7 ms·

Mario Is Moving Away from Mobile Games, Reveals Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto

58 points by adrian_mrd 4y ago

bdcravens 4y ago
I was pretty disappointed when they cancelled mobile Dr. Mario. That said, I think aggressively maintaining control is probably the best move - mobile is a race to the bottom, where you smother gameplay with pay-to-play and/or ads.
- Multicomp 4y ago
  yeah this one hurt me too. i just had to go back to my backup copy of dr mario 64 on emulation
- asdff 4y ago
  This could have been the perfect opportunity to flip the mobile model. Screw it, charge $30 for the game and let it be a one time purchase, no micro transactions aside from content like new maps years from now, and no free version. People will still buy it because its mariokart, just like they buy the $60 version for their $300 switch, or how they buy skyrim 4x for each platform it gets rereleased on. These major developers with prolific IPs come to the mobile market and act like they free+micro model is the only way to sell on mobile, but its also not like they've tried to experiment at all beyond just blindly following what everyone else is doing. Maybe the blind are leading the blind currently in this space, but there's no way to tell until someone steps up and finds the courage to try something different.
  - ei8ths 4y ago
    totally agree, if i do mobile game, i try to find paid games because i cant stand what the free mobile games are.
    - asdff 4y ago
      I do this with most apps honestly. The best is when you find what is now a rarity: the free app that lets you pay 99 cents to remove banner ads and use it forever. Usually when I find them, they haven't been updated in years so its probably a matter of time before they are no longer compatible with the latest ios, sadly. Seemingly every app, from the first party unique great apps to the junkiest crapware clone apps, now has a monthly and annual subscription option with essential features locked behind them.
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    Having software that you have sold as a permanent license running on devices controlled by a third-party is just asking for permanent support issues. How often do we see apps abandoned that can't justify the software development to keep up with OS updates? If you are a company with a "consumer-friendly" image to uphold, releasing a one-time-purchase game on someone else's system in the modern era amounts to assuming an indefinite liability for limited revenue.
    - asdff 4y ago
      It happens plenty of times. There are some old Monster Hunter games for example that don't run past ios 14 or so. Plenty of the "big" games from the first years of the app store no longer functionally exist today. Chances are if you can see that your population is declining you can just abandon the game. It sucks, but abandonment is nothing new for gamers and publishers, and like in an abusive relationship they buy the next game in the IP reliably.
    - thrashh 4y ago
      I don’t think the problem is that it’s a third party. People develop for third-party systems like the PS4 all the time and it’s fine. And old software works on Windows pretty well. Rather, Apple and Google don’t value backwards compatibility that much. So you just have to know what are the priorities of the platforms and software that you use.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >And old software works on Windows pretty well. Rather, Apple and Google don’t value backwards compatibility that much. You have it backwards: Microsoft values backwards compatibility in Windows so much it's eccentric. Game consoles are a hit or miss whether they implement any form of backwards compatibility with previous hardware, and the concept of backwards compatibility in the world of personal computing in anything other than Windows flat out does not exist. We (as in common and power users) are very, very fortunate Microsoft cares about Windows backwards compatibility so much, but by no means is such an attitude the industry norm. The industry norm is: Code fast and break shit, maybe fix later.
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    That’s what they did with the Super Mario Run. Don’t ever change HN /s
    - asdff 4y ago
      The game had a lot of downloads, no? Plus what I'm proposing is not exactly what they did with super mario run. That game was just basically like a lite+paid mobile game release that was typical before in app subscriptions iirc. Drop the lite version, and force people to pay in if they want to play at all just like with a physical video game.
    - musicale 4y ago
      I was fine with Super Mario Run. The "paid" category on iOS seems pretty OK. For example, I was just looking at card games and it includes games I actually enjoy playing such as Slay the Spire and Monster Train, which don't seem to be burdened by intrusive monetization schemes. (MT is $8 + $4 DLC - not free but cheaper than Steam's $25+.) Square Enix has a bunch of gacha games but they also have regular pay-once RPGs like Final Fantasy. (Though some of them lack controller support, and several older games have become unplayable.) (iOS should really add more game categories - there currently isn't one for platformers or endless runners, for example.) Unfortunately f2p and slot machine style monetization schemes usually makes much more money than pay once.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      Exactly. Super Mario Run did not make the expected return because people just didn't buy it. Not enough for it to be the success Nintendo needed. Only 3% of people who downloaded it bought the full version, when they'd been expecting 10% conversion. Only $60 million in a year and a half. In contrast, Mario Kart Tour made $200 million in its first year and a half with microtransactions. So Nintendo tried. But it's not the way consumers wanted to pay for it.
