By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Wii U App Store: How Nintendo will take Apple on at their own game

KungKras on 04 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
The safest way to ruin a company is to focus on combating imaginary problems. The consumer of an Apple product is fundamentally different than the Nintendo consumer. The latter fully expects and accepts to pay more for games that in return are of higher quality.

The basic premise is that a Nintendo system is bought precisely because $1 games are not considered to be good enough to satisfy the needs of the gamer in question, therefore any efforts to get such games into Nintendo's eShops are a waste of time and money that would better be spent on other things.


From reading Innovators dilemma, that sounds eerily like the incumbent mindset.

Now I think those games are as much threat to Nintendo as Flash games were on PCs in the 2000's but the way you worded it was like a classic example of incumbant thinking.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
JEMC on 04 March 2012

I don't see it as a bad move for Nintendo.

They already have the hardware, and the app store has proven to be a very good way to bring software to the customers, so why not use it?

Besides, if Nintendo does it, it's not for the smartphones market but the tablets one. Let's face it, most tablets are used at home as they are too bulky to take them out with you, and the main uses are surfing the web/check the mail, play games and e-books. If Nintendo can bring it to them, you end with potential customers finding themselves choosing between a tablet or a home console that can also do what a tablet does, albeit only at home. And on top of that, the console may even be cheaper.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

pimpcoop on 04 March 2012

I think this is a good idea. Have other developers make mini app games for the Wiiu. That way people might be willing to use the Wiiu more and carry it around more. I do not think they should make that a priority, but still work on it.



HappySqurriel on 04 March 2012

You don't beat apple at their own game, you change the game to take Apple's advantage away from them ...


Off the top of my head, something Nintendo could do is to convert their games into platforms for small companies. Essentially, you start to develop console games with the intention of creating a professional mod-scene around them. Nintendo doesn't need to develop a new gameplay mode in Mario Kart, or create new downloadable tracks, and with a well designed system small companies could produce these assets for Nintendo and have them sold for a small fee through Nintendo's app store; certainly, Nintendo would have to review all content and make sure that it was of adequate quality, but a good mod team might be able to produce a new and interesting content rapidly (releasing every few months) and to sell enough to be highly profitable.

Essentially, many small studios would jump at the opportunity to be able to target the massive audiences of many of Nintendo's big franchises. While Apple has a ton of simple games, and a ton of clones of those simple games that were successful, Nintendo could have a massive quantity of more complicated downloadable high quality content.



kitler53 on 04 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:

Here's a simple exercise: Estimate how much money the average consumer has spent on gaming on the Wii, the 360, the PS3 and the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch. Just in rough terms, you don't need to go into ultraspecific details or make longwinded assumptions.

Would total Hardware sales and total software sales, each multiplied by an average HW and SW price be acceptable?

Mind you how would you expect him to extimate Apple game App sales? And DL content on all main consoles? I'm interested in the exercise.

Wii: console ($200) + six games ($50 each = $300) + Wiimote/Nunchuk ($50) = $550 in very basic terms.

360: console ($300) + eight games ($50 each = $400) = $700 in very basic terms.

Apple: ten games ($2 each = $20) = $20 in very basic terms.

spurgeonryan's point was that the Nintendo consumer is far closer to the Apple consumer than the Sony or Microsoft consumer. A simple calculation shows that this is complete nonsense.

happydolphin said:

It's sad to think that some don't realize this basic fact.

What attracted consumers to Angry Birds and Farmville is very similar to what attracted consumers to Pokemon. It's affordable, it's addictive, it's viral. To think this kind of social effect has no impact on consumers' perception of Nintendo's offerings is denial at best.

While people can't play WiiU on the go, they can certainly play Angry Birds at home.

Having said all that, of course, Nintendo games have their own value that some customers will understand. But to say that none will come to choose Angry birds over Nintendo offerings in certain cases is absolute denial.

