
We had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake but it's OK because he got in on an NCIS spinoff.
Mobile gaming is marketing personified!
So Argumentum ad populum? You know that's a fallacy right?
Crazyorloco
Member
On android I think Nintendo should keep those three levels as a demo and have the 10 dollar paid version separate.
There are no demos in IOS right? I'm thinking that's why they did it like this.
There are levels in the game you can't reach without getting enough of the special coins. So yeah... it's a pretty important part of the whole game and should be taken into consideration when talking about game length.
And as the poster below me says... you should probably get a refund. This looks like it isn't for you.
There are no demos in IOS right? I'm thinking that's why they did it like this.
There are levels in the game you can't reach without getting enough of the special coins. So yeah... it's a pretty important part of the whole game and should be taken into consideration when talking about game length.
And as the poster below me says... you should probably get a refund. This looks like it isn't for you.
You completely missed the point of the game. Ask Apple for a refund.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Yea... and I'm not "speculating" either so, no reason to Accept anyone calling that line of thinking "stupid" - just shows that that person isn't paying attention haha
It was when the game first launched and everyone was playing, don't know if that's still true.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
Just because consumers want something doesn't mean it's pro consumer. If they are lead to believe in something anticonsumer it doesn't magically become right.
Also, why do you care so much about Nintendo's bottom dollar? That's their business, we give them money for good games regardless of profitability, not the other way around.
Also, why do you care so much about Nintendo's bottom dollar? That's their business, we give them money for good games regardless of profitability, not the other way around.
I mean these aren't exactly some hot takes guys. Its exactly what Nintendo have admitted they want to do and has been reported on ad nauseam for over a year.
If people have been calling anything stupid I very much doubt its defining what Nintendo's initial intentions are, as much as the likelihood of its success over a longer period, the tradeoff against normal mobile monetisation, or where they're likely headed next.
We've gone from a no paid DLC, no F2P, no mobile Nintendo. Every step of the way Nintendo, and their fans on here are elsewhere have been making arguments as to why they'd never do any of those things. As they have slowly turned their high level business strategy around there has been a tremendous amount of changing opinions (that dreaded goalpost moving) on why suddenly each change makes sense but how Nintendo won't take yet another step forward.
If you think Nintendo stops now at merely using mobile as a marketing platform you haven't been paying attention.
somecrazymember
Banned
Lol just read the reviews in the app store. Crazy stuff
SolarMystic
Banned
Considering most f2p mobile titles out of a very, very select few are mostly forgotten within months, I think Nintendosony made the right move.
Besides, Pokemon Go shows they are okay with both business models.
Besides, Pokemon Go shows they are okay with both business models.
Riposte
Member
This is my stupid little idea, but why don't they release a 100% free version (or digital pack-in) of SMR on 3DS alongside the mobile one? If the end goal is to get people back on Nintendo hardware, why let anything remain exclusive on mobile? That's the kind of cannibalism you want.
TwiztidElf
Member
How dare Nintendo try and drag mobile gaming out of the F2P gutter it finds itself in!
/ I don't mind mobile gaming, but all the ones I've actually enjoyed and kept playing are ones I've actually paid for.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
It is very, very early in their plans for the mobile platform.
I mean yeah, thats obvious.
ScientificPizza
Banned
Yeah, it's far from unsuccessful. It was basically immediately profitable. Let Nintendo do their games their way. It seems silly to tell them what to do when they're raking in money with this thing. F2P isn't a guarantee to make more money, and ethically it's a lot better than the whale-reliant F2P model
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Review it, review it fairly and state this in the review. I just did it and I agree with what you said in this post
.I think what John Harker said is pretty much on point. It really opens up a lot with their required registrations.
Nintendo's mobile efforts comes off to me as marketing, market research, data collection and putting in the legwork for their future devices and services. They want to make money off mobile games but more so they want to test their planned business models. Im in firm belief that Nintendo wants to build their own ecosystem like the apple and android stores. Nintendo's My Nintendo account system seems indicative of what they want to do. They want to provide membership benefits in cooperation with retail based locations and incentives are the driving force. They want people to congregate to said locations for friend making and general sharing like it is in Japan while strengthening their relations with retail to work together in their efforts.
