Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Nintendo Games

Nintendo's Mobile Mario Game Sets Download Record But Pricing Proves Sticking Point (reuters.com) 92

Nintendo's first Mario smartphone game has set a download record but gamers baulked at the one-time cost of unlocking content, prompting investors to push the Japanese game makers' stock to a one-month low. From a report on Reuters: Super Mario Run hit 25 million downloads just four days after its Dec. 15 release in 151 countries on Apple's App Store, earning gross sales of about $21 million, showed data from app analyst Sensor Tower. But Nintendo shares have lost 11 percent since the launch as the latest game to feature Nintendo's princess-rescuing Italian plumber received negative reviews from users mainly complaining about its $9.99 one-time cost, rather than the usual model of paying small amounts for special features. "Mario is arguably the most popular gaming franchise in the world, yet we see only about 8 percent of those who try the game actually purchasing it," said Sensor Tower analyst Spencer Gabriel. Super Mario Run is free to download on the App Store where, in Japan, it is rated 2.5 stars out of 5 based on 1,095 reviews.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo's Mobile Mario Game Sets Download Record But Pricing Proves Sticking Point

Comments Filter:
  • Players are balking at a $10 investment on something that may suck, particularly when people are telling us it sucks.

    Nobody wants pay as you go, that is bullshit.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      How can it "may suck" when you're given free plays to find out? If you can't tell what the game is about after trying it, then maybe you shouldn't buy it.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        which is probably why they are not buying it (8%)

        • Re:No... (Score:4, Funny)

          by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @12:38PM (#53531149) Journal

          8% x $10 = $80
          100% x 99 cents = $99

          It was a good roll of the dice. If it were 20% or more

          Dot dot dot
          Profit!

          • 8% x $10 = 0.08 x $10 = $0.8 100% x 99 cents = 1 x 99 cents = 99 cents Not sure what the point was, but at least the math is right now :)
          • A $10 starting price gives Nintendo flexibility to run sales to boost purchases when initial sales start tapering. When a $10 app has a 50% off sale it gets more attention than a $0.99 app; and at $5 Nintendo would still make a handy profit. If the price started at the bottom there's no where to go from there.

            Besides, making $21 million in four days doesn't sounds like a problem to me. I doubt it cost Nintendo that much to design the game.

    • first, these comments skew the results. i never ever buy anything that says "in app payments". hate them as I feel I'm buying a pig in a poke that I will invest my time in and then be asked to pay some unknown amount in the future. I'd rather just pay an acceptable price knowing I won't owe more just to use what I have.

      thus I won't be the one commenting and rating the app that I refuse to buy.

      Second, you are not likely to see anyone comments in a review. "Gee I with there were more

      • i never ever buy anything that says "in app payments". hate them as I feel I'm buying a pig in a poke that I will invest my time in and then be asked to pay some unknown amount in the future.

        That's Apple's fault. The App Store says "payments", plural, even when there's only one one-time payment required to unlock all of a particular app's functionality.

      • The big sticking point - beyond the price itself - is that the full version is itself an in-app purchase. That means that, should you want to install it on a few different devices, you'll need to buy it each time. To install it on my phone and my kids' tablets (assuming it's released on Android at the same price point) would cost me $30. If I switch phones, I'd need to buy it again. It would be expensive if it was a "one purchase and you have it for all of your devices," but as a "buy it again and again for

        • by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

          Being an in app purpose doesn't necessitate you having to repurchase it for each device. Many apps have a "restore purchases" option. Nintendo chose not to implement this.

    • Nobody wants pay as you go, that is bullshit.

      You don't make money by giving people what they say they want. You give people what they are willing to pay for.

      I have worked in marketing, and an incremental pay-as-you-go, or subscription model, will almost always generate more profit than a one-time upfront payment. The biggest problem is getting customers past their first commitment, and asking for full payment up-front is a big hurdle. Lots of little payments meet far less psychological resistance.

      • I work different to most people then.

        I refuse to buy any in-app purchases because I see them as a scam. I also don't like "subscription model" payments. Always end up paying more.

        Spotify? F. You. I would rather buy albums I like and own them forever and play them whenever, not keep paying money to the same company every month. (or use Pandora)

        Games. I'll buy a $20 game but I won't play a free game that has in-app purchases... at all.

        • I refuse to buy any in-app purchases because I see them as a scam.

          Most people abandon apps after only a single use, so I would say it is the "pay-up-front" model that is a scam, because what you get often isn't what you expected. With an in-app purchase, you already tried the app and you like the basic functionality, so you pay for more and you know what you are getting.

          I also don't like "subscription model" payments. Always end up paying more.

          You only pay more if it is something you like. If you don't like it, you cancel after the first small payment, and avoid the big payment.

        • by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

          How is a single in app purchase that unlocks everything "a scam"? You get to try before you buy and see if you like it. How is that any different from shareware?

          I don't listen to music enough to pay for Spotify, but if I did. I would definitely pay $10 a month to have access to all the music I want to listen to. Right now, I use the Spotify's free tier to listen to music when other people are in the car.

    • Players are balking at a $10 investment on something that may suck, particularly when people are telling us it sucks.

      Nobody wants pay as you go, that is bullshit.

      It's not a pay as you go game though. It's a one time fee for the complete game. I know it's hard to fathom. I've become so jaded by the modern microtransaction model of games that i didn't understand what Nintendo was selling me when the buy screen first showed up. I thought their proposition was i would pay $10 for each boss level or something.

