The price was too high for Mario's first mobile game.
Yes, Mario is a big name, but it's not even a regular Mario game. I don't think they have started with a price of 10$. They should have started with 7.99 and go to 10 with a sequel.
Not seeing DLC kinda surprises me.
The game is too short and really needs something more.
Wait, I'm confused.
This game is priced at a whooping $10, it topped sales charts across all regions and IT DID NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS ???
How much was Nintendo expecting to make ?
i think clash royale makes 7 million a day. so freeium is the place to be. plus you can totally be a free to pllay player for years adn still enjoy it!!!!
btw mario run sucked and was over priced. i would buy it for 2.99
| Mummelmann said: So, their plan is still to spread awareness of already world famous mascots in the mass market segment via mobile apps that can be had for basically nothing (which also seems to be the valuation of it by the average consumer) and believe that consumers will somehow go crazy and shell out 299$ for a tablet that has zero tablet functionality but plays video games that happens to have said mascots in them? Solid thinking, I think it will be a great long term success for them. PS: Don't say "look at what Pokemon did!" and think this means instant global succes for Switch. It's an old and poor argument by now. |
Yes. As crazy as it sounds, yes. It's like getting those free samples at the grocery store. You're not really thinking about it until someone gives you a taste, then all of a sudden you want it again. I think putting Mario in everyone's pocket for free (to start) is a great way to get people thinking about Ninty again.
And no, I don't neccessarily think it means "instant global success for Switch," but it's better than nothing.
RolStoppable said:
I'd like to see a source for the bolded claim. |
Nautilus said:
Your whole point become moot by the fact that the Switch is not a tablet and will not be perceived as that.Assuming Nintendo is doing its marketing right, as so far it has, the consumer will periceive it as a gaming system, and nothing else.People will buy it primarely to play games, and whatever comes extra is extra.I mean, as far as I know, people are not buying the Switch to play Angry Birds or Clash Royale.Now, if you think it is a tablet, well you are the very small minority here, and I cant do nothing about it. As for the other points, I did say as far.So far, everything is good.And yes, while it may not indicate that it will keep on being successful, you cant also say it wont be successful and whatever Nintendo is doing right now is wrong. |
Can you both tell me why and how it won't be seen as a tablet by the mass market? It's basically "you're wrong because we say so" and I don't find it very compelling. None of you can dictate how different market segments will perceive a product, not any more than I can ay any rate. But we know that the mass market follows fairly simple rules; trends, convenience, pricing and design being chief among these. It's not very trendy with dedicated gaming devices in handhelds form, as evidenced by the actual handheld market having shrunk to about 1/3 of its 7th gen peak, making the Switch so lacking in multifunctions may have been a huge mistake for this reason, it exists almost solely for games. Convenience; how convenient is it to to try to convince the smart device demographics that they want yet another device with the same form factor and that requires you to carry actual cartridges with you for games and that can't really be used for anything else than games? How is it priced? It falls in the same price range as an iPad Mini, or a PS4, about double that of a 3DS, there isn't much incentive in sheer price so it's mostly down to perceived value, which brings us to the last bit. Design; it looks like a tablet, it doesn't matter what it tries to be, it was the same with the Wii U and the ghastly Gamepad, it looked like a tablet and was misunderstood and judged on those premises. As far as the mass market is concerned; it's pretty much a tablet, one without a camera, even the most basic apps and a fairly high price and it uses cartridges, another super hit in design and trends in the mass market, as evidenced by all the movies, music and games for other platforms that arrive on these all the time.
Seriously; even if we nerds like a product, there's very little incentive for mass market consumers to do the same, what is it that appeals to them? HD rumble in controllers that cost 70-80 a pop, the same franchises that Nintendo have relied on since the 80's to sell their hardware? Fitness games (yes, some actually believe these will make a comeback)? Brain Age like titles or quiz stuff that phones have long since monopolized? I find it staggering that you can't see it, there are no flags coming up to signal that this will be a mass market hit, which it will need to be to sell the wildly claimed 100 million some are hoping for. The Switch is more likely to fall victim to the break-neck pace of the consumer electronics market than traditional consoles since it mimmicks their form factor, and it will likely find itself in dire need of frequent revisions to keep a certain level of interest in the long run, much like dedicated handhelds in the 8th gen showed us. The price will also have to be lowered within a fairly short amount of time if they want to keep momentum going.
