DIGITISER
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ

IS NINTENDO'S SMARTPHONE DREAM OVER ALREADY? - by Mr Biffo 

30/3/2017

27 Comments

 
Picture
Ay yi yi! Nintendo has announced this: Super Mario Run has not met expectations.

Good news: The one-thumb smartphone platformer has been downloaded an astonishing 78 million times since its release on the Apple Store last December. Bad news: only four million of those downloads turned into paid players. Though the game's initial world is free to play, the bulk of Super Mario Run costs £9.99 to unlock. By most mobile game standards that might as well be a billion pesos!

The price is clearly an insurmountable barrier in a market where so much of what's on offer - however moistened-by-sick it might be - is free. Super Mario Run? Yeah... Super Mario Gets The Runs more like!!!!!!!

​Nintendo's other mobile efforts have been similarly mixed; Pokemon Go gushed out of the gate to become an insta-phenomenon, reaping more money in its first month than any mobile game before it. Remember how obsessed we all were last summer? Remember how we all drowned trying to catch a Magikarp, and ran into traffic trying to get the attention of a Beedrill? By September 2016, Pokemon Go had lost 79% of its players.

That said, the augmented reality catch 'em up has still earned over $1 billion in its first year, but Nintendo would've no doubt preferred a perennial hit, rather than a flash-in-the-Vileplume.

Nintendo's first smartphone product, Miitomo - a very Nintendo way of doing social media - got off to a phenomenal start. However, within two months just a quarter of those who'd downloaded it were opening the app regularly.

Fire Emblem Heroes - a free-to-play RPG - had a more modest level of hype surrounding its release last month, but with less resting on its shoulders, with less of a high-profile brand, it can be considered more of a success. Unfortunately, Nintendo has appeared to have accepted that success through gritted teeth.

What is it about Nintendo and smartphones? Is it this: that Nintendo smartphone games seem like a good idea in theory, but in practice feel weird because they're not on a Nintendo-branded machine? Or is it something else entirely? Is it to do with, y'know, stuff an ting?
Picture
THE DYING DAYS
Back in the dying days of Sega, when I was still writing the original Digi, I counted the days until Sega ditched hardware and became a software publisher. There was something inevitable about it, something which made sense. It was painful to watch the death throes; like standing idly by as a cygnet thrashed around inside an Aldi carrier bag.

In theory, Sega should've thrived, and built on the goodwill that still existed for its games. Instead, it chose to squander that opportunity by rolling it up and stuffing it inside a four week-old McFlurry.

Now... I know Nintendo isn't about to become a software publisher. Nintendo has no need to ditch hardware. I mean, Nintendo is so far from being where Sega was following the Dreamcast; the company remains in rude health. Clearly, though, during the wobbles experienced by the Wii U, Nintendo started to get a little jittery, and began laying eggs in the smartphone basket.

More than once, it stressed the importance of mobile games development to its strategy going forwards. Indeed; the Wii U's gamepad was developed specifically to appeal to the second-screen generation.

Clearly, that strategy hasn't paid off for the company in the way it hoped. Super Mario Run was not all-conquering, Pokemon Go was essentially a fad, and Miitomo simply didn't catch alight. Fire Emblem Heroes may have done well, but the company told Asia-focused business publication Nikkei that its freemium model was an "outlier", and that it preferred the premium Mario Run approach.

Nintendo now insists that its smartphone business is about more than profits; it's an attempt to expand the reach of its characters, hopefully driving some of them towards the Switch. It's all about that synergy, yeah? Well, fine, Nintendo. If that's the case then don't price your mobile games at ten pounds, when most of them cost 99p, and are bought by the most casual of gamers.

​However, the recent Android release of Super Mario Run coincided with an expansion of the free-to-play elements of the original game, suggesting that Nintendo is now moving the goalposts.
Picture
SOMEBODY CALL £9.99!
So is Nintendo's smartphone dream over, given that existing Nintendo fans would rather see Nintendo games on the new Switch, and non-fans don't care enough to spend £9.99?

