Nintendo says Super Mario Run "Did Not Meet Our Expectations"

Nintendo says Super Mario Run "Did Not Meet Our Expectations"

Nintendo seems hopeful that the Super Mario Run jump to Android will expand the userbase, but is unlikely to offer much in terms of earnings.

In an interview with Nikkei, Nintendo President Tatsumi Kimishima revealed that the company is less than thrilled with the profits from mobile title Super Mario Run, specifically that revenue from the game "did not meet our expectations."

The game lets players test out the first world before being required to pay $9.99 to unlock the rest. Although the game saw more than 78 million downloads, only 5 percent of those players paid to unlock the game as of January.

iOS users have had access to Mario's first mobile game since last December, and the game finally made its way to Android on Wednesday (one day earlier that announced). According to Nikkei, the leap to Android is expected to increase the userbase for the game, but due to the pay-once model, there is no expectation for a big increase in earnings.

During a Q&A with investors back in February, Nintendo stated that it plans to release 2-3 mobile games per year, stating that its strategy is to tackle the mobile market by continuing to make use of its existing IPs in an effort to recapture the interest of older gamers as well as young children in an effort to "overcome generational gaps so parents and children can play together."

Permalink

Well i would expect nothing less from a mobile game that tried to break away from the microtransactions paradigm.

I don't expect many $10 iOS/Google Play games actually sell. This is a surprisingly solid game from what I've played of it but there's no way I'm dropping that kind of money on this when I could just pop in one of my older NSMB games...Haven't played those to death yet anyway...

Here is a tip Nintendo.

Charging 9.99 for a runner game is far too much.
Sure, it has the Nintendo and Mario branding on it, but there are a LOT of runner games and they are far less expensive.
Sooo ... how about trying to be competitive and innovative in the market and not just rely on brand name?

In other news, Nintendo is out of touch with the modern world...

That is what happens when a company that never allows its games to go on sale (because it "devalues their properties") gets into a market model that is used to abundance of options, paying close to nothing for their apps upfront, relies in constant, small investments, and is completely alien to the way Nintendo wants to do business.

Maybe they should have asked SE how their idea of charging 20$ for ports of old final fantasy worked for them.

Nintendo has no idea about modern gamers.

Id never drop ?10 for a runner. Yes, it is their game and they can charge what they want. Equally, it appears lots of consumers chose not to buy it.

I downloaded it played the 1st level and unistalled it. No way i would ever pay $10 for that.

JenSeven:
Here is a tip Nintendo.

Charging 9.99 for a runner game is far too much.
Sure, it has the Nintendo and Mario branding on it, but there are a LOT of runner games and they are far less expensive.
Sooo ... how about trying to be competitive and innovative in the market and not just rely on brand name?

Pretty much this. I could be convinced to drop $10 on a mobile version of a more proper Mario title. Say something like Super Mario 3 or RPG. But I'd never pay that sort of money for a glorified F2P game with a Mario paint job.

I didn't even download the game simply because it didn't look fun. And at that point, I thought it was a F2P game. It's even more worthless now that I know they wanted me to pay for it.

I'm not surprised.

I downloaded it, played it until I had to pay, and then got rid of the app.

It's just that good enough for me to drop $10 on a running game. I have other mobile games that are way better than that, and some are even free and fun. AlphaBear being one of them.

Maybe next time, Nintendo.

So a cheap runner game with a high for mobile 10$ unlock only persuades 4ish million to buy it and still manages to make 28 million dollars. Still a success imho.

Of course I would have gone with like 99 cent level unlocks(or a grind alternative) Even if only half of people drop 99cents your still doubling up on what you made much less if people buy multiple levels or character unlocks.

Every failed Nintendo mobile game is a good thing. Fuck mobile. Even if its their own fault, I dont care. Fuck mobile.

As many other here have said, make it so that you complete course 1,2 and 3 100%, get all the red coins and whatnot and you unlock those 3. then after that it's a purchase of 50cents per map or a bundle of sorts with 5 next courses for 2dollars or similar. I believer that would've given a lot more revenue and buyers.

The game is okay, solid to be sure, but it's NOT worth 10USD for what's in it.