Pokémon: Gameboy ($100) + game ($30) = $130

Angry Birds: game ($1) = $1 or free download

Farmville: free

Once again, a simple calculation shows that two of these these products aren't even close to be in the same ballpark. The price of admission for Pokémon far exceeds the price of Angry Birds and Farmville.

KungKras said:

From reading Innovators dilemma, that sounds eerily like the incumbent mindset.

Now I think those games are as much threat to Nintendo as Flash games were on PCs in the 2000's but the way you worded it was like a classic example of incumbant thinking.

Perhaps it was worded in such a way, but, like you correctly noted, the difference is that this mindset is absolutely justified in this instance, because the "threat" is not equipped to make any headway and retooling the devices (i.e. adding buttons and sticks for more tactile experiences) will make them unappealing for their primary purpose.

the era in which i owned a DS and not an iphone.

DS: 23 games * ~$35 (avg) = $805

iphone: 0 games = $0

 

the era in which i owned a DS and an iphone

DS: 0 games = $0

iphone: ~50 games * $2 (avg) = $100 plus whatever the devs got in ad revenue that lowers my cost of entry but not the devs revenue.



Around the Network
kitler53 on 04 March 2012
happydolphin said:

It's sad to think that some don't realize this basic fact.

What attracted consumers to Angry Birds and Farmville is very similar to what attracted consumers to Pokemon. It's affordable, it's addictive, it's viral. To think this kind of social effect has no impact on consumers' perception of Nintendo's offerings is denial at best.

While people can't play WiiU on the go, they can certainly play Angry Birds at home.

Having said all that, of course, Nintendo games have their own value that some customers will understand. But to say that none will come to choose Angry birds over Nintendo offerings in certain cases is absolute denial.

this.

i get the part people say, phones and tablets aren't being bought for games exclusively.  but unlike games consoles that are only viewed as a luxury phones are not.  the consumer, when posed with the choice will view the phone as a must have and a game console as not a must have.  

now i didn't except to find this to be true but it did happen...once that iphone was in my pocket already and the games were good -- my DS suddenly had no perceived values.  why pay more money and have more crap to carry when a~1/4 of the games on my DS were also on my iphone and the nintendo exclusive games have pretty damn good third party knock offs??



HappySqurriel on 04 March 2012
kitler53 said:

the era in which i owned a DS and not an iphone.

DS: 23 games * ~$35 (avg) = $805

iphone: 0 games = $0

 

the era in which i owned a DS and an iphone

DS: 0 games = $0

iphone: ~50 games * $2 (avg) = $100 plus whatever the devs got in ad revenue that lowers my cost of entry but not the devs revenue.

... and how many of those iPhone games were worth more than $2, that you played more than an hour in total?

As for ad revenue ... At the moment I work for a company which is heavily involved in mobile advertising aggregation, developing services that maximize revenue for app developers and most of the apps we're supplying ads for have an ECPM well under $10 (usually closer to $1) meaning that they earn less than $0.01 (and closer to $0.001) for every ad that is displayed. The click-through rates are abysmal on mobile ads which means that they're only getting the very low impression rates.



HappySqurriel on 04 March 2012
kitler53 said:
happydolphin said:

It's sad to think that some don't realize this basic fact.

What attracted consumers to Angry Birds and Farmville is very similar to what attracted consumers to Pokemon. It's affordable, it's addictive, it's viral. To think this kind of social effect has no impact on consumers' perception of Nintendo's offerings is denial at best.

While people can't play WiiU on the go, they can certainly play Angry Birds at home.

Having said all that, of course, Nintendo games have their own value that some customers will understand. But to say that none will come to choose Angry birds over Nintendo offerings in certain cases is absolute denial.

this.

i get the part people say, phones and tablets aren't being bought for games exclusively.  but unlike games consoles that are only viewed as a luxury phones are not.  the consumer, when posed with the choice will view the phone as a must have and a game console as not a must have.  

now i didn't except to find this to be true but it did happen...once that iphone was in my pocket already and the games were good -- my DS suddenly had no perceived values.  why pay more money and have more crap to carry when a~1/4 of the games on my DS were also on my iphone and the nintendo exclusive games have pretty damn good third party knock offs??


