OTBWY said:
bdbdbd said:
Yes, that's what Pokemon Go did, and that's what Nintendo expects from their mobile strategy.
SMR did not meet expectations, but that's a game that should've made tons of money. FE did not have high expectations, but that's an IP Nintendo want's to make better known to public. Basically this is about where they direct their resources. SMR was a Miyamoto game, and Nintendo's no.1 team can make more money doing something else. In the end, mobile is only a small portion in Nintendo's revenue.
Thanks! Once we have the first game out, I'll PM you a download code (may take some time).
|
Absolutely true that Nintendo first and foremost wants to use the mobile platform in order to increase IP awareness.
I think the main difference between SMR and FE and their performance has been it's payment model. SMR had a pretty sharp price for the full game (which was too short for that price IMO), wherein FE had simple transactions for a continuous flow. I don't know why Nintendo went for that payment model with SMR, but I think it had to do with not wanting to put that sort of payment model in a Mario game (timed, microtransactions). It's a good discussion to have.D
|
If I remember the first level was free, but the rest of the game cost 10€, or so. The model was different because Nintendo expected the all time biggest IP in games industry to sell like hotcakes, but the gameplay wasn't what people expected from 2D Super Mario. I did try the game out and thought it was bad.
It was so expensive because of the "value" of the IP - and the value of the time of the team that developed it. But, I also think Nintendo wants to try out different models and how they work.