When it first announced its "serious commitment" to smartphone games, Nintendo said it would release five titles by 2017. However, an iOS version of Animal Crossing was delayed in January until "the next financial year". At the very least, that game is likely to still be released, but beyond that is anybody's guess.

Nintendo had said of its smartphone games: "We aim to make each title a hit, because we want to thoroughly operate every one of them for a significant amount of time after their releases."

Whether a long shelf-life for its games is even possible now, given the dwindling audiences for Miitomo, Pokemon Go and Super Mario Run, is doubtful. As is whether Nintendo would risk another expensive smartphone launch, for a game that might not meet "expectations". Also, given the generally positive reception to the Switch, Nintendo might begin soft-pedalling on its smartphone games development, at least until the Switch's fortunes become more apparent.

Frankly, Nintendo - for all its experience - is as in the dark as anyone when it comes to creating a mobile game hit. Clash of Clans, Game of War, Candy Crush Saga, and Angry Birds are among the biggest smartphone games of all time, and none of them came with a brand already attached. They weren't surefire hits, and yet all four became enormous. 

Given the disappointment of the Wii U, I don't blame Nintendo for exploring other avenues, but I'd much rather they just focused on one area. The novelty of having Nintendo on your phone might just have proved to be exactly that: a novelty.
FROM THE ARCHIVE:
​REVIEW: THE LEGEND OF ZELDA - BREATH OF THE WILD (SWITCH, WII U - SWITCH VERSION TESTED)
REVIEW: 1-2-SWITCH (NINTENDO SWITCH)
A TALE OF TWO TALES: HORIZON ZERO DAWN & THE LEGEND OF ZELDA: BREATH OF THE WILD
27 Comments
Col. Asdasd
30/3/2017 08:48:52 am

As far as I can remember, the company was kind of reluctant to do smart-phone releases in the first place, and only really did so to make their shareholders happy after a fair bit of rumbling and grumbling at AGMs.

Conversions for Super Mario Run, even at a sky-high price, were comparable to much cheaper games - a pretty solid indicator of success. So their signalling that it didn't meet expectations are either them having completely unrealistic expectations, Sega-with-Tomb Raider stylee, or perhaps betray an underlying determination to shift their strategy away from mobile after having paid lip service to the idea with a few high profile releases.

I think in the grand scheme of things they're hardly shooting themselves in the foot. Very few developers are making any money out of the mobile market, even the behemoths. There are big structural problems with the app store and google that make them winner-takes-all markets, and that's a risky arena to sink a lot of resources in when you have a fledging console performing respectably in sales but crying out for new games.

Reply
Bruce Flagpole
30/3/2017 08:49:20 am

This seems to be a weirdly negative view, as for me these all seem to have been massive hits in the mobile area. Mario Run was, and is, too expensive. That was clear from the start. However, and without and stats or knowledge to back this up, I bet it's right up there as one of the most successful mobile games that cost a tenner. If/when they drop it to a few quid then I'd expect it will continue to sell for a long time. There's still plenty of kids still playing pokemon Go, it's just the adults that get caught up in these things that have mostly moved on.

As a Nintendo fan, I would prefer they focused all their efforts on their console games, as mobile phone gaming just doesn't really interest me. But to paint their mobile activities as anything less than incredibly successful seems odd. I'd expect there isn't a games company in the world that wouldn't kill someone important to them, to get the success and strike rate nintendo have had with their mobile products.

Reply
Mr Biffo
30/3/2017 10:48:24 am

I think it's negative in as much as they haven't done what Nintendo wanted them to do. Which was to be perennial long-runners...

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
30/3/2017 12:13:00 pm

But Nintendo themselves are saying that Super Mario Run underperformed, and that they don't really care for Fire Emblem's payment structure. It's their own negative view, which to be fair likely stems from them never really wanting to go into mobile but doing it to shut the shareholders up.

