4 ms·

they didn't initially. their first mobile game, Super Mario Run, cost $10 and had none of the usual manipulative mobile game elements. People did not buy it so

they didn't initially. their first mobile game, Super Mario Run, cost $10 and had none of the usual manipulative mobile game elements. People did not buy it so they switched to the same F2P nonsense as everyone else for future games.

hbn 4y ago
Super Mario Run was also always-online for no reason, you couldn't play without an internet connection. And it wasn't a particularly impressive game. There's no shortage of endless runners on mobile, and Nintendo didn't do much to differentiate themselves, so it's no surprise nobody bought it.
- mod50ack 4y ago
  I think the always-online thing is a DRM thing. I could be wrong, though. As for the game itself: I've played it, and it's a pretty decent runner with the physics of New Super Mario Bros. Wii/U, but it's just not the same as the more full-fledged games. It's fun to pick up and play, but not groundbreaking or particularly special.
- repiret 4y ago
  I was really disappointed by that choice. I had wanted to buy it for a plane trip I had shortly after it came out, but being online only, they lost that sale. It seemed like an anti-piracy move because the game didn’t naturally need to be online. But I never thought iPhone app piracy was much of a concern.
- latexr 4y ago
  And it required making an account to play. Instant uninstall without trying from plenty of people.
- albrewer 4y ago
  The online-only aspect of it killed it for me. I lived in an area with spotty cell service when it came out, meaning a game that would otherwise be a great time killer was unplayable due to the DRM.
surfsvammel 4y ago
I played Mario run when it came out and loved it. Recently installed it on my son’s iPad. The game has totally transformed into this kind of crap.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  They added some daily bonus type stuff that may seem similar at first--I think they did that because it's what the mobile market largely expects, sadly--but there's nothing tied to payment, and it's pretty easy to just play the game.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  I’m looking at it now and not seeing that it has.
freedomben 4y ago
They have the data so they would certainly know better than me, but my anecdotal experience was just so wildly different. I bought it, and nearly everyone I know did. It was a great game, and did not of the scummy things that so many games did! The always online and the "won't run on rooted device" checks were very annoying to me, but it didn't exceed my tolerance threshold. I and many others praised them for just charging a one time payment for the whole game. My anecdotal experience made me very optimistic that Nintendo was going to prove that you didn't have to be scummy! Apparently not.
- datavirtue 4y ago
  Yeah, but you only spent $10. The investors aren't going to stand for that crap when all these other companies are scamming their way to thousands. $10 or $4000 in revenue...take your pick. Gambling needs defined and outlawed in every way possible. The recent supreme court ruling that released the sports gambling hounds has me gobsmacked with absolute disbelief.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    I don't fully disagree with you, but it's not so simple. I only paid $10, but I've paid $0 to all the others. Same for the people I know with one exception. It's got to be a small number of total users that spend thousands in a game, so it seems reasonable to think that the revenue could be comparable when everyone pays something. Would be really interesting to get some hard data
    - datavirtue 4y ago
      You would be blown away at how many people without money spend $4000 in a short time. I worked with a guy who spent thousands on World of Tanks when it launched 12years ago (free to play, and they didn't have anything that was pay-to-win or that resembled gambling). His income was about $40k and he had a family to support. I have since run into others who have blown similar amounts or more on mobile gaming. These people are slowly, quietly ruining their lives.
  - 4y ago
sw104 4y ago
I always found it weird how mobile phone apps/games trigger the "happy to pay £10 for a pizza, but not happy to pay £10 for hours of entertainment" attitude in people. Is it perhaps because they spent a few hundred/thousand £ on the phone itself and see that as the complete price?

hbn 4y ago

Super Mario Run was also always-online for no reason, you couldn't play without an internet connection. And it wasn't a particularly impressive game. There's no shortage of endless runners on mobile, and Nintendo didn't do much to differentiate themselves, so it's no surprise nobody bought it.

mod50ack 4y ago
I think the always-online thing is a DRM thing. I could be wrong, though. As for the game itself: I've played it, and it's a pretty decent runner with the physics of New Super Mario Bros. Wii/U, but it's just not the same as the more full-fledged games. It's fun to pick up and play, but not groundbreaking or particularly special.
repiret 4y ago
I was really disappointed by that choice. I had wanted to buy it for a plane trip I had shortly after it came out, but being online only, they lost that sale. It seemed like an anti-piracy move because the game didn’t naturally need to be online. But I never thought iPhone app piracy was much of a concern.
latexr 4y ago
And it required making an account to play. Instant uninstall without trying from plenty of people.
albrewer 4y ago
The online-only aspect of it killed it for me. I lived in an area with spotty cell service when it came out, meaning a game that would otherwise be a great time killer was unplayable due to the DRM.

surfsvammel 4y ago

I played Mario run when it came out and loved it. Recently installed it on my son’s iPad. The game has totally transformed into this kind of crap.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
They added some daily bonus type stuff that may seem similar at first--I think they did that because it's what the mobile market largely expects, sadly--but there's nothing tied to payment, and it's pretty easy to just play the game.
1123581321 4y ago
I’m looking at it now and not seeing that it has.

freedomben 4y ago

They have the data so they would certainly know better than me, but my anecdotal experience was just so wildly different. I bought it, and nearly everyone I know did. It was a great game, and did not of the scummy things that so many games did! The always online and the "won't run on rooted device" checks were very annoying to me, but it didn't exceed my tolerance threshold. I and many others praised them for just charging a one time payment for the whole game. My anecdotal experience made me very optimistic that Nintendo was going to prove that you didn't have to be scummy! Apparently not.

datavirtue 4y ago
Yeah, but you only spent $10. The investors aren't going to stand for that crap when all these other companies are scamming their way to thousands. $10 or $4000 in revenue...take your pick. Gambling needs defined and outlawed in every way possible. The recent supreme court ruling that released the sports gambling hounds has me gobsmacked with absolute disbelief.
- freedomben 4y ago
  I don't fully disagree with you, but it's not so simple. I only paid $10, but I've paid $0 to all the others. Same for the people I know with one exception. It's got to be a small number of total users that spend thousands in a game, so it seems reasonable to think that the revenue could be comparable when everyone pays something. Would be really interesting to get some hard data
  - datavirtue 4y ago
    You would be blown away at how many people without money spend $4000 in a short time. I worked with a guy who spent thousands on World of Tanks when it launched 12years ago (free to play, and they didn't have anything that was pay-to-win or that resembled gambling). His income was about $40k and he had a family to support. I have since run into others who have blown similar amounts or more on mobile gaming. These people are slowly, quietly ruining their lives.
- 4y ago

sw104 4y ago

I always found it weird how mobile phone apps/games trigger the "happy to pay £10 for a pizza, but not happy to pay £10 for hours of entertainment" attitude in people. Is it perhaps because they spent a few hundred/thousand £ on the phone itself and see that as the complete price?