Bad Reviews For Super Mario Run Are Sending Nintendo's Stock Tumbling (fortune.com) 221
People aren't loving Nintendo's newly released Super Mario Run. Nintendo's stock plunged 7.1% Monday, bringing its total drop since the game's release last week to more than 11%, Bloomberg reports. The game's mediocre reviews had a similar impact on DeNA, the Nintendo partner that helped with the game's development: Since the game's introduction, its stock has fallen 14%. From a report: Reviews in Apple's App Store (so far, the game is only available on iPhone) show an average rating of two and half stars out of five. Overall, there have been nearly 50,000 reviews. Its reviews make it among the lowest rated app among those at the top of the download rankings, according to Bloomberg.
I dont know what all the hate is for (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Full disclosure: I haven't played the game, haven't even looked at screenshots.
My first gaming console was the original NES. I have played almost every Mario game released since the first one there up to the first Galaxy game. To me, Mario games aren't about running quickly from start to finish, it's about finding paths through the levels, secrets, warp pipes etc. It's as much exploration as it is jumping from platform to platform.
This seemed to be true for most of Nintendo's own games; Mario, Zelda, Metroi
Re:I dont know what all the hate is for (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When you call it "Super Mario ______", people will automatically have certain expectations based on the history of the franchise, especially when it looks so much like the classic game. Moreover, the premium price of the product also sets certain expectations. Many of the reviewers of No Man's Sky stated that they were more harsh than had it been more reasonably priced at a typical indy game level, rather than as a AAA game.
If people are giving it bad reviews, then maybe they feel the didn't get their mon
Re: I dont know what all the hate is for (Score:2, Insightful)
That's fucking stupid. Of course you don't.
A game isn't better simply because a past game is good. Nor is it worse for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people only read a summary without looking into it. From what I can tell most of the negative reviews are due to the game costing $9.90 to unlock it after the first 3 levels.
People reviewing it on gameplay generally give it a quite solid score.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like some pump and dump traders were banking on the game being a hit.
I'd assume that everyone else would've already be aware that most game releases aren't going to be hits, or even break even, and you gotta roll out a lot of products to get a hit like Pokemon GO.
Re: (Score:3)
The ultimate in quick-time-event gaming: The entire game is a quick-time-event.
Apple QuickTime events (Score:2)
The entire game is a quick-time-event.
More than that: It's exclusive to iOS, which is from Apple, the company that invented QuickTime [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Flappy Bird was just a dumbed-down version of Balloon Trip from Nintendo's Balloon Fight anyway, dodging pipes instead of moving sparks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sonic is known for running really fast. I mean come on, even his Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) says so: ... has the ability to run at supersonic speeds ... Sonic most commonly has to race through levels ... his iconic personality was the epitome of speed ...
Mario, on the other hand, in Super Mario RPG identifies himself not by running, but by jumping. I'm not kidding. That may also be why his racing series contains gokarts rather the F1 racers (although the relatively recent addit
Re: (Score:2)
its a continuous run game with some interesting level layouts. Were people expecting a full on Mario game?
With a price double as high as other great games: yes.
If it's an Flappy Bird style game, the price has to compete with flappy bird. Yes, high-res sprites with a popular cartoon char can offset that, but not by several 100%. And with the gaming experience that forced always-online-games deliver in trains and subways, it's probably less fun than Flappy Bird and no brand tie-in will save it anymore.
Re: I dont know what all the hate is for (Score:2)
Sounds an awful lot like you're saying the whole idea of a Mario game is outdated. What, you'd rather have more CoD and similar? *retch*
I played Temple Run for about 5 minutes... (Score:4)
...why would I play this?
Re: (Score:3)
I played Batman: Arkam Asylum for 7min 24sec. Why would I play Minesweeper?
But I've never played a game, I don't know what it's about, but I played a game that sounds similar based on one word in the title, so I just HAVE to post about it on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Price Biggest Factor For Me (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides the fact that the Android version is still "To Be Released At An Unannounced Date", my biggest beef is the price tag. You get the first few levels for free and then need to pay $10 to unlock everything else. I don't mind paying for apps I like, but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much. If it were $1.99, I'd buy it the second it was released for Android. At $2.99, I might consider it. At $10, though, I won't be buying it anytime soon.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't mind paying for apps I like, but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much.
It's not an endless runner.
Not my cup of tea, but it's totally from, e.g., Temple Runner.