Personally, I think we'll see a price cut, albeit a small one, withing the first 12 months of its life and a revision/added SKU within about 18 months.
The Switch is designed just like a tablet in form factor and uses a similar touchscreen, even slide-on controllers can be bought for other tablets. I find it insanely unreasonable to assume that mass market consumers will be interested in a dedicated gaming machine with a small screen that costs 300$ and does a lot less than both their smart devices and other consoles at the same or even lower price points. Will they go bonkers because it connects to your TV?
And this nonsense about marketing and communication; heck, we didn't even know what the thing could do or couldn't do one week before release! It was really poorly communicated ever since the trailer last fall, they kept saying that info was coming and then it never did until release. The initial batch was bound to be swallowed by gamers like us, the screams for something Nintendo that isn't associated with the Wii U have been loud and fierce in the past few years.
It's ludicrous to think that this market segment will purchase the Switch in droves, there is literally zero indication that this will be the case.
Look, I'm not one of those eggheads who thinks it will sell like the Wii U, but I find it just as silly to think it will sell like the Wii, the odds of both happening are more or less the same from where I'm sitting. Hey, I could be wrong, but there's not much proper material to indicate that right now. A great launch month and stories of shortages have surely not caused you both to fall for the hype? Nintendo doubling their production for the fiscal year? They grossly overshot their projections in the 8th gen, even after lowering them several times.
PS and edit; please, none of you take the cheap "but the Switch is different and a hybrid so you can't base its forecast on past trends", because the logical implication is that you have the same fault with your assumptions, that's half the fun of predicting the outlooks of this machine. All we have is overall market movements and trends, and they do not support your case very well.
Edit; here's how the Switch is described by various outlets, both more mainstream press ones and more nerd centric ones, please do tell me again how the Switch is not perceived as a tablet while being called a tablet by more or less every person with a keyboard at their disposal. Mind you, these are the most relevant results when you search for "Nintendo Switch tablet" on google.
http://www.imore.com/nintendo-switch
It's referred to as a tablet 23 times in that review alone.
Referred to as a tablet 8 times on that site, which is a mix of nerd centric and mainstream.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/8/14544938/nintendo-switch-tablet-netflix-browser-opportunity
One more site referring to it 8 times as a tablet in this short piece, even in the header, they're also pointing to my specific points about lacking functionality and how this might sabotage its image among certain demographics
https://www.cnet.com/products/nintendo-switch/review/
CNET, which is even quite nerdy, referring to it as a tablet 7 times.
http://www.polygon.com/2017/1/13/14255984/nintendo-switch-hardware-specifications-screen-resolution
Polygon, another nerd site, clearly calling it a tablet.
A mainstream news outlet referring to it as, *drumroll please*; a tablet! Who knew, right?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/techandscience/2015975/nintendo-switch-launch-date-price-specs-games/
Arguably the most mainstream outlet in England calling the Switch... a tablet. Getting old yet?
http://gizmodo.com/nintendo-switch-review-plays-zelda-great-doesnt-do-mu-1792852009
Gizmodo also says the Switch is a tablet.
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Switch/Nintendo+Switch/feature.asp?c=73272
Switch seems to be a tablet, then.
https://qz.com/910560/the-complete-guide-to-the-nintendo-switch/
Referred to as a tablet 13 times here.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-nintendo-switch-review
Eurogamer does a slam dunk for my point by referring to the "tablet" 18 times in their review.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/nintendos-next-console-switch-is-a-consoletablet-hybrid/
Dubbed a tablet 8 times in this piece.
So, both nerd sites and mainstream outlets are saying it's a tablet, would you two mind telling me precisely and thoroughly how on god's green earth this won't be perceived as a tablet by the mass market? I mean, come on, this is the worst argument anyone has ever made in here and that says a whole lot.
The goal really was to make a lot of money from this despite the spin I think.
They tried the $10 model because they wanted that to be the standard so they could sell future games for $10 a pop ... or maybe even more. So if Mario Run had become a monster hit at that price it would've opened the flood gates for other Nintendo titles on iOS/Android at that price.
If it was just for "brand awareness" they'd just give the game away for free or for 99 cents. Locking a mobile game behind a $10 paywell is not something you do if you want maximum exposure.