I feel Pokemon Go was used to research where people congregated most and how their gym locations can influence that. I mean business owners were setting up hot-spots and making Pokemon GO Happy hours and stuff and was a boon to their business. Now what if Nintendo offers the SCD that they patented to every major franchise store and private shops that opts in and said shops can earn virtual items and functions similar to gym and hot-spots for offering internet and SCD connections to the public. They could offer retailers certain exclusives like how they did with Amiibos. Businesses can offer coupons to my Nintendo accounts and then they can use NFC to redeem for like coffee or 10% off on store goods. This will solve how they get the SCDs to provide enough coverage to make cloud gaming possible. This makes it a marketing vehicle for both providers and offers benefits to consumers. I think that incorporating gaming with everyday products, stores and hang out spots really helps in de-stigmatizing gaming as a whole and reduces the reluctance of people in sharing about gaming in social media. I never seen so many people universally posting and talking about game related events before.
This segways into their Mario Run strategy. They want to test their other pricing model. See if enough of the mobile crowd is willing to pay to make it viable. Then there is the always online structure of the game which comes off as being a bit unnecessary to me other than to test market reaction. Who knows maybe each device can act as SCDs for true hive mind structure for many of their uses and provides consumers an incentive such as points for discounts so you can use on games such as Mario Run. I just feel there are still pieces of the puzzle that are missing.
Nintendo's mobile efforts comes off to me as marketing, market research, data collection and putting in the legwork for their future devices and services. They want to make money off mobile games but more so they want to test their planned business models. Im in firm belief that Nintendo wants to build their own ecosystem like the apple and android stores. Nintendo's My Nintendo account system seems indicative of what they want to do. They want to provide membership benefits in cooperation with retail based locations and incentives are the driving force. They want people to congregate to said locations for friend making and general sharing like it is in Japan while strengthening their relations with retail to work together in their efforts.
I feel Pokemon Go was used to research where people congregated most and how their gym locations can influence that. I mean business owners were setting up hot-spots and making Pokemon GO Happy hours and stuff and was a boon to their business. Now what if Nintendo offers the SCD that they patented to every major franchise store and private shops that opts in and said shops can earn virtual items and functions similar to gym and hot-spots for offering internet and SCD connections to the public. They could offer retailers certain exclusives like how they did with Amiibos. Businesses can offer coupons to my Nintendo accounts and then they can use NFC to redeem for like coffee or 10% off on store goods. This will solve how they get the SCDs to provide enough coverage to make cloud gaming possible. This makes it a marketing vehicle for both providers and offers benefits to consumers. I think that incorporating gaming with everyday products, stores and hang out spots really helps in de-stigmatizing gaming as a whole and reduces the reluctance of people in sharing about gaming in social media. I never seen so many people universally posting and talking about game related events before.
This segways into their Mario Run strategy. They want to test their other pricing model. See if enough of the mobile crowd is willing to pay to make it viable. Then there is the always online structure of the game which comes off as being a bit unnecessary to me other than to test market reaction. Who knows maybe each device can act as SCDs for true hive mind structure for many of their uses and provides consumers an incentive such as points for discounts so you can use on games such as Mario Run. I just feel there are still pieces of the puzzle that are missing.
They didn't say that. They are talking about the current strategy, not an eventual one, though.
The folks saying "we need to start teaching mobile gamers the value of software!" are unfortunately falling on deaf ears. The race to the bottom already happened. It's sad, it sucks, yes, we get that. But there's no going back.
At this point, folks are used to F2P game mechanics. The massive player base that doesn't want to spend any money can generate income via in-game advertising. If they hit a paywall, or if they find waiting/advertising to be too inconvenient, they will simply uninstall the app and find a different game to play. There are literally tens of thousands of options that all cost them zero. These people are not suddenly going to say, "you know? I think I'll start paying for my games from now on." They just won't.
Nintendo has never claimed that there will ever be new levels or updates. This may very well be all of Super Mario Run.
The reason I suggested a $2/world pricing scheme was, in part, to leave the door open for more content. Do you think Nintendo is going to willingly expand this game for no additional charge?
So basically, you're telling somebody how they should be enjoying the game.
This may come to you as a shock, but the majority of players in 2016 are not interested in score-attack or similar. If you doubt this, look at gaming sales and trends...I don't need to prove it, this is common knowledge.
The majority of players are interested in progression through levels...which, coincidentally, is a play style that just about every Mario game ever made directly caters to. Super Mario Run is an anomaly, for better or worse.
So you're saying they don't need most mobile gamers, then. Hmmm.
That is an excellent idea. But demos are indeed allowed on iOS. They could have done it that way if they had wanted to. They chose not to.
This is tragic; so many people have come away with the misguided idea that SMR is an anti-consumer cash grab because of how it's presented. They see "free with in-app purchases" and assume F2P. 5 minutes later they find that it's not. They then think "bait and switch," which is not what it was supposed to be at all.