Re: (Score:2)
I did, yes--totally different from...
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I am surprised that apps cost what they do on mobile platforms. I assume this is a "race to the bottom" type of condition which I can't see lasting forever, especially as the platforms start to reach functional parity (and hence complexity) with desktop computers.
Of course, I am from a generation where I paid $70+ of hard earned lawn mowing money for games that came on 3 floppy disks.
$1 - $2 may make sense for a very small (1 - 3 people) team if there are hundreds of thousands of buyers but I just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The $10 isn't the problem. I'd rather pay a fair price upfront then get a game for "free" and be mired in the micro transaction swamp. And divided out by the value of my time, I've already gotten more than my money's worth in entertainment from it. But the requirement to be always online, despite it being a single-player game and having no content that should require that connection, is fairly... irksome. I missed the news about that problem somehow, so it was a fairly unpleasant surprise.
Right there, that
Re: (Score:3)
The introduction of IAP completely killed the quality of games in iOS and Android. Before IAP, game designers had to make something that was usable, charge a decent price, and have something worth playing. Usually there was a demo game which was free, then the paid for app.
Now, almost all games are about a relatively easy 1-2 levels or whatnot, then making the game either impossible or way too time consuming to play, forcing the player to abandon it or start putting money in. You read the reviews of a lo
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't many Apple pirates
Apple isn't really a techie phone. It's strength is in it's simplicity, not its ability to customize and hack. I think most would-be pirates would look elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Nintendo were hoping for pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
At $2.99, I might consider it. At $10, though, I won't be buying it anytime soon.
I'd agree, if it was me, but my son (6) spent his own money on the game and is loving it. He's beaten every single level already (there's 24, I think) and is now trying to get every pink coin in the game - which is considerably harder. There is more complexity to the game than just jumping and it's not an endless runner Temple Run clone by any means. There's a lot of pattern recognition, timing and some problem solving needed to figure out how to get some of the coins.
He also loves being able to "play" a
Re: (Score:2)
At $10 it's the cheapest Mario game to come out and for an endless runner it has far more to offer than previous runners, not to mention quite a decent amount of gameplay.
You're de-sensitised to game pricing and riding on the assumptions that Flappybird was free so why shouldn't Super Mario Run be.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that it should be free, but the vast majority of games are $4.99 or less - with $2-3 seeming to be the sweet spot. Yes. there are the "free" games that inundate you with in-app purchases of various sorts (and sometimes make it so that the game is all but impossible to complete without these purchases) but I much prefer an upfront fee to being nickel and dimed as I'm playing the game.
Had Super Mario Run been $4.99, I'd have considered it (when it was released on Android), but at $10, it just see
Re: (Score:2)
It goes deeper than that for me. If it were an actual $10 app, I would be more interested. Pay once, and everyone in my family could play courtesy of Apple Family Sharing. But by making the unlock an in-app purchase, everyone in my family would have to work over $10. And then there's in-app purchases beyond that.
I almost bought it anyway because I'm about to fly internationally and would have enjoyed the diversion on the trip. But to combat privacy[sic], Nintendo requires an Internet connection to play. So
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. My boys love playing games on their tablets (or our old smartphones that are WiFi-only now). If I could buy Super Mario Run for $10 and all of us could use it, then I *might* be able to rationalize it being "only $3.33 per person." Since it's $10 per device (not even per person), it would mean needing to pay for it for my phone, each of my son's tablets, and a pair of old smartphones. (If I wanted the full version on all of our devices.) I could wind up spending $50 on this game. I'd rather just
Not an endless runner game at all. (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, you defiantly get a decent amount of content to try playing and decide if you want to buy before you make the in-app purchase.
Secondly, the game is not an endless runner at all. It's a lot more like a normal Mario game, with forward motion handled for you. It's not like you always are going forward; you have pause points so you can time entry into a tricky section, and wall bounces will enable you to go a little bit backwards at times.
But also on top of that there's a whole racing subgame, a
Re: (Score:2)
but $10 for an endless runner-type game is too much.
But nobody bats an eye at a $5 coffee.
Re:Price Biggest Factor For Me (Score:4, Informative)
Lets not forget for $10 you also don't "own" the game, you get a game that requires an always on internet connection
That's the biggest load of BS and is why I will never even try this game. $10 doesn't seem like that much to me. It is only a lot when compared against other games. I pay more than that for lunch some days.
