Bad Reviews For Super Mario Run Are Sending Nintendo's Stock Tumbling (fortune.com)

People aren't loving Nintendo's newly released Super Mario Run. Nintendo's stock plunged 7.1% Monday, bringing its total drop since the game's release last week to more than 11%, Bloomberg reports. The game's mediocre reviews had a similar impact on DeNA, the Nintendo partner that helped with the game's development: Since the game's introduction, its stock has fallen 14%. From a report: Reviews in Apple's App Store (so far, the game is only available on iPhone) show an average rating of two and half stars out of five. Overall, there have been nearly 50,000 reviews. Its reviews make it among the lowest rated app among those at the top of the download rankings, according to Bloomberg.

Comments

Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

And now nintendo will make a statement that without hard controls and buttons, good games can't be made and go back to making games that a small portion of people love for their own hardware and pay even less attention to what people say.

Re:Told ya so.

[dontbemad]

go back to making games that a small portion of people love for their own hardware and pay even less attention to what people say.

Fine by me. While the console lock-in may be annoying at times, the quality of their games and enjoyment I can get from them is much higher than any phone-based game I have ever played, period. It is high-time that we finally started accepting that phones have limitations, and that they aren't the magical "entertain everyone perfectly" devices that a lot of people seem to think they are.

Re:Told ya so.

[stealth_finger]

In other news nintendo's new console less powerful than 2/3 year old rivals. No doubt they are banking on mario and mario kart, a zelda game, pokemon and all their other old staples to see them through.....again.

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/nintendo-switch-is-slower-than-the-ps4-and-xbox-one-report-1639542

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they keep making good games, it will. The power behind the hardware is less important than the quality of the games made for it.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sony "PlayStation 2" is under-powered compared to its competition of Xbox and Gamecube, there is no way it'll be successful!

Re:Told ya so.

[bluefoxlucid]

Phone-based games are cocaine: low-effort, cheap rewards.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

This a million times. I still get way more enjoyment from my old Gameboy than from my phone, which is a thousand times more powerful.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the only one that's portable.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be skipping over the part of the story where the screen is ~720p and capacitive touch screen (almost definitely, despite Nin refusing to comment so far) so 1 TFlop of compute power is actually plenty of horse power for a MOBILE HANDHELD SYSTEM.

The Vita today still has great graphics capabilities...if you design your game to make use of the limited hardware. It requires a different art style than people like to see on home consoles or PCs. BUT THAT IS FINE... Nintendo doesn't "NEED" 3rd party support other than JPRGs but because the switch's internal architecture is similar enough to the rest of the industry (as compared to the wii/wii u/DS-family) 3rd party developers are going to be able to port over fairly easily to the switch.... and being able to play a low res version of oblivion on the go is more important to me (and I suspect most other gamers) than "OMG PC QUALITY GRAPHICS" (I have a gaming PC if I want those type of graphics)

The Switch doesn't have to match the PS4/XBONE's graphics level and your thought that it does is amusing. This will be a HAND HELD console... and the only hand held console that can output even decent graphics to a TV is the vita (even the SDK and Reviewer Units(for IGN/Gamespot/etc.) have a standard HDMI out on them) (Which is where the Vita TV came from) and it only has 128 mb vram and 512 mb ram... which I'm sure is going to be easily out paced by the Switch... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Vita So think about what system(s) you should be comparing the switch to.

It is a hand held that has a TV dock... not a 'home console'

-rc

Re:Told ya so.

[arth1]

And if they keep making good games, it will. The power behind the hardware is less important than the quality of the games made for it.

Very much so.
Pac-Man ran on a 3 MHz CPU, with a 16 kB ROM and 2 kB RAM + 2 kB video RAM. And you got 60 fps and responsive controls.

Re:Told ya so.

[Calydor]

Hey man, about that cheap cocaine, can you hook me up? <.<

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zf3QNs32LA Killzone Mercenary on the Vita looks as enjoyable as any other modern military shooter to me... (which isn't much, but that is personal opinion) just because it has a lower poly count doesn't mean that the game wasn't "good (enough) looking".

Re:Told ya so.

[_KiTA_]

In other news nintendo's new console less powerful than 2/3 year old rivals. No doubt they are banking on mario and mario kart, a zelda game, pokemon and all their other old staples to see them through.....again.

So? Both of THOSE are less powerful than a comparable PC. It doesn't matter. We've hit a plateau where the graphics aren't getting better by leaps and bounds anymore. The PS4, XBox, and WiiU / Switch graphics are "good enough."

Re:Told ya so.

[bickerdyke]

And now nintendo will make a statement that without hard controls and buttons, good games can't be made

IMHO, that's true enough for Mario-Style Jump'n'Runs.

And dumbing it down to a "Jump'n'Nothing" gave us exactly that. a dumb game.

You probably can't make a good text adventure with mouse input either.

Re:Told ya so.

[zerocommazero]

Their new system is a portable. That should have hit the point home that the new system would not be on par with PS4 horsepower. Also the "Switch" is more a successor to the portable DS/3DS, where they are still healthy. Nintendo may not say that as the 3DS and Pokemon are whats selling from them this holiday, but make no mistake. Nintendo is done with (traditional) home consoles. The Wii U was its worst selling console and they know they cant directly compete. The main console market (AAA, FPS, etc.) is not even their main target audience. It would be pointless and a waste of their resources to even try.

Re:Told ya so.

[Waffle Iron]

This a million times. I still get way more enjoyment from my old Gameboy than from my phone, which is a thousand times more powerful.

What Nintendo should do is create a modern smartphone in a physical package that is identical to a classic Gameboy. (Well, maybe it could be a little thinner). It would be practical, fun to play, and hipster-approved.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them are designed this way, full of in-app purchases that lure players into spending far more than they would on much higher quality console games. You can even see in reviews that people often use "addictive" as a positive. "This game is really addictive!! Highly recommend!" If Apple and Google released standardized controller add-ons, it could change things a lot. You can buy 3rd party controllers now, but they're mainly meant for emulators. There is only so much you can do with a touch screen for games.

Re: Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they have more than Pac-Mac as their killer app. I just don't think it's able to move many consoles anymore.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, if you go and read the reviews, they have nothing at all to do with the control system.

Instead, they're complaints that the game is very short, bought as an IAP rather than an app (meaning that it isn't shared among your family like a normal purchase), and that it requires an always on internet connection.

Re: Told ya so.

[unami]

it's not about the gameplay - the bad reviews are either about the game crashing or (mostly) about the high price (for not wnough game)

Re:Told ya so.

[petermgreen]

The playstation 2 was released in Japan in March 2000, North America in October and Europe in November
The gamecube was released in Japan in September 2001, North america is November and Europe in May 2002.
The xbox was released in North america In November 2001, Japan in Febuary 2002 and Europe in March 2002.

So the playstation 2 had a year or more of head start over the Xbox and Gamecube.

Re:Told ya so.

[stealth_finger]

In other news nintendo's new console less powerful than 2/3 year old rivals. No doubt they are banking on mario and mario kart, a zelda game, pokemon and all their other old staples to see them through.....again.

So? Both of THOSE are less powerful than a comparable PC. It doesn't matter. We've hit a plateau where the graphics aren't getting better by leaps and bounds anymore. The PS4, XBox, and WiiU / Switch graphics are "good enough."

They're not less powerful than a comparable PC, hence the comparable. Less powerful than a high end pc yeah, but are you saying graphics should be made for the lowest common denominator because it's "good enough"?

Re:Told ya so.

[stealth_finger]

Their new system is a portable. That should have hit the point home that the new system would not be on par with PS4 horsepower. Also the "Switch" is more a successor to the portable DS/3DS, where they are still healthy. Nintendo may not say that as the 3DS and Pokemon are whats selling from them this holiday, but make no mistake. Nintendo is done with (traditional) home consoles. The Wii U was its worst selling console and they know they cant directly compete. The main console market (AAA, FPS, etc.) is not even their main target audience. It would be pointless and a waste of their resources to even try.

So three years later you can't get the same or similar in a smaller system? Also this is talking about in docked mode. In hand held mode the performance is considerably worse, 60% worse in the case of the GPU clock speed.

Re:Told ya so.

[nmb3000]

And the first hit is always free.

Re:Told ya so.

[Oswald McWeany]

I wish developers concentrated more on playability than graphics these days like they used to. I don't care how realistic a game is if the gameplay is crap, yet I know where most developers spend most of their money.

I also know why, it's much easier to sell a game that has amazing graphics- even if they end result is something that offers little entertainment in the long run.

All consoles are "good enough" to play great games with good graphics.

Re:Told ya so.

