Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Mobile Mario Game Sets Download Record But Pricing Proves Sticking Point (reuters.com)
Nintendo's first Mario smartphone game has set a download record but gamers baulked at the one-time cost of unlocking content, prompting investors to push the Japanese game makers' stock to a one-month low. From a report on Reuters: Super Mario Run hit 25 million downloads just four days after its Dec. 15 release in 151 countries on Apple's App Store, earning gross sales of about $21 million, showed data from app analyst Sensor Tower. But Nintendo shares have lost 11 percent since the launch as the latest game to feature Nintendo's princess-rescuing Italian plumber received negative reviews from users mainly complaining about its $9.99 one-time cost, rather than the usual model of paying small amounts for special features. "Mario is arguably the most popular gaming franchise in the world, yet we see only about 8 percent of those who try the game actually purchasing it," said Sensor Tower analyst Spencer Gabriel. Super Mario Run is free to download on the App Store where, in Japan, it is rated 2.5 stars out of 5 based on 1,095 reviews.
Players are balking at a $10 investment on something that may suck, particularly when people are telling us it sucks.
Nobody wants pay as you go, that is bullshit.
I for one can add and I'd rather pay $10 up front for a good game than a dollar here and there for a larger total. Pay per play and pay per feature end up much more expensive for the consumer than a flat price!
Smart phones have changed how people think about money.
I bet it's cheaper to pay that one time fee, instead of Nintendo using the current phone economics model to take it drip by drip.
"good game" being the caveat!!
I agree, I'd much rather pay a one time flat fee, even if the game turns out to suck.
.99 and 1.99 purchases doesn't feel like as big of a hit as 9.99, despite the fact that they'll add up to more.
It's an interesting question, though, whether psychologically that holds true for the majority of people, especially given how successful some of the microtransaction games turn out to be. I could certainly envision that a lot of people would turn out to be drawn more towards a model where there's a low or nonexistent up front cost, with small/incremental costs for additional features. People would tell themselves "Oh, I won't buy those" or "I'll just buy the one or two I really want", and then they get hooked, and those 'small' costs add up, often to far more than a flat rate would be. We don't process prices in a purely logical fashion (hence the plethora of "x.99" prices, for instance), and several
Huge Nintendo fan here and I think its a little too pricey. To me personally, it's a $5 ($6 tops) app at best.
As someone who creates games that go by the nickel and dime strategy, you bet your ass it makes more money.
Sometimes I feel guilty, other times I'm just happy to be able to afford food.
"Here we GO!"
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I don't really blame the developers. The market is what it is. I personally opt to have nothing to do with it in that form, but it seems like I'm the minority.
It's not nickel and dime. It's like Doom: play through a few levels then unlock the entire rest of the game with a single purchase. The only remotely "nickel and dime" element of Super Mario Run that I'm aware of is its requirement for a continuous connection to Nintendo's server through the Internet, which can become very expensive if you want to play away from Wi-Fi.
is that since it's not an up-front purchase, but an in-game one, you cannot use Family Sharing with it.
first, these comments skew the results. i never ever buy anything that says "in app payments". hate them as I feel I'm buying a pig in a poke that I will invest my time in and then be asked to pay some unknown amount in the future. I'd rather just pay an acceptable price knowing I won't owe more just to use what I have.
thus I won't be the one commenting and rating the app that I refuse to buy.
Second, you are not likely to see anyone comments in a review. "Gee I with there were more add on payments in-app."
thus the absense of evidence in not the evidence of absense. People who hate in-app model of bussiness don't register.
Second $10? that's cheap. And since it's coming from a reliable company one has no need to fear it's a scam or a piece of alpha-ware.
So whine away.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I've paid a lot more than $10 for a game over the years and been perfectly happy
Did those games require you to buy a data plan for hundreds of dollars per year in order to keep even single-player mode going when you leave Wi-Fi range?
i never ever buy anything that says "in app payments". hate them as I feel I'm buying a pig in a poke that I will invest my time in and then be asked to pay some unknown amount in the future.
That's Apple's fault. The App Store says "payments", plural, even when there's only one one-time payment required to unlock all of a particular app's functionality.
The reason only 8% buy it is because it sucks.
Maybe, just maybe, the entirety of Nintendo's stock value isn't dependent on the success of an app.
No, the thing here is that 10 bux US is simply too much for what you're getting. It's a single-button rhythm game that requires rote memorization of level layouts for optimal routing.
Buying DOOM, back in the day, however, got you a single-player experience, multiplayer, custom level creation, in an amazing new genre and experience.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
If the app cost $9.99 to download then I'd have already purchased it. Just like DS and Wii games before it.
