Toadthemushroom
Member
What is interesting about Pokémon Go is how its monetisation has panned out as far distribution per player goes. According to Macquarie Securities (via Reuters), the majority of its revenue, which has been enough to get it a top grossing position, has come from a large pool of users each spending a little, rather than a small proportion of users "whales" spending a lot:
This is significant because not only does it mean the game could be potentially bringing in money in a more ethical way, but it echoes what Iwata wanted to achieve with mobile as far as monetisation went.
He then went on to mention how Nintendo's goal is to produce mobile games which monetise "wide and small", rather than "narrow and large", in effect pulling in a small amount of revenue from as many players as possible, rather than thousands off a tiny proportion of super-engaged players or "whales". And so far, Pokémon Go has achieved just that.
It's early days, and the analysis comes from Australian player data, but it's very promising nonetheless. And I wonder if a similar monetisation model wouldn't work in something like a theoretical Splatoon Go. Turf tagging war IRL, with Pokéstop-like areas to top up on ink? And will Nintendo and Niantic be able to keep this up in the long run? What do you think?
Edit: PocketGamer.biz have done an in-depth look at how the game's monetisation works at a mechanics-level for anyone who wants to read it: http://www.pocketgamer.biz/the-iap-inspector/63496/how-does-pokemon-go-monetize/
Reuters/Macquarie said:It has more (monetisation) than we expected; as users build their Pokémon inventory, spending money becomes needed to store, train, hatch and battle," Macquarie Securities said in a note to clients, adding that purchases so far in Australia were not being driven by big spenders but by a large number of users.
This is significant because not only does it mean the game could be potentially bringing in money in a more ethical way, but it echoes what Iwata wanted to achieve with mobile as far as monetisation went.
Satoru Iwata said:My understanding of how to succeed in the Japanese market now is to find a limited number of generous consumers who are willing to spend a lot and analyze what encourages them to spend. However, if we did that, I don't think that we would be able to entertain hundreds of millions of consumers all around the world or to produce large and long-lasting achievements."
He then went on to mention how Nintendo's goal is to produce mobile games which monetise "wide and small", rather than "narrow and large", in effect pulling in a small amount of revenue from as many players as possible, rather than thousands off a tiny proportion of super-engaged players or "whales". And so far, Pokémon Go has achieved just that.
It's early days, and the analysis comes from Australian player data, but it's very promising nonetheless. And I wonder if a similar monetisation model wouldn't work in something like a theoretical Splatoon Go. Turf tagging war IRL, with Pokéstop-like areas to top up on ink? And will Nintendo and Niantic be able to keep this up in the long run? What do you think?
Edit: PocketGamer.biz have done an in-depth look at how the game's monetisation works at a mechanics-level for anyone who wants to read it: http://www.pocketgamer.biz/the-iap-inspector/63496/how-does-pokemon-go-monetize/