• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Nintendo explains their mobile game monetization strategy

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
So it's a lot of text that goes back and forth a bit, but this is what I understood. Feel free to weigh in if you disagree.

Notes:
  • They're not ruling out paid apps, but they sound vastly more interested in f2p apps (which they prefer to call "free-to-start") because paid apps don't do very well on mobile and sell for a very small prices.
  • Their monetization strategy for f2p games appears to be aiming for a high monetization rate (as in the percentage of people spending money), but getting less per individual user. This is a more common strategy you see on PC with games like Hearthstone, where the goal is to get 10%+ of your audience to buy an expansion for $25 every 4-6 months instead of 0.5% of your audience to spend $800 a month. I use Hearthstone as an example since it's also successful on mobile. MOBAs are another example of how this is done in a different genre.
  • Like most successful mobile games, Nintendo's games will be continually updated services that get new content every so often.

Here's the actual question text:

Nintendo said:
Question: How will you sell your smart device game applications? Will you opt for so-called “one-shot” payments (just as consumers today purchase packaged software) as the charging system, or will consumers be able to download software free-of-charge but pay for items and other things so that the company can earn revenue? Also, what will be the target age group?

Iwata:

Smart device game applications are drawing attention in the game industry because so many people around the world own smart devices (smartphones and tablets) and because, even though the total number is small, there have been several successful applications that have been hugely profitable after becoming very popular.

On the other hand, the competition among smart device applications has been so fierce that Nintendo cannot succeed just by releasing any software title with its popular characters or the themes in its popular game franchises. Any company that releases a new smart device application must face the challenge of making it stand out among the crowd.

About the shareholder’s question on how to charge for smart device applications, in general, there is one system to ask consumers to make a one-time payment for the application and another system to ask consumers to pay for additional downloadable content. As for the latter, people often call it the “free-to-play” system. However, since Nintendo is a company that wants the value of the games to be appreciated by consumers and wants to keep the games’ value at as high a level as possible, we do not want to use the free-to-play terminology that implies that you can play games free-of-charge. Instead, we use the term “free-to-start,” as this term more aptly describes that at the beginning you can start to play for free. And, the fact of the matter is, game software with a one-time payment system has not been doing a great job on smart devices. Because there are so many competitors making smart device applications, there is fierce competition and the pressure to lower prices. As a result of this competition to discount products, smart device game applications are being sold at far lower prices than the ones for dedicated video game systems. I think some of you would have seen such campaigns as “90 percent discount for smart device applications” in the shops on your smart devices. Because it is a digital product, it does not require transportation fees nor other constant expenses necessary for packaged software, and some may think it is good if it sells (even at a low price point), but once the value of a software title decreases, it can never be increased again. Since Nintendo wants to cherish the value of software, there will be a limit to how low of a price we might want to attach to our game applications for smart devices. The price of our game applications on smart devices will be compared with the prices of other smart device game applications. We believe we should not limit our payment system only to one-time payments, even though this is not something that we can announce as a general principle because different payment systems suit different kinds of software.

If I can add a few more explanations about the free-to-start system, even though you can start playing with the application for free, it later requires you to pay if you want to play beyond the initial area or to pay for items if you want to play the game in a more advantageous position. In extreme examples, some games are designed so that the players will be so excited psychologically as a result of, for example, being able to obtain a very rare item that they do not think twice about pushing the button, which immediately completes the monetary transaction and the player is charged with the bill. We know that some of such games have become a social issue. For your further information, in Japan, among those who are playing free-to-start games on their smart devices, the number of people who are actually spending money is very small. Yet, because this small group of people is paying a large sum of money, with which they could have even purchased several dedicated video game systems, this is one reason this free-to-start model can be very profitable. On the other hand, when we look around the world, the situation is different, and such a charging system has not necessarily been working well. When we look at successful smart device game applications abroad, a number of companies have been asking each of a greater number of consumers to pay less money. Companies may be able to make a very profitable business in Japan by asking a small group of consumers to pay a large amount of money (for their smart device applications), but we do not think that the same approach would be embraced by people around the world. Accordingly, even though we recognize that it is not an easy path to take, as long as Nintendo makes smart device applications, we must make them so that they appeal not just to some limited age group but to a wide age demographic just as our games thus far have been doing, and they should appeal to anyone regardless of their gaming experiences and gender, and most importantly, regardless of different cultures, nationalities and languages. We would like to make several software titles that are considered worldwide hits as soon as possible.