Mummelmann said:
Can you both tell me why and how it won't be seen as a tablet by the mass market? It's basically "you're wrong because we say so" and I don't find it very compelling. None of you can dictate how different market segments will perceive a product, not any more than I can ay any rate. But we know that the mass market follows fairly simple rules; trends, convenience, pricing and design being chief among these. It's not very trendy with dedicated gaming devices in handhelds form, as evidenced by the actual handheld market having shrunk to about 1/3 of its 7th gen peak, making the Switch so lacking in multifunctions may have been a huge mistake for this reason, it exists almost solely for games. Convenience; how convenient is it to to try to convince the smart device demographics that they want yet another device with the same for factor and that requires you to carry actual cartridges with you for games and that can't really be used for anything else than games? How is it priced? It falls in the same price range as an iPad Mini, or a PS4, about double that of a 3DS, there isn't much incentive in sheer price so it's mostly down to perceived value, which brings us to the last bit. Design; it looks like a tablet, it doesn't matter what it tries to be, it was the same with the Wii U and the ghastly Gamepad, it looked like a tablet and was misunderstood and judged on those premises. As far as the mass market is concerned; it's pretty much a tablet, one without a camera, even the most basic apps and a fairly high price and it uses cartridges, another super hit in design and trends in the mass market, as evidenced by all the movies, music and games for other platforms that arrive on these all the time. Seriously; even if we nerds like a product, there's very little incentive for mass market consumers to do the same, what is it that appeals to them? HD rumble in controllers that cost 70-80 a pop, the same franchises that Nintendo have relied on since the 80's to sell their hardware? Fitness games (yes, some actually believe these will make a comeback)? Brain Age like titles or quiz stuff that phones have long since monopolized? I find it staggering that you can't see it, there are no flags coming up to signal that this will be a mass market hit, which it will need to be to sell the wildly claimed 100 million some are hoping for. The Switch is more likely to fall victim to the break-neck pace of the consumer electronics market than traditional consoles since it mimmicks their form factor, and it will likely find itself in dire need of frequent revisions to keep a certain level of interest in the long run, much like dedicated handhelds in the 8th gen showed us. The price will also have to be lowered within a fairly short amount of time if they want to keep momentum going. Personally, I think we'll see a price cut, albeit a small one, withing the first 12 months of its life and a revision/added SKU within about 18 months. The Switch is designed just like a tablet in form factor and uses a similar touchscreen, even slide-on controllers can be bought for other tablets. I find it insanely unreasonable to assume that mass market consumers will be interested in a dedicated gaming machine with a small screen that costs 300$ and does a lot less than both their smart devices and other consoles at the same or even lower price points. Will they go bonkers because it connects to your TV? It's ludicrous to think that this market segment will purchase the Switch in droves, there is literally zero indication that this will be the case. Look, I'm not one of those eggheads who thinks it will sell like the Wii U, but I find it just as silly to think it will sell like the Wii, the odds of both happening are more or less the same from where I'm sitting. Hey, I could be wrong, but there's not much proper material to indicate that right now. A great launch month and stories of shortages have surely not caused you both to fall for the hype? Nintendo doubling their production for the fiscal year? They grossly overshot their projections in the 8th gen, even after lowering them several times. |
There's nothing wrong with just selling to gamers. Gamers can see the appeal of the Switch, even hardcore players (maybe even more specifically -- especially hardcore players). The versatilty of the machine and being able to play epic core experiences anywhere is enough to set the system apart.
If casuals don't want it because they want to play Clash of Clans and need to use Facebook or whatever .... meh. Fuck 'em.
Nintendo has bent over backwards for that audience several times and they are flakey, flakey, flakey. There's plenty of serious gamers who could be enticed to buy a Switch if Nintendo handles it correctly, gets enough good games out for it, and iterates upon the initial model in appealling ways.