The PC was essential, with a massive quantity of simple low cost and free (flash) games, and yet has a dramatically smaller userbase than the non-essential luxury game consoles ...

Smartphone games are like the comic-strips in a news-paper. While everyone is willing to "read" them daily, they do not compete directly against comic books, magazines, novels or other (more complicated) forms of written media.



swii26 on 04 March 2012

When Nintendo believes in something, there is no stoppin' them!! A great philosophy makes a great company... an app store could really help launch the company into the online market!!



Steam/Origin ID: salorider

Nintendo Network ID: salorider

PSN: salorider

3DS Friend Code: 4983-4984-4179

 

happydolphin on 04 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:

Here's a simple exercise: Estimate how much money the average consumer has spent on gaming on the Wii, the 360, the PS3 and the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch. Just in rough terms, you don't need to go into ultraspecific details or make longwinded assumptions.

Would total Hardware sales and total software sales, each multiplied by an average HW and SW price be acceptable?

Mind you how would you expect him to extimate Apple game App sales? And DL content on all main consoles? I'm interested in the exercise.

Wii: console ($200) + six games ($50 each = $300) + Wiimote/Nunchuk ($50) = $550 in very basic terms.

360: console ($300) + eight games ($50 each = $400) = $700 in very basic terms.

Apple: ten games ($2 each = $20) = $20 in very basic terms.

spurgeonryan's point was that the Nintendo consumer is far closer to the Apple consumer than the Sony or Microsoft consumer. A simple calculation shows that this is complete nonsense.

happydolphin said:

It's sad to think that some don't realize this basic fact.

What attracted consumers to Angry Birds and Farmville is very similar to what attracted consumers to Pokemon. It's affordable, it's addictive, it's viral. To think this kind of social effect has no impact on consumers' perception of Nintendo's offerings is denial at best.

While people can't play WiiU on the go, they can certainly play Angry Birds at home.

Having said all that, of course, Nintendo games have their own value that some customers will understand. But to say that none will come to choose Angry birds over Nintendo offerings in certain cases is absolute denial.

Pokémon: Gameboy ($100) + game ($30) = $130

Angry Birds: game ($1) = $1 or free download

Farmville: free

Once again, a simple calculation shows that two of these three products aren't even close to be in the same ballpark. The price of admission for Pokémon far exceeds the price of Angry Birds and Farmville.

Where is playing time dedicated:

I was pointing out the simple fact that people could now very well choose to dedicate their playing time to games alternative to dedicated consoles, much more so than in the past with either shareware (on PC) or flashgames in the past. The fact that these games are also free or very affordable makes it even more adoptable, so those calculations, as flawed as they are (Apple: not counting HW that's ridiculous, since at least a percentage of tablets and iphones are bought for their entertainment and gaming value), serve my point.

The question is: To what extent are gamers choosing the cheaper alternatives:

Ultimately, if the entertainment this provides to some justifies not having to purchase a dedicated console, then there is one less sales. The question is not whether this happens or not , but to what extent, and how it can affect Nintendo.

If it did not affect Nintendo, they would not have made a longwinded sermon on it at GDC 2011. Whether you agree with them to worry or not may be a different story, but I believe Nintendo should know by now never to rest on their laurels. I don't advocate they should make edgy business decisions, but they must anticipate.

Overlap between mobile/social and dedicated console consumers + many sold as gaming devices:

As for the demonstration to SpurgeonRyan, you must know that there is overlap, and people who buy nearly free offerings also buy the more expensive dedicated consoles.

Not to mention, in Q1 2012, here is the number of iPhones sold. I'd be far-pressed to think none of these were sold mainly as game platforms with phone capabilities. Otherwise they would have chosen another phone.

Probably to help demonstrate, here is the iPad trend vis-à-vis the iPhone and iPod trends.