By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pokoko on 24 March 2017
Edit Thread
tak13 said:
pokoko said:
It makes perfect sense. Brand exposure is your main goal, while revenue from mobile is desirable but of lesser importance.

So what's the plan?

Over-price your average-ish game so that it becomes decidedly less popular than under other models.

Brilliant.

I'm also loving the "it's the consumer's fault" defense. That should help matters tremendously. Nintendo should follow the examples of their followers and have Reggie do some ads: "You think Mario Run is too expensive? What's wrong with you!"

Of course it's expensive for a mobile game/app!

However, I expended 500-800$ for an iphone, I spent 25$-100$ on Pokemon go on microtrasactions and I'm a very logical person if I'm complaining for super mario run costing 10$...

So what's wrong  with defending Nintendo in that particular case? It's justifiable! 

First, you're creating a false argument.  The typical person does not spend that much money on mobile games.  Whales on the far end of the spectrum drive up the averages and they're probably buying Mario Run, too.

That's not really the issue, though.  Going against the market and then claiming it's the fault of consumers for not falling into line is just silly.  It's like a General drawing up a battle plan then blaming the enemy for not blindly walking into an ambush when it fails.  Consumers don't have to conform to anyone's strategy.  It's the other way around--businesses have to tailor their strategy to the market-place.  Excuses are meaningless, especially when we're talking about well known tendencies.