Re: (Score:2)
This also ensures that instead of their games stopping working in three or four OS releases from insufficient maintenance, they'll stop working in three or four years when they turn down their DRM server.
Re: (Score:2)
Of the games I'm playing right now:
Disney Crossy Road: Free to play, but you can buy the "Hamm Piggy Bank" to get more coins. I tend not to need it because I just play more often to get more coins.
Marvel Avenger's Academy: Free to play, but they have a premium currency. You can get some via watching ads, but to really be able to afford premium items/characters, you need to spend real money. They've had a lot of "special events" recently which start off fine, but are clearly either "pay to win" or "you must
Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero did (Score:2)
Well just wait until they see how StarFox Zero did.
Seriously - I don't understand the panic. Nintendo's will keep licensing its characters (as it always has) until they find the right game and format. Even Link's been pimped out on a retread (Hyrule Warriors - a reskinned Dynasty Warriors).
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo openly advertised that Hyrule Warriors was a bridge game that used Dynasty Warriors gameplay (and engine) with Zelda assets. It had its own story, its own characters, and everything to make it a Zelda game; and it had the gameplay of a Dynasty Warriors game to add some variety and appeal to those sorts.
I'd love to see another one, with a step forward into blending the gameplay. This is how we got Zelda 2 and Metroid. Imagine if you could solo dungeons with Link while taking open battlefields a
Re: (Score:2)
I know. Thus my use of the word "pimped": Nintendo licensed one of its grade-A assets out to a shop that knowingly put together a half-assed "bridge" game to collect money from people who liked Zelda games without actually producing a Zelda game. They've done it before and they'll do it again, because they know people like you will bite.
Re: (Score:2)
They actually were producing a Zelda game at the time; it was taking too long. This was faster to get out, and people liked it. A different development house did most of the work. I'm not seeing the downside.
Re: (Score:2)
StarFox Zero was, by all accounts, a pretty bad game and was a horrible commercial flop. But it wasn't actually "news" that it flopped. Investors had already basically written off the Wii-U by the time StarFox Zero released, so all it did was continue the current narrative.
If Super Mario Run doesn't pan out properly, then that is "news". Nintendo's stocks have been buoyed a bit in recent months by their planned entry into the mobile market. Their home-console sales have been moribund since around 2011. The
It's the controller, stupid (Score:3)
If they'd make a nintendo-branded bluetooth dpad and holder we wouldn't be having this conversation, it would be a conversation about how much money they're making.
Touchscreens aren't everything. Humans have fingers. D-pad is brilliant. Stop drinking the Ive kool-aid. Poor Mario.
Oh, and make some more of those NES classics. Stupid nintendo. I'd have bought at least 5 of them if they were available. I got a knockoff chinese USB d-pad clone instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They have to make the throwaway game because you can't do anything else without a D-pad.
The market is punishing them because investors aren't stupid, and realize there is no slot machine about to pay out.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd make a nintendo-branded bluetooth dpad and holder we wouldn't be having this conversation, it would be a conversation about how much money they're making.
Touchscreens aren't everything. Humans have fingers. D-pad is brilliant. Stop drinking the Ive kool-aid. Poor Mario.
Oh, and make some more of those NES classics. Stupid nintendo. I'd have bought at least 5 of them if they were available. I got a knockoff chinese USB d-pad clone instead.
The future of gaming in my family is looking more and more like it will be Retroarch on either Android or Windows for the older games, and Steam for the newer ones. Nintendo offers a pretty decent walled garden, but it isn't a very big garden and the per-game cost is high enough to give pause when compared to the bargains that can be had on Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd make a nintendo-branded bluetooth dpad and holder we wouldn't be having this conversation
You think the answer to people complaining about the cost of a game (all the one star reviews, the others are all 5 stars), is to make people buy an accessory?
Which company did you run into bankruptcy again?
Make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
You dump a thousand dollars into an iPhone, how the hell can they expect you to pay $10 on a game? That's like 2 days missed at Starbucks.
Meanwhile, console games went up about $10 and they're flying off the shelves. It's about price? Give me a fucking break.
Stock market is crazy (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Yeah, it's a game. Some people will love, some people will hate it. *shrugs*
What's the game about anyway? (Score:3)
Re:What's the game about anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
No. It's fairly normal Mario game. The only "twist" is that you don't have much of a speed control.
There are "pause" tiles, and tiles which move you backwards. Otherwise, Mario walks to the right constantly.