I'd say, make it a 5USD game, and it'd probably sell better.

Ten bucks is just an ABSURD price for mobile games. You can get 4 to 10 full amazing games for that amount. And those would probably EACH offer more hours of play than SMR. And you could get literally *infinite* free games for $10.....

I bought games like Ridiculous Fishing, Hatfall (Escapist representing!) and 1000000. SO much fun with each. And I would pay *more* for a *full, new* Mario title. But this crap for such an absurd amount of cash? I'd rather cut off a finger! :O

And I of course have (S)NES emulators on my tablet that I never use.

I don't think it met anybody's expectations.

They're finally starting to sound like a AAA developer

Yeah, I don't even really do mobile games, but I'm pretty sure I've seen much more extensive games at the 10 dollar point (and several for less. I think Minecraft pocket is only 10 or 12.

I played Super mario Run and, while it was a fun game, I'm unsure if it's worth ten bucks. Maybe if I wasn't poor I'd be willing to drop that much on this so I'd have something I could fiddle with on my phone while bored and waiting for a friend, because it really was kind of fun for what I got to play...

But no, still quite poor here.

Saelune:
Every failed Nintendo mobile game is a good thing. Fuck mobile. Even if its their own fault, I dont care. Fuck mobile.

Not to mention that they're about a decade late on the whole mobile thing anyway. And it was shit a decade ago.

nintendo, you arrogant fuckheaded pricks... you are so infuriating. there's no reason you couldn't dominate every area of gaming and it's business if you weren't so god damned out of touch.

YOU.
CAN'T.
CHARGE.
$10...
FOR A MOBILE RUNNER.

Charging $10 for ANY mobile game is questionable, but get it through your heads that just because you throw a nintendo skin on something basic doesn't mean we'll gobble it up feverishly. not anymore.

$4.99 might have seen a huge boost in sales.
$1.99 and i think we could have seen a mobile game phenomenon.

Free to play with microtransactions? part of me wants to commend you for not taking that route, but i look at something like Crossy Road and see the potential for microtransactions to benefit both the company AND the consumer.

Hopefully Nintendo learns the proper lessons from this.

1) Don't overprice your game on the mobile market especially when runners are a dime a dozen (or should I say a dime a thousand).

2) Don't simply assume you need to 'dumb down' all your properties to exist on mobile. I'm sure plenty of people would like a proper platforming Mario on mobile. Take this risk and charge COMPETITIVELY.

3) Test the waters with some virtual console titles on mobile.

Seems pretty simple to me. They priced themselves out of the market. Running some basic math, they made roughly $39m gross sales. Now, let's say they charged $2.50 for the game. At that price I'd imagine they could probably get anywhere from 30% - 50% rather than the 5% they got now. Which would result in gross sales of about $58.5m - $97.5m

Now, this is very basic math, and based on assumptions, but I fell like at a much lower price point they could have exponentially increased sales.

As a side note, there are game system emulators you can get for you phones that can play the ROMs. These Roms, if they existed, would undoubtedly offer a better Mario experience than a runner game.

I remember saying when it was released that the free part of the game doesn't come close to giving you enough of a feel of the game to warrant paying any price for it, let alone $10.

If they had extended the free portion to a longer section of the game, they may have found the percentage of people actually buying it rise. I'd pay $10 for a decent Mario mobile game, but not when I'm not sure of the quality of what I'm getting.

Pffft, I don't even carry a cellphone. This wouldn't touch me.

Lizzy Finnegan:
Nintendo stated that it plans to release 2-3 mobile games per year

Huh, I thought they were planning more games than that for the Switch.

More seriously though, 5% of people who downloaded a terrible F2P runner with a Mario skin actually paid $10 for it even after seeing how bad it was? That's an amazing conversion rate even for a good mobile game, let alone such a mediocre, high-priced one. Did Nintendo not do any research at all on mobile gaming before deciding to enter the market? All games using this sort of model rely on getting a tiny percentage of people to actually pay, and most of them would be ecstatic if they managed a hit rate as high as 5%. If Nintendo expected significantly more than that, in a market overwhelmingly not filled with dedicated Nintendo fans, they clearly don't have a clue what they're doing.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here