Regarding your question about the target audience, we are trying to make applications that appeal to a wide variety of people so that the games can receive payments widely but shallowly from each consumer. In other words, even if a consumer makes a relatively small payment, because of the large consumer base, the game can generate big revenue. This is the business model we would like to realize. I think the shareholder has just asked these questions partially because he is concerned that Nintendo might shift to the notorious business model that asks a small number of people to pay excessive amounts of money and that Nintendo’s brand image might be hurt. Please understand that Nintendo will make its proposals by taking into consideration what Nintendo really should do with this new challenge.

On a different note, we are not planning to release many game applications from this year (when our first smart device application will be released) to the next. The reason for this is that software for dedicated game systems is considered a “product” that tends to produce the strongest and most fresh impact on the world at the time of its release into the market but its impact can be lost gradually as time goes by. With that analogy, smart device applications have a strong aspect of “service.” Even though the initial number of players tends to be small, those who have played invite others to play too, and as the total number of the players gradually increases, so does the revenue. This, however, means that the release of the game does not mark the end of its development. If the game cannot offer services that evolve even on a daily basis, it cannot entertain consumers over the long term. Accordingly, we would like to spend sufficient time on the service aspect of each title, and we would like to grow each one of our small number of game applications with the objectives that I just mentioned.
Source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/stock/meeting/150626qa/03.html
 

Mashing

Member
They're saying and approaching mobile the right way IMO. Hopefully they see the success their looking for.
 

Broken Joystick

At least you can talk. Who are you?
Pay-to-win
Free-to-play
and now free-to-start.

They seem to be more knowledge toward mobile than console right now, I'm excited to see how this all plays out.
 

Hasney

Member
  • Their monetization strategy for f2p games appears to be aiming for a high monetization rate (as in the number of people spending money), but getting less per individual user. This is a more common strategy you see on PC with games like Hearthstone, where the goal is to get 10%+ of your audience to buy an expansion for $25 every 4-6 months instead of 0.5% of your audience to spend $800 a month. I use Hearthstone as an example since it's also successful on mobile.

Interesting, I wonder if their free to start Pokemon 3DS games have already fed into that idea, because they seemed fairly gouging compared to that kind of strategy. Either that or the strategy on 3DS and phones is going to be different.
 

Sendou

Member
If I'm not mistaken Nintendo has used the term "free-to-start" with games like that newer Steel Diver or 3DS.
 

Draxal

Member
I think the shareholder has just asked these questions partially because he is concerned that Nintendo might shift to the notorious business model that asks a small number of people to pay excessive amounts of money and that Nintendo’s brand image might be hurt. Please understand that Nintendo will make its proposals by taking into consideration what Nintendo really should do with this new challenge.

They're not going to go after whales, I do think it kinda defeats the purpose of going mobile, but I understand why they think it will be toxic to their brand.
 

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
They're not going to go after whales.

One thing with a lot of PC f2p games is that you're effectively "capped" in how much you can spend.

If you buy all the characters/skins in a MOBA or get all the current cards in a traditional CCG, you don't have anything more to spend money on until new content is released.

That might cost $400 or something, but with whales in a game like Clash of Clans, their power users can (and do) spend $8000+ a month.

Nirolak, you got a source please?

Did I not get that in on time? The edit log looks like it has it, but I might have hit post and just automatically corrected that without thinking before it took effect.
 
Interesting, I wonder if their free to start 3DS games have already fed into that idea, because they seemed fairly gouging compared to that kind of strategy. Either that or the strategy on 3DS and phones is going to be different.
Pretty sure Pokemon shuffle doesn't count as their mobile strategy. Other than that, it doesn't seem bad thus far.
Rusty's Real deal baseball is amazing
 

SerTapTap

Member
I hope between shallow buy in and "free to start" they're talking something a la Killer Instinct where the free part is almost like a demo and you pay your way to "full content" with a reasonable $ amount instead of buying down timers ad infinitum, or at least something like Pokemon Shuffle where there's a max spend and the game changes to play significantly less like a "standard" F2P timer game once you hit the ceiling.