[mbeckman]

It's just a game. Run along now.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

In that headstart year, PS2 sold about 25M units worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2_sales).

Even subtracting those 25M sales form the totals, PS2 totally obliterated Xbox and Gamecube (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles). PS2 wins even when you add Xbox 360 sales to the total.

So what was your actual point?

Re:Told ya so.

[secretsquirel]

none of these new games can match the nokia snake game anyway

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

OwO

Re:Told ya so.

[Oswald McWeany]

The game doesn't have to be good or even be a massive seller.

A single button jumping game can't have been too expensive to produce- they probably have most of the sprites made from other projects, the music they do. They probably don't have to make a huge number of sales at $10 each to make a profit out of this game.

Nintendo's tanking profits are a bit of an oversight. The game may be bad and poorly reviewed, but they probably made (or will make) profit out of it.

The only real downside to Nintendo is the hit to their reputation, but they can probably take a few hits.

Re:Told ya so.

[thegarbz]

Except you don't know what you're talking about. Nearly every complaint about the game is the fact that you can play through world one but then it asks you to pay. People are bitching because they were asked to part with $9.90

Re:Told ya so.

[thegarbz]

go back to making games that a small portion of people love for their own hardware and pay even less attention to what people say.

Fine by me. While the console lock-in may be annoying at times, the quality of their games and enjoyment I can get from them is much higher than any phone-based game I have ever played, period. It is high-time that we finally started accepting that phones have limitations, and that they aren't the magical "entertain everyone perfectly" devices that a lot of people seem to think they are.

None of the console games I own can match the gameplay and enjoyment I get ... on a bus, or while waiting for a train.
Super Mario Run is actually quite solid and fun. Most of the bad reviews are bitching about having to pay money to play a game. A console doesn't fix that, it makes it worse. I guess it does weed out the entitled little shits though.

Re:Told ya so.

[bluefoxlucid]

There's no tanking profits here. Nintendo's stock price dropped because of bad news, thus the sentiment that their stock price will devalue, thus people selling off. We didn't just pick up an earnings report.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

It had a running start. Still could help explain its advantage in other areas. The real reason the PS2 outsold other consoles of its generation, if you recall, is that everyone suddenly needed a DVD player and the PS2 cost about the same as a regular DVD player, but with the added ability to run games.

Re: Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in: The hype train can be a bitch. Film at 11.

Seriously, turning the media into a feeding frenzy with tidbits of information and delayed reveals is best left to Apple. If you don't deliver on your promise then you're toast. Sure, you may realize your day #1 surge profit but you'll get slammed in the reviews.

Karma. It's a bitch.

Re:Told ya so.

[Merk42]

It had a running start.

How about Wii compared to PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360? Wii came out last (albeit by 2 days compared to PS3) yet outsold them both.

The real reason the PS2 outsold other consoles of its generation, if you recall, is that everyone suddenly needed a DVD player and the PS2 cost about the same as a regular DVD player, but with the added ability to run games.

So it's almost as if horsepower isn't a direct measure of a console's success, and there could be other, more novel ways, it can be successful.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Got an 8 ball right here. $120 lol

Re:Told ya so.

[dyslexicbunny]

The lack of hardware power is less disappointing than the consideration that the only major releases will be only established Nintendo franchises. Last system I got was a Wii and it mostly ended up being a paperweight. I can't justify another such purchase again for a handful of games.

If Nintendo is going to be the largest contributor to games for the system by far (which isn't a horrible thing), then I think they need to seriously shake things up and make some new IP as well. Maybe they have but I don't hear about it since I'm a guy in his 30s. But the fact that I haven't isn't a promising sign.

Re:Told ya so.

[Oswald McWeany]

That was actually a typo on my part, I had intended to write "tanking stock price is an oversight". Their stock will bounce back. One bad game that they make a profit off of will not hurt their long term viability.

Re: Told ya so.

[jxander]

The failure of the WiiU was entirely in marketing.

The console itself is plenty powerful, and the tablet opens up a slew of interesting multiplayer possibilities. Just play their tech demo (Nintendoland) to see what could have been. There was genuine innovation there.

But Nintendo didn't explain anything to the consumer. Their marketing strategy was ass. Nonexistent ass. No one knew if it was an expansion to the Wii, or its own console, or is the tablet the console, or wtf is this thing. Once it got off to a shaky start, developers started to balk. Even Nintendo themselves held off Zelda, only further ensuring the demise of WiiU. That's why the first commercial for Switch went to great lengths in explaining everything. You know exactly what the switch is and what it does. Every capability was shown in detail, so there is no confusion.

I do agree though, that it feels like a bit of a retreat. It's definitely more handheld that console, but I hope it's a temporary step back. They can get comfortable, get more 3rd party developers back onboard, and try something really wild again in the next cycle.

Re:Told ya so.

[LeftCoastThinker]

What Nintendo needs to do is sell a custom bluetooth case for the iPhone that essentially uses what the phone has (display/electronics etc) and adds what it is sorely lacking (real buttons, D pad/thumb stick, maybe speakers etc.) Sell this for cost at $20 directly through the any Nintendo app delivered to your door in 2 days like Amazon and you have a very powerful platform that is equivalent or better than the DS with millions of installed users.

Phones by themselves without real buttons are just too limited for real gaming, which is why I have a ton of games on my phone, but I have stopped buying them. The only winners that I regularly use are solitaire, Mahjong and the Fallout vault game. Everything else is either too simple to play for more than 20 minutes, too small or too difficult to control with a virtual controller. I know that there are bluetooth controllers out there, but if Nintendo were to do it, the quality and performance would actually be good enough to enjoy.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it does weed out the entitled little shits though.

It's very rude of you to call Nintendo that way. I agree that they shouldn't feel entitled to good reviews though. But I wouldn't call them little shits. If anything, they are fairly big, I think.

Re:Told ya so.

[Skuld-Chan]

This is true, but it also means that porting games from PS4 or XBOne is going to be that much harder on the Nintendo...

Which is maybe the point? I'm not sure - if they wanted to broaden their software title base and start supporting things like CoD.

Re:Told ya so.

[zerocommazero]

You must have never played their DS/3DS systems. Those had tons of 3rd party support and this system is also the replacement for that as well.

Re:Told ya so.

[zerocommazero]

Um, yeah, considering the rumored price is $250-300 ish. That's less than the PS4 at its launch. You missed the part where I said this is a portable first system. You're looking at this like a standard console but portable is deifferent. In fact, portable is the only place Nintendo still rules uncontested, which is why this is portable focused.

Re:Told ya so.

[dyslexicbunny]

I have not. Given my age and what was available to me as a kid, I have generally seen handhelds as something to do for idle time when traveling (as historically their capabilities limited gameplay compared to consoles - I acknowledge this is far less of an issue now with today's hardware and the maturity of the industry). Regardless, the DS released when I was in college and going home meant I was driving so there wasn't any point in having one.

I suppose I could get one and play it around the house but I have a Steam list out the wazoo with stuff I want to play and diminished free time compared to having been in grad school. Perhaps that insight would be a good thing then as it will get some of those handheld games into one system and might justify me making the purchase. I'm still kicking myself about the Wii purchase feeling like a waste given how little time I spent playing it.

Re: Told ya so.

[spire3661]

>The failure of the WiiU was entirely in marketing.

Just no. Its expensive to make to the point they couldnt lower the price. The new slim Xbox One is selling for $250 right now with a brand new pack in game (BF1), Wii U is still $299 for 32 GB and a 2.5 year old pack in game. Also, you cant get Wii U first party from Amazon. Its like Nintendo went out of their way to fuck up the Wii U. It had nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with Nintendo thinking they know better than everyone else. The Wii U is a design failure, and a marketing one.

Re:Told ya so.

[AmazingRuss]

We have a winner! Phone players are the most entitled crybabies in the gaming world. The free to play model thrives because of it.

Re:Told ya so.

[LeftCoastThinker]

Since I was actually gaming back then, I feel I should remind you that Pac-Man ran at 224x288 resolution. While eye candy certainly isn't everything, it is a factor. I am not a fanboy of any particular brand, but I stopped buying new Nintendo consoles after the Gamecube. Nintendo's choice to under power it's consoles and bundle expensive controller screens is fine for un-discerning grandparents and little kids, but there are many games available that are both fun and cutting edge in the graphics department. It is also true that many fun games, like Super Mario Brothers, don't need a high end console to run well. I still buy the Nintendo consoles and the 10-20 games that are worth owning, but I wait til the end of the generation. It is good that there are people at Nintendo that realize that gaming is at it's core still about fun, and you don't need bleeding edge graphics for that, but doubling down on the expensive, ass backwards WiiU is a mistake that will bite them. At the least, they should be selling their new product with an option to ditch the expensive screen and just play on your TV for $120 less than the base price of the screen console version. If I could pick up a Nintendo console for $120 to play newer 2d cartoon versions of Zelda, SMB, Metroid etc. I would, but at $300, everyone will be buying a PS4 or Xbone for the same price.

