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

Forums - Nintendo - Super Mario Run Downloads 90mil: $30mil in revenue

GOWTLOZ on 04 January 2017
Barkley said:
SpokenTruth said:

That's still piracy.  If the game is actively for sale by the rights holder and you acquire it without compensation, you've stolen it.

Gabe Newell says it very well:

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem, If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

I emulate PS1 games for example, because I can't buy them on PS4. Silly Sony. But also as Gabe says, the pirates provide a better service then the companies. Nintendo charging $10 for an N64 game that still runs in SD is a joke, when you could play it on your Phone at 1080p.

This is right in my case.

However this is not always true as in India piracy is rampant it is neither a service problem nor pricing problem. You could sell a new AAA game here on PC for $5 and people would still think its overpriced and pirate it. These people also spend thousands of dollars on PC's and phones and more than $5 on a pizza. So its not a pricing issue but a mindset of the consumer on PC's which is the most popular gaming platform here. Its probably the same in a lot of places.

So service does make a difference in my case bu I don't completely agree with what Gabe said here.

SpokenTruth said:
GOWTLOZ said:

I wouldn't promote piracy. However the fact that you can play these games on your phone for free means that even if Nintendo ported the original Mario games they wouldn't sell well. But if Nintendo makes them for $3 on phones it can sell well.

While I would not promote anyone else to do it, I don't consider such old games to be worth paying any money. That is for Nintendo and Sony both. I have bought Halo 1 and 2 recently on PC though because Microsoft made them available for the hardware and they are priced well :)

Btw I do have a PS4 but don't see the value in buying PS2 games for $15.

Mind if I come steal your computer?  I want a new one but I don't feel like paying what Dell or HP are asking for theirs.

That is not the same thing. You can't get a Dell notebook for free with improved performance in the same model.

Also if Dell and HP price their notebooks very high I can buy an Acer and Asus notebook. As long as they have the same hardware they are the same thing :)

I do buy current generation and last generation games as I think they are worth the money but anything before that is not if its not remastered.



Around the Network
Barkley on 04 January 2017
GOWTLOZ said:
SpokenTruth said:

Mind if I come steal your computer?  I want a new one but I don't feel like paying what Dell or HP are asking for theirs.

That is not the same thing. You can't get a Dell notebook for free with improved performance in the same model.

The difference is far more then that, downloading a rom isn't taking an asset away from someone else. No one says "oh that's been stolen we're going to have to replace that now." No one loses money by you downloading a rom, comparing it to the theft of a physical object is silly.



Barkley on 04 January 2017
SpokenTruth said:
Barkley said:

The difference is far more then that, downloading a rom isn't taking an asset away from someone else. No one says "oh that's been stolen we're going to have to replace that now." No one loses money by you downloading a rom, comparing it to the theft of a physical object is silly.

Ask that of an artist selling their paintings and someone takes a picture and prints it out.  Would you do that?

That's not a better service, that's a far worse service. Is anyone doing something like that really the type of person that would spend good money on Art anyway? If not then the Artist hasn't lost anything from that anyway.

Basically my stance is this, I'm not going to purchase a crap version of a game when I can play a better version of a game, whether I have to pay for the better version or not. If the paid legal version is somehow WORSE then it doesn't deserve the money.

If the paid version is equivelent to the pirate version then I will pay the money. I'm not emulating games on my Phone or PC because I don't want to pay, I'm doing it because it's superior.

Why should I have a worse experience then what's available to me? Why should I give money to a company saying I'm ok with their service when I'm not?



Acevil on 04 January 2017
Barkley said:
SpokenTruth said:

Ask that of an artist selling their paintings and someone takes a picture and prints it out.  Would you do that?

That's not a better service, that's a far worse service. Is anyone doing something like that really the type of person that would spend good money on Art anyway? If not then the Artist hasn't lost anything from that anyway.

Basically my stance is this, I'm not going to purchase a crap version of a game when I can play a better version of a game, whether I have to pay for the better version or not. If the paid legal version is somehow WORSE then it doesn't deserve the money.

If the paid version is equivelent to the pirate version then I will pay the money. I'm not emulating games on my Phone or PC because I don't want to pay, I'm doing it because it's superior.

Why should I have a worse experience then what's available to me? Why should I give money to a company saying I'm ok with their service when I'm not?

You are stealing no matter what you say (in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter what you reasonining is), I am pirate (less now), and I will still call stealing stealing. 



 

Barkley on 05 January 2017
Acevil said:

You are stealing no matter what you say (in the eyes of the law it doesn't matter what you reasonining is), I am pirate (less now), and I will still call stealing stealing. 

That's ok because I never said it wasn't, I'm just explaining my reasoning behind it and how I'm morally ok with emulating old systems. Everyone has different moral standards, I'm sure there's plenty of things SpokenTruth finds acceptable that I view as totally abhorrent.



Around the Network
vivster on 05 January 2017
SpokenTruth said:
Barkley said:

Gabe Newell says it very well:

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem, If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

I emulate PS1 games for example, because I can't buy them on PS4. Silly Sony. But also as Gabe says, the pirates provide a better service then the companies. Nintendo charging $10 for an N64 game that still runs in SD is a joke, when you could play it on your Phone at 1080p.

1. Lagging behind on providing a service doesn't make it right to steal it.

2. Funny how Valve charges for things. 

It's not about being right. It's about service providers who are actively making pirating more enticing by delivering a sub optimal service.

It's like leaving your door open for thieves and pointing a blinking sign at it that reads "Loot here!". Of course it's against the law for the thief to go there but you could also just lock your door.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Cloudman on 05 January 2017

Dang, that is a really low percentage for the game. They should have priced it a lil lower...



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

Cloudman on 05 January 2017
SpokenTruth said:
Cloudman said:
Dang, that is a really low percentage for the game. They should have priced it a lil lower...

That's actually higher than most King and Rovio games.

Is it? I've been getting the impression for some time now that smartphone games do really well.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

Cloudman on 05 January 2017
SpokenTruth said:
Cloudman said:

Is it? I've been getting the impression for some time now that smartphone games do really well.

"The conversion rate of just over 3% sounds low, but it isn't too dissimilar to other mobile businesses. Zynga, for instance, says just 1.7% of its monthly active users actually pay money for its games, whereas King's conversion rate sits at around 2%."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-01-04-super-mario-run-generates-usd30m-in-two-weeks-newzoo

Haha, it seems like that quote was said for concerned people like me. Well, that's good to hear.  Despite the 'low' seeming 3%, 20-30 mil in revenue still sounds good.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

Barozi on 05 January 2017
SpokenTruth said:
Cloudman said:

Is it? I've been getting the impression for some time now that smartphone games do really well.

"The conversion rate of just over 3% sounds low, but it isn't too dissimilar to other mobile businesses. Zynga, for instance, says just 1.7% of its monthly active users actually pay money for its games, whereas King's conversion rate sits at around 2%."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-01-04-super-mario-run-generates-usd30m-in-two-weeks-newzoo

The difference is that Zynga, King, Rovio and the others have a huge second stream of income. In-app advertisement.

Besides, it's pretty obvious that Super Mario Run has a higher conversion rate. It even NEEDS that. Simply because people know that it's not F2P and thus won't even download it if they know that they're never going to spend $10 on an app anyway.