It's a "one button" game -- the player can jump. It's a fun game, but you can't go backwards and get every coin, kill every enemy, destroy every block, and find every secret in one playthrough.
It's a godsend for gamers who only have one thumb free. (feeding a newborn baby can get... dull.)
It's well made -- easily up to Nintendo's normal standards of excellence. The interaction to "sign up" or "log in" to a Nintendo account is shockingly well done: It's hard to describe, but you know how many games make you switch to your mobile browser, sign up for an online account, go to your email, get the validation code, go back to the web page, validate, and finally go back to the app and log in (again). Nintendo went way above and beyond, and made the process the most smooth, fluid experience I've ever seen on any platform.
I love it, and spent the $10 in-app-purchase on it.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I hate temple run type games. Mario on iOS isn't remotely similar.
Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what "Mario Run" does. The live Pokemon game did that, but this is just a port of Temple Run or its clone (didn't bother to look).
Who is the game for? (Score:2)
People complaining about the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
The cheapest Mario game to date is also the one people complain the most about the cost.
I'm calling it. The mobile phone generation are over-entitled, spoilt and want everything for free. I hope these companies abandon the platform and go back to focusing on the good old couch experience where they at least know they will be appreciated.
The game itself is quite good, has a decent amount of content and a wide enough variety of playing styles to set it apart from every other running game. But hey Nintendo, lesson learnt. Don't make good games, just make shit and load it with ads and pay to win, you'll be rich.
DeNA "working" as usual. (Score:2)
Color me surprised that a project DeNA was involved with went poorly. They've consistently proven themselves incompetent and I grimaced the day I heard Nintendo announce a partnership with them for mobile.
They're facing two unforeseen obstacles. (Score:2)
The second is that a lot of the people using these games remember side-scrolling eight-bit gaming from their childhood - if at all - and to them, any variation on the Mario theme is likely to seem qua
Re:Told ya so. (Score:5, Interesting)
go back to making games that a small portion of people love for their own hardware and pay even less attention to what people say.
Fine by me. While the console lock-in may be annoying at times, the quality of their games and enjoyment I can get from them is much higher than any phone-based game I have ever played, period. It is high-time that we finally started accepting that phones have limitations, and that they aren't the magical "entertain everyone perfectly" devices that a lot of people seem to think they are.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey man, about that cheap cocaine, can you hook me up? <.<
Re: (Score:3)
And the first hit is always free.
Re: (Score:2)
The game doesn't have to be good or even be a massive seller.
A single button jumping game can't have been too expensive to produce- they probably have most of the sprites made from other projects, the music they do. They probably don't have to make a huge number of sales at $10 each to make a profit out of this game.
Nintendo's tanking profits are a bit of an oversight. The game may be bad and poorly reviewed, but they probably made (or will make) profit out of it.
The only real downside to Nintendo is the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually a typo on my part, I had intended to write "tanking stock price is an oversight". Their stock will bounce back. One bad game that they make a profit off of will not hurt their long term viability.
Re: (Score:2)
go back to making games that a small portion of people love for their own hardware and pay even less attention to what people say.
Fine by me. While the console lock-in may be annoying at times, the quality of their games and enjoyment I can get from them is much higher than any phone-based game I have ever played, period. It is high-time that we finally started accepting that phones have limitations, and that they aren't the magical "entertain everyone perfectly" devices that a lot of people seem to think they are.
None of the console games I own can match the gameplay and enjoyment I get ... on a bus, or while waiting for a train.
Super Mario Run is actually quite solid and fun. Most of the bad reviews are bitching about having to pay money to play a game. A console doesn't fix that, it makes it worse. I guess it does weed out the entitled little shits though.
Re: (Score:2)
What Nintendo needs to do is sell a custom bluetooth case for the iPhone that essentially uses what the phone has (display/electronics etc) and adds what it is sorely lacking (real buttons, D pad/thumb stick, maybe speakers etc.) Sell this for cost at $20 directly through the any Nintendo app delivered to your door in 2 days like Amazon and you have a very powerful platform that is equivalent or better than the DS with millions of installed users.
Phones by themselves without real buttons are just too limit
Re: (Score:2)
What Nintendo needs to do is sell a custom bluetooth case for the iPhone that essentially uses what the phone has (display/electronics etc) and adds what it is sorely lacking (real buttons, D pad/thumb stick, maybe speakers etc.)
