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.
No... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
which is probably why they are not buying it (8%)
Re:No... (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re: No... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All of this fails to account for the fact that it's a very, VERY simple game and most people don't see getting $10 worth of fun out of it.
Combine that with the fact that you get to play for (i think) two levels before having to pay... two levels you can pass in about 2 minutes... people are put off by the free portion of the game being almost nonexistent.
Re: (Score:2)
As Cheap as the game probably was to produce due to its simplicity- they probably don't have to get many people shelling out $10 to make a profit.
Re: No.... (Score:2)
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.
Re: No... (Score:2)
I can think of better things to do with one hand.
tiny fiddle award (Score:2)
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
Apple's fault (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
For most people, beer is an acquired taste. They have to drink it a number of times before they like it enough to be committed consumers. Would you consider that a compelling argument to ban the sale of beer?
Oh, and here's the obligatory xkcd. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Not enough demo to justify $10 up front. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not nickel and dime. It's like Doom: play through a few levels then unlock the entire rest of the game with a single purchase. The only remotely "nickel and dime" element of Super Mario Run that I'm aware of is its requirement for a continuous connection to Nintendo's server through the Internet, which can become very expensive if you want to play away from Wi-Fi.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the thing here is that 10 bux US is simply too much for what you're getting. It's a single-button rhythm game that requires rote memorization of level layouts for optimal routing.
Buying DOOM, back in the day, however, got you a single-player experience, multiplayer, custom level creation, in an amazing new genre and experience.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the second reason, aside from no standard control scheme for phone gaming, is why I just don't bother. The pricing for so many games is simply too high for what you are getting. Sure, I've paid 50 - 60 for a game before, but I got a lot of value out of those purchases, and hundreds of hours of playtime.
Re: (Score:2)
This is another issue being reported, that aside from not being able to play without an internet connection, the game can use 50MB of data or more for mobile users. (supposedly)
Re: (Score:2)
"Here we GO!"
Ugh, people, pay up front instead of paying more (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:Ugh, people, pay up front instead of paying mor (Score:4, Insightful)
"good game" being the caveat!!
Re: (Score:2)
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 $10.
"Good game" is also relative and personal. I for one find it to be a good game. YMMV
Re: (Score:2)
it wasn't a dig against the mario game, just generally speaking. people pay for perceived value, if it has become culturally unacceptable to pay up front, then it will have the undesired effect on sales regardless of the actual value the 10$ might buy as was the original commenters point.
It is basically $10 up front (Score:2)
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
To be nickeled and dimed, rather than pay upfront. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It is a lot more than $10 (Score:2)
I've paid a lot more than $10 for a game over the years and been perfectly happy
Did those games require you to buy a data plan for hundreds of dollars per year in order to keep even single-player mode going when you leave Wi-Fi range?
Overage last straw (Score:2)
many would argue that I'm already paying for the data plan for other reasons
Does what you're already paying take into account the possibility that the game may push you into having to pay an overage fee? Or a tethering fee if the device on which you play the game is not the phone to which your data plan is registered?
too damn high (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean, "balked."
Could have meant either, since they are both accepted spellings of the word that means, "to stop and refuse to proceed." The device you can use to verify this is called a "dictionary"; there are quite a few of them available online.
The asshole thing (Score:2)
is that since it's not an up-front purchase, but an in-game one, you cannot use Family Sharing with it.
I know why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Stock Prices Since Launch (Score:2)
Family Plans and In-App Purchases don't get along (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not the price but the sale model (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
This is the second time I've seen this complaint. Don't you people (to be clear, by "you people" I am referring to the complainers) know how to use a dictionary?
also...we already played Mario Run (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. This being SlashDot, I didn't even read TFA.
Well done Nintendo (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
8% of 25 millionsat 9.99? (Score:2)