Nuvendil said:
Well there's a difference between people buying it because it is Pokemon (brand power) and the brand making the concept viable (the power of having a brand). Pokemon being the IP in question definitely boosted it's appeal obviously, but I think any brand that gave it a real, recognizable face would have done fine. It's just that when you look at previous AR games that didn't just lack a popular brand. They lacked any "brand". Ingress isn't just plain, it's downright nondescript. No one denies PoGo owes some of it to the Pokemon brand, but not all of it. It wasn't just people buying it because it's Pokemon. I mean, there probably aren't even 100 million. total Pokemon fans prior to Go so all 500 mil can't be prior Pokemon fans. Not even close. So it can't be "just buying it because it is Pokemon." There's more to it than that. And that more - the social AR aspects - are not present in Mario.
|
I'll argue it does owe it to Pokemon, lets say the are around 10m Pokemon fans around, almost all of them would have a smart phone and friends who own a smart phone as well. Those fans spread word to just 5 people each that 50 - 60m easy, that's brand power not just bringing in current fans but new ones, many people have probably heard of Pokemon but never tried it due to not being fully into gaming and PoGo was a chance to look into the franchise.
The concept is all good but the fact that both of you admit it needed Pokemon's brand to take off and find appeal pretty much proves his point in that regard.