  - jader201 4y ago
    > Screw it, charge $30 for the game and let it be a one time purchase, no micro transactions aside from content like new maps years from now, and no free version. People will still buy it because its mariokart, just like they buy the $60 version for their $300 switch, or how they buy skyrim 4x for each platform it gets rereleased on. I disagree. Mobile gamers are used to free or almost free mobile games. Additionally, the mobile experience isn’t (currently) designed for the harder-core audience that pays $30-$60 per game. If they had charged $30, they would have been laughed at, and the app would have either flopped, or they would have had to eventually convert it to a free/microtransaction model. I’m glad Nintendo is pulling out of mobile, and was disappointed when they initially entered. If/when controllers become a mainstay for phones, things could change (for the mobile market). But I’m still not optimistic.
  - awelxtr 4y ago
    While thank god the offerings of premium games are becoming more numerous by the year a minuscule minority go to the play store to spend money and Nintendo knows that. It's curious to see square enix spitting $15 games one after the other after so much time, maybe they have found their niche?
    - AraceliHarker 4y ago
      I learned from the third-quarter financial results for the fiscal year ending March 2023 that Square Enix's small and medium-sized games were disappointing in terms of sales for the publisher. Forspoken Sales Have Been “Lackluster”, Square Enix Confirmed; Mid-Sized Games Haven’t Performed Well https://wccftech.com/forspoken-sales-have-been-lackluster-square-enix-confirmed-mid-sized-games-havent-performed-well/ https://wccftech.com/forspoken-sales-have-been-lackluster-sq...
    - asdff 4y ago
      I feel like it being nintendo, its a different economic context than it being a random game dev with no clout or recognizable IP. If people want to play a game on the iphone, they can find a thousand plus competitors of similar games. If they want to play mario, or pokemon, or legend of zelda, they have to get it from nintendo, and will pay whatever nintendo asks. It seems square enix might have realized this if they are in this $15 model now.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - shagie 4y ago
    Dr. Mario on the ancient gameboy still runs without issue. Sure, it's a bit dated... but the hardware and the software for it are static. A mobile Dr. Mario might only work until the next OS release. Spending $30 on something that may break in a few months is either going to be more costly to the company that created it (now having to do updates to it without any new revenue to support those updates) or brand damaging. Nintendo is reasonably conscious about avoiding brand damaging things.
    - asdff 4y ago
      Long term support has never been a priority for nintendo. They don't want you playing Dr. mario on gameboy forever, they want you buying their new device every year and the new pokemon that comes out with it, so you can catch a pidgey like you did 25 years ago but you've payed like $2000 over those 25 years buying each hardware release in the process to do what is basically the same thing. There's plenty of games where that happens on os and you see devs abandon them. Even still in gaming in general, gamers don't really expect long term support. Sometimes mulitplayer servers are shut down even when there is still a community using them. Some developers flat out say "we aren't patching this game anymore, its too old." Its the nature of the gaming market to keep buying the new game in the IP.
- Bluecobra 4y ago
  That really irked me too. I really loved the multiplayer game and got really good at it. I didn't get a chance to beat the single player game, it's a bit lame that that was online-only so all those puzzles are lost forever. They could have patched it to at least preserve the single player levels and just not update it anymore.
- musicale 4y ago
  > disappointed when they cancelled mobile Dr. Mario I miss Miitomo, and I kind of wanted to try Dragalia Lost but I guess I'll have to wait for a Switch version someday.
brucethemoose2 4y ago
> Mario Kart Tour has generated $300 million Its crazy how this is considered a "failure" for Nintendo. Then again, they spend more developing the "game" part of Mario Kart Tour than most mobile games, so maybe it isnt really worth it when a match 3 game can make twice as much?
- jgon 4y ago
