
Nintendo says it doesn’t have plans for any additional Super Mario Run content - electic
https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/20/no-more-super-mario-run-content-coming/
======
dpcan
Nintendo comes out and offers a game with a few free levels, then pay-once,
and you get the whole game. Seems like exactly what everyone ALWAYS asks for.
We constantly see complaining about micro transactions, etc, and Nintendo goes
with the traditional pay-once model AND gives you the ability to try for free
and people freak out.

This industry is so incredibly frustrating. You can't please everyone, but it
seems like you can't please anyone, ever, anymore.

If you hype it, they will hate it. This seems to be the new world we live in.
You almost have to subtly release something, let crowds pass it around online
and feel like they are responsible for its success, put some of the
"ownership" behind those hyping it, and then they can't hate on it when it
comes out.

~~~
0x0
I think the bigger complaint is the (unprecedented for iOS) always-on internet
DRM requirement.

~~~
AlexandrB
I don't think it's unprecedented - I thought many F2P games have the same
requirement. Though I guess F2P games have a "good reason" for needing always-
on internet whereas Mario Run shouldn't need it but does.

------
newscracker
I was so overjoyed when I heard during the Apple event that this would be a
one time purchase game and not have annoying IAP like many other games do.
Nintendo definitely made the right choice in not annoying users with the "one-
time pay to play" model. But since the app store is used to cheap 99 cents
pricing for most apps and games, people are upset at something costing ten
times that. If I as a user see value, I'd rather have more games follow the
Super Mario Run model of a limited trial with a single IAP to unlock
everything than the prevailing in-game pseudo-currency based models that end
up making the gameplay experience worse as time passes. I hesitate to update
many games because they become worse over time as developers try new and
annoying ways to monetize them. Overall, the app store pricing structure is a
mess and creates a frustrating experience.

~~~
hedora
Yeah, the gameplay is usually compromised by virtual currencies.

Worse, if you look at the big spenders, you usually find people with mental
health issues, and money launderers using stolen credit cards to level up and
then sell accounts.

[source: anecdotes from acquaintances with experience with multiple sides of
these issues]

------
jly
Nintendo priced this game fairly and appropriately. The game is absolutely
packed with content and beautiful design and I'm glad they went for a
traditional one and done pricing scheme rather than what other mobile games
often use. It's the investors clamoring for more content to sell, not the
people actually playing the game.

IAP is an issue but it's not Nintendo's fault. They clearly wanted a way to
try before you buy to entice more people to download, and this is the standard
model that Apple has put together.

~~~
lostlogin
Beautiful design? It's redesign of stock OS UI is gross and annoying. The
spinner when it looks for a network connection and fails is not good. The
picker at the beginning - how is this good design. Paying some attention to
the platform and not requiring an internet connection would have resulted in a
better looking, better behaving game.

~~~
danso
Yeah, I immediately passed when I heard the game required an Internet
connection. Their stated reasons are ridiculous [0], or at least questionable
given the many number of high quality games that manage to have an offline
mode.

[0] [http://www.polygon.com/mobile/2016/12/9/13897536/super-
mario...](http://www.polygon.com/mobile/2016/12/9/13897536/super-mario-run-
internet-connection)

------
outericky
Does it need more content? As it is, we've become spoiled by endless content
and $0.99 cent games. Half the 1 star reviews for this game are that it's too
expensive or too easy. My only gripe is the lack of family sharing and the
constant internet / DRM problem. Otherwise, it's well worth $10, it's a very
polished game. IAP is one of the worst things to happen to gaming.

~~~
blktiger
Super Mario Run 2 could easily be just an in-app purchase where you just
choose which game to play once the game loads. That saves you from hunting
through a bunch of similar looking super mario run icons on your home screen
while also making it easy for people who like the game to find out about the
new one.