Re:Told ya so.

[Ranbot]

What Nintendo needs to do is sell a custom bluetooth case for the iPhone that essentially uses what the phone has (display/electronics etc) and adds what it is sorely lacking (real buttons, D pad/thumb stick, maybe speakers etc.)

Exactly this. Nintendo has the hardware design and manufacturing experience to easily do this. With a standardized controller Nintendo could simply repackage and resell their library of old games, which they are masters of. They wouldn't even have to bother developing new games to make this work, because even a straight port of original Metroid, Mario Bros, Kirby, Zelda, etc. would be more fun than 99% of mobiles games out there.

Re:Told ya so.

[desdinova 216]

it seems like Nintendo hasn't cared about third party titles since the gamecube.

Re:Told ya so.

[Whorhay]

Are you sure about the 60 fps bit? I would have thought it would be more like 40 or whatever old televisions ran at.

Re: Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is still marketing, AFAIK Microsoft have always subsidised the XBOX while Nintendo at the same time have refused to do so. So the price difference have nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with 'marketing'.

Re:Told ya so.

[arth1]

Are you sure about the 60 fps bit? I would have thought it would be more like 40 or whatever old televisions ran at.

A tiny bit over 60 Hz, actually. Dictated by the CPU running at 3.072 MHz, so moves to display memory wouldn't have tearing.

Re:Told ya so.

[martinX]

That'd be 60 fields per second.

Re:Told ya so.

[arth1]

Non-interlaced (it was low resolution), so it's identical to frames per second.

Re: Told ya so.

[arth1]

I hope they have more than Pac-Mac as their killer app. I just don't think it's able to move many consoles anymore.

Yes, but the point is that you don't need the most advanced hardware on the market - I'd gladly take a game that was a mere 100 times better than Pac-Man...

Re:Told ya so.

[yuriklastalov]

Apple could do it, Google not so much. Which, of the several hundred (at least), Android models is this controller going to support? If it's all of them, then the controller is going to need to adapt to every size, shape, and unconscionably out of date Android version out there.

I guess they could just support Pixel phones, but that's not exactly a large market.

Re:Told ya so.

[yuriklastalov]

It would be a rare mobile game indeed that's worth $9.90. Most of them are barely worth one dollar, let alone ten. For every successful "good" (read: popular) mobile game, there are a thousand shitty Chinese clones. Mobile stores are clogged up with complete shit, and even if mobile gaming were a worthwhile platform (which it isn't) it'd be impossible to find anything worth playing amongst the endless fields of garbage.

So Generation Z can keep their god awful touch-screen-all-the-things interfaces, it's just too bad that since they're the up and coming gaming market that they're going to be who devs and publishers cater to. All hope is not yet lost though. My kids love Terraria, they use to watch me play it on PC and then played it themselves on their tablets, which anyone who's played it will know how legendarily bad the controls (and the port in general) are. Recently I got them into playing it on the PC, and after an initial period of getting used to the keyboard/mouse controls they soon realized just how awful the mobile version really is, just like I kept telling them. The love of touch-centric interface usually won't survive an encounter with any superior alternative, at least if the player has any choice in the matter.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for me. I play solitaire, crosswords and ScummVM games on my phone. Those would be complete shit with gamepad style controls.

Re:Told ya so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Phone players are the most entitled crybabies in the gaming world because all of their games are cheap or free. Bad, cheaply produced games yield fantastic ROI because IAP and ads continually print money. There's no market for real games on cell phones because while real developers ignored the market Zynga and King churned out loads of freemium shovelware, creating the current expectations for mobile games. If you want me to take your mobile game seriously 1) don't include in-app purchases, 2) don't include ads, and 3) FFS don't try to sell me a rehash of the freemium shovelware that's already available.

Re: Told ya so.

[djsmiley]

> That's why the first commercial for Switch went to great lengths in explaining everything. You know exactly what the switch is and what it does. Every capability was shown in detail, so there is no confusion

So, that screen is a touch screen then? Yes? No? Maybe?

Re:Told ya so.

[djsmiley]

Which one tho?

Nintendo's replacement to the ds was the ds was the ds xl was the 3ds, 2ds, 3ds XL supermega extreme sexy time edition.

I can almost smell the number of sku's this things gonna have.

I dont know what all the hate is for

[drummerboybac]

its a continuous run game with some interesting level layouts. Were people expecting a full on Mario game?

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Calydor]

Full disclosure: I haven't played the game, haven't even looked at screenshots.

My first gaming console was the original NES. I have played almost every Mario game released since the first one there up to the first Galaxy game. To me, Mario games aren't about running quickly from start to finish, it's about finding paths through the levels, secrets, warp pipes etc. It's as much exploration as it is jumping from platform to platform.

This seemed to be true for most of Nintendo's own games; Mario, Zelda, Metroid all have this sense of being rewarded for going off the beaten bath, looking around and stopping to think for a moment.

The premise of "always run really fast until you're done" is more Sonic than Mario.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[mccalli]

Maybe a game called Super Mario RUN is not for you then? It's not for me either - that's not reason for me to give it a bad review. Question is whether it succeeds on its own merits.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

For $10, they were expecting more than they got. No offline play, and a game that feels more like $1 than $10, sure people are going to be pissed.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably, as there was a pretty big hype train around the game, for what it was. It got hyped like it was a full mario game.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Running really fast is more Mario than Sonic. You try and play Sonic by holding right and jumping at the right time and you'll get wrecked something fierce because that's like trying to play a MOBA like Command and Conquer.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect - When reviewing a game, you have to take its lineage into account, especially when that lineage spans dozens and dozens of other games.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[cayenne8]

My first gaming console was the original NES. I have played almost every Mario game released since the first one there up to the first Galaxy game. To me, Mario games aren't about running quickly from start to finish, it's about finding paths through the levels, secrets, warp pipes etc. It's as much exploration as it is jumping from platform to platform.

This seemed to be true for most of Nintendo's own games; Mario, Zelda, Metroid all have this sense of being rewarded for going off the beaten bath, looking around and stopping to think for a moment.

The premise of "always run really fast until you're done" is more Sonic than Mario.

Yeah..I was reading about this new game and thinking, "Really?"...they're banking on a game that you just push one button to jump, and they're counting on this being a hit?

It just sound boring as shit from the description alone. And to base this overly simplistic version on a game set that a couple of generations have grown up with that is a bit more complex, and has more in-depth game play, to me seemed it would be clear that this would not be a popular game.

If they wanted to make a Sonic on Valium type game, that's what they should have come up with, rather than putting their Mario character in there.

I mean, if they had taken the jump button and user control completely out and let the thing run on its own, it would be only slightly more boring as a premise.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[c]

Yeah..I was reading about this new game and thinking, "Really?"...they're banking on a game that you just push one button to jump, and they're counting on this being a hit?

It sounds like some pump and dump traders were banking on the game being a hit.

I'd assume that everyone else would've already be aware that most game releases aren't going to be hits, or even break even, and you gotta roll out a lot of products to get a hit like Pokemon GO.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, that makes sense. They were hoping for the next pokemon go, probably.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait one button to jump and that's it? i haven't played or seen the game but this sounds like a mario version of flappy bird?

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[JoeyRox]

I don't quite follow what you mean - why is there a presumption that people gave it a bad review due to it not being their type of game?

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Calydor]

The ultimate in quick-time-event gaming: The entire game is a quick-time-event.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Calydor]

Sonic is known for running really fast. I mean come on, even his Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) says so: ... has the ability to run at supersonic speeds ... Sonic most commonly has to race through levels ... his iconic personality was the epitome of speed ...

Mario, on the other hand, in Super Mario RPG identifies himself not by running, but by jumping. I'm not kidding. That may also be why his racing series contains gokarts rather the F1 racers (although the relatively recent addition of dirtbikes is a grey area, I'll admit).

So no, running really fast REALLY is more Sonic than Mario.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[bickerdyke]

its a continuous run game with some interesting level layouts. Were people expecting a full on Mario game?

With a price double as high as other great games: yes.

