Nintendo Share Prices Decline in Reaction to 'Super Mario Run' Pricing and Internet Connection Criticisms

[Mlrollin91]

It's not a BAD mobile game. But the constant running and not being able to go backwards aside from wall jumping (or passing through the "wall" and coming out the other side on later levels) make it an irritating endeavor.

I won't be buying it, not for $9.99, maybe if it goes on sale in the future.
But it's honestly not worth the asking price IMO and I've had most of Mario games released since the original NES.

You can go backwards. They created a bubble that moves back throughout the track to return to areas that you missed coins and items.

To your other point. Yes you can beat the "levels" in a couple hours but collecting all 360 colored coins takes a lot longer than that. I've put at least 10 hours into the game thus far and have 180/360 coins and they are only getting more difficult.

 

[TheIguana]

The internet connection requirement is pretty bizarre, they must know that a good part of the Nintendo's market does not subscribed to copious amounts of cellular data.

 

[pat500000]

Nintendo and developer DeNA's shares have declined over the weekend in reaction to negative user reviews facing the new mobile game Super Mario Run, which currently averages a 2.5/5 star rating on the iOS App Store, based on around 54,000 user reviews. Shares in DeNA have gone down 14 percent since Super Mario Run launched on December 15, while Nintendo's stock has fallen about 13 percent in the same time frame.

Although many of the top reviews for the game remark on Super Mario Run's better qualities, the harshest criticism remains to be Nintendo's decision to make the game free-to-download, but $10 to unlock all of its content. Users can play nearly all of World 1 for free, but gaining deeper access to the remaining five Worlds, along with Toad Rally and Kingdom Builder modes, requires the $10 fee.

Nintendo's argument has always been that the cost will help assuage parents' worries about their kids overspending on in-app purchases, but many users have now taken to the App Store to give the game a low score because of its cost. The always-on internet requirement has also been a sticking point for some players hoping to engage with the game during a commute.

A day after its launch, App Annie reported on the initial download numbers for Super Mario Run, and estimated that 10 million people downloaded the game, and that it made $4 million total in its first day of worldwide availability. Some have taken to comparing the game to Pokémon Go and its initial success, but as App Annie mentioned, the payment models of each game -- along with Pokémon Go's GPS-based gameplay -- means they "aren't truly comparable."
According to App Annie, the real measure of the success of Super Mario Run will be in the weeks ahead as initial bulk downloads of the game at launch trail off, and shift towards mainstream users. "The ability to convert a meaningful percentage of these mainstream users into paying customers will be critical to Nintendo's mobile ambitions."

Article Link: Nintendo Share Prices Decline in Reaction to 'Super Mario Run' Pricing and Internet Connection Criticisms

Soon...that's gonna be Tim Cook's face on that app.

 

[cmwade77]

Hence the problem with the entire mobile game market.

People expect everything for free or loaded with ****** microtransactions.

$10 is not a bad price for something as polished as Super Mario Run but the entire mobile game industry has trained people that everything should be free to play.

I don't think $10 would be unfair for it, IF it didn't require an internet connection to be able to play it.

 

[Mcmeowmers]

They should have split the worlds into smaller transactions. $13 is tough just based on the price of other games on the app store. The quality is quite good, don't get me wrong but $13 over free+ads is hard to swallow.


As for Mario Run reviews being the reason for the stock decline - ha. Everyone knows buy on hype, sell on release. Just watch Apple stock.
[doublepost=1482169440][/doublepost]

If the game was a little longer with more content, i think the $10 price would had ben fair but for $10 you can buy Mario maker - used or even super mario wii u + luigi and take days if not months to finish and enjoy it a little more.. Not internet required of then owning a Wii U console, of course....

I'm curious where you can get Mario Maker for $10, used. EBgames.ca lists "Recycled" Mario Maker for Wii U for $65.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I don't think it's right to say the decline is in reaction to some complaints. This is a common but faulty rhetorical tactic in online flame wars, not something I'd put in an article. The reason for the decline could be that hype for the launch is now simply over. Many traders will buy before the event, then sell right after the event when the price is at it's height. We see this at Apple events. Also, there may be an industry-wide downturn. You have to check these things.