I'd respect the mobile market a lot more if caps were commonplace, the whale hunting is outright offensive in many games. Good to see Nintendo seems to be thinking that way. I think.
 

Aces&Eights

Member
I have always loathed mobile games but I have to admit, I'd pay 10 bucks to play Super Mario Bros. on my phone. Normally, my lunches consist of watching Silicon Valley, Pawn Stars, Bob's Burgers but if I can have access to all the great Nintendo classics on my Note 4, I will save a shitton of data each month.
 

Kinsei

Banned
They're saying the right things here. Hopefully they can follow through.

I hope between shallow buy in and "free to start" they're talking something a la Killer Instinct where the free part is almost like a demo and you pay your way to "full content" with a reasonable $ amount instead of buying down timers ad infinitum, or at least something like Pokemon Shuffle where there's a max spend and the game changes to play significantly less like a "standard" F2P timer game once you hit the ceiling.

I'd respect the mobile market a lot more if caps were commonplace, the whale hunting is outright offensive in many games. Good to see Nintendo seems to be thinking that way. I think.

Stretchmo on the 3DS (which Nintendo calls a free to start game) is just like that. You get the tutorial and then you can buy the rest of the game (either individual worlds, or the whole thing in a bundle) for a reasonable price.
 

Shengar

Member
So it's a lot of text that goes back and forth a bit, but this is what I understood. Feel free to weigh in if you disagree.

Notes:
  • Their monetization strategy for f2p games appears to be aiming for a high monetization rate (as in the percentage of people spending money), but getting less per individual user. This is a more common strategy you see on PC with games like Hearthstone, where the goal is to get 10%+ of your audience to buy an expansion for $25 every 4-6 months instead of 0.5% of your audience to spend $800 a month. I use Hearthstone as an example since it's also successful on mobile.

The only way every F2P games monetization should be, not that whale chasing bullshit.
 
I have always loathed mobile games but I have to admit, I'd pay 10 bucks to play Super Mario Bros. on my phone. Normally, my lunches consist of watching Silicon Valley, Pawn Stars, Bob's Burgers but if I can have access to all the great Nintendo classics on my Note 4, I will save a shitton of data each month.
They said no ports, so I don't think you'll see that.
 
The right sentiments, but we'll see how things go in practice. Their experiments on 3DS have likely served them well - and from my POV, they've been largely positive - and I do appreciate the more honest "free-to-start" moniker.

Will be fascinating to see how they execute.

EDIT:

Also, I rather liked the recent example (one of the Pokemon spinoffs, IIRC) where they treated it as purchased once the player had spent a certain amount on IAP...
 

oni-link

Member
If you buy all the characters/skins in a MOBA or get all the current cards in a traditional CCG, you don't have anything more to spend money on until new content is released.

That might cost $400 or something, but with whales in a game like Clash of Clans, their power users can (and do) spend $8000+ a month.

This just makes me sad, I don't think there can be that many people that are successful enough to drop 8k a month on a game and not have that effect them financially, and also have that much time and energy to expend on one mobile game

Just feels like these people are being exploited, so I'm glad Nintendo is not going after the whales, so to speak
 

Draxal

Member
One thing with a lot of PC f2p games is that you're effectively "capped" in how much you can spend.

If you buy all the characters/skins in a MOBA or get all the current cards in a traditional CCG, you don't have anything more to spend money on until new content is released.

That might cost $400 or something, but with whales in a game like Clash of Clans, their power users can (and do) spend $8000+ a month.

Well, traditional ccgs also rely heavily on drafts to push new product which I think better suits your narrative there, as that's multiple people paying 20 dollars to buy in.

And yeah Clash of Clans is bad, but the gatcha stuff in Monster strike and Puzzle and Dragons is ridiculous.
 

Shengar

Member
I hope between shallow buy in and "free to start" they're talking something a la Killer Instinct where the free part is almost like a demo and you pay your way to "full content" with a reasonable $ amount instead of buying down timers ad infinitum, or at least something like Pokemon Shuffle where there's a max spend and the game changes to play significantly less like a "standard" F2P timer game once you hit the ceiling.

I'd respect the mobile market a lot more if caps were commonplace, the whale hunting is outright offensive in many games. Good to see Nintendo seems to be thinking that way. I think.