If it's an Flappy Bird style game, the price has to compete with flappy bird. Yes, high-res sprites with a popular cartoon char can offset that, but not by several 100%. And with the gaming experience that forced always-online-games deliver in trains and subways, it's probably less fun than Flappy Bird and no brand tie-in will save it anymore.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

They fire it up expecting a mario platformer and they get a side scrolling temple run. A game that's been out for years and has about a million clones availible, for free.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[AvitarX]

Yeah, flappy bird was a total failure.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[drummerboybac]

Thing is, they give you the first 3 levels for free. So you know exactly what you are buying before you plop down your ten bucks. Did people expect it to turn into a different game once they paid?

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[tepples]

Flappy Bird was just a dumbed-down version of Balloon Trip from Nintendo's Balloon Fight anyway, dodging pipes instead of moving sparks.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, most phone gamers are kids and teens who are used to freemium games full of ads and in-app purchases that they'll complain about, but not nearly as much as they will for one that charges $10 up front to avoid that garbage. The top quality in a game for them is how "addictive" it is. Maybe more of their parents said no when they asked for them to pay for it. Also, people who take a subway to work may be more likely to play phone games, but since you have to always be connected to the Internet, the people who play games in that situation can't play Mario Run (another common complaint). Nintendo even claimed they were making the game so subway riders could play it with one hand.

That said, I think Nintendo could have done more with it and $10 seems a bit steep for what is there. I think $5-7 would likely have been more acceptable for many. Of course console versions of the game cost 4-5 times more, but the difference in game play and content between Mario Run and console Marios is massive.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they were expecting a game purchased like a normal app so that it's shared between family members; that doesn't require an always on internet connection, and isn't ridiculously short.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Did people expect it to turn into a different game once they paid?

Who's saying they paid? Maybe the poor reviews are coming from people who played the three free levels, and thought "$10 for another few levels of this?!!? F**k that!"

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they think like me; eliminate the Nintendo corporation!.

I love their games, I love their consoles.

I love them so much that I want to see more fan made games not being taken down by Nintendo.

Re: I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fucking stupid. Of course you don't.

A game isn't better simply because a past game is good. Nor is it worse for the same reason.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[thegarbz]

Because people only read a summary without looking into it. From what I can tell most of the negative reviews are due to the game costing $9.90 to unlock it after the first 3 levels.

People reviewing it on gameplay generally give it a quite solid score.

Re: I dont know what all the hate is for

[LocalH]

Sounds an awful lot like you're saying the whole idea of a Mario game is outdated. What, you'd rather have more CoD and similar? *retch*

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Mario's original name is Jumpman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario#Concept_and_creation

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[jbresciani]

But it isn't a continuous run game, at least not by how the first three levels play. if it is then it makes this demo ever worse as it's not only false advertising on price but false advertising on they type of game.

The game does feel like a standard Mario game, the difference is you are always moving forward with no moving backward unless you wall jump/kick. The first three levels are short with the standard flag pole jump at the end.

The issue is it's listed as "Free" but in reality only 1-1 to 1-3 (the first castle is 1-4) are free, everything else requires $14 CDN ($10 US? to unlock). If they would have been up front with the cost it would have gotten much better reviews.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[Dutch Gun]

When you call it "Super Mario ______", people will automatically have certain expectations based on the history of the franchise, especially when it looks so much like the classic game. Moreover, the premium price of the product also sets certain expectations. Many of the reviewers of No Man's Sky stated that they were more harsh than had it been more reasonably priced at a typical indy game level, rather than as a AAA game.

If people are giving it bad reviews, then maybe they feel the didn't get their money's worth of entertainment from the product. Reviews are inherently subjective, so there's no "right or wrong" there, aside from the predictable percentage of trolls, I guess.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[atrex]

They were probably expecting something a lot more significant with a $10 price tag.

Re:I dont know what all the hate is for

[coolsnowmen]

The entire lineage of Mario? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: I dont know what all the hate is for

[yuriklastalov]

Now lets get an endless runner game using the CoD IP, that'll bring the hardcore gamers over.

Italians aren't known for reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

after all.

Donald Trump sez

[Anonymous Coward]

Biggerest waist've monet evah

I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[Bartles]

...why would I play this?

Re:I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

poofy hats... overalls... moustaches...

Re:I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[stealth_finger]

ten bucks.

Re:I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's not an endless runner, and has about 10000x more interesting things and gameplay ideas in its levels than most other phone games will ever manage.

Re:I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[stealth_finger]

Like?

Re:I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting. I'm not sure if I'll pay $10.00 to unlock the full game, but it seems to be trying to incorporate some 'endless runner' gameplay mechanics with traditional 2d SMB mechanics.

Temple Run is a bad analog. More like Canabalt or similar. Side view, and there's some nuance in that the single button control can be interpreted differently based on timing. Jump when you hit an enemy to do a different jump. Jump into a wall and you can wall-jump or mantle to climb. Special blocks activate features like revealing more coins, pausing to let the player consider next steps, and similar.

It's not endless like most, well, endless runners. It's got defined levels in a familiar SMB-style scheme. World 1-1 to 1-2. Three levels capped by a 'Castle' level. You're rewarded for mastering levels as there's five pink coins in the level to pick up.

Download is free if you have an iOS device and lets you play three levels. Not sure I'll pop for the full version, but it's not a bad game.

Re:I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[thegarbz]

I played Batman: Arkam Asylum for 7min 24sec. Why would I play Minesweeper?

But I've never played a game, I don't know what it's about, but I played a game that sounds similar based on one word in the title, so I just HAVE to post about it on Slashdot.

Re:I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the gameplay footage I've seen, it's actually an improvement over most infinite runner games. There are completable stages and bosses. There's a bit of a switch up in castle/dungeon stages where Mario effective runs back and forth instead of constantly in one direction.

It's like Nintendo puts thought and effort into the games it produces.

Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Jason Levine]

Besides the fact that the Android version is still "To Be Released At An Unannounced Date", my biggest beef is the price tag. You get the first few levels for free and then need to pay $10 to unlock everything else. I don't mind paying for apps I like, but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much. If it were $1.99, I'd buy it the second it was released for Android. At $2.99, I might consider it. At $10, though, I won't be buying it anytime soon.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets not forget for $10 you also don't "own" the game, you get a game that requires an always on internet connection. So you can never play offline, for that rather expensive game. Especially since there is no reason for it to be online other than DRM. Pokemon GO has a reason to need an internet connection this doesn't.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Moridineas]

I don't mind paying for apps I like, but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much.

It's not an endless runner.

Not my cup of tea, but it's totally from, e.g., Temple Runner.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[The-Ixian]

Frankly, I am surprised that apps cost what they do on mobile platforms. I assume this is a "race to the bottom" type of condition which I can't see lasting forever, especially as the platforms start to reach functional parity (and hence complexity) with desktop computers.

Of course, I am from a generation where I paid $70+ of hard earned lawn mowing money for games that came on 3 floppy disks.

$1 - $2 may make sense for a very small (1 - 3 people) team if there are hundreds of thousands of buyers but I just can't see how that can be a 1 size fits all price.

I feel like, now that these platforms have hit critical mass, the prices are going to start creeping up over time or, at the very least, will be graduated based on install base.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss a word?

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't do much gaming these days and know nothing about this one, but it always strikes me as amazing how perception of the value of games is so different these days, especially when it comes to mobile gaming. I remember back in my youth going down to the store to buy a new game for the original NES and being prepared to pay $40-$50 with no knowledge of the game beyond what was printed on the box. And on my meager allowance money, that game sure as hell had better have kept me entertained for the next month+ or I was SOL. And before you say, "well, this particular game really sucks and phone games aren't as good as full-fledged games back in the day", I'd just remind you that the vast majority of those games were far from classics themselves. For every SMB3 or Final Fantasy there were a dozen pieces of absolute crap, and they weren't discounted to $1.99 or anywhere near it, and you didn't have thousands of user reviews at your fingertips to warn you. I probably played games for weeks to "get my money's worth" that in today's age with all the entertainment choices available, I would quit and never look back after just a few minutes. The idea that people feel like anything more than a couple bucks is just too much for a perfectly functional game is really a remarkable evolution.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[The-Ixian]

Lets not forget for $10 you also don't "own" the game, you get a game that requires an always on internet connection

That's the biggest load of BS and is why I will never even try this game. $10 doesn't seem like that much to me. It is only a lot when compared against other games. I pay more than that for lunch some days.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[SvnLyrBrto]

The $10 isn't the problem. I'd rather pay a fair price upfront then get a game for "free" and be mired in the micro transaction swamp. And divided out by the value of my time, I've already gotten more than my money's worth in entertainment from it. But the requirement to be always online, despite it being a single-player game and having no content that should require that connection, is fairly... irksome. I missed the news about that problem somehow, so it was a fairly unpleasant surprise.