------
larrik
Only tangential, but I really hate the "free to download, IAP to unlock"
model. Why? Because IAPs don't "share" on family plans, so if I buy it, I need
to buy it again for each of my kids. No thanks.

~~~
cableshaft
It's annoying, but it has to do with how Apple bifurcates the free and paid
tiers. If you want to get the visibility, you almost have to stick with the
free tier. Why? Because people are much, much more likely to download
something that's free and try it out than even something for a nominal fee,
but if you have a separate 'free demo' app, then each app has a separate
download count, and suddenly you've got a lot less downloads you would have
gotten otherwise (some people would skip the free and download the paid, and a
lot less people will download the paid in general anyway).

Hardly anyone discovers apps outside the 'featured' and 'top paid' or 'top
free' lists on the app store, so any loss in downloads drops you down those
top lists, which can cost you a serious loss in potential revenue and is thus
unacceptable.

Also if you have a free and paid version you're forcing the user to download
your game all over again just to purchase it, which adds friction to the
purchase, which anyone in sales knows even a single extra click lowers the
odds of people buying something by a lot.

So the only thing that makes sense for most apps is to make your app free and
allow people to spend money in the app to either unlock or acquire something
in the game.

There are some apps that are better served on the paid tiers, but those are
usually apps that have enough visibility (or built-in audience, i.e. Cartoon
Network games) and possibly a high enough price on other platforms that people
would expect to pay something anyway (i.e. Minecraft Pocket, Square Enix
games), or serve a niche audience of people that don't mind paying (i.e. app
versions of board games whose prices are set at fraction of the price of
buying the physical board game).

~~~
AlexandrB
> It's annoying, but it has to do with how Apple bifurcates the free and paid
> tiers.

Indeed. I don't think Apple gets enough blame for how they've (mis)managed the
app store - especially in terms of available pricing models. The current
approach encourages lots of "free" apps and games loaded with IAP and micro-
transactions.

------
ianai
They say no more, now. Then after everyone flips out we'll have a version 2 or
added content later. On the merit of price, most Wii U games run in the $40-60
usd range. It feels like the free to play crowd wants to ruin a traditional
product model like they ruined the rest of mobile.

------
Mahn
According to Reuters[0] about 8% of all downloads converted to sales for the
full game. That's not that bad technically, but I guess expectations were high
after Pokemon GO.

[0] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nintendo-supermario-
idUSKB...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nintendo-supermario-
idUSKBN14A0U0?il=0)

------
ndrake
I'll gladly pay the $10 once they remove the constant internet connection
requirement.

------
newscracker
> A Nintendo spokesman said the company didn’t plan to release additional
> content, either free or paid.

I find the term "new content" a bit weird here. What does it mean? New levels?
New characters? New items in the shop? New challenges? New gameplay mode? Any
of these? If we assume that a new type of challenge or a game play mode would
count as new content, Super Mario Run just sent an in-game notification that a
Toad Rally type game could be played with friends as a friendly challenge,
without gaining or losing any coins or toads. How many times one can play this
everyday depends on the number of worlds conquered and the number of friends
one has on the game. Of course, this is free for the current players without
updating the game from the app store. This feature wasn't available before. So
Nintendo had already built this into the app and just flipped some switch
today. Who knows how many such hidden features exist that would be turned on
gradually to sustain player interest and keep them engaged?

I didn't purchase the full game because, compared to many others, I find these
games difficult to play and win. I have some other nitpicks as well - coins
are basically useless (except to build some decorations), Toad Rally tickets
are hard to win, getting the colored coins beyond the pink ones is quite tough
and sometimes even impossible without using the bubble to go backward. So it
didn't seem worth spending so much money to just play a few levels with
limited advancement.

I would've liked the game to have a range of difficulty levels on the plus and
minus side of what currently exists.

~~~
outericky
Agree that it's ambiguous. I fired it up and saw a new play mode available
today (rally free run).... so not new levels, but new gameplay option.

~~~
newscracker
I feel Nintendo probably didn't grasp that Toad Rally would be the gameplay
sequence more appreciated by people than the World Tour. Toad Rally is more
fun and gives more replay value. But it needs to be tweaked for better player
matching, easier ways to get Toad Rally tickets often (or remove the ticket
system altogether), allow to challenge friends for toads and coins (not a
"friendly run") and so on. Adding Game Center support for friends is a better
option than being tied to inviting friends through a different system or
creating a Nintendo account (though Game Center ties the relationships to iOS
alone).

If at all anyone from the Nintendo team that built Super Mario Run is reading
this, please focus on making Toad Rally more accessible and better.

------
brak1
Well i just got an iOS notification a few minutes ago saying "Super mario run
- new feature - friendly run is available". But I assume (given that the game
was only released a few days ago) that it was intended to slowly roll out
whatever this 'friendly run' mode is...

