-
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.
WSJ: Why Super Marios Run Was Short
- Thread starter Jimmyfenix
- Start date
Especially considering that while 3% isn't the highest number for F2P conversion rates, we know that all of the 3% paid $10. In other F2P games the vast majority of paying players pay very small amounts, few players pay a moderate amount and a tiny fractions makes up the vast majority of the generated revenue, the so-called whales. Mario Run doesn't have any whales and yet it's in the Top 10. That's a great achievement.
Dreamwriter
Member
It's not a great conversion rate, but that's most likely due to the way they handled it, locking people out before the first boss level rather than after. However, $30 million gross revenue is great, the game probably cost under $1 million to make, and of course it's still selling. Nintendo probably doesn't consider it a success due to how the game hurt their mobile image, though, especially in Japan.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
It's frankly mobile gaming done right. I'd rather pay $10 up front and have access to the entire game than sit through ads, timers, and other bullshit because the developer has to milk their customers for every penny flowing through their wallets.
Thirty million isn't that great compared to their profits on dedicated game sales. They need to hit just 1 million sales to achieve the same profit margin there, assuming MSRP of just $29.99. In the dedicated space, where they regularly sell much more than 1 million per high profile title, the $30 million from Super Mario Run is fine but not exciting. As an example, A Link Between Worlds sold over 2.5 million within just 6 months of release*. At $39.99 that's $100 million.
Also, I had previously heard that anything over a 2% conversion rate was considered good in the mobile space:
http://info.localytics.com/blog/mobile-apps-whats-a-good-conversion-rate
*https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2014/140508e.pdf
LordRaptor
Member
A one off fixed cost title is inherently not going to have the longevity on a revenue chart as an 'ongoing maintenance' priced title.
a 3% conversion rate of a F2P title is actually pretty good.
a 3% conversion rate of a F2P title is actually pretty good.
Irishonion
Member
Thought the demo was terrible myself.
Done right for you. Most mobile gamers are happy to have free games supported by various means.
foxdvd
Member
3 million actual sales so far is amazing...congrats to Nintendo. I can't imagine the developing cost was insanely high...
Of course, people will spin this as a bad thing. Not every game needs the same development and sales to be successful. Not every game needs to be GTA5 when it comes to sales on consoles. The witcher 3 was not a massive disaster because it did not sale what GTA5 did.
We want variety in our mobile games. We want games like this mixed in.
Or maybe we don't...shrugs
Of course, people will spin this as a bad thing. Not every game needs the same development and sales to be successful. Not every game needs to be GTA5 when it comes to sales on consoles. The witcher 3 was not a massive disaster because it did not sale what GTA5 did.
We want variety in our mobile games. We want games like this mixed in.
Or maybe we don't...shrugs
Pretty much the only time you get higher mobile conversion rates is if you go into Japanese midcore titles, at which point the conversion rates are like 10-15%+, but that's a very specific scenario.
It is why I'm bullish on Fire Emblem though, assuming the game is what I think it is.
Majukun
Member
well,he is a one time purchase while the others are f2p whale traps that assure a constant flux of money through microtransactions
the only way mario could have kept up was if sales never slowed down from launch date,and that's frankly impossible for any game..if anything ist's impressing that it's still there in the rankings
the only way mario could have kept up was if sales never slowed down from launch date,and that's frankly impossible for any game..if anything ist's impressing that it's still there in the rankings
Starchasing
Member
what do you think it is?
DragonSworne
Banned
Mario Run might have done well but what about DLCs? What about Mario Run 2?
The 3 million user who decided to pay, will they continue to pay 10 bucks for a sequel?
The 3 million user who decided to pay, will they continue to pay 10 bucks for a sequel?
I mean, this is the reality. The vast majority of players aren't whales or aren't spending crazy amounts on the games, so they're getting free content subsidized by others' reckless spending. At the end of the day consumers are self-interested, they don't particularly care about the economics of app development or that some people's obsessive or vulnerable tendencies are getting abused by F2P mechanics.
Sadly I don't think the studios who have produced critically-acclaimed, paid sequels have shared their economics (games like Monument Valley and the like.)
Except the profit margin won't be the same, since in the dedicated space games tend to have much bigger budgets and much bigger featuresets. Zelda: A Link Between Worlds probably cost much more to make than Mario Run.
interesting to see if it would have been $5, would the conversion rate have been over 6%?
or $6-$8 even.
$5 has a bit more impulse purchase to it I think, unsure if enough to drive double the conversions. probably not a ton of price elasticity research done on mobile yet (maybe there is?)
or $6-$8 even.