Right there, that knocks it down to a three-star app. It's so stupid and unnecessary. Piracy? Seriously? How many people actually bother to jailbreak their iPhones anymore? I haven't since my 4. Without a jailbreak, I'm not aware of any way to side-load apps without a developer's signing key. And if you abuse those, Apple stomps you down hard.

And if it ever does throw a micro transaction at me? That'll be the impetus to go back and one-star it. That's a hard rule I have for rating in the AppStore in general. Like I said, I'd rather pay a fair price once and upfront than get pestered for dollars here and there to keep the game/app playable or usable. So, if after I HAVE paid you upfront, and you come back and ask me to pay more to unlock features or levels, or for extra on-game currency, or for whatever... instant one-star without sympathy, mercy, or regret.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Comboman]

For a purely digital product with no physical media or distribution cost (other than Apple's cut) you make the biggest profit by setting the price where you get the maximum number of downloads. You don't need big margins if you can make it up in volume (and as a pleasant side-effect, you remove a major incentive for piracy). App makers figured this out pretty fast, I just wish music/movie/ebook makers would figure it out also.

Re: Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are iOS users so cheap?

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[AvitarX]

Wow, that's a huge mistake.

I guess they don't want me using it on flights or the subway. Thanks guys.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Hulfs]

At $2.99, I might consider it. At $10, though, I won't be buying it anytime soon.

I'd agree, if it was me, but my son (6) spent his own money on the game and is loving it. He's beaten every single level already (there's 24, I think) and is now trying to get every pink coin in the game - which is considerably harder. There is more complexity to the game than just jumping and it's not an endless runner Temple Run clone by any means. There's a lot of pattern recognition, timing and some problem solving needed to figure out how to get some of the coins.

He also loves being able to "play" against other people from around the world in Toad Rally and trying to beat them - you're playing against pre-recorded runs from others, not live ones.

I'm pretty sure that this game will see a lot of use for quite a while.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my personal reason for not buying it. Single player games are important to me for when I'm travelling, a gimped single player game that will cut out any time I don't have connectivity, or Nintendo doesn't have connectivity, or they change their EULA at a later time, is not worth it. 10 bucks for a Mario game is a fine deal. 10 bucks for a game that requires a Nintendo server to be always up and for me to be online, but is still a single player game? Screw that. Don't give me the shitty parts of MMOs without the good parts, and don't give me the shitty parts of single player games without the good parts.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

You get the first few levels for free and then need to pay $10 to unlock everything else.

Back in 1992, this is how DOOM was released. They call it a demo.

I don't mind paying for apps I like, but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much. If it were $1.99, I'd buy it the second it was released for Android. At $2.99, I might consider it. At $10, though, I won't be buying it anytime soon.

Which begs the question, at what point does $1.99 become too much for a mobile game? I remember when a CD single was £3.99 here in the UK. A lot of people complained that was too much for a the song (and either some B-sides, or remixes, which it might have been, depending your on your point of view). Then, when MP3s became available, a song could be bought for £1. Bargain. But after a few years, people complained that £1 for a song was too much, and they should cost £0.50, or £0.10. Now, we have Spotify, etc., for £10 a month. Of course, there are those moaning it should be much less than that.

In short, the race to the bottom won't help anyone.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ridiculous.

First, the first three levels are free to play so all potential buyers get an idea of whether the full game is something they want to purchase or not.

Second, for the people who do purchase the game, it's $10 for at least several hours of game play. I know you are not a developer, otherwise you wouldn't bitch about $10 for something that gives you hours of entertainment. The idea that $2 is a price point for mobile apps needs to be retired. That's why we have all of these "free" games that constantly push micro transactions and ads. Bleh!

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't many Apple pirates, but they are pretty persistent. Like all DRM, it won't bother them- they'll have some crack in a couple days. So in the future, if you want a version of Mario Run you can play on an airplane (or when Nintendo gets bored and shuts down the server) you'll need a jailbreak. Paying customers get screwed.

Re: Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

They paid so much for the hardware that they have vowed to never be humiliated like that again.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Volume is also good because like Angry birds, the more people that play the more word of mouth advertising you get. When everyone is talking about your game and its cheap, nearly everyone will buy it just to try it.

When it is $10 only hardcore people are going to just quickly buy it without thinking. Everyone else is going to think about if it is worth it and then that stops the viral social advertising in its tracks. Once people actually THINK about what they are getting with a mobile game, the developer is screwed. This pricing model was dumb. Should have been $5 or less OR had proof of more content (show hundreds of levels). I ran through all the free levels in around 10 minutes and beat all the "challenges" in a few hours. That means this entire game I could run through all the levels in a couple hours. Then I would play all the challenges to feel like I got my money's worth and finish that off in a few days.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

$10 is the problem. In mobile app land $10 is a ton of money and this game barely has any real content and the gameplay, while "addicting", sucks. You basically have to play a level to figure out where they put everything, then develop a plan, then play the level multiple times to execute your plan perfectly. This gives the illusion of a ton of content but really it just stretches out the same 2 minute level into 20 minutes. Just because it eats a bunch of your times doesn't make it a good value.

In other words, its almost impossible to just "play" the game no matter how "good" you are. Might be better if they showed you the level map ahead of time, since your first run is just a scouting run anyway. To me, that is a bad game.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Moridineas]

I did, yes--totally different from...

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[mlts]

The introduction of IAP completely killed the quality of games in iOS and Android. Before IAP, game designers had to make something that was usable, charge a decent price, and have something worth playing. Usually there was a demo game which was free, then the paid for app.

Now, almost all games are about a relatively easy 1-2 levels or whatnot, then making the game either impossible or way too time consuming to play, forcing the player to abandon it or start putting money in. You read the reviews of a lot of games, and they state this clearly.

I'd rather pay $20-30 for a good game, like a Square-Enix Chaos Rings sequel up front than to have to be nickeled and dimed every few minutes. The app makers can keep their smurfberries.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Because full AAA PC games only a year old can be bought on sale for 10 bucks or less. The race to the bottom is here.

As for your music example, it's so incredibly easy to pirate music that you're lucky to sell it for anything. Every song is on the largest music pirate site, Youtube, and can be easily downloaded from there.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Oswald McWeany]

There aren't many Apple pirates

Apple isn't really a techie phone. It's strength is in it's simplicity, not its ability to customize and hack. I think most would-be pirates would look elsewhere.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[thegarbz]

At $10 it's the cheapest Mario game to come out and for an endless runner it has far more to offer than previous runners, not to mention quite a decent amount of gameplay.

You're de-sensitised to game pricing and riding on the assumptions that Flappybird was free so why shouldn't Super Mario Run be.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[0101000001001010]

It goes deeper than that for me. If it were an actual $10 app, I would be more interested. Pay once, and everyone in my family could play courtesy of Apple Family Sharing. But by making the unlock an in-app purchase, everyone in my family would have to work over $10. And then there's in-app purchases beyond that.

I almost bought it anyway because I'm about to fly internationally and would have enjoyed the diversion on the trip. But to combat privacy[sic], Nintendo requires an Internet connection to play. So that use case is out as well. That just doesn't leave me with a lot of value for $10.

If it were a regular $10 app and there were some modes I could play offline, I would have bought it at launch.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[yekkow]

I agree with this 100%. I played the game and thought "hey this is a good game to play on the crapper" Then I got 3 levels in and though there is no way I would pay 10$ to unlock the rest of the game. I was just talking to my wife about microtransactions. When AppStore was in its infancy, games were 99c with over the top great games being 1.99. I was happy with this and often times I wanted someway to pay the developer more. Now I pay 2.99 for a game, and it is pay-to-play after that. Again, I am happy to support the developers, but not at what they are wanting. Example, I am playing the game HonorBound right now; everything can be unlocked in game (if you're lucky). However, if you want to increase your chances at getting a stronger character you need to use 10 elite ruins or pay 4000 gems. You can buy 2500 gems for 19.99 and 6500 gems for 49.99. Even if I buy the gems I am still relying on RNGesus to get me a decent character. Are you kidding me? I can buy a damn near AAA game for less than that.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Pascoea]

but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much.

But nobody bats an eye at a $5 coffee.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Merk42]

Then given right now it's iOS exclusive, why did Nintendo do it?

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Oswald McWeany]

I don't think Nintendo were hoping for pirates.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

But nobody bats an eye at a $5 coffee.

Mario Run should last slightly longer than an overpriced coffee from the cafe.
Assuming people enjoy their iced mocha double cappuccino tazo for 30 to 45 minutes, means people expect to spend 11.11c / min to 16.67c / min for entertainment. Sounds like Mario Run is more expensive than that.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Jason Levine]

I never said that it should be free, but the vast majority of games are $4.99 or less - with $2-3 seeming to be the sweet spot. Yes. there are the "free" games that inundate you with in-app purchases of various sorts (and sometimes make it so that the game is all but impossible to complete without these purchases) but I much prefer an upfront fee to being nickel and dimed as I'm playing the game.

