Super Mario Run Sets App Store Record With 40 Million Downloads as New Game Mode Rolls Out

[Substance90]

It also probably has a record number of uninstalls There's just not enough content to justify the price.
[doublepost=1482397968][/doublepost]

How often do you find yourself with no internet connection on your iPhone? Either cellular or on wifi?

Every day during my commute to work. As the train moves between villages and cities, I lose connectivity all the time because Germany is essentially flat. The signal can't reach you if you're not in a city.

 

[attila]

"Nintendo has since released official download figures for Super Mario Run and claims that 40 million people have downloaded the free version of the game in just four days."

Guilty as charged. I also deleted it within just four days because I can't play it on the tube anyway.

 

[macossupreme]

All insanity! This game is great and guess what? Things cost money. I know its a shock to generation snowflake. Unless we are talking about green leafy substances in which case they know full well that good things cost money but fail to apply the lesson to life. I guess Mr. Mackey is right.

 

[sk1wbw]

No record of uninstalls after a minute?

 

[ftaok]

I must be missing it because the first post actually backs up my thoughts and no sales figures are presented. I admittedly skimmed through it though.

I'm not sure how anything could back up your thoughts. You can't know whether Nintendo would garner more revenue with your $3/$3 pricing idea vs. the actual $10 IAP.

Anyways, no one really knows anything yet. All we know is that Nintendo announced 40 million downloads in 4 days.

The original post quoted the findings of an App Analyst (SensorTower) who estimated 25 million downloads in 4 days at approximately an 8% conversion rate, for 2.1 million paid downloads.

If the 8% conversion rate is correct, then Nintendo's revenue would actually be $32 million.

At your $3/$3 pricing, I would surmise that they'd garner less ... but it's just my thoughts and I can't prove it. But this is how I'm thinking.

The LaraCroft Go app, which is a paid app has seen 280,000 downloads since August 2015. I ran a quick spreadsheet and even if MarioRun had 4x that number at the $3 initial download price, and then a 50% conversion for buying the additional levels at $3, that would only be $5 million in revenue. Plus, a lot few people would be able or willing to enjoy the app as it's not a free download.

 

[Black Magic]

I'm not sure how anything could back up your thoughts. You can't know whether Nintendo would garner more revenue with your $3/$3 pricing idea vs. the actual $10 IAP.

Anyways, no one really knows anything yet. All we know is that Nintendo announced 40 million downloads in 4 days.

The original post quoted the findings of an App Analyst (SensorTower) who estimated 25 million downloads in 4 days at approximately an 8% conversion rate, for 2.1 million paid downloads.

If the 8% conversion rate is correct, then Nintendo's revenue would actually be $32 million.

At your $3/$3 pricing, I would surmise that they'd garner less ... but it's just my thoughts and I can't prove it. But this is how I'm thinking.

The LaraCroft Go app, which is a paid app has seen 280,000 downloads since August 2015. I ran a quick spreadsheet and even if MarioRun had 4x that number at the $3 initial download price, and then a 50% conversion for buying the additional levels at $3, that would only be $5 million in revenue. Plus, a lot few people would be able or willing to enjoy the app as it's not a free download.

Well the point you are missing is the 8 percent conversion rate on the 40 million downloads. Is it possible that if there were no free download and the price was $2.99, there would have been more money made? The additional content would have drove the number higher.

 

[neoelectronaut]

Well deserved. I already have 20 hours clocked in the game and I'm not even halfway through.

 

[handsome pete]

Things cost money.

They do. And there's nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions on if a cost is justified. No one said it should be free.

 

[SPUY767]

Yes!

40 million downloads * $10 = $400 million

4 billion downloads * $0 = $0

I never said they should make it free, and they were actually converting less than 10% of the sales at 10$. Meaning that 22.5M or more of the people who downloaded it, did not pay to get the whole game. So really your math should be something like...