Exactly this. Nintendo has the hardware design and manufacturing experience to easily do this. With a standardized controller Nintendo could simply repackage and resell their library of old games, which they are masters of. They wouldn't even have to bother developing new games to make this work, because even a straight port of original Metroid, Mario Bros, Kirby, Zelda, etc. would be more fun than 99% of mobiles games out there.
Re: (Score:3)
This a million times. I still get way more enjoyment from my old Gameboy than from my phone, which is a thousand times more powerful.
What Nintendo should do is create a modern smartphone in a physical package that is identical to a classic Gameboy. (Well, maybe it could be a little thinner). It would be practical, fun to play, and hipster-approved.
Xperia Play (Score:2)
Sony tried that. It was an Android phone with a slide-out PSP Go-style gamepad, called the Xperia Play. It didn't do so well.
Re: Xperia Play (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The PSP sold over 60 million units world wide. It looks like a failure compared the to the DS's 150 million. But it still sold very well compared to everything else that took on Nintendo (Gamegear, Lynx, Wonder Swan, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
none of these new games can match the nokia snake game anyway
Re:Told ya so. (Score:4, Informative)
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/nintendo-switch-is-slower-than-the-ps4-and-xbox-one-report-1639542
Re: (Score:3)
In other news nintendo's new console less powerful than 2/3 year old rivals. No doubt they are banking on mario and mario kart, a zelda game, pokemon and all their other old staples to see them through.....again.
So? Both of THOSE are less powerful than a comparable PC. It doesn't matter. We've hit a plateau where the graphics aren't getting better by leaps and bounds anymore. The PS4, XBox, and WiiU / Switch graphics are "good enough."
Re: (Score:2)
In other news nintendo's new console less powerful than 2/3 year old rivals. No doubt they are banking on mario and mario kart, a zelda game, pokemon and all their other old staples to see them through.....again.
So? Both of THOSE are less powerful than a comparable PC. It doesn't matter. We've hit a plateau where the graphics aren't getting better by leaps and bounds anymore. The PS4, XBox, and WiiU / Switch graphics are "good enough."
They're not less powerful than a comparable PC, hence the comparable. Less powerful than a high end pc yeah, but are you saying graphics should be made for the lowest common denominator because it's "good enough"?
Re: (Score:3)
I wish developers concentrated more on playability than graphics these days like they used to. I don't care how realistic a game is if the gameplay is crap, yet I know where most developers spend most of their money.
I also know why, it's much easier to sell a game that has amazing graphics- even if they end result is something that offers little entertainment in the long run.
All consoles are "good enough" to play great games with good graphics.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of hardware power is less disappointing than the consideration that the only major releases will be only established Nintendo franchises. Last system I got was a Wii and it mostly ended up being a paperweight. I can't justify another such purchase again for a handful of games.
If Nintendo is going to be the largest contributor to games for the system by far (which isn't a horrible thing), then I think they need to seriously shake things up and make some new IP as well. Maybe they have but I don't he
Re: (Score:2)
I have not. Given my age and what was available to me as a kid, I have generally seen handhelds as something to do for idle time when traveling (as historically their capabilities limited gameplay compared to consoles - I acknowledge this is far less of an issue now with today's hardware and the maturity of the industry). Regardless, the DS released when I was in college and going home meant I was driving so there wasn't any point in having one.
I suppose I could get one and play it around the house but I ha
Re:Told ya so. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they keep making good games, it will. The power behind the hardware is less important than the quality of the games made for it.
Very much so.
Pac-Man ran on a 3 MHz CPU, with a 16 kB ROM and 2 kB RAM + 2 kB video RAM. And you got 60 fps and responsive controls.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but it also means that porting games from PS4 or XBOne is going to be that much harder on the Nintendo...
Which is maybe the point? I'm not sure - if they wanted to broaden their software title base and start supporting things like CoD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since I was actually gaming back then, I feel I should remind you that Pac-Man ran at 224x288 resolution. While eye candy certainly isn't everything, it is a factor. I am not a fanboy of any particular brand, but I stopped buying new Nintendo consoles after the Gamecube. Nintendo's choice to under power it's consoles and bundle expensive controller screens is fine for un-discerning grandparents and little kids, but there are many games available that are both fun and cutting edge in the graphics departme
Re: (Score:2)
The playstation 2 was released in Japan in March 2000, North America in October and Europe in November
The gamecube was released in Japan in September 2001, North america is November and Europe in May 2002.