Had Super Mario Run been $4.99, I'd have considered it (when it was released on Android), but at $10, it just seems too expensive to me.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Jason Levine]

Good point. My boys love playing games on their tablets (or our old smartphones that are WiFi-only now). If I could buy Super Mario Run for $10 and all of us could use it, then I *might* be able to rationalize it being "only $3.33 per person." Since it's $10 per device (not even per person), it would mean needing to pay for it for my phone, each of my son's tablets, and a pair of old smartphones. (If I wanted the full version on all of our devices.) I could wind up spending $50 on this game. I'd rather just buy a console Mario game and be done with it.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Jason Levine]

Of the games I'm playing right now:

Disney Crossy Road: Free to play, but you can buy the "Hamm Piggy Bank" to get more coins. I tend not to need it because I just play more often to get more coins.

Marvel Avenger's Academy: Free to play, but they have a premium currency. You can get some via watching ads, but to really be able to afford premium items/characters, you need to spend real money. They've had a lot of "special events" recently which start off fine, but are clearly either "pay to win" or "you must constantly be playing this game and have no life otherwise to win." I just satisfy myself with getting an event character or two without in-app purchases and ignore the premium stuff.

Disney Magical Kingdoms: Same as Marvel Avenger's Academy, but they are more generous with handing out free premium currency for completing various actions/missions. So much so that I've been able to buy quite a few premium characters without needing to spend any actual cash.

If any of these were paid apps (perhaps with a free version to introduce you to the game) without in-app purchases, I'd gladly pay for them. However, I'm not going to pay $10 for each premium character/item.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[dgatwood]

This also ensures that instead of their games stopping working in three or four OS releases from insufficient maintenance, they'll stop working in three or four years when they turn down their DRM server.

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

$1.99 for the actual GamePlay + $8.00 for the Nintendo/Mario brand = $9.99

Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. It is per account. I am using the same account on both an iPad and iPhone and can play all levels on both of them using the same purchase.

Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo should produce bluetooth controllers for iPhone and Android and make some real games!
I think those would sell well.
Mario Run is one of the most lazy Mario games. It rehashes the same tired graphics and music from NSMB Wii.
However Super Mario Maker was a unique and creative gem!

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not gonna see a true Nintendo game on your phone. You want that, go buy a real gaming system. Phones are for throwaway nonsense, and Nintendo only put this out to appease their retarded investors. And even then, their effort shits all over almost every phone game from a great height.

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not gonna see a true Nintendo game on your phone.

Oh, really? Here's an easy way, in only three steps:
1. Put your phone on a table
2. Insert Nintendo game into GameBoy/DS/DSi/3DS.
3. Put GameBoy/DS/DSi/3DS on top of your phone.

Voilà, you have a true Nintendo game on your phone!

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

Touché.

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[xtal]

Emulated games work great on my phone.

Including the controller.

I wish Nintendo could profit instead of being stupid.

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[tepples]

How do you carry the phone and the Bluetooth controller at once?

And how many other people own and are willing to regularly use such a controller? Are there enough customers to sustain a substantial market for such games? One user does not a market make.

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

There are smaller controllers designed for smartphones. If you can't fit one of those in your pocket, you can put it in a backpack or coat or jacket in fall/winter/spring. Problem is most iPhone games are designed for touch screens and Apple doesn't allow emulators on the App store. You can find emulators on the Google Play store though and usually they have an option to set up a blue tooth game controller with them.

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

Emulated games work great on my phone.

Including the controller.

I wish Nintendo could profit instead of being stupid.

If you're just going to download ROMs for your emulator, how exactly do you propose Nintendo "profit instead of being stupid"?

Re:Nintendo should sell bluetooth controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

A phone isn't a gaming system, no matter how much you stretch to try to make it one.

Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero did

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> People aren't loving Nintendo's newly released Super Mario Run. Nintendo's stock plunged 7.1%

Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero did.

Seriously - I don't understand the panic. Nintendo's will keep licensing its characters (as it always has) until they find the right game and format. Even Link's been pimped out on a retread (Hyrule Warriors - a reskinned Dynasty Warriors).

Getting decent reviews from real review outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that the mobile phone audience are mentally retarded. Look at the shit they usually play.

Absurd Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying Mario Run is a ground breaking game or anything, but I think objectively it is an excellent mobile game and a pretty good Mario game. It feels like so many of the reviews are by people who either haven't played it but just read descriptions of the game, or looking for something to whine about.

Most of the complaints are about Mario games not supposed to be about going fast to the end, but exploring. Except, so much of the game is about that (the different colored coins). There is a huge emphasis on exploring the levels, even providing you an easy way to go backwards to get what you missed. It's not about just completing the game...heck, Mario games haven't been about simply completing levels since Super Mario World on the SNES (maybe even SMB3), and this one is no exception.

My expectations for the game were very low. All I knew about it before release was it was an infinite runner SMB game. I was thinking it was going to be temple run, but with Mario. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the game. There are levels to explore, different and challenging game mechanics, and it FEELS like a Mario game.

I think some people have unrealistic expectations for a mobile game that costs $10.

Re:Absurd Expectations

[omnichad]

Mario games haven't been about simply completing levels since Super Mario World on the SNES (maybe even SMB3), and this one is no exception.

Original SMB. Invisible 1-up blocks, pipes to underground coins, warp pipes.

It's the controller, stupid

[xtal]

If they'd make a nintendo-branded bluetooth dpad and holder we wouldn't be having this conversation, it would be a conversation about how much money they're making.

Touchscreens aren't everything. Humans have fingers. D-pad is brilliant. Stop drinking the Ive kool-aid. Poor Mario.

Oh, and make some more of those NES classics. Stupid nintendo. I'd have bought at least 5 of them if they were available. I got a knockoff chinese USB d-pad clone instead.

Re:It's the controller, stupid

[110010001000]

Right. Lots of people are going to buy a bluetooth dpad to play a throwaway game. This is why slashdotters shouldn't be put in charge of anything.

Re:It's the controller, stupid

[xtal]

They have to make the throwaway game because you can't do anything else without a D-pad.

The market is punishing them because investors aren't stupid, and realize there is no slot machine about to pay out.

Re:It's the controller, stupid

[AvitarX]

Yhey could also add a battery, that way it could be used to play without destroying batter life.

That works for the iPhone, but Android is too fractured for such a device.

Re:It's the controller, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for one game, but if Apple and Google (and other manufacturers of Android phones) aggressively pushed for a standardized game controller and encouraged game makers to make games for them, it would drastically change the mobile game market. I don't understand why they haven't yet, meanwhile Google and Samsung are pushing VR heavily.

There are 3rd party bluetooth game controllers for smartphones now, but they're not standardized and really only emulators are designed to use them, and emulators aren't allowed on the Apple Store.

Re:It's the controller, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people bought a stick so they wouldn't have to hold out their arm to take a picture. A newer fad is buying a rock simply to look at it, rather than keeping it as a pet... I'm sure a bunch of people would buy a dpad.

Re:It's the controller, stupid

[dj245]

If they'd make a nintendo-branded bluetooth dpad and holder we wouldn't be having this conversation, it would be a conversation about how much money they're making.

Touchscreens aren't everything. Humans have fingers. D-pad is brilliant. Stop drinking the Ive kool-aid. Poor Mario.

Oh, and make some more of those NES classics. Stupid nintendo. I'd have bought at least 5 of them if they were available. I got a knockoff chinese USB d-pad clone instead.

The future of gaming in my family is looking more and more like it will be Retroarch on either Android or Windows for the older games, and Steam for the newer ones. Nintendo offers a pretty decent walled garden, but it isn't a very big garden and the per-game cost is high enough to give pause when compared to the bargains that can be had on Steam.

Re:It's the controller, stupid

[thegarbz]

If they'd make a nintendo-branded bluetooth dpad and holder we wouldn't be having this conversation

You think the answer to people complaining about the cost of a game (all the one star reviews, the others are all 5 stars), is to make people buy an accessory?
Which company did you run into bankruptcy again?

Re: Getting decent reviews from real review outlet

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of mobile phone owners don't play games on them, of any flavour.

Re:Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero

[bluefoxlucid]

Nintendo openly advertised that Hyrule Warriors was a bridge game that used Dynasty Warriors gameplay (and engine) with Zelda assets. It had its own story, its own characters, and everything to make it a Zelda game; and it had the gameplay of a Dynasty Warriors game to add some variety and appeal to those sorts.