  Mario Kart 8 Deluxe sold over 50 million copies at a price that has mostly been $60 and which I don't believe has ever dipped below $40, so that should give you a flavor for the types of numbers they are looking for when it comes to Mario Kart.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  Well I don't think it's a failure because it didn't generate enough money, I think it's a failure because it a certain class of microtransaction-centric game does brand damage to perhaps the premiere game brand in the world.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Also, Nintendo famously maintains an iron grip over all its IPs, especially Mario.
  - asdff 4y ago
    I feel like brand image considerations went out the window when you could race a mercedes benz gle in mariokart.
    - parker_mountain 4y ago
      It's a mild inclusion of a luxury car brand. I don't think it really hurt nintendo.
      - asdff 4y ago
        My head is spinning trying to fit Mario's GLE purchase into the canon
anon115 4y ago
when gameplay constraints collides with capitalistic mobile contraints. good game but bad business.
dragontamer 4y ago
Isn't "Fire Emblem: Heroes" doing pretty well in the mobile space though? Decidedly not "Mario", but still Nintendo. There's also Pokemon: GO, though "The Pokemon Company" is only partially controlled by Nintendo. (The non-nintendo bits could be pushing mobile gaming). I'd be surprised if Nintendo pulled out entirely --- I can see how Fire Emblem's brand works better with microtransactions than Mario does.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Isn't "Fire Emblem: Heroes" doing pretty well in the mobile space though? Hell no.[1] It's still doing well enough to evade the End of Service grim reaper for now, but it's by no means doing "pretty well". [1]: https://game-i.daa.jp/?APP%2F1181774280 https://game-i.daa.jp/?APP%2F1181774280
- AraceliHarker 4y ago
  I know that Fire Emblem Heroes is very profitable because it uses the gacha system. But I also know that it is a drop in the ocean compared to Nintendo's own console game business.
chrisco255 4y ago
I think the Switch did at least decisively succeed in competing with mobile gaming (in particular for the demographic that Nintendo traditionally targets) and ensured that large phones and tablets would not erode Nintendo's niche there.
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  I think iPads still have a niche with really young kids, but yeah, when you put it that way, they more or less conquered the tablet gaming market.
jgon 4y ago
Mario Run flaming out in the mobile space should be looked at as a pretty harsh indictment of the whole mobile gaming landscape. The premier gaming franchise in the world, in a pretty well made game, with a fairly non-exploitative monetization scheme couldn't make it. All the big publishers salivate looking at the number of possible players and profits that mobile provides but if your aim is to win out via quality gaming the market just isn't there. Mobile players will not pay for your game if it is priced such that you don't need predatory monetization. You hear a lot about "gatekeeping" and "elitism" whenever mobile gaming and traditional gaming are discussed and compared but I'll be honest I don't get why we can't just call it like we see it. The mobile gaming landscape is not a place for quality and I kind of get where some of the resentment from traditional gaming comes from when those spaces are judged against the profits of mobile gaming. Like asking why your local theatre isn't making as much money as the local casino, its just two totally different goals and mindsets and if all you care about is the bottom line then sure I guess the casino is the way to go, but lets not pretend there's capital-A Art in those games the way there is on consoles or PCs.
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  > You hear a lot about "gatekeeping" and "elitism" whenever mobile gaming and traditional gaming are discussed What? Whoever is discussing that is still living in ~2010. I think itch.io is the anti-elitist platform these days... its certainly not Google Play/App Store.
  - awelxtr 4y ago
    > What? Whoever is discussing that is still living in ~2010. No, they're just living in the west. It doesn't matter if mobile is the biggest segment in the industry of videogames, plenty people regard it as an inferior product. Even some parties treat the Steam Deck as inferior because it can't attain the same power as pc/ps5/xbox
    - brucethemoose2 4y ago
      Eh I misunderstood, my point is neither AAAs nor mobile gaming have any right to make morality accusations.
heavyset_go 4y ago
I'm sure Nintendo isn't fond of giving 30% of their revenue to a duopoly, either.
- JetSpiegel 4y ago
  Live by the sword, Die by the sword.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AraceliHarker 4y ago
Mr. Miyamoto says that "Nintendo's core strategy is a hardware and software integrated gaming experience". But I don't buy it. I don't think that the success of Switch had anything to do with the Joy-Con, which offered me nothing but gimmicky games like 1-2-3 Switch or ARMS or Nintendo Labo. No, what I liked about Switch was the simple fact that I could pay once and play rich games on both handheld and console modes, unlike the smartphone games that nickel-and-dime me every time. I hope that the successor of Switch will be more orthodox and less gimmicky.
ksec 4y ago
How about just give me a Nintendo Mobile Phone. That only plays Nintendo Games.