$5 has a bit more impulse purchase to it I think, unsure if enough to drive double the conversions. probably not a ton of price elasticity research done on mobile yet (maybe there is?)
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
3% is still quite little, but yes, people are very quick to forget the intangible benefits. The strength this gives the Mario brand -- and Nintendo -- is actually a way bigger deal than many make it out to be, and can result in many other positive advantages.
sloppyjoe_gamer
Gold Member
Speaking for myself....I won't unless the sequel has more levels and more incentive to keep playing.
Raging Spaniard
If they are Dutch, upright and breathing they are more racist than your favorite player
People need to come back to reality and realize that making 30 million in revenue for that game is an INSANE return on investment for Nintendo. They didnt engage in the most loathsome aspect of F2P and provided fair value for their game.
For you reference, having two games in the top 30 top grossing is enough to create a giant company with 200/300 million in yearly revenue and 300+ employees like SGN/Jam City.
For you reference, having two games in the top 30 top grossing is enough to create a giant company with 200/300 million in yearly revenue and 300+ employees like SGN/Jam City.
Horsemama1956
Member
I'm not paying $10 for a mobile game and neither are most people. For the content it should have been like 2.99 but Nintendo thinks they are still a premium brand I guess. Releasing exclusively on IOS at first was kinda stupid as well.
My kids were excited for it, but really just don't give a shit as they saw videos and that and realize there are billions of these games available now, free..
My kids were excited for it, but really just don't give a shit as they saw videos and that and realize there are billions of these games available now, free..
mobilesworking
Member
Same here. The black coin challenges are irresistible and I'm surprised at my commitment to beating tough Toad Rally challengers. It's a well-made game and it's priced well for the content provided. Of course, I'm approaching this from the perspective of someone who regularly buys $60 games at launch. Still, I applaud Nintendo for insisting that its games are worth paying for and attempting to stop race-to-the-bottom pricing.
Mr. Pointy
Member
Not that person, but I think it'll be a Hearthstone-like CCG.
As the Economist states, I think this was their goal: to keep the brand relevant, and to turn that into Switch / 3ds sales.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Same. I'm losing interest rapidly as I don't like toad rally and tire of going after coins. Kind of regret dropping the $10 tbh.
The counter-argument being that f2p users aren't getting much of anything in that free content. Whales aren't subsidizing good gameplay. Rather the gameplay is designed to be obsessive and exploitative at all levels of play. Hence the free content is inferior compared to what could be if the economic model was less crass (see the dedicated market). Furthermore mobile users aren't playing f2p because the content is so good but rather because it's free and they really don't care that much. That is to say, they are the lost casual base that slipped away from dedicated game consoles in the mid 2000s.
I can't find numbers on the budgets for either game, so we can't go much of anywhere with this discussion. I'll just say I doubt the budget difference is enough to put the net profit of both on even footing.
The article is intended to provide that context to people who only saw the headlines about it breaking records, i.e. WSJ's audience.
A Japanese style gacha game character collection RPG.
Randall365
Member
It's fun, but the controls (and therefore gameplay) are very limited - surely they could have done better than that?
There are only so many purple coins I want to collect.
There are only so many purple coins I want to collect.
UnemployedVillain
Member
No shit, Clash of Clans and Candy Crush of each of those company's main titles. Of course they'll stay at the top more, they have nearly the full resources of those company's put behind them, while Mario Run is literally just a marketing tool to translate those users into buying Mario games on Nintendo's dedicated systems
With Cipher the Fire Emblem's audience was already prepared long ago
(not to mention every other JRPG franchise out there already use this model)
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
The controls are limited because the iPhone lacks tactile controls.
This too
Mr. Pointy
Member
Mario Run is Nintendo testing to see if their brand can compel people on mobile to buy a game outright, as opposed to having to do everything F2P.
We all know Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing and Metroid Federation Base Builder are going to be their real revenue raisers.
We all know Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing and Metroid Federation Base Builder are going to be their real revenue raisers.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Aztechnology
Member
I'd love to buy and play a Fire Emblem game on my phone. Make the deal happen Nintendo. I'd pay $30.
I hope Nintendo sticks to their guns and makes quality one time purchase games going forward though. My biggest issue with mobile is the P2P models.
I hope Nintendo sticks to their guns and makes quality one time purchase games going forward though. My biggest issue with mobile is the P2P models.
Interfectum
Member
It's the same as Pokemon Go. According to bloggers and gamers alike, no one plays the game anymore and it's bubble burst. Plz ignore the fact it's back at #1 grossing though.