I'd love to see another one, with a step forward into blending the gameplay. This is how we got Zelda 2 and Metroid. Imagine if you could solo dungeons with Link while taking open battlefields as in Hyrule Warriors, using the build and leveling systems to affect your character. I don't know where they could go with Adventure Mode; filling in spaces with what amounts to low-quality minigames doesn't count as "content" to me, in the same way that adding 46 minutes of stock drum solos and loop tracks to a CD wouldn't count as "content". The main game, the story mode, with an open-progression world that blended Warriors and traditional 3D Zelda gameplay would be an excellent option to explore.

Re:Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Nintendo openly advertised that Hyrule Warriors was a bridge game that used Dynasty Warriors gameplay (and engine) with Zelda assets

I know. Thus my use of the word "pimped": Nintendo licensed one of its grade-A assets out to a shop that knowingly put together a half-assed "bridge" game to collect money from people who liked Zelda games without actually producing a Zelda game. They've done it before and they'll do it again, because they know people like you will bite.

Probably mostly biased reviews...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the price, I thought the game was pretty good and is probably one of the better run & jump games in the appstore. It only took a couple hours to unlock everything, but luckily they added a collection aspect to the game to keep you coming back for more. For the price, I'm hoping they continue to add more to the game and expand on the gameplay.

Re:Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

but Hyrule Warriors sold REALLY WELL... (for a wii u game)

StarFox Zero's issue is... it is StarFox and honestly... most people don't really know who that is... and those that learned about this game probably thought the same thing as I did (Ohh Nintendo's hubris is at it again since they FORCE me to use the damn motion control tablet to aim, FU** that)... and that is the reason the newest StarFox failed. As someone who even listens on/off to IGN's Nintendo Podcast... even the diehards on that show couldn't sell using the damn tablet (same as splitoon) all they could say is "once you get used to it, its better"... but I'm sorry, I shouldn't have to 'get used' to an input mechanic I don't like...

Re:Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero

[RogueyWon]

StarFox Zero was, by all accounts, a pretty bad game and was a horrible commercial flop. But it wasn't actually "news" that it flopped. Investors had already basically written off the Wii-U by the time StarFox Zero released, so all it did was continue the current narrative.

If Super Mario Run doesn't pan out properly, then that is "news". Nintendo's stocks have been buoyed a bit in recent months by their planned entry into the mobile market. Their home-console sales have been moribund since around 2011. The handheld market has been a lot healthier for them - and Pokémon remains the jewel in their crown (Mario lost that accolade years ago) - but nobody seriously thinks there's a long-term future for dedicated gaming handhelds. Investors who were hoping for a serious return from Nintendo on a par with the early days of the Wii have been putting a lot of weight on their entry into the mobile market.

If that entry turns into a belly-flop, then said investors will take fright. If it turns out that putting Nintendo franchises on a phone isn't an instant profit factory, then they will be distinctly unhappy. Don't forget that other major developers and publishers have struggled to turn established gaming franchises into successful mobile titles. Indeed, many of the biggest mobile hits to date have come from left-field from developers nobody had previously heard of.

I suspect that in the eyes of investors, mobile is seen as more important to Nintendo's future even than the Switch (which some, at least, seem to have written off before it even launches). It's too early to know for sure whether they'll pull off the mobile thing or not; early signals are mixed.

This article makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh; this article is ridiculous.

First of all, the summary links a Fortune article that quotes Bloomberg. If you're going to say Bloomberg reported something, why not link to the Bloomberg article?

Also, why are the reviews so bad from a user perspective? The more traditional games media gave it a 7.9 avg Metacritic score. Exposition would be helpful, although perhaps that's asking a lot from Slashdot.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/super-mario-run

Re:Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

The panic is invented by the journalists to get page hits. So not only is there no need for it, it basically doesn't exist.

The 7.1% drop isn't a "panic," it is just a bunch of day-traders abandoning one gamble for another.

Must be online DRM for a single player phone game

[Joe_Dragon]

Must be online DRM for a single player phone game is killing it.

Candy crush works in off line mode.

Surprisingly decent game

[CrazySpence]

I enjoy it and going back to try and unlock all the special games/characters gives it decent replay but I also like Nintendo games and have been paying 60-70 for new Mario games for years so perhaps that's why the 14.99 (Canadian price) didn't bother me too much.

Apple QuickTime events

[tepples]

The entire game is a quick-time-event.

More than that: It's exclusive to iOS, which is from Apple, the company that invented QuickTime.

Re:Apple QuickTime events

[yuriklastalov]

You just like, blew my mind, man.

Was it on the Terminal first?

[tepples]

First of all, the summary links a Fortune article that quotes Bloomberg. If you're going to say Bloomberg reported something, why not link to the Bloomberg article?

From the Bloomberg article:

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE

Perhaps Fortune reported the story while it was still exclusive to the Terminal and then edited the links in once the story hit Bloomberg.com.

Also, why are the reviews so bad from a user perspective?

Probably a result of users' realization that they will need to pay for a data plan at hundreds of dollars per year in order to play the game outside home, because of the game's Assassin's Creed Unity/SimCity (2013)-style requirement for a continuous Internet connection during gameplay, even in the single-player World Tour mode.

Make sense

[Chewbacon]

You dump a thousand dollars into an iPhone, how the hell can they expect you to pay $10 on a game? That's like 2 days missed at Starbucks.

Meanwhile, console games went up about $10 and they're flying off the shelves. It's about price? Give me a fucking break.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just the absolute price but what you get for that price and what it cost to make for that price. $100 is a tenth of my mortgage, I guess I should pay that for a coffee? I don't see how the price of coffee or a phone is relevant to the price of this game. (Good) Console games have way more than 10x the content of this game, with much more varied gameplay, better graphics, better music score, more developers, writers, actors, etc.

There are bad console games too and those aren't worth $10 either. But good god, to say that something like Grand Theft Auto is at all in the same league as this game should qualify you for being institutionalized.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about price? Give me a fucking break.

You're right. The game just sucks.

Stock market is crazy

[volodymyrbiryuk]

One bad game and everyone forgets who you are! *smirking C. Ronaldo face*

Xperia Play

[tepples]

Sony tried that. It was an Android phone with a slide-out PSP Go-style gamepad, called the Xperia Play. It didn't do so well.

Re: Xperia Play

[unami]

but sony's handheld conoles didn't do so well either (compared to nintendo's).

Re: Xperia Play

[Ginguin]

I agree. Nintendo is in a different place than Sony was when it comes to the handheld market. They have a fairly devoted following and some solid IP. I know several people that carry a DS (various generations and styles) everywhere they go. Their recent nostalgia targeting console (release old games today? wow!) did exceptionally well. They can bring all of those to a modern device and I think people would jump at it.

I can't say, though, whether that devoted following is deep (i.e. fans would replace their current phone with a Nintendo version). Nintendo would have to do several things right to pull off a console/phone hybrid, and even that may not get enough people to switch to make it worthwhile. They could just make a version of their DS that has the capability needed to be a phone (insert sim card, can hold up to ear as phone, send messages) and hope for a slow and steady uptake, but they won't sweep into the market and see instant adoption amongst established markets. That hurts companies frequently.

Re: Xperia Play

[SScorpio]

The PSP sold over 60 million units world wide. It looks like a failure compared the to the DS's 150 million. But it still sold very well compared to everything else that took on Nintendo (Gamegear, Lynx, Wonder Swan, etc).

Re:Xperia Play

[Anonymous Coward]

Except with me.. a gamer... I still want one of those. I know it only runs Android 2 but it's got the hardware to emulate 2nd gen consoles and the physical controller to boot.. I could have more fun with that than any other phone except maybe my old G1 with hard kb.

Re: Xperia Play

[Anonymous Coward]

The N-Gage tried this - and it was pants. Too small for a game console and too big for a phone.

If they tried attaching controllers to a Note then it might be viable. At least it would if they can solve the explosions-problem.

Re:Xperia Play

[Anonymous Coward]

The Xperia Play was an underpowered, plasticky piece of shit. even the hardware buttons felt bad. I returned mine within days of purchasing it.

Nintendo stock price higher than 5 weeks ago

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mario hype bubble has burst and Nintendo's stock price has returned to normal. It's still trading approximately 60% higher than it was 6 months ago.

huh?

[Mysticalfruit]

So Nintendo makes a stupid game... mind you, not hardware but a one off funny thing and this causes the stock to tumble? For fucks sake! Call me when their consoles catch fire, or everybody's online acconts / wiipoints get plundered.

Yeah, it's a game. Some people will love, some people will hate it. *shrugs*

Re:Must be online DRM for a single player phone ga

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's probably the $10 price tag for a phone game thats killing it.