I really like how Nintendo used Free-to-start. They really being honest there, and plus, that implied the service might be better if you spend at least some money.

Also this is first time I heard that Nintendo have caps on Pokemon Shuffle. That is really good measure to prevent whaling, a measure that Nintendo themselves create nonetheless.
 

Rlan

Member
Phoenix Wright: Dual Destinies was also "free to start" on iPhone. You got the tutorial case free, and you could buy the rest per bit or all of it at once.

Japanese games have tended to try this strategy whenever they can. I think it worked well with PW:DD. Hell, I bought the lot.
 

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
Well, traditional ccgs also rely heavily on drafts to push new product which I think better suits your narrative there, as that's multiple people paying 20 dollars to buy in.

And yeah Clash of Clans is bad, but the gatcha stuff in Monster strike and Puzzle and Dragons is ridiculous.
I would expect the approach to vary per game.

The MOBA model works really well for anything where there would be value in buying extra characters. Like if they made something like Smash (not literally Smash, but a game where you have 50 different characters that play differently), MOBA monetization would fit like a glove.

If they're instead porting the Fire Emblem TCG to mobile, then obviously Hearthstone's model makes more sense.
 

Griss

Member
I like everything that Iwata has said here, and said so when we had the rough translation at the time.

My question is - How exactly do they intend to get 10%+ of users to spend money? If they go the pokemon shuffle route they can count me out. I'll pay for content in a F2P game but I absolutely will never pay to reduce timers or 'restore energy' or what have you. It appears, across most F2P games, that most users feel the same, which is why they tend to be supported by whales.

If Pokemon Shuffle hadn't had energy timers but had asked for 1 or 2 euro for the next 40 levels, then I (and I'd wager most people) wouldn't really have had a problem.

Can't wait to see what approach they take.
 
They've honestly done really well at adapting to the f2p model in the past, so I'm all for that. Still expecting people to freak out over it.
 

@MUWANdo

Banned
One thing with a lot of PC f2p games is that you're effectively "capped" in how much you can spend.

If you buy all the characters/skins in a MOBA or get all the current cards in a traditional CCG, you don't have anything more to spend money on until new content is released.

That might cost $400 or something, but with whales in a game like Clash of Clans, their power users can (and do) spend $8000+ a month.

They've already implemented something like this in the f2p Pokemon Rumble game for 3DS--there's a cap on the amount of in-game currency you can buy (~$30 in real money) and once you hit the cap you'll get an item that auto-generates currency and basically eliminates the cooldown system.
 

SerTapTap

Member
I really like how Nintendo used Free-to-start. They really being honest there, and plus, that implied the service might be better if you spend at least some money.

Also this is first time I heard that Nintendo have caps on Pokemon Shuffle. That is really good measure to prevent whaling, a measure that Nintendo themselves create nonetheless.

I haven't played it myself, but I thought it had something where if you spend $30 you can't pay any more and you start getting certain bonuses every so often to make it less "wait n' play". It might have been the other F2P pokemon thing on 3DS...I didn't try either of them honestly.
 

Draxal

Member
I would expect the approach to vary per game.

The MOBA model works really well for anything where there would be value in buying extra characters. Like if they made something like Smash (not literally Smash, but a game where you have 50 different characters that play differently), MOBA monetization would fit like a glove.

If they're instead porting the Fire Emblem TCG to mobile, then obviously Hearthstone's model makes more sense.

I don't think they'll port the Fire Emblem tcg to mobile, but I'm pretty sure that they're will be a mobile game reusing the art assets from the game.

I'm really curious how they'd implement it.
 
I like everything that Iwata has said here, and said so when we had the rough translation at the time.

My question is - How exactly do they intend to get 10%+ of users to spend money? If they go the pokemon shuffle route they can count me out. I'll pay for content in a F2P game but I absolutely will never pay to reduce timers or 'restore energy' or what have you. It appears, across most F2P games, that most users feel the same, which is why they tend to be supported by whales.

If Pokemon Shuffle hadn't had energy timers but had asked for 1 or 2 euro for the next 40 levels, then I (and I'd wager most people) wouldn't really have had a problem.