At this point, folks are used to F2P game mechanics. The massive player base that doesn't want to spend any money can generate income via in-game advertising. If they hit a paywall, or if they find waiting/advertising to be too inconvenient, they will simply uninstall the app and find a different game to play. There are literally tens of thousands of options that all cost them zero. These people are not suddenly going to say, "you know? I think I'll start paying for my games from now on." They just won't.
Nintendo has never claimed that there will ever be new levels or updates. This may very well be all of Super Mario Run.
The reason I suggested a $2/world pricing scheme was, in part, to leave the door open for more content. Do you think Nintendo is going to willingly expand this game for no additional charge?
So basically, you're telling somebody how they should be enjoying the game.
This may come to you as a shock, but the majority of players in 2016 are not interested in score-attack or similar. If you doubt this, look at gaming sales and trends...I don't need to prove it, this is common knowledge.
The majority of players are interested in progression through levels...which, coincidentally, is a play style that just about every Mario game ever made directly caters to. Super Mario Run is an anomaly, for better or worse.
So you're saying they don't need most mobile gamers, then. Hmmm.
That is an excellent idea. But demos are indeed allowed on iOS. They could have done it that way if they had wanted to. They chose not to.
This is tragic; so many people have come away with the misguided idea that SMR is an anti-consumer cash grab because of how it's presented. They see "free with in-app purchases" and assume F2P. 5 minutes later they find that it's not. They then think "bait and switch," which is not what it was supposed to be at all.
Don't worry, SMR will have new levels and they will charge $1-2 for the new levels, like angry birds.
There's your micro transactions.
I don't think the game will stay at $9.99 forever either. It will drop to $4.99, and eventually free for what early adopters paid $9.99 for.
Then they'll sell bonus level packs, costumes, new modes, etc for $
There's your micro transactions.
I don't think the game will stay at $9.99 forever either. It will drop to $4.99, and eventually free for what early adopters paid $9.99 for.
Then they'll sell bonus level packs, costumes, new modes, etc for $
I doubt it. Nintendo will want to acclimate those they reel over to console for Mario to not be cheap.
More_Badass
Member
Then the game isn't aimed at those people then. You think Nintendo didn't pick this approach and price without considering and realizing the outcome? The sheer size of the player base on mobile means of course there's an audience for this game and paid games. So large that paid games can sell millions of copies with the right exposure, and developers can make profits and expand thanks to the success of paid games.
It's small compared to the audience that supports F2P games, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, in 2014, it was estimated that 1.5 billion people play mobile games. If only 1% of them are open to paying for games, that's an audience of 15 million people
Pretty much my thoughts. Dismissing traditional prices in favor of a wave of bullshit, endless carrots on sticks, ads, FUCKING TIMERS, etc... That shit is stupid.
As someone in the mobile free to play industry myself, free to play games are not inherently pro or anti consumer, just like most other products.
It all comes down to the implementation. There is plenty of room to offer a lot of value and to be "fair", there are many examples of games that happily do just that, and there are plenty of industry people who acknowledge and respect that.
The whole point is that if you're trying to implement a "fair" F2P model then you're doing it wrong. Worthy of respect, sure, but still doing it wrong.
Everything about how F2P functions dictates that you cast as wide a net as possible and provide as little incentive as possible to continue playing without paying up. There's no actual game design, just a carefully curated feedback loop designed for maximum psychological manipulation. Because in the end, your game is worthless if nobody pays up.
Ugh, this is wrong on so many levels.
For a start, there is huge value in people playing long term, even if they aren't paying. It creates a much more vibrant and interesting game ecosystem and community, and helps bring more attention and users to your game. And that doesn't even factor in ads which can easily provide meaningful revenue even if players aren't paying directly.
And there is plenty of game design in free to play development. We employ a lot of talented game designers, and we spend a whole lot of time talking about, experimenting with, iterating, and implementing gameplay and game content.
I couldn't disagree more.
I've created a collection of 5 arcade-style card games. It exists on X360 right now, where it sold for $2.50 initially and later $1. It did alright for an XBLIG.
I'm planning to port it to mobile next year. It will be free-to-play with in-app purchases.
You'll be able to buy items such as wild cards, undo, skips, etc. to give you an edge and potentially boost your score. The items are bought with in-game currency. The currency is earned as you play based on score, but you will also be able to buy it with in-app purchases.
The currency will be sold in quantities that range in price from $0.99 to $9.99. The $9.99 purchase, if you choose to make it, will give you a ridiculous amount of the currency, so high that it would take weeks of straight play to spend it all. But even just the $0.99 purchase will give you quite a bit. Buying ANY amount will forever double the amount you earn for playing the game, plus unlock 2 additional play modes. And for the players that will never spend a dime at all, there will be an option to watch an ad to get some currency for free. You pay me, I pay you. What's unfair about that?