Reply
Bruce Flagpole
30/3/2017 01:46:58 pm

I didn't mean that as a dig at Mr B. I meant to include that I haven't read the Nintendo stuff so I don't know if it's them being negative, rather than Mr B interpreting it as a negative.
I guess it shows that Nintendo are still a bit out of touch with the rest of the world that they can't see their own successes in the mobile arena, or take responsibility (aka Mario's price) for where things didn't quite hit the levels expected.
I guess they're just a bit too used to seeing their own games selling with a humongous attach rate to the hardware!

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
30/3/2017 02:02:29 pm

Ah, I see. Sorry about that!

I wonder if this tone is just Nintendo's way of telling their shareholders "we've tried your stupid idea, we don't think it's really worked well enough, let us do the thinking next time"

DEAN
30/3/2017 09:57:21 am

I liked Mario Run.... for a while but like a pretty butterfly it got very old very fast.

I wonder what they're planning for Zelda on smartphones?
I'm making the assumption that they have something in mind but they must have, right? And Mario Kart...
But yeah, Zelda on the iPhone? How could that work? Popping Ganon's bubbles? Some kind of gyro-controlled nightmarish abomination? Horse racing a la CSR?

Anyone here ever play Horn? No, not Ocean Horn, just Horn.
That was rather fucking excellent, I thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_(video_game)

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
30/3/2017 12:25:22 pm

Mobiles are very much the Switch's competitor now. If the Switch takes off, I imagine they'll drop mobile happily since they only ever did it due to years of shareholder pressure.

Reply
DEAN
30/3/2017 12:40:30 pm

But lots of people that own phones are never going to buy a Switch. I think Nintendo are thinking beyond games as evidenced by the Universal Studios projects.

They've got a lot better at merchandising recently and to really cash in on all that they need as much awareness as possible.

So yeah, I get what you're saying but if I'm right and they're looking to an even broader horizon then I think we'll see plenty more on the phones.

DEAN
30/3/2017 12:57:21 pm

Sorry about this - I don't mean to go on!

AND mobile games are a great advert for the Switch - they remind lapsed Nintendites (?) about everything Nintendo and perhaps encourage them to go for it properly. I'm suggesting that mobile games will increase Switch sales.

I think we'll see the end of the 3DS and that whole idea - the Switch does all that but better. Mobiles, though, they're something else.

Stu
30/3/2017 11:58:03 am

To be fair, I don't think Mario Run was too expensive. I'd rather a game cost £9.99 and didn't constantly make me pay money just to make the game playable (One of the reasons I stopped playing Pokemon Go was the fact that I don't live in a big city peppered by Pokestops, so I had to keep shelling out for more Pokeballs) but then I guess I'm in the minority, and even though it's tacky as hell, ads and micropayments are where mobile gaming is nowadays.

Reply
RichardM
30/3/2017 12:32:35 pm

As indicated on the letters page the other day, I think I've got my money's worth out of SMR: 99.9% unlocked after a couple of months of casual play. But I'm in a place where I don't have a console and this is my only Nintendo fix....The model is all wrong, though. They should be doing episodic releases of levels at .99p a shot and have unlockables that are actually worth something. Or maybe a paid version and a free version with in app purchases to extend play time...?

It'll be a shame if they ditch their mobile plans, I want Mario Kart or Zelda next.

Reply
Eggy
30/3/2017 01:15:24 pm

Nintendo need to become software-only ASAP. They're not in the same financial position as Sega were, but they're on that same road, blindly waving the white cane and stumbling over bumps that everyone else can see a mike away.

Reply
Beefkr10z
30/3/2017 01:29:51 pm

Really?

Really?

I couldn't think of a worse outcome for the games industry as a whole. Just because a few people want Mariokart on PS4 is not a good enough reason to remove the huge innovations that Nintendo & its hardware bring to the market. The Sony & Microsoft model is to simply put more power under the hood of their newest PC-in-a-box, and put very little thought into new ideas.
The odd questionable decision aside, I personally hope that Nintendo continue to delight, surprise And infuriate us with their hardware for years to come. Gaming would be a much duller place without them.