58 points by adrian_mrd 4y ago

I was pretty disappointed when they cancelled mobile Dr. Mario. That said, I think aggressively maintaining control is probably the best move - mobile is a race to the bottom, where you smother gameplay with pay-to-play and/or ads.

Multicomp 4y ago
yeah this one hurt me too. i just had to go back to my backup copy of dr mario 64 on emulation
asdff 4y ago
This could have been the perfect opportunity to flip the mobile model. Screw it, charge $30 for the game and let it be a one time purchase, no micro transactions aside from content like new maps years from now, and no free version. People will still buy it because its mariokart, just like they buy the $60 version for their $300 switch, or how they buy skyrim 4x for each platform it gets rereleased on. These major developers with prolific IPs come to the mobile market and act like they free+micro model is the only way to sell on mobile, but its also not like they've tried to experiment at all beyond just blindly following what everyone else is doing. Maybe the blind are leading the blind currently in this space, but there's no way to tell until someone steps up and finds the courage to try something different.
- ei8ths 4y ago
  totally agree, if i do mobile game, i try to find paid games because i cant stand what the free mobile games are.
  - asdff 4y ago
    I do this with most apps honestly. The best is when you find what is now a rarity: the free app that lets you pay 99 cents to remove banner ads and use it forever. Usually when I find them, they haven't been updated in years so its probably a matter of time before they are no longer compatible with the latest ios, sadly. Seemingly every app, from the first party unique great apps to the junkiest crapware clone apps, now has a monthly and annual subscription option with essential features locked behind them.
- InitialLastName 4y ago
  Having software that you have sold as a permanent license running on devices controlled by a third-party is just asking for permanent support issues. How often do we see apps abandoned that can't justify the software development to keep up with OS updates? If you are a company with a "consumer-friendly" image to uphold, releasing a one-time-purchase game on someone else's system in the modern era amounts to assuming an indefinite liability for limited revenue.
  - asdff 4y ago
    It happens plenty of times. There are some old Monster Hunter games for example that don't run past ios 14 or so. Plenty of the "big" games from the first years of the app store no longer functionally exist today. Chances are if you can see that your population is declining you can just abandon the game. It sucks, but abandonment is nothing new for gamers and publishers, and like in an abusive relationship they buy the next game in the IP reliably.
  - thrashh 4y ago
    I don’t think the problem is that it’s a third party. People develop for third-party systems like the PS4 all the time and it’s fine. And old software works on Windows pretty well. Rather, Apple and Google don’t value backwards compatibility that much. So you just have to know what are the priorities of the platforms and software that you use.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >And old software works on Windows pretty well. Rather, Apple and Google don’t value backwards compatibility that much. You have it backwards: Microsoft values backwards compatibility in Windows so much it's eccentric. Game consoles are a hit or miss whether they implement any form of backwards compatibility with previous hardware, and the concept of backwards compatibility in the world of personal computing in anything other than Windows flat out does not exist. We (as in common and power users) are very, very fortunate Microsoft cares about Windows backwards compatibility so much, but by no means is such an attitude the industry norm. The industry norm is: Code fast and break shit, maybe fix later.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  That’s what they did with the Super Mario Run. Don’t ever change HN /s
  - asdff 4y ago
    The game had a lot of downloads, no? Plus what I'm proposing is not exactly what they did with super mario run. That game was just basically like a lite+paid mobile game release that was typical before in app subscriptions iirc. Drop the lite version, and force people to pay in if they want to play at all just like with a physical video game.
  - musicale 4y ago