The assumption is always that "my pet issue is causing this stock to decline". It's very ignorant of how the market works.

Came here to say exactly this - this stock has been inflated massively since Pokemon Go and this was simply a good selling point.

 

[gnipgnop]

It's the typical internet controversy: the less sense it makes, the better…and especially so if it involves Apple.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I wish it was $9.99 UP-FRONT.

1) It would get rid of the 1-star reviews from people just upset about the "pay wall" (and not about the game)

2) It would actually let me share the purchase with my family. I don't want to spend another $30 on the game so I can share it.

3) This one is minor - but it would make sure the game is playable in the future, when the isn't an Apple Store to connect to to "restore purchases".


Online only? Lots of games are online only.
$10 for a Nintendo game? From the company that keeps first-party titles priced at $39.99 for half a decade and has terrible eShop sales?

I believe you can still share it using a Nintendo account, at least the way it is worded when you purchase leaves me to believe so.

Terrible eShop sales? Not sure what metric you're using for that - Nintendo doesn't release that information. As far as first party title prices, they're not doing anything their competition doesn't do.

 

[BritishApple]

My issue isn't the price, and people really need to get over this attitude of mobile = free.

My issue is that it's always online. Now I get that Nintendo are worried about piracy but you can easily verify someone who's paid for the game.

People on non jailbroken devices who have paid for the game should be able to play offline. Don't punish us because of your distrust of others, Nintendo.

 

[mox358]

I've only played the first three levels, but the game is actually pretty good. I don't mind the pricing, $10 seems reasonable for the quality of the title, but it needs to be paid up front and offline.

My mom used to play MARIO games with us as a kid and I was going to gift this to her; turns out you can't since it's an IAP. So Nintendo not only lost a sale from me, but a second one for a gift.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I played the hell out of the first 3 levels... and I've had enough of the game actually. Probably shouldn't have given the first 3 levels away and gotten people to buy it off the bat for $9.99. For those of you comparing it to a DS/3DS/NES game, this game has far LESS levels and replay-ability than those games so I'm sorry you're wrong. It's not worth $9.99 either. $4.99 would have been more reasonable especially since you can easily power through the whole game in 2 hours.

It's not a BAD mobile game. But the constant running and not being able to go backwards aside from wall jumping (or passing through the "wall" and coming out the other side on later levels) make it an irritating endeavor.

I won't be buying it, not for $9.99, maybe if it goes on sale in the future.
But it's honestly not worth the asking price IMO and I've had most of Mario games released since the original NES.

Would you say it's got 1/5 of the value of a New Super Mario Bros. title? I would, and it's priced accordingly. I just don't see $9.99 for this as being a big deal, especially when virtual console games are priced similarly.

 

[jahall05]

For the polish of this game I think $9.99 is fair.

Also, the fact it lets you play the first 3 levels is good because if you don't like it then you didn't pay anything into it.

The internet connection requirement is annoying, but how many people don't have their phone always connected to wifi or LTE/4G?

 

[MrXiro]

You can go backwards. They created a bubble that moves back throughout the track to return to areas that you missed coins and items.

To your other point. Yes you can beat the "levels" in a couple hours but collecting all 360 colored coins takes a lot longer than that. I've put at least 10 hours into the game thus far and have 180/360 coins and they are only getting more difficult.

I understand... I've played the 3 levels a ton over the weekend... but it gets old fast after you play through all 24 levels. It's not like the 99 cent Angry Birds where 6 years later I still get new levels to play. The bubble thing works but isn't a great solution. I wish that it just let you swipe "back" to run backwards... I think Rayman let you do that.

And like I said. It's not a bad game... just not worth the MSRP and this is my opinion... I'd rather spend $40 playing Fire Emblem for 3 years (I'm still on the last 3DS one) than $10 on SMR, which would get old after a week or 2. I don't forsee them adding levels either.

 

[BritishApple]

Oh and one other suggestion.

Remove the auto vault over enemies. It's a simple game that doesn't need simplied further.

To get past enemies we either jump over them or on top of them. The fact Mario can run into them and just vault over them with zero collision detection or harm to the player is poor.