My beef is I have a family account setup, so my family could share a $10 purchased game, but I need to buy the $10 in app purchase on every member of the families account. In app are great for the speed ups, they suck for actual functionality.
Most mobile games you either pay up front or you get free with micro-transactions. Mario Run is more like 90s shareware, if you like the demo you buy the rest
To my knowledge NOBODY else does it this way
crazy dynamite monkey
This is the second reason, aside from no standard control scheme for phone gaming, is why I just don't bother. The pricing for so many games is simply too high for what you are getting. Sure, I've paid 50 - 60 for a game before, but I got a lot of value out of those purchases, and hundreds of hours of playtime.
"Science is the power of man"
This is another issue being reported, that aside from not being able to play without an internet connection, the game can use 50MB of data or more for mobile users. (supposedly)
...when it was just called Temple Run. Love the new skin, but what do you want us to pay $10 for again?
many would argue that I'm already paying for the data plan for other reasons
Does what you're already paying take into account the possibility that the game may push you into having to pay an overage fee? Or a tethering fee if the device on which you play the game is not the phone to which your data plan is registered?
Here is supposedly how to get around the in app purchase. https://www.reddit.com/r/ninte...
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
For that caveat you can also read the reviews (almost universally positive) watch a gameplay video (show you how the features work) or ... play through most of the first world of the game which you can do before paying the $10.
"Good game" is also relative and personal. I for one find it to be a good game. YMMV
it wasn't a dig against the mario game, just generally speaking. people pay for perceived value, if it has become culturally unacceptable to pay up front, then it will have the undesired effect on sales regardless of the actual value the 10$ might buy as was the original commenters point.
I think you mean, "balked."
Could have meant either, since they are both accepted spellings of the word that means, "to stop and refuse to proceed." The device you can use to verify this is called a "dictionary"; there are quite a few of them available online.
This is the second time I've seen this complaint. Don't you people (to be clear, by "you people" I am referring to the complainers) know how to use a dictionary?
No, not sarcasm. I really mean it. Well done Nintendo. $10 is chicken feed. Seriously.
As an independent App developer I often feel like a sweat shop worker. Or a ant being tortured by a child with a magnifying glass.
You write an App, that people really like and want, but the shit you have to put up with because you don't give it away for FREE is soul destroying.
I've tried offering two options, pay for full function or use with interstitial Ads.
The 1 star ratings keep coming in with comments like "Remove those annoying Ads and I'll give you 5 stars".
Oh thanks. I can feed myself and family on your generous 5 star rating?
The App eco-system is probably the most under valued product market place in modern society.
People think nothing of chucking 99c at a street busker or homeless beggar but balk at the thought of handing over a penny for an App they really want.
Nintendo could have been more underhanded, like some other games who can afford big names and tv adverts, but they chose instead to offer a freemium product with a single purchase option and not try to milk you for millions.
The game might suck, but their business ethics and mentality are sound.
No doubt their strategy going forward is to offer discount days and other price promotions to increase the conversion ratio.
You can only do that though from starting with a premium price.
Thank you Nintendo for not going to the lowest price point and perpetuating what has become an industry trend that's slowly suffocating itself to death.
I for one can add and I'd rather pay $10 up front for a good game than a dollar here and there for a larger total
The game is NOT $1 here and there. It's $10 one time, for the whole game...
The only difference is that Nintendo lets you go through the tutorial, three of the initial levels, play around with building your castle, and the race mode - so basically they give you a pretty large amount of content for free to decide if you like what is going on, then you purchase the whole thing. It's exactly like a free game demo where you can unlock the full game any time you like, not like an in-app nightmare that we know from other mobile games.
I actually think the pricing model and approach they took is essentially perfect, and I would love as many apps as possible to be modeled after this.
The only thing that I think is archaic is the need to be online to play, though I'm still not sure how much of a requirement that is since I'm mostly in a city and have a cell connection. If you really can't play it on a plane though, that is bad thinking on their part since a large part of their target market may well not have a network connection all the time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, 8% of 25 millions at 9.99 is U$ 19,980,000. In four days. I'm sure this is much more then stupid microtransaction model.
A $10 starting price gives Nintendo flexibility to run sales to boost purchases when initial sales start tapering. When a $10 app has a 50% off sale it gets more attention than a $0.99 app; and at $5 Nintendo would still make a handy profit. If the price started at the bottom there's no where to go from there.
Besides, making $21 million in four days doesn't sounds like a problem to me. I doubt it cost Nintendo that much to design the game.