Reply
Voodoo76
30/3/2017 04:01:30 pm

Well said Beefkr. I couldn't live being a gamer in a Sony / Microsoft only world. Nintendo are so original they put the others to shame.

Ste Pickford
30/3/2017 01:38:14 pm

The Mario game required a permanently-on mobile internet connection to run. I don't even get that everywhere in my own house, and certainly not on the train, which are the places I would be most likely to play the game, so it was downloaded and deleted pretty quickly by me. And I like Nintendo and Mario games.

Reply
Stu
30/3/2017 01:48:07 pm

That was the worst thing about it (and the odd nasty UI issues). There was literally no reason for that to happen.

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
31/3/2017 12:20:17 am

If I could have played Mario Run in the Tube, it would have changed my point of view on it significantly. The game is good on the commute, but isn't good enough to warrant playing at home.

I never even played all of the levels as a result.

Reply
Meatballs-me-branch-me-do
30/3/2017 02:45:01 pm

Mario was not fun, far too expensive, and required a constant internet connection.

Miitomo was boring as hell (was it just heavily disguised market research questions?) took up a TON of space on your phone, and was completely and utterly pointless.

Pokemon GO is okay, but people need to remember it's a game for the long haul, and the initial rush of wanting to build a team soon settles and it becomes something you turn on when out for a walk or are in the mood.

However, going back to Mario, there is a serious issue that I've mentioned before, and that is the one of cost. Nintendo charges far too frigging much for their games. We just got a WiiU and looking at some of the prices for games, both in-store and online, we're shocked. Likewise, 3DS games can be outrageously expensive. Then you go into the eShop and see how much download only titles are. Nintendo figures they are immune to market forces and can charge a stupid amount for Mario Run, far more than the overwhelming majority of mobile games.

No. And that's why, I reckon.

Reply
PS1Snake
30/3/2017 05:02:58 pm

The youth don't even talk about Pokémon Go anymore. It's so last year.

Reply
John
30/3/2017 10:36:31 pm

As someone that worked in mobile gaming for a good while I can honestly say - meh its bonkers and no-one has it figured out. Brand are where the safe money is (apparently) and yet none of the brands make money compared to successful non-brands.

But aside from that, you have to look at the movie industry where the success of an movie is not judged by the critical success, even by the actors, but by the commercial success.

So here Nintendo are simply lying. Tiny investment generated huge return - Pokemon Go adding massive value to their share price. But what a great message - we've made a mint but it was a failure because we are soooooo awesome we should have made more. Make money and add value to the brand... Just when they have a new console out too!

Reply
Damon link
31/3/2017 12:00:18 am

Here's where they went wrong:

1. Not launching iOS and Android together
2. Too high a price point -- I wouldn't say the game needs to be 99¢ (or 99p, I forget how ripped off the UK gets with software sometimes) but on GooglePlay a lot of apps are around the $4.99 mark for full versions. I think iOS has a sort of different market.
3. Making more traditionally structured games that actually end rather than ongoing constantly-moving-the-carrot games like other mobile developers.

Reply
DEAN
31/3/2017 09:37:37 am

That's all sensible stuff, Damon, but I don't agree.

The Apple exclusivity gave Nintendo a massive level of hype. Remember the Apple press event (you know, the one where the whole World is watching) with Shigsy introducing Mario Run and then the register your interest button? If you owned an iDevice then you knew Mario was incoming.
I think that was a very mutually beneficial deal between the two tyrants... along the lines of when Apple and U2 rammed Bono down everyones' EarPods.
And if you had to choose between the two silicon valley despots then you'd back Apple, right? The big shiny premium brand - where all the money at.

Pricing is a weird thing. Even £/$5 would have made a lot of people balk. You have your hardcore and the'd have paid £15 without thinking twice. You have your super casual and they'd have given it a wide berth if it was anything but free. Nintendo went straight down the middle. It was a sensible decision; free for a bit and then SHAZAM.
I believe, though can't back up, that if they had sold the game for £5 then they would have made less money overall.

