3 ms·

> there's likely already some sort of effort-reward cycle built into the game that doesn't involve mapping. You would think that, but there really isn't. It's

> there's likely already some sort of effort-reward cycle built into the game that doesn't involve mapping. You would think that, but there really isn't. It's easier to see if you load up the game for yourself. Sure, it's true that Niantic didn't plan or intend for usable maps to exist. But it's also true that the game is effectively unplayable without the maps. The real winner in this whole situation is Nintendo. Niantic has effectively given their entire userbase over to Nintendo -- and even though Nintendo's doing very little to attract or keep them, they'll probably still get some extra 3DS + game sales as a result.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> The real winner in this whole situation is Nintendo. Niantic has effectively given their entire userbase over to Nintendo -- and even though Nintendo's doing very little to attract or keep them, they'll probably still get some extra 3DS + game sales as a result. I don't understand how that follows. How did Niantic give any of its userbase over to Nintendo? Pokemon Go does very little to advance the Nintendo games - there's literally zero upsell involved (or even any cross-advertising). You could say that the Pokemon Go brand might sell some extra copies of Sun & Moon in November, but I'd argue that the effect runs mostly in the other direction. Pokemon Go was successful because of Nintendo's Pokemon brand. And to at least a degree, that capital is finite (people's appetite for Pokemon-related games is a finite resource, and it's possible that overexposure to Pokemon Go could make them less excited about the upcoming 3DS games).
- SerLava 10y ago
  There have been a lot of Pokemon core game sales and 3DS sales. That's what he's talking about. People are interested in the original games again.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > How did Niantic give any of its userbase over to Nintendo? Niantic's handling of Pokemon Go is driving demand for Pokemon, but not fulfilling it. And some of that unfulfilled demand is going to Nintendo, whose product does deliver a Pokemon experience, and is already sitting in thousands of stores all across America today. "Sales of Pokémon X and Y, which were first released in October 2013, were up a huge 200 percent compared to their sales in July of last year." -- https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/18/nintendo-3ds-sales-up-80-year-over-year-on-pokemon-go-success/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/18/nintendo-3ds-sales-up-80-y... -------- > Pokemon Go does very little to advance the Nintendo games - there's literally zero upsell involved (or even any cross-advertising). It doesn't have to advertise Nintendo's products, it only has to advertise the brand. Coca-Cola ads drive demand and sales for Coke, even though they rarely upsell the actual product. Coke advertisements can drive sales without explicitly saying "12 packs are $3.99 at your local Wal*Mart".

chimeracoder 10y ago

> The real winner in this whole situation is Nintendo. Niantic has effectively given their entire userbase over to Nintendo -- and even though Nintendo's doing very little to attract or keep them, they'll probably still get some extra 3DS + game sales as a result. I don't understand how that follows. How did Niantic give any of its userbase over to Nintendo? Pokemon Go does very little to advance the Nintendo games - there's literally zero upsell involved (or even any cross-advertising). You could say that the Pokemon Go brand might sell some extra copies of Sun & Moon in November, but I'd argue that the effect runs mostly in the other direction. Pokemon Go was successful because of Nintendo's Pokemon brand. And to at least a degree, that capital is finite (people's appetite for Pokemon-related games is a finite resource, and it's possible that overexposure to Pokemon Go could make them less excited about the upcoming 3DS games).

SerLava 10y ago
There have been a lot of Pokemon core game sales and 3DS sales. That's what he's talking about. People are interested in the original games again.
maxsilver 10y ago
> How did Niantic give any of its userbase over to Nintendo? Niantic's handling of Pokemon Go is driving demand for Pokemon, but not fulfilling it. And some of that unfulfilled demand is going to Nintendo, whose product does deliver a Pokemon experience, and is already sitting in thousands of stores all across America today. "Sales of Pokémon X and Y, which were first released in October 2013, were up a huge 200 percent compared to their sales in July of last year." -- https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/18/nintendo-3ds-sales-up-80-year-over-year-on-pokemon-go-success/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/18/nintendo-3ds-sales-up-80-y... -------- > Pokemon Go does very little to advance the Nintendo games - there's literally zero upsell involved (or even any cross-advertising). It doesn't have to advertise Nintendo's products, it only has to advertise the brand. Coca-Cola ads drive demand and sales for Coke, even though they rarely upsell the actual product. Coke advertisements can drive sales without explicitly saying "12 packs are $3.99 at your local Wal*Mart".