------
electic
I loved the game. The best part of the game is actually getting the colored
coins and Toad Rally. I tend to run out of tickets fast and would love to buy
more tickets. I think this could be a great way for Nintendo to make a
constant revenue stream in the game.

------
CM30
I don't get it. Didn't they just add some Christmas items for Kingdom Builder
a few days ago? And a 'friendly' mode for Toad Rush earlier today?

That sounds like additional Super Mario Run content for me. Just the free kind
people like.

~~~
gallerdude
No more additional paid content.

~~~
dpcan
It looks like the quote in the article also says "free content" so there is
definitely some confusion here. Yet the notification I received IN the game
today was titled "new feature added". So, maybe features aren't content, but
that seems like an update to me.

------
aczerepinski
As a shareholder, I don't think Nintendo is doing all they can to capitalize
on their IP and industry position. I played the first three levels and the
game seems fine. But why build a two-hour game and stop there? Once you've
built out the infrastructure, isn't the hard part done, and additional
art/level assets are comparatively less expensive? Wouldn't a 30 level
expansion be inexpensive to develop and well received by fans?

~~~
valarauca1

        But why build a two-hour game and stop there?
    

Over saturation, artificially create more demand. Nobody goes back to an all
you can eat buffet because the steak was so well prepared.

    
    
        Wouldn't a 30 level expansion be inexpensive to develop and well
        received by fans?
    

Generally no. DLC doesn't typically sell at a high rate. Also a Nintendo
shareholder you should be aware they don't sell DLC's.

I don't even understand your support over this business model. ATVI supports
this model and is down ~$2 on the year. While NTDOY has avoided it and is up
~9 on the year. KING who heavily practiced this model is no longer trading.

Going out 5year there has been little difference in the per-share profit. So
the market really doesn't validate this business model. It is a model, it
works, but it isn't wildy successful... The only justification I can see for
it is chasing trends.

    
    
        Once you've built out the infrastructure, isn't the hard part done,
        and additional art/level assets are comparatively less expensive? 
    

This is also true for releasing future games at a premium point.

Why sell 30 levels for $1. When you can sell 5 for $1 every 6 months? One is a
far steadier revenue stream.

~~~
AlexandrB
> Also a Nintendo shareholder you should be aware they don't sell DLC's.

This is completely false. There's plenty of DLC (new characters, maps[1]) for
Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS.

[1] [http://www.smashbros.com/us/dlc/](http://www.smashbros.com/us/dlc/)

------
caconym_
Are any real numbers available? Has the game actually lost money? Maybe
investors have been riding a bit of a bubble, assuming that _Pokemon Go_ would
be the norm rather than the exception for mobile games based on venerable
Nintendo franchises.

Criticizing the payment model seems fair, though. However cynical and toxic
you might think the typical mobile game's monetization scheme is, when in
Rome...

~~~
electic
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229607)

~~~
caconym_
Combined with the 8% value from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229499](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229499),
that (according to my early morning math) comes in at something like (very
roughly) $25M "gross revenue" (apologies if that's not the right term). That's
just for whichever four days they set the records for.

A fair bit of money, but for a company like Nintendo I could see development
costs already getting up there, to say nothing of advertising, ongoing
maintenance, and so on. Maybe they really will lose money on it.

Mobile games are hard. For a game with this pricing model i.e. you pay up
front, you get a high quality game, you play it ( _Monument Valley_ might be a
similar example), even with really good market saturation (which is how I'd
describe what SMR has accomplished but, again, I'm not an expert), $25M is
_great_. To make a few comparisons based on probably-wrong numbers I found on
Google for some excellent games, _Tiny Wings_ made about $5M and the fairly
well-known _Monument Valley_ did about $15M.

Those developers doubtless kept costs down by limiting their staff and project
scope and relying on word-of-mouth/viral/whatever marketing. As I see it, any
other approach with the straight-up pricing model is simply not going to make
you any money 99% of the time. The people really making money on mobile games
have set up Skinner boxes where "whales" can drop thousands of dollars a year
in "micro"transactions.

Maybe this is all bullshit; I'm just fascinated by the idea that you can
release a relatively simple game, break download records on the app store with
8% of those downloads getting you $8-10 per (making some dumb assumptions
about Apple's cut), and still lose money.