Your third point is interesting. Arguably Nintendo attempted to do as you describe. The game rewards for replay and encourages you to compete in races. They also made the ending deliberately underwhelming so as not to feel too final.
Did it work? Well, I 'completed' it, farted about trying to collect the coins for a bit and then got bored. Barely touched it since and don't really want to. But that's normal.

Reply
Jareth Smith
31/3/2017 10:59:28 am

It's a fun game, for a start, which I'm still playing, it's just if an app is over £3 people have a total irrational meltdown. However, they're quite happy to go out and thrash £600 on another pointless iPhone update, but those £8 apps... way too pricey etc. It's just trademark vacuous consumerists, but Nintendo should learn from this by making its future apps on the cheap side.

Reply
DEAN
31/3/2017 11:37:22 am

Jareth, can you imagine how many more copies of a game they would need to sell?
That's not to say they won't in the future because timing is also a major factor. For example you know how sequels make more money (not always but...) even if they're not as good? Ironman movies spring to mind.
The early ones get the ball rolling and increase interest... to hysteria sometimes.
Also, when they do cut the price people'll be talking about them again - Bargain Nintendo game available...

I think Nintendo are too high profile and have a generally excellent reputation - going down a freemium route could do their image a lot harm - they're a McDonalds sized target - yes, loads are guilty of it but when they do it it makes the news.
I think Nintendo take their Disney-like position very seriously and don't want to be in The Daily Mail for costing unsuspecting parents £79.99 for bubbles.

Reply
PaddyF0dder
3/4/2017 11:17:45 am

The problem is that the games haven't been great. They've been too busy trying to make smartphone games (look! A tiny overpriced mario auto runner! Look! A GPS Pokemon game!) as opposed to good games that work on a smartphone.

Mario Run was too short, and the necessity to have a data connection was really annoying. My wife is pregnant, so I've spent a lot of time in hospital waiting rooms. No signal, and therefore no access to a game that I have paid to own. It's a dick move by Nintendo.

The perfect Nintendo franchise on smartphone would be Advance Wars. Release a fully-featured Advance Wars with online/offline multiplayer. Charge £10 or so and I'm there. Stop with the gimmicky diversions and focus on making good games that work on the format.

Reply
Craig Grannell link
9/4/2017 04:41:22 pm

I’m a bit late too this one, and will no doubt echo some of the other comments. But I don’t think Nintendo’s smartphone dream is over – really, it’s barely begun. We can ignore Miitomo, which was a piece of crap and not even a game. Pokemon Go isn’t Nintendo, technically, either. So SMR was really the first proper Nintendo thing on a smartphone.

They got stuff badly wrong in terms of the internet connection requirement. But elsewhere, they almost got things right. The price is fun – it’s a premium brand, and I’m utterly sick of idiots considering two quid a premium price point on mobile, and then people bellyaching about games of that price only offering a few hours of solid entertainment.

What they got wrong, to my mind, was not making it staggeringly clear that the game was a demo with unlocks, and not having enough going on in the demo. For me, the game only really got interesting with 1-4, which absolutely should have been in the free game.

Mostly, though, it seems it’s Nintendo shooting its own face off by moaning about an underperforming title. Presumably, they were expecting to camp out in the top grossing forever, like Clash Royale, but you don’t do that with a game with a one-off price-point. So SMR blazed and faded away, like almost every other great mobile title in recent years. But had Nintendo said “Man, we made over $50m from that game, and WOW THAT IS SO GOOD”, the news coverage would have been wildly different.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    This section will not be visible in live published website. Below are your current settings:


    Current Number Of Columns are = 2

    Expand Posts Area =

    Gap/Space Between Posts = 12px

    Blog Post Style = card

    Use of custom card colors instead of default colors = 1

    Blog Post Card Background Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Shadow Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Border Color = current color

    Publish the website and visit your blog page to see the results

    Picture
    Support Me on Ko-fi
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    RSS Feed Widget
    Picture

    Picture
    Tweets by @mrbiffo
    Picture
    Follow us on The Facebook

    Picture

    Archives

    December 2022
    May 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014


    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