    I was fine with Super Mario Run. The "paid" category on iOS seems pretty OK. For example, I was just looking at card games and it includes games I actually enjoy playing such as Slay the Spire and Monster Train, which don't seem to be burdened by intrusive monetization schemes. (MT is $8 + $4 DLC - not free but cheaper than Steam's $25+.) Square Enix has a bunch of gacha games but they also have regular pay-once RPGs like Final Fantasy. (Though some of them lack controller support, and several older games have become unplayable.) (iOS should really add more game categories - there currently isn't one for platformers or endless runners, for example.) Unfortunately f2p and slot machine style monetization schemes usually makes much more money than pay once.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Exactly. Super Mario Run did not make the expected return because people just didn't buy it. Not enough for it to be the success Nintendo needed. Only 3% of people who downloaded it bought the full version, when they'd been expecting 10% conversion. Only $60 million in a year and a half. In contrast, Mario Kart Tour made $200 million in its first year and a half with microtransactions. So Nintendo tried. But it's not the way consumers wanted to pay for it.
- jader201 4y ago
  > Screw it, charge $30 for the game and let it be a one time purchase, no micro transactions aside from content like new maps years from now, and no free version. People will still buy it because its mariokart, just like they buy the $60 version for their $300 switch, or how they buy skyrim 4x for each platform it gets rereleased on. I disagree. Mobile gamers are used to free or almost free mobile games. Additionally, the mobile experience isn’t (currently) designed for the harder-core audience that pays $30-$60 per game. If they had charged $30, they would have been laughed at, and the app would have either flopped, or they would have had to eventually convert it to a free/microtransaction model. I’m glad Nintendo is pulling out of mobile, and was disappointed when they initially entered. If/when controllers become a mainstay for phones, things could change (for the mobile market). But I’m still not optimistic.
- awelxtr 4y ago
  While thank god the offerings of premium games are becoming more numerous by the year a minuscule minority go to the play store to spend money and Nintendo knows that. It's curious to see square enix spitting $15 games one after the other after so much time, maybe they have found their niche?
  - AraceliHarker 4y ago
    I learned from the third-quarter financial results for the fiscal year ending March 2023 that Square Enix's small and medium-sized games were disappointing in terms of sales for the publisher. Forspoken Sales Have Been “Lackluster”, Square Enix Confirmed; Mid-Sized Games Haven’t Performed Well https://wccftech.com/forspoken-sales-have-been-lackluster-square-enix-confirmed-mid-sized-games-havent-performed-well/ https://wccftech.com/forspoken-sales-have-been-lackluster-sq...
  - asdff 4y ago
    I feel like it being nintendo, its a different economic context than it being a random game dev with no clout or recognizable IP. If people want to play a game on the iphone, they can find a thousand plus competitors of similar games. If they want to play mario, or pokemon, or legend of zelda, they have to get it from nintendo, and will pay whatever nintendo asks. It seems square enix might have realized this if they are in this $15 model now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- shagie 4y ago
  Dr. Mario on the ancient gameboy still runs without issue. Sure, it's a bit dated... but the hardware and the software for it are static. A mobile Dr. Mario might only work until the next OS release. Spending $30 on something that may break in a few months is either going to be more costly to the company that created it (now having to do updates to it without any new revenue to support those updates) or brand damaging. Nintendo is reasonably conscious about avoiding brand damaging things.
  - asdff 4y ago
    Long term support has never been a priority for nintendo. They don't want you playing Dr. mario on gameboy forever, they want you buying their new device every year and the new pokemon that comes out with it, so you can catch a pidgey like you did 25 years ago but you've payed like $2000 over those 25 years buying each hardware release in the process to do what is basically the same thing. There's plenty of games where that happens on os and you see devs abandon them. Even still in gaming in general, gamers don't really expect long term support. Sometimes mulitplayer servers are shut down even when there is still a community using them. Some developers flat out say "we aren't patching this game anymore, its too old." Its the nature of the gaming market to keep buying the new game in the IP.
Bluecobra 4y ago
That really irked me too. I really loved the multiplayer game and got really good at it. I didn't get a chance to beat the single player game, it's a bit lame that that was online-only so all those puzzles are lost forever. They could have patched it to at least preserve the single player levels and just not update it anymore.
musicale 4y ago
> disappointed when they cancelled mobile Dr. Mario I miss Miitomo, and I kind of wanted to try Dragalia Lost but I guess I'll have to wait for a Switch version someday.