The xbox was released in North america In November 2001, Japan in Febuary 2002 and Europe in March 2002.
So the playstation 2 had a year or more of head start over the Xbox and Gamecube.
Re: (Score:2)
It had a running start.
How about Wii compared to PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360? Wii came out last (albeit by 2 days compared to PS3) yet outsold them both.
The real reason the PS2 outsold other consoles of its generation, if you recall, is that everyone suddenly needed a DVD player and the PS2 cost about the same as a regular DVD player, but with the added ability to run games.
So it's almost as if horsepower isn't a direct measure of a console's success, and there could be other, more novel ways, it can be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Their new system is a portable. That should have hit the point home that the new system would not be on par with PS4 horsepower. Also the "Switch" is more a successor to the portable DS/3DS, where they are still healthy. Nintendo may not say that as the 3DS and Pokemon are whats selling from them this holiday, but make no mistake. Nintendo is done with (traditional) home consoles. The Wii U was its worst selling console and they know they cant directly compete. The main console market (AAA, FPS, etc.) is not even their main target audience. It would be pointless and a waste of their resources to even try.
So three years later you can't get the same or similar in a smaller system? Also this is talking about in docked mode. In hand held mode the performance is considerably worse, 60% worse in the case of the GPU clock speed.
Re: Told ya so. (Score:2)
The failure of the WiiU was entirely in marketing.
The console itself is plenty powerful, and the tablet opens up a slew of interesting multiplayer possibilities. Just play their tech demo (Nintendoland) to see what could have been. There was genuine innovation there.
But Nintendo didn't explain anything to the consumer. Their marketing strategy was ass. Nonexistent ass. No one knew if it was an expansion to the Wii, or its own console, or is the tablet the console, or wtf is this thing. Once it got off to a
Re: (Score:2)
Just no. Its expensive to make to the point they couldnt lower the price. The new slim Xbox One is selling for $250 right now with a brand new pack in game (BF1), Wii U is still $299 for 32 GB and a 2.5 year old pack in game. Also, you cant get Wii U first party from Amazon. Its like Nintendo went out of their way to fuck up the Wii U. It had nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with Nintendo thinking they know better than everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
And now nintendo will make a statement that without hard controls and buttons, good games can't be made
IMHO, that's true enough for Mario-Style Jump'n'Runs.
And dumbing it down to a "Jump'n'Nothing" gave us exactly that. a dumb game.
You probably can't make a good text adventure with mouse input either.
Re: Told ya so. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except you don't know what you're talking about. Nearly every complaint about the game is the fact that you can play through world one but then it asks you to pay. People are bitching because they were asked to part with $9.90
Re: (Score:2)
We have a winner! Phone players are the most entitled crybabies in the gaming world. The free to play model thrives because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Emulated games work great on my phone.
Including the controller.
I wish Nintendo could profit instead of being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you carry the phone and the Bluetooth controller at once?
And how many other people own and are willing to regularly use such a controller? Are there enough customers to sustain a substantial market for such games? One user does not a market make.
Was it on the Terminal first? (Score:2)
First of all, the summary links a Fortune article that quotes Bloomberg. If you're going to say Bloomberg reported something, why not link to the Bloomberg article?
From the Bloomberg article [bloomberg.com]:
Perhaps Fortune reported the story while it was still exclusive to the Terminal and then edited the links in once the story hit Bloomberg.com.
Also, why are the reviews so bad from a user perspective?
Probably a result of users' realization that they will need to pay for a data plan at hundreds of dollars per year in order to play the game outside home, because of the game's Assassin's Creed Unity/SimCity (2013)-style requirement for a continuous Internet connection during gamep
Re: (Score:2)
Mario games haven't been about simply completing levels since Super Mario World on the SNES (maybe even SMB3), and this one is no exception.
Original SMB. Invisible 1-up blocks, pipes to underground coins, warp pipes.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be online DRM for a single player phone game is killing it.
Lol, just like it killed Pokemon Go right?
No one gives a shit about the online requirements, especially on a phone which is nearly always online, and especially given the amount of content you get from other players in your "single player" game.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Must be online DRM for a single player phone game is killing it.
Lol, just like it killed Pokemon Go right?
No one gives a shit about the online requirements, especially on a phone which is nearly always online, and especially given the amount of content you get from other players in your "single player" game.
Pokemon Go has a reason to be online... This does not.