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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes...

[Bartles]

...why would I play this?

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.

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

[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]

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

[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: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

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: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.

[_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."

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: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.

Stock market is crazy

[volodymyrbiryuk]

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

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: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.

[secretsquirel]

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

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: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

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.

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.