45 ms·

I've seen a lot of people saying that Nintendo were kinda dumb for taking so long to capitalize on the incredible brand recognition of mario and pokemon, and lo

I've seen a lot of people saying that Nintendo were kinda dumb for taking so long to capitalize on the incredible brand recognition of mario and pokemon, and looking at the money pokemon go is making, I don't disagree. But I think that the reason a lot of non-nerds cared so much about pokemon go is that pokemon still meant the same thing to them as it did 10 years ago. So the reason that those brands are still such a big deal to people may be because Nintendo has used them relatively conservatively.

fsloth 10y ago
"But I think that the reason a lot of non-nerds cared so much about pokemon go is that pokemon still meant the same thing to them as it did 10 years ago. " My kids were aware of Pokemon before the GO from the cartoon series but were not terribly enthusiastic about them. They went like nuts for the Pokemon GO game. Anecdotally, it's not just the brand, but the game itself which people feel enticing.
- pjc50 10y ago
  The game is a real flagship for "compelling idea badly implemented". It doesn't run on quite a lot of Android phones, it's really resource hungry and prone to crashing, the Pokemon location system has never really worked, and the only interaction between players is indirectly at the gyms. And yet it's still compelling enough to play. And I mean play, rather than sink microtransaction money into like the big money mobile games.
- vidarh 10y ago
  My son went the other way - lost interest in the game within half an hour, but found clips on Youtube and got hooked on the series and now want the older games.
oxide 10y ago
Franchise fatigue is very real IMO, and it's all the more evident with the recent trend of annual franchises in video games. I wonder if Star Wars will suffer the same fate at the box office eventually.
- gkanai 10y ago
  I think the Marvel franchise is quite fatigued atm...
  - philliphaydon 10y ago
    I disagree. The problem with marvel is we know what to expect, it's really hard to outdo any previous movie they release and it feels they are going down hill, but I often wonder if you swapped the releases of some movies would the same still hold true that the sequel isn't as good as the first or would the sequel be better than the first.
    - DougN7 10y ago
      > it's really hard to outdo any previous movie they release This is exactly it. Each epic battle scene is so over the top it's almost impossible to come up with something even more epic and over the top. Too bad they don't realize a good story doesn't need that. I thought the older James Bond movies had it figured out.
      - toyg 10y ago
        You're being unfair there, Marvel Studios movies have pretty decent stories and a lot of comedic value even disregarding all the action. There is a reason they never get panned like a lot of the DC ones.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        They occasionally deliver. The second Captain America movie was a fairly good spy thriller, IMO.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - talmand 10y ago
        But each movie in the MCU doesn't necessarily have an epic fight that tries to outdo the previous movie's epic fight.
typetypetype 10y ago
Being slow and conservative has probably contributed to the fact that they have been in business for over 120 years.
- wmeredith 10y ago
  Eh, that's sort of disingenuous to say, though. They made playing cards for more than half of that. Ditching your business model of 70 years to going into an emerging technology market (video games in the 80's) isn't really conservative.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    They're still making playing cards. And it took them 18 years (1956-1974) of experiments with new ventures (including a cab company, and love hotels, and assorted toy ranges) before they started selling video games. Another 5 or so before they got successful. Donkey Kong came out in 1981 and finally made them lots of money from it. So ~25 years from they realised the playing card business didn't have room for further expansion until they had settled on a new direction that made them enough money for it to become the main driver of the company. Yet 35 years after Donkey Kong, they're still selling playing cards... Seems pretty conservative to me.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Are people buying the cards, though? How much of the business is dedicated to the cards? I'd reckon it could fall into an ocean and much of the world wouldn't notice. I don't call that success.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        It's probably a rounding error by now, though big enough that they host tournaments etc.. But the point was to illustrate that Nintendo is in fact a quite conservative company - they've held on to what they started doing well over a century ago, despite having switched focus to video games 35 years ago, after spending 25 years researching and developing new businesses to find the right new direction. I'd argue that assuming their play card sales are now a tiny proportion of revenue, that just underscores this point - I can't imagine they need it, but it's part of their legacy.

fsloth 10y ago

"But I think that the reason a lot of non-nerds cared so much about pokemon go is that pokemon still meant the same thing to them as it did 10 years ago. " My kids were aware of Pokemon before the GO from the cartoon series but were not terribly enthusiastic about them. They went like nuts for the Pokemon GO game. Anecdotally, it's not just the brand, but the game itself which people feel enticing.

pjc50 10y ago
The game is a real flagship for "compelling idea badly implemented". It doesn't run on quite a lot of Android phones, it's really resource hungry and prone to crashing, the Pokemon location system has never really worked, and the only interaction between players is indirectly at the gyms. And yet it's still compelling enough to play. And I mean play, rather than sink microtransaction money into like the big money mobile games.
vidarh 10y ago
My son went the other way - lost interest in the game within half an hour, but found clips on Youtube and got hooked on the series and now want the older games.

oxide 10y ago

Franchise fatigue is very real IMO, and it's all the more evident with the recent trend of annual franchises in video games. I wonder if Star Wars will suffer the same fate at the box office eventually.

gkanai 10y ago
I think the Marvel franchise is quite fatigued atm...
- philliphaydon 10y ago
  I disagree. The problem with marvel is we know what to expect, it's really hard to outdo any previous movie they release and it feels they are going down hill, but I often wonder if you swapped the releases of some movies would the same still hold true that the sequel isn't as good as the first or would the sequel be better than the first.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    > it's really hard to outdo any previous movie they release This is exactly it. Each epic battle scene is so over the top it's almost impossible to come up with something even more epic and over the top. Too bad they don't realize a good story doesn't need that. I thought the older James Bond movies had it figured out.
    - toyg 10y ago
      You're being unfair there, Marvel Studios movies have pretty decent stories and a lot of comedic value even disregarding all the action. There is a reason they never get panned like a lot of the DC ones.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      They occasionally deliver. The second Captain America movie was a fairly good spy thriller, IMO.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - talmand 10y ago
      But each movie in the MCU doesn't necessarily have an epic fight that tries to outdo the previous movie's epic fight.

typetypetype 10y ago

Being slow and conservative has probably contributed to the fact that they have been in business for over 120 years.

wmeredith 10y ago
Eh, that's sort of disingenuous to say, though. They made playing cards for more than half of that. Ditching your business model of 70 years to going into an emerging technology market (video games in the 80's) isn't really conservative.
- vidarh 10y ago
  They're still making playing cards. And it took them 18 years (1956-1974) of experiments with new ventures (including a cab company, and love hotels, and assorted toy ranges) before they started selling video games. Another 5 or so before they got successful. Donkey Kong came out in 1981 and finally made them lots of money from it. So ~25 years from they realised the playing card business didn't have room for further expansion until they had settled on a new direction that made them enough money for it to become the main driver of the company. Yet 35 years after Donkey Kong, they're still selling playing cards... Seems pretty conservative to me.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Are people buying the cards, though? How much of the business is dedicated to the cards? I'd reckon it could fall into an ocean and much of the world wouldn't notice. I don't call that success.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      It's probably a rounding error by now, though big enough that they host tournaments etc.. But the point was to illustrate that Nintendo is in fact a quite conservative company - they've held on to what they started doing well over a century ago, despite having switched focus to video games 35 years ago, after spending 25 years researching and developing new businesses to find the right new direction. I'd argue that assuming their play card sales are now a tiny proportion of revenue, that just underscores this point - I can't imagine they need it, but it's part of their legacy.