For apps it should be easy though to port apps since the Nvidia Shield (same processor) has many of them. I'd be fine with a web browser, Netflix/Hulu, Facebook, Twitter, and a Video Player.
| Soundwave said: There's nothing wrong with just selling to gamers. Gamers can see the appeal of the Switch, even hardcore players (maybe even more specifically -- especially hardcore players). The versatilty of the machine and being able to play epic core experiences anywhere is enough to set the system apart. If casuals don't want it because they want to play Clash of Clans and need to use Facebook or whatever .... meh. Fuck 'em. Nintendo has bent over backwards for that audience several times and they are flakey, flakey, flakey. There's plenty of serious gamers who could be enticed to buy a Switch if Nintendo handleds it correctly. For apps it should be easy though to port apps since the Nvidia Shield (same processor) has many of them. I'd be fine with a web browser, Netflix/Hulu, Facebook, Twitter, and a Video Player. |
But that's what I'm saying; I think gamers will be the biggest audience for it, and not the mass market. That's more or less the point in my post and about their whole mobile strategy. I kind of like the cartridge bit, for instance, it's a nice retro homage that old nerds like, but it's certainly not a winning feature for a market that hardly even know physical media exists. But for the Switch to approach the gilded 100 million mark and beyond, they need the mass market, which they will most likely not manage to sway.
Mummelmann said:
But that's what I'm saying; I think gamers will be the biggest audience for it, and not the mass market. That's more or less the point in my post and about their whole mobile strategy. I kind of like the cartridge bit, for instance, it's a nice retro homage that old nerds like, but it's certainly not a winning feature for a market that hardly even know physical media exists. But for the Switch to approach the gilded 100 million mark and beyond, they need the mass market, which they will most likely not manage to sway. |
Gamer market is big enough.
The PS4 is not selling to "casual tablet users". Switch can sell to gamers and do well. The 3DS really didn't appeal to casual/tablet gamer types as Nintendogs/Brain Training didn't do anything for it, it got an OK Pokemon Go boost but way late in the game.
You can still sell this thing by aiming at people who (what a novel concept) actually like video games.
The system isn't suddenly a failure if it sells only 70-80 million instead of 100 million. 100 million is rare in the game business unless you're a Sony console. NES, SNES, PS3, XBox 360, GBA, 3DS, Genesis, PSP, etc. are all successful sysetms that didn't reach 100 mill.
Soundwave said:
Gamer market is big enough. The PS4 is not selling to "casual tablet users". Switch can sell to gamers and do well. The 3DS really didn't appeal to casual/tablet gamer types as Nintendogs/Brain Training didn't do anything for it, it got an OK Pokemon Go boost but way late in the game. You can still sell this thing by aiming at people who (what a novel concept) actually like video games. The system isn't suddenly a failure if it sells only 70-80 million instead of 100 million. 100 million is rare in the game business unless you're a Sony console. NES, SNES, PS3, XBox 360, GBA, 3DS, Genesis, PSP, etc. are all successful sysetms that didn't reach 100 mill. |
I don't think we're really in disagreement. I personally think the Switch will end up somewhere along the middle point of the Wii and Wii U, so 50-60 million if things go right, which would be a great number for any console. I don't consider anything under 100 million a failure, it's more that consoles that sell above 100 million are exceptionally popular.
The point I'm desperately trying to make is simple; if the Switch fails to appeal to the mass market, which I think it will, it will be very, very hard to sell 100 million or more like users such as Rol believe. Seeing the fairly slow pace of the Xbox One and far from mindblowing pace of the PS4 in the face of some really tame competition, it's reasonable to assume that there isn't a whole lot more room for home or "home" consoles appealing strictly to gamers either. If the PS4 manages about 100 million sales, which it should, and the Xbox One maybe half that or slightly above, that's already a fairly big installed base considering that the PS3, 360 and Wii combined probably had around 200-220 million gamers among them, and seeing how mobile gaming is still growing steadily while handhelds slow down and PC gaming having a strong resurgence, it's unreasonable to expect the Switch to be the device to attain be the final piece in the puzzle towards, or at least past, that same point. Mind you, I'm operating under the logical assumption that the vast majority of Wii owners were mass market consumers, the dreadful sales of the Wii U would suggest as much as well.
PS: Yes, I'm staying partly away from the 3DS crowd, because I don't see the major logic in automatically assuming that the Switch will inherit its userbase, especially given the growing number of dual console owners and the massive collapse of the dedicated handheld market between the 7th and 8th gen without any big actual changes in hardware or software offerings (the same concepts obviously don't hold the same appeal they used to). As for the hybrid bit; is it really convenient and appealing enough that your console connects to the TV and comes loose as a handheld all at once for it to sell to the mass market? It's still a lot less convenient than a smart device and will have a lot fewer incentives for purchase than the competition, the value of combining home and handheld concepts is grossly overstated, in my opinion.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