 

[Sasparilla]

For $4.99 I would probably buy it. But $10 is too high and the connection requirement. JMHO..

...
3) This one is minor - but it would make sure the game is playable in the future, when the isn't an Apple Store to connect to to "restore purchases".
....?

For #3, from what I understand all iOS applications as well OS X applications that go through the App Store have certificates with expiring dates on them (really) and eventually anything you buy through the App Store will time bomb. Would not be surprised if this is the same way over on the Microsoft one as well as Google (but I don't know).

I remember when iOS 7 was released (all the lickable icons of 6 were gone) and I kept my iPhone 5 running 6 because I liked it. Facetime just stopped working a couple of months afterwards, not because of any technical change, but because the software certificate associated with it expired. Was told the rest of the apps in the OS would eventually all succumb as well.

 

[budselectjr]

Who did not see this coming?

 

[Xavier]

Has anyone seen Mario Run as the stepping stone for Nintendo to enter the mobile phone market and potentially create an even better Mario or other game in the future? I don't think there is any doubting that with over 53,000 reviews, the game was downloaded a lot and shows Nintendo that they could do well in this arena.

That said, I didn't purchase the game and don't plan to. It is kinda boring in comparison to other Mario games.

 

[Paradoxally]

For the polish of this game I think $9.99 is fair.

Also, the fact it lets you play the first 3 levels is good because if you don't like it then you didn't pay anything into it.

The internet connection requirement is annoying, but how many people don't have their phone always connected to wifi or LTE/4G?

A lot of people. 4G/LTE isn't available everywhere.

 

[dan9700]

Stupid game controls are lame auto run and jumps automatically so boring

 

[pat500000]

It's the typical internet controversy: the less sense it makes, the better…and especially so if it involves Apple.

 

[patohi]

The stock is oversold!
The game is still at the top of the charts in most countries!

The game is well done for what it is.
The use of action blocks does add a whole new level of control. And the game feels well polished especially for that 200mb size.

9.99 seems fine for the amount of gameplay you can get out of it. And this is a MARIO game and the one time 9.99 works best in my opinion.

Everyone is forgetting that there are 2 more games being released probably in the next 6 months. Animal crossing and fire emblem. I can see those games perfect for in app purchases if that's what people really want...

 

[Markgnyc2]

Here is how I judge the game...my kids, ages 11, 6 and 5, absolutely love the game. And so do I. Well worth the $10. The only problem is the internet connection requirement. My 5 year old wanted to play on an ipad in the car, and unless I connect the ipad via hotspot, he can't play. That is really the only issue with the game.

 

[patohi]

If the game was a little longer with more content, i think the $10 price would had ben fair but for $10 you can buy Mario maker - used or even super mario wii u + luigi and take days if not months to finish and enjoy it a little more.. Not internet required of then owning a Wii U console, of course....

$10 for MARIO Maker doesn't exist. Only in your imagination apparently.

 

[b0nd18t]

Nintendo being whipped over not gouging their customers with the crappy freemium model is so insane to me

 

[SuperKerem]

For $4.99 I would probably buy it. But $10 is too high and the connection requirement. JMHO..



For #3, from what I understand all iOS applications as well OS X applications that go through the App Store have certificates with expiring dates on them (really) and eventually anything you buy through the App Store will time bomb. Would not be surprised if this is the same way over on the Microsoft one as well as Google (but I don't know).

I remember when iOS 7 was released (all the lickable icons of 6 were gone) and I kept my iPhone 5 running 6 because I liked it. Facetime just stopped working a couple of months afterwards, not because of any technical change, but because the software certificate associated with it expired. Was told the rest of the apps in the OS would eventually all succumb as well.

App Store applications do not expire. The server-side connection is what can prevent an app from functioning (i.e. an old version of the Facebook app itself loads fine but is too outdated to connect to the modern Facebook server and is therefore useless). Offline apps will never stop working or lose functionality.

We know this is the case because if you back up an App Store application (therefore, signed by Apple) to your computer via iTunes, you are able to restore it regardless of whether that app has since been removed from the App Store, with no need for an Internet connection/any further verification of date and time.