I believe the main vision (pun intended) of the full implementation of AR is through eyeglass like the rumored Apple Glasses. Then, AR will have the groundwork laid out and will really be the next BIG thing.augmented reality seems like a no go for a lot of things
AR just doesn't seem compelling through a phone. Through glasses, it seems a pretty exciting notion. But as has been pointed out but another poster: the blame for this failure might not have been the AR.augmented reality seems like a no go for a lot of things
Yeah, this game kind of seemed like a failure the second it launched.
kind of feel bad for anyone who used any in app purchases though, barely getting three months of notice before the app completely closes is kind of crappy.
Or perhaps it’s a “let’s see if we can reignite a movement and worse case we still have to shut down anyway” …?
What "brand" are you talking about? If you mean "Harry Potter" (which makes millions for JK Rowling and her publisher), the software company that makes the game gets no benefit from enhancing a brand in which they have no ownership stake.I'm going to add one more point but this isn't really my thing anyway. BUT - I read that this has in-game purchases or a 'paywall' or whatever you call it. The thing is if they took a damn minute and looked at the value of the brand overall - having a FREE, engaging game that keeps the brand vital and people interested - that is worth WAY more than the couple of bucks they extract from kids who play it. The brand LITERALLY makes millions (billions?). Whether or not I like it, who cares. It's very possibly an evergreen brand that needs care, attention and love. Not 'let's cash in and make a few bucks on a so-so game that milks fans outta bucks.' F them. Make it great, put it out there and build value and interest. All these brands that grow old need enthusiasm and care and love. The more they cash in with sh*t games tossed out to make a buck - the more they drive down the value of the thing they most need to protect.
A mobile game was never really going to do anything for the brand. More likely the company paid to use the license and are trying to find ways to recoup their investment. Whilst Pokémon Go was an important brand exercise, it was produced by Nintendo who owned the product. This is just a spin off game that does nothing to enhance the overall HP world.What "brand" are you talking about? If you mean "Harry Potter" (which makes millions for JK Rowling and her publisher), the software company that makes the game gets no benefit from enhancing a brand in which they have no ownership stake.
In the MD/DC/VA area there are a lot of PoGO and Ingress players. I went from PoGO to Ingress so I could add more places in PoGO. Now my newer community is full of in game locations for kids and adults to use.I figured this would happen to it no one in my town plays this game everyone plays pogo though, I’m kinda surprised NiAntic hasn’t shut down ingress it doesn’t seem to get a lot of play anymore but it was their first game
I'm going to add one more point but this isn't really my thing anyway. BUT - I read that this has in-game purchases or a 'paywall' or whatever you call it. The thing is if they took a damn minute and looked at the value of the brand overall - having a FREE, engaging game that keeps the brand vital and people interested - that is worth WAY more than the couple of bucks they extract from kids who play it. The brand LITERALLY makes millions (billions?). Whether or not I like it, who cares. It's very possibly an evergreen brand that needs care, attention and love. Not 'let's cash in and make a few bucks on a so-so game that milks fans outta bucks.' F them. Make it great, put it out there and build value and interest. All these brands that grow old need enthusiasm and care and love. The more they cash in with sh*t games tossed out to make a buck - the more they drive down the value of the thing they most need to protect
I don't play the game myself, but my general understanding from talking to people who still play is that most people turn the AR off. It doesn't seem to add anything to the gameplay and (I suspect) it actually distracts from the game.Pokémon go is only successful because it is a Pokémon game, not because it is AR.
No one moved from PoGo to Ingress lmfaooA lot of people move to "ingress" once they try PGo and HP.
I played it for a couple of days and then it basically made me want to play Pokemon Go again ??i used to play this when it came out. Had me hooked for a week or so. Made me walk around the park and all. Then it felt like I was doing more and more of the same without much story progression. Then I deleted it.
Collecting digital stuff can’t be a game in itself. The digital stuff has to unlock something more than the ability to collect more digital stuff.
Pokemon Go losing steam? The 2020 Revenue was the most ever. It's earned more revenue every year.Exactly. And I think this is how the new Pikmin game functions... I expect a similar article to this about that game in 1-2 years...
Niantic got lucky with Pokemon GO, which itself is also losing steam... They don't seem to fully understand this. But also, the executives over at WB trying to make Harry Potter something bigger than it actually is don't seem to understand that either or see it clearly.
I know a few who did. Initially because it was the only way to submit Pokestops, but they ended up liking it.No one moved from PoGo to Ingress lmfaoo