What's the game about anyway?

[wardrich86]

I'm an Android user living under a rock... is Nintendo basically selling a Mario-themed version of Subway Surfer/Temple Run for $10.00 and expecting people to buy it?!

Re:What's the game about anyway?

[sl3xd]

No. It's fairly normal Mario game. The only "twist" is that you don't have much of a speed control.

There are "pause" tiles, and tiles which move you backwards. Otherwise, Mario walks to the right constantly.

It's a "one button" game -- the player can jump. It's a fun game, but you can't go backwards and get every coin, kill every enemy, destroy every block, and find every secret in one playthrough.

It's a godsend for gamers who only have one thumb free. (feeding a newborn baby can get... dull.)

It's well made -- easily up to Nintendo's normal standards of excellence. The interaction to "sign up" or "log in" to a Nintendo account is shockingly well done: It's hard to describe, but you know how many games make you switch to your mobile browser, sign up for an online account, go to your email, get the validation code, go back to the web page, validate, and finally go back to the app and log in (again). Nintendo went way above and beyond, and made the process the most smooth, fluid experience I've ever seen on any platform.

I love it, and spent the $10 in-app-purchase on it.

Re:What's the game about anyway?

[sl3xd]

For the record, I hate temple run type games. Mario on iOS isn't remotely similar.

Re:What's the game about anyway?

[thegarbz]

Not quite. Mario Run has far more to offer in terms of player dynamics, game modes, and actual fun. At $10 it's also the cheapest mario game ever produced and it's refreshing to see a game do something other than just shovel ads down the user's throats and then pay $1 for another life.

Re:What's the game about anyway?

[wardrich86]

Oh thank god. When people kept referring to it as a running game, I thought it was going to be another one of those Temple Run kinda knockoff games.

An article based on App Store reviews?

[wicka_wicka]

App Store reviews are pointless. Some of the most popular apps have terrible review scores. Mario is probably getting poor scores because it requires an internet connection (which is admittedly dumb) and people are too cheap for $10. The actual, real reviews of the game itself have been pretty good.

Re:An article based on App Store reviews?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The actual, real reviews of the game itself have been pretty good.
AKA "journalists" who dare not to say a bad word or see their stream of free "review" shit vanish

Re:An article based on App Store reviews?

[wicka_wicka]

Christ, you people are like clockwork. How about having a real, intelligent conversation without devolving into baseless conspiracies?

Good!

[mbeckman]

Maybe this will put an end to the gameification of adult life.

Re:Good!

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> put an end to the gameification of adult life

That's not what "Mario Run" does. The live Pokemon game did that, but this is just a port of Temple Run or its clone (didn't bother to look).

Re:Good!

[mbeckman]

Really? Does Mario Run pull grown-up adults into a spiraling vortex of time-wasting oblivion, destroying productivity and damaging personal relationships?

I though so.

whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

a 7% drop over a cheapo iphone game they licenced the ip out on? Sounds like a discount on Nintendo stock to me. It's like people forgot when they used to put out a shitty mario IP'd sports/party game like once a month.

Who is the game for?

[Thyamine]

I think the biggest problem is that I don't know who they are targeting. The casual gamer (generally using phones and tablets) aren't going to pay this, and me as a traditional gamer sees it as a waste of money for a 'Run' style game. I downloaded it and was hopeful since it was Mario/Nintendo, but really I don't think I need much more than the free levels. It's not engaging to me, and seems to be too expensive for people who find $1.99 a lot to pay at times.

Re:Must be online DRM for a single player phone ga

[thegarbz]

Must be online DRM for a single player phone game is killing it.

Lol, just like it killed Pokemon Go right?
No one gives a shit about the online requirements, especially on a phone which is nearly always online, and especially given the amount of content you get from other players in your "single player" game.

People complaining about the cost

[thegarbz]

The cheapest Mario game to date is also the one people complain the most about the cost.

I'm calling it. The mobile phone generation are over-entitled, spoilt and want everything for free. I hope these companies abandon the platform and go back to focusing on the good old couch experience where they at least know they will be appreciated.

The game itself is quite good, has a decent amount of content and a wide enough variety of playing styles to set it apart from every other running game. But hey Nintendo, lesson learnt. Don't make good games, just make shit and load it with ads and pay to win, you'll be rich.

Re:People complaining about the cost

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a Mario game, it's a skinned runner - something that was done to death over five years ago. They've used the Mario name to sucker people, and now they're getting the backlash.

You know why they released this shit? Because the shareholders are seeing their investment going down the shitter and want their IP on the massive phone/tablet market - where we all know they'll make billions.

So give it a rest with "entitlement", you sanctimonious twit. The game is shit, the company is dying, and those with real money in the game want their investment returns. Get it?

Re:People complaining about the cost

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm most likely older than you, and I'm calling "it".

Fuck off.

They rolled it out poorly, it wasn't that fun, and it should have been half the price.

Get over yourself.

Re:Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero

[bluefoxlucid]

They actually were producing a Zelda game at the time; it was taking too long. This was faster to get out, and people liked it. A different development house did most of the work. I'm not seeing the downside.

DeNA "working" as usual.

[Aereus]

Color me surprised that a project DeNA was involved with went poorly. They've consistently proven themselves incompetent and I grimaced the day I heard Nintendo announce a partnership with them for mobile.

Re:DeNA "working" as usual.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the same cringe when I heard about Nintendo + DeNA. The DeNA titles I've played were all beautiful piles of buggy crapware, with misleading in-app purchases.

Not an endless runner game at all.

[SuperKendall]

First of all, you defiantly get a decent amount of content to try playing and decide if you want to buy before you make the in-app purchase.

Secondly, the game is not an endless runner at all. It's a lot more like a normal Mario game, with forward motion handled for you. It's not like you always are going forward; you have pause points so you can time entry into a tricky section, and wall bounces will enable you to go a little bit backwards at times.

But also on top of that there's a whole racing subgame, and building a small kingdom with various buildings you can place.

I think there's a lot of value in what you get for $10, I didn't mind paying for it. I think they put a lot of hard work into thinking of how they could make playing the Mario games we all know and love still work on a mobile platform, way more so than most games.

Re:Must be online DRM for a single player phone ga

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be online DRM for a single player phone game is killing it.

Lol, just like it killed Pokemon Go right?
No one gives a shit about the online requirements, especially on a phone which is nearly always online, and especially given the amount of content you get from other players in your "single player" game.

Pokemon Go has a reason to be online... This does not.

Color me SHOCKED

[Anonymous Coward]

Color me SHOCKED that shitty games don't suddenly become great just because you shoehorn in a popular character.

Infinite runners are trash and "mobile gaming" as a whole is a joke. Not even Mario can change that.

They're facing two unforeseen obstacles.

[mmell]

The first is that there are a great many excellent games already available on the Android and iPhone platforms which were written from the ground up to take advantage of the hardware while minimizing the hardware's limitations (hint - most cell phones don't have anything as tactile as a joystick/joypad/t-pad).

The second is that a lot of the people using these games remember side-scrolling eight-bit gaming from their childhood - if at all - and to them, any variation on the Mario theme is likely to seem quaint, antiquated, unfinished. Minecraft was the sole recent exception to this trend - otherwise, you need a lot of polygons and at least a sixteen-bit deep soundtrack to even get anybody's attention.

Nintendo may have been the once and future video game company once (Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. took more than a few quarters out of my pocket in the day), but I guess that doesn't mean what it used to. Someone should tell the folks at Nintendo!

Re:Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see a similar game: the Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball game engine but with Nintendo's female characters. They probably have enough for such a game: Peach, Rosalina, Daisy, Palutena, Zelda, Samus, etc.

Well that's because

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a cheap pussy

It's the internet connection

[Lord Duran]

You can't play it on the subway, you can't play it on a plane. When are you supposed to play it then?

Emulators are OK if the ROM is hardcoded

[tepples]

There are smaller controllers designed for smartphones.

Yet I haven't seen the manufacturer of any such controller release sales figures. If end users don't own a controller, developers are unlikely to target it.

Apple doesn't allow emulators on the App store

I was under the impression that Apple's guidelines allowed emulators so long as the app is "self-contained" (as defined in rule 2.5.2). A game's publisher can satisfy this by distributing the ROM and emulator together in one app. SEGA has ported several of its games to iOS using an emulator in this manner.

Harldy the cheapest

[HalAtWork]

Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World, 2 of the best Mario titles, are regularly $5 on the 3DS and Wii and Wii U consoles.

Re:Harldy the cheapest

[thegarbz]

Yeah and if in 2034 Super Mario Run is still selilng for $9.90 you may have a point.