Can't wait to see what approach they take.
Tbh spending crystals on hearts in shuffle is a really poor strategy, coins yeld more advantages
 

Leatherface

Member
This doesn't bother me one bit. I think Nintendo is simply being proactive about taking new opportunities and from the looks of it approaching this the right way. I'm ready. :)
 

Nibel

Member
Free-to-start makes so much more sense to me. He seems to understand that market, but I hope that Nintendo will not 'overprice' their stuff.
 
I wish I could comment on this, I really do. Damn Europe.

Wasn't that not released because of European laws? Like how the Sales Rabbit for Wii Plaza games doesn't push you to get anything in the PAL territories.

Considering the game makes you feel bad for getting a good deal I could understand why it wouldn't fly. Still was super interesting and a solid game.
 

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
I don't think they'll port the Fire Emblem tcg to mobile, but I'm pretty sure that they're will be a mobile game reusing the art assets from the game.

I'm really curious how they'd implement it.

Right, I'm just trying to use really general examples here since we don't actually know what types of games they're making.

What, with $10 Hearthstone skins? Not sure I agree..
That's something that doesn't impact the game though. You can earn about two packs every three days just from doing daily quests and also buy the expansions with in-game currency.

Beyond that, the pricing on the packs and expansions are definitely notably reasonable by TCG standards.

It's true that a skin costs half as much as buying the entirety of Naxxramas with cash did, but it's a vanity item.
 
IIRC Pokémon Rumble World has an absolute cap: After you buy 3000 gems or so with real money (roughly a €30 total), you can't buy more ever, and after then the game gives you 20 free gems daily
 

Hasney

Member
Wasn't that not released because of European laws? Like how the Sales Rabbit for Wii Plaza games doesn't push you to get anything in the PAL territories.

Considering the game makes you feel bad for getting a good deal I could understand why it wouldn't fly. Still was super interesting and a solid game.

Probably. I didn't realise the rabbits even acted different! I was already willing to pay money when he popped up though, so I may not have noticed.
 

massoluk

Banned
They've already implemented something like this in the f2p Pokemon Rumble game for 3DS--there's a cap on the amount of in-game currency you can buy (~$30 in real money) and once you hit the cap you'll get an item that auto-generates currency and basically eliminates the cooldown system.

IIRC Pokémon Rumble World has an absolute cap: After you buy 3000 gems or so with real money (roughly a €30 total), you can't buy more ever, and after then the game gives you 20 free gems daily


That's a very novel approach. I may be ok with this implementation.
 

Sakura

Member
Makes sense to me.
Given Nintendo's games and brand/image, I imagine a large part of their audience might be kids, and it is far easier to get kids to spend 5 dollars here and there.
 
As long as they're not making those shitty "build your own town/fort/city/whatever" that seem to take up half the Google Play store I'm interested. Not sure how they're going to be making "free-to-start" Mario games though.
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
IIRC Pokémon Rumble World has an absolute cap: After you buy 3000 gems or so with real money (roughly a €30 total), you can't buy more ever, and after then the game gives you 20 free gems daily

Man if only more f2p games were like this I'd gladly spend money.
 

Sakura

Member
As long as they're not making those shitty "build your own town/fort/city/whatever" that seem to take up half the Google Play store I'm interested. Not sure how they're going to be making "free-to-start" Mario games though.

Could be something similar to that latest Pushmo game.
You get a base game for free and then just pay for individual extra Mario levels or something.
 

Robin64

Member
Well, I mean they're skins, it's basically what Amiibo is.

Hey, if I could buy a nice Muradin figure and get a Hearthstone skin with it too (then a skin in Heroes of the Storm with, and another in WoW), I'd be all over it. ;)

It's true that a skin costs half as much as buying the entirety of Naxxramas with cash did, but it's a vanity item.

Very true, and I have had a load of fun with Hearthstone just earning gold. Heroes of the Storm, too. But I'd be lying if I said the hero pricing in HS didn't sour me a little bit.
 

Draxal

Member
Makes sense to me.
Given Nintendo's games and brand/image, I imagine a large part of their audience might be kids, and it is far easier to get kids to spend 5 dollars here and there.

That, and I think the games can be also used for marketing (for their consoles/handheld) and merchandise (which I don't think they realized how underutilized it was looking at Amiibo sales so far in the States + hat so far).
 
It's worth noting that, while they want to make money off of their mobile initiative, their big focus is expanding their audience. Making exploitative whale game isn't really the way to do it
 
Top Bottom