brucethemoose2 4y ago

> Mario Kart Tour has generated $300 million Its crazy how this is considered a "failure" for Nintendo. Then again, they spend more developing the "game" part of Mario Kart Tour than most mobile games, so maybe it isnt really worth it when a match 3 game can make twice as much?

jgon 4y ago
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe sold over 50 million copies at a price that has mostly been $60 and which I don't believe has ever dipped below $40, so that should give you a flavor for the types of numbers they are looking for when it comes to Mario Kart.
zug_zug 4y ago
Well I don't think it's a failure because it didn't generate enough money, I think it's a failure because it a certain class of microtransaction-centric game does brand damage to perhaps the premiere game brand in the world.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Also, Nintendo famously maintains an iron grip over all its IPs, especially Mario.
- asdff 4y ago
  I feel like brand image considerations went out the window when you could race a mercedes benz gle in mariokart.
  - parker_mountain 4y ago
    It's a mild inclusion of a luxury car brand. I don't think it really hurt nintendo.
    - asdff 4y ago
      My head is spinning trying to fit Mario's GLE purchase into the canon

anon115 4y ago

when gameplay constraints collides with capitalistic mobile contraints. good game but bad business.

dragontamer 4y ago

Isn't "Fire Emblem: Heroes" doing pretty well in the mobile space though? Decidedly not "Mario", but still Nintendo. There's also Pokemon: GO, though "The Pokemon Company" is only partially controlled by Nintendo. (The non-nintendo bits could be pushing mobile gaming). I'd be surprised if Nintendo pulled out entirely --- I can see how Fire Emblem's brand works better with microtransactions than Mario does.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>Isn't "Fire Emblem: Heroes" doing pretty well in the mobile space though? Hell no.[1] It's still doing well enough to evade the End of Service grim reaper for now, but it's by no means doing "pretty well". [1]: https://game-i.daa.jp/?APP%2F1181774280 https://game-i.daa.jp/?APP%2F1181774280
AraceliHarker 4y ago
I know that Fire Emblem Heroes is very profitable because it uses the gacha system. But I also know that it is a drop in the ocean compared to Nintendo's own console game business.

chrisco255 4y ago

I think the Switch did at least decisively succeed in competing with mobile gaming (in particular for the demographic that Nintendo traditionally targets) and ensured that large phones and tablets would not erode Nintendo's niche there.

brucethemoose2 4y ago
I think iPads still have a niche with really young kids, but yeah, when you put it that way, they more or less conquered the tablet gaming market.

jgon 4y ago

Mario Run flaming out in the mobile space should be looked at as a pretty harsh indictment of the whole mobile gaming landscape. The premier gaming franchise in the world, in a pretty well made game, with a fairly non-exploitative monetization scheme couldn't make it. All the big publishers salivate looking at the number of possible players and profits that mobile provides but if your aim is to win out via quality gaming the market just isn't there. Mobile players will not pay for your game if it is priced such that you don't need predatory monetization. You hear a lot about "gatekeeping" and "elitism" whenever mobile gaming and traditional gaming are discussed and compared but I'll be honest I don't get why we can't just call it like we see it. The mobile gaming landscape is not a place for quality and I kind of get where some of the resentment from traditional gaming comes from when those spaces are judged against the profits of mobile gaming. Like asking why your local theatre isn't making as much money as the local casino, its just two totally different goals and mindsets and if all you care about is the bottom line then sure I guess the casino is the way to go, but lets not pretend there's capital-A Art in those games the way there is on consoles or PCs.

brucethemoose2 4y ago
> You hear a lot about "gatekeeping" and "elitism" whenever mobile gaming and traditional gaming are discussed What? Whoever is discussing that is still living in ~2010. I think itch.io is the anti-elitist platform these days... its certainly not Google Play/App Store.
- awelxtr 4y ago
  > What? Whoever is discussing that is still living in ~2010. No, they're just living in the west. It doesn't matter if mobile is the biggest segment in the industry of videogames, plenty people regard it as an inferior product. Even some parties treat the Steam Deck as inferior because it can't attain the same power as pc/ps5/xbox
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    Eh I misunderstood, my point is neither AAAs nor mobile gaming have any right to make morality accusations.

heavyset_go 4y ago

I'm sure Nintendo isn't fond of giving 30% of their revenue to a duopoly, either.

JetSpiegel 4y ago
Live by the sword, Die by the sword.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

AraceliHarker 4y ago

Mr. Miyamoto says that "Nintendo's core strategy is a hardware and software integrated gaming experience". But I don't buy it. I don't think that the success of Switch had anything to do with the Joy-Con, which offered me nothing but gimmicky games like 1-2-3 Switch or ARMS or Nintendo Labo. No, what I liked about Switch was the simple fact that I could pay once and play rich games on both handheld and console modes, unlike the smartphone games that nickel-and-dime me every time. I hope that the successor of Switch will be more orthodox and less gimmicky.

ksec 4y ago

How about just give me a Nintendo Mobile Phone. That only plays Nintendo Games.