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.
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.
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.
> Apple and Google don’t value backwards compatibility that much
I'm incredibly disappointed that something like 40% of the many apps and games I've purchased for iOS no longer work.
The 32-bit apocalypse was terrible, but Apple's contempt for ABI stability and backward compatibility in general (resulting in an ongoing compatibility maintenance burden for developers, just to keep their app running on newer iOS versions) damages the app and game experience on iOS.
Apple's approach makes it impossible to build a game library the way one can on other systems without keeping a collection of devices that run the appropriate OS versions and have the game installed (since it may be removed from the app store.)
This is very different from, say, Nintendo DS games(2004-2020) or PS1 games (1994-2017.) Or PC games on Windows and Steam.
It's a disappointing tradeoff, because better backward compatibility would have massive, multiplicative benefit to iOS users and developers.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
This is why the games I play on my iPhone and iPad come exclusively from Apple Arcade. There really is some great art there: Don't Starve, Stitch, Cozy Grove, Alto's Odyssey, Oregon Trail, and more.
The difference is Apple Arcade absolutely forbids the in-game microtransaction mess. You can see where it's been removed in games like Star Trek: Legends or Jetpack Joyride. What's really interesting is these are really good games in their own right once you get to play the game to earn the rewards and progress. The only thing standing in their way is the microtransaction crap, which is sad.
I played a lot of Mario Run at the beginning but ultimately stopped because it was absolutely infuriating that it required a network connection. This requirement made the game completely useless as a way to spend time on a subway or airplane trip.
As far as I could tell the only features that needed the network connection were high-score comparisons and infrequent content updates. So what's the big deal if I don't have a live connection? Just let me play without the high score or the latest content!
> The mobile gaming landscape is not a place for quality
I’d rephrase that as the mobile gaming landscape is not a place for traditional monetization models. Genshin Impact is primarily a mobile game and although the anime aesthetic may not be for everyone it is easily a AAA quality open world game that has been a resounding financial success, making over $3.6B in just two years. However, it uses the gacha monetization model to fund its live service development instead of the traditional “buy the main game once and then pay for any expansions you want” model.
> 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
I think the elitism question is related to mobile gaming being considered casual while there's a gender disparity. So if you say mobile gaming is bad, which it is, you're insulting female gamers. (From the perspective of certain bloggers)
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?
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.
Really unfortunate how that was true for all Nintendo games I've played on mobile: Mario Kart, Pokemon Go, TCG and United. Seems mobile gaming is a lost cause.
They did generate some bad press, but I dunno how much of that translates to actual brand damage.
Maybe Nintendo didn't like the trajectory, or the potential for brand damage to their treasured IP, even if the mobile games weren't even denting the reputation yet.
Nintendo tried various ways of monetizing their mobile games, from gacha to pay-per-play to time-saving. But the irony is that their most profitable game is Fire Emblem Heroes, which uses the gacha system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