If the idea of the bonus items bothers you or feels like cheating, know that there will be 2 sets of leaderboards: one where the players used items, and one where they didn't.
Finally, there will be an alternate version of the game that is not free to download. It will cost a set amount, probably $0.99 or $1.99. It will contain no bonus items and no in-app purchases.
Please don't assume that everyone is out hunting whales.
The people who prefer it, are people who want the game to be completely free (for them).
Read this post.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Man, Super Mario Run has spawned some of the dumbest threads I've seen on GAF in a while.
Thank God people who make these threads will never be anywhere near the position of running a video game company. They've been so wildly ignorant of not only what is good for consumers, but basic business and marketing strategy.
Thank God people who make these threads will never be anywhere near the position of running a video game company. They've been so wildly ignorant of not only what is good for consumers, but basic business and marketing strategy.
Next time you see Nintendo having an investors meeting, keep an eye out.
You'll quickly find that the posts you see on here are nothing compared to the shit that comes up there.
Exactly the greediness that sometimes Investors push is sometimes crazy. I know its a business and is for profit. But if the long term relationship with your customer base is damaged, whats the point of doing business?
Sometimes I see investors like Mexican Politicians, "As long as we get the money I dont care who gets fucked".
Sad but true, is all about the money, but sometimes ppl take it to another level.
DarkConfidant
Member
Can it be a mistake if it was very deliberate?
Even if it doesn't do as well as any F2P game, if their intention is to not sacrifice their game design to a more profitable monetization model, then I think they're fine.
If they want to be different, and don't lose money doing so, that seems like a legitimate idea. It could pay off later if they can make a niche in "premium" mobile games or something like that.
Pandering to the masses or even simply following trends isn't always the only legitimate business strategy.
We could easily be having a different discussion years from now if Nintendo is able to make a successful norm out of this. Apple did the same kind of things with computers, and found success. Many other examples have failed trying to do their own thing.
I think it's way too early to call it a mistake. Taking risks and doing things differently is how we get new ways of doing things.
Even if it doesn't do as well as any F2P game, if their intention is to not sacrifice their game design to a more profitable monetization model, then I think they're fine.
If they want to be different, and don't lose money doing so, that seems like a legitimate idea. It could pay off later if they can make a niche in "premium" mobile games or something like that.
Pandering to the masses or even simply following trends isn't always the only legitimate business strategy.
We could easily be having a different discussion years from now if Nintendo is able to make a successful norm out of this. Apple did the same kind of things with computers, and found success. Many other examples have failed trying to do their own thing.
I think it's way too early to call it a mistake. Taking risks and doing things differently is how we get new ways of doing things.
I would too. Or SSR ponytail Peach or SSR Tharja.
RecRoulette
Member
I would be shocked if their Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem mobile games were "Pay once and get everything." Especially considering how badly they are taking the Super Mario Run launch.
LegendofLex
Member
This is probably the best post I've ever seen on how Nintendo is probably planning for and measuring the success of their mobile games. Great work.
People, pay attention especially to the bold. It explains why they're going with the "premium, one-time payment" pricing scheme for Mario Run.
It's been said before, but it's not that you have to pay for the game. Say what you want about it, but it's worth (IE it will sell for) $10 on the Nintendo name alone.
The issue is giving it for free and making it seem like a free game and then saying, hey buy this for 10 bucks. If it was 10 bucks in the App Store from the get go, some people would still complain, but I don't think there would be such an outcry over it.
The issue is giving it for free and making it seem like a free game and then saying, hey buy this for 10 bucks. If it was 10 bucks in the App Store from the get go, some people would still complain, but I don't think there would be such an outcry over it.
DarkConfidant
Member
They both were already supposed to be F2P, though this was pre-Mario Run.
Both have been delayed, but I could still easily see new titles made that are "pay once" still.
I just think it's too early to call, and Nintendo could easily have a vision it's trying to fulfill. Maybe they'll fold to investor pressure, but if they believe in making these types of mobile games, I could see them going through with it anyway.
Super Mario Run has made them money, and will continue to do so. Breaking the Day 1 record on the app store is no joke.
They'll learn from this experience, and potentially do better another time. Seeing it as a failure seems hyperbolic.
I've just seen people say this about companies before that didn't do the expected norm, like Apple, who have then go on to prove them wrong.
Henry Ford said that folks wanted him to just "build a faster horse".
LegendofLex
Member
Store page for the game, when introducing the game's six worlds:
End of store page description for the game:
No one pretended this was a free game. That's just the way Apple's app store listings work.