      After a while, i realized that this was actually just an old fashioned free demo. Since i've actually bemoaned the death of the free demo (all modern games are e

      • by mlyle ( 148697 )

        Yes, this.

        Though the quantity of content is a little light for $10 (but not drastically off-- but another 10-15% content would make paying the $10 feel a lot better).

    • Players are balking at a $10 investment on something that may suck, particularly when people are telling us it sucks.

      Actually very few reviews say it sucks, and the game lets you play through almost the entire first world before paying which is more than enough for you to see if the core concept and mechanics of the gameplay are sucky to you.

      Mobile users are precious little princesses who are happy parting with $800 on a device, but are scared with forking out more than $4 for a game. Personally I hope Nintendo abandon the platform completely and come back to users who actually appreciate them.

  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @12:30PM (#53531057)

    I for one can add and I'd rather pay $10 up front for a good game than a dollar here and there for a larger total. Pay per play and pay per feature end up much more expensive for the consumer than a flat price!

    • by zlives ( 2009072 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @12:34PM (#53531111)

      "good game" being the caveat!!

      • For that caveat you can also read the reviews (almost universally positive) watch a gameplay video (show you how the features work) or ... play through most of the first world of the game which you can do before paying the $10.

        "Good game" is also relative and personal. I for one find it to be a good game. YMMV

        • by zlives ( 2009072 )

          it wasn't a dig against the mario game, just generally speaking. people pay for perceived value, if it has become culturally unacceptable to pay up front, then it will have the undesired effect on sales regardless of the actual value the 10$ might buy as was the original commenters point.

    • I for one can add and I'd rather pay $10 up front for a good game than a dollar here and there for a larger total

      The game is NOT $1 here and there. It's $10 one time, for the whole game...

      The only difference is that Nintendo lets you go through the tutorial, three of the initial levels, play around with building your castle, and the race mode - so basically they give you a pretty large amount of content for free to decide if you like what is going on, then you purchase the whole thing. It's exactly like a

  • Smart phones have changed how people think about money.

    I bet it's cheaper to pay that one time fee, instead of Nintendo using the current phone economics model to take it drip by drip.

    • I agree, I'd much rather pay a one time flat fee, even if the game turns out to suck.

      It's an interesting question, though, whether psychologically that holds true for the majority of people, especially given how successful some of the microtransaction games turn out to be. I could certainly envision that a lot of people would turn out to be drawn more towards a model where there's a low or nonexistent up front cost, with small/incremental costs for additional features. People would tell themselves "Oh, I
    • by Anonymous Coward

      As someone who creates games that go by the nickel and dime strategy, you bet your ass it makes more money.

      Sometimes I feel guilty, other times I'm just happy to be able to afford food.

      • I don't really blame the developers. The market is what it is. I personally opt to have nothing to do with it in that form, but it seems like I'm the minority.

  • Huge Nintendo fan here and I think its a little too pricey. To me personally, it's a $5 ($6 tops) app at best.
    • Okay now justify. You've stated your opinion now back it up with what denotes the pricing strategy of a game for you.

      And do it without mentioning the words mobile or app. In fact think of a Nintendo Wii and that wonderful $59.99 price tag of every other Mario game when you come up with your justification.

  • is that since it's not an up-front purchase, but an in-game one, you cannot use Family Sharing with it.

  • The reason only 8% buy it is because it sucks.
  • Maybe, just maybe, the entirety of Nintendo's stock value isn't dependent on the success of an app.
  • If the app cost $9.99 to download then I'd have already purchased it. Just like DS and Wii games before it.

    My beef is I have a family account setup, so my family could share a $10 purchased game, but I need to buy the $10 in app purchase on every member of the families account. In app are great for the speed ups, they suck for actual functionality.

  • Most mobile games you either pay up front or you get free with micro-transactions. Mario Run is more like 90s shareware, if you like the demo you buy the rest

    To my knowledge NOBODY else does it this way

  • ...when it was just called Temple Run. Love the new skin, but what do you want us to pay $10 for again?
  • Well done Nintendo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by seoras ( 147590 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @05:46PM (#53533719)

    No, not sarcasm. I really mean it. Well done Nintendo. $10 is chicken feed. Seriously.
    As an independent App developer I often feel like a sweat shop worker. Or a ant being tortured by a child with a magnifying glass.
    You write an App, that people really like and want, but the shit you have to put up with because you don't give it away for FREE is soul destroying.
    I've tried offering two options, pay for full function or use with interstitial Ads.
    The 1 star ratings keep coming in with comments like "Remove those annoying Ads and I'll give you 5 stars".
    Oh thanks. I can feed myself and family on your generous 5 star rating?

    The App eco-system is probably the most under valued product market place in modern society.
    People think nothing of chucking 99c at a street busker or homeless beggar but balk at the thought of handing over a penny for an App they really want.

    Nintendo could have been more underhanded, like some other games who can afford big names and tv adverts, but they chose instead to offer a freemium product with a single purchase option and not try to milk you for millions [bbc.com].
    The game might suck, but their business ethics and mentality are sound.
    No doubt their strategy going forward is to offer discount days and other price promotions to increase the conversion ratio.
    You can only do that though from starting with a premium price.

    Thank you Nintendo for not going to the lowest price point and perpetuating what has become an industry trend that's slowly suffocating itself to death.

  • So, 8% of 25 millions at 9.99 is U$ 19,980,000. In four days. I'm sure this is much more then stupid microtransaction model.

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...