| SpokenTruth said: The IPs, silly. |
Ah, yes absolutely. It's just some people seem to say words to the affect of "The App is made to sell hardware, everything else is a bonus."
But yeah it certainly helps their brands.
| SpokenTruth said: The IPs, silly. |
Ah, yes absolutely. It's just some people seem to say words to the affect of "The App is made to sell hardware, everything else is a bonus."
But yeah it certainly helps their brands.
Barkley said:
They are? Do the App's advertise the systems on the main menu or something? Do the advertisements and marketing for the App specifically mention the 3ds/WiiU/Switch? People keeping saying the Apps are primarily to advertise the Dedicated Hardware, but If that's the intention it's done terribly. The App's are made to make money and push Nintendo's influence into another market. |
How about they do both? Mobile games are cheap to make and if it's a big IP it's basically destined to make a profit.
And then there is the exposed IP i.e. free advertising. Just look at the rising pokemon sales after they released Pokemon Go. The same will happen with Mario games now and as soon as they release the new Marion on Switch.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
Welp, hopefully Nintendo learns from this and not price their next game this high. If all they are doing is experimenting with different strategies and see which one sticks for approaching mobile, then it's fine but if they were planning to use this strat for all their games, they need to rethink it.
$10 for 24 levels is legit, not even close to a good value when looking at mobile games imo. If anything, that is Apple pricing.
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850
RolStoppable said:
Apple takes a 30% cut of the revenue which leaves Nintendo with $21m of the $30m. Deducting the development costs (certainly below $5m, but I'll use $5m) and marketing budget (likely not more than $1m because Apple themselves are glad to feature Super Mario on their storefront) leaves $15m profit after two weeks. The development costs don't need to be paid off a second time, so any copy sold from here on out will be almost pure profit of $7 a piece. |
No marketing at all though?
That's usually a very expensive part. I don't know if they did any TV spots or something like that but they surely had some online or magazine ads.
Miguel_Zorro said:
If you really understand the market, mobile can be very lucrative. Nintendo is still learning how to make money on mobile. |
Sure, but its usually short lived. I mean when was the last time you heard anything from the Angry Birds developer?
KLXVER said:
Sure, but its usually short lived. I mean when was the last time you heard anything from the Angry Birds developer? |
I mean... they released a Movie this year... A movie that grossed $350 Million.
Rovio are still doing well for themselves.
Barkley said:
I mean... they released a Movie this year... A movie that grossed $350 Million. Rovio are still doing well for themselves. |
Yeah, but are they still releasing games?
KLXVER said:
Yeah, but are they still releasing games? |
Yeah, their newer titles don't have that many downloads, but they're spin-offs so that's pretty much expected. It's always hard to tell how well a mobile developer is doing without figures as games can still be making them substantial money that released ages ago.
| KLXVER said: That's why mobile is not something you go full force into. Smart of Nintendo to just use it to promote their systems. |
Yes! Indeed!
Each game had a problem so far
- Miitomo (I dont think the idea worked....Theres enough social apps out there)
- Pokemon Go (Needed big updates every month)
- Super Mario Run (Pricing...... At least it wasn't $10 from the start..... luckily you could try it out for free)
Pocky Lover Boy!