2.5 million downloads * $10 = $25 million
10 million downloads * $4 = $40 million
[doublepost=1482422011][/doublepost]

They do. And there's nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions on if a cost is justified. No one said it should be free.

Thank you. Everyone in this thread seems to think that I'm suggesting that Nintendo should have made a freemium game out of this which is absolutely not what I'm saying. I just think that they should have done a little better market research and priced the game at the intersection of cost and demand.

 

[dennysanders]

I dunno, it's the other poster who is telling me it cost him $30. I'm taking him at his word but I guess I don't know that he's telling the truth.

lol you said "i always knew family sharing was a scam." what made you say that? that's all i wanted to know.

 

[ftaok]

Well the point you are missing is the 8 percent conversion rate on the 40 million downloads. Is it possible that if there were no free download and the price was $2.99, there would have been more money made? The additional content would have drove the number higher.

Obviously, this is all speculation, but it's highly unlikely that an app that has a $3 up front cost could ever garner enough purchases to garner $21 million in revenues in 4 days.

I ran the numbers at your $3/$3 price point example. They would need 5,000,000 downloads at $3 a pop, plus half of those people opting for the $3 expansion pack to get $22,500,000 in revenue. Could that happen, sure. But I think it's highly unlikely, even for Mario.

Case in point. Based on information in the original post, LaraCroftGo has only had 280,000 downloads total in a year. Sure, Mario is much more popular, but is he 1700% more popular than her?

Again, this is all speculation, so none of it can be proven. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Black Magic]

Obviously, this is all speculation, but it's highly unlikely that an app that has a $3 up front cost could ever garner enough purchases to garner $21 million in revenues in 4 days.

I ran the numbers at your $3/$3 price point example. They would need 5,000,000 downloads at $3 a pop, plus half of those people opting for the $3 expansion pack to get $22,500,000 in revenue. Could that happen, sure. But I think it's highly unlikely, even for Mario.

Case in point. Based on information in the original post, LaraCroftGo has only had 280,000 downloads total in a year. Sure, Mario is much more popular, but is he 1700% more popular than her?

Again, this is all speculation, so none of it can be proven. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

If just 15 Million folks bought the game @ $3, that is $45 million. Considering 40 million folks downloaded the game, I believe $45 million is an attainable goal. I'm not counting the Apple cut to keep it simple.

I guess we agree to disagree. The first post touched on what I was saying as well.

 

[ftaok]

If just 15 Million folks bought the game @ $3, that is $45 million. Considering 40 million folks downloaded the game, I believe $45 million is an attainable goal. I'm not counting the Apple cut to keep it simple.

I guess we agree to disagree. The first post touched on what I was saying as well.

My point is that it's totally unlikely that 15 million would download with an upfront cost of $3. The original post wasn't suggesting that a lower upfront cost would drive sales. They were implying that a lower IAP cost would drive conversions higher than the 8% they were seeing.

I went back to read their other posts on the subject and their original estimates (before the app dropped onto the store) was for 50 million downloads and $71 million in revenue for the first month. They based that on a conversion rate of 14% (not sure their methodology). So when their actual measured conversion rate came in at 8%, they characterized the game as "disappointing" from a revenue point of view.

So here's the rub, Nintendo actually got 40 million downloads in 4 days. If the 8% conversion is correct and sustainable, then all they would need is 89 million downloads to meet the analyst's estimate of $71 million.

 

[designjb]

The biggest problem with this launch was the lack of management of user expectations. The potential end-user expected one type of game but Nintendo delivered something slightly "off-kilter" from what most people had anticipated. Some people expected "free to play," others (including myself) expected more of a true Mario experience including the ability to move backward to recollect missed coins, the ability to play offline (MAJOR oversight, btw), etc.

It's obvious that the quality of the game is top notch (and pretty Mario-like, imo), however, what was delivered was really not what was marketed. When marketing doesn't equal what the end result is, then sales suffer. Ultimately, what we got was a Mario-like side-scrolling "runner" with a few added extras for 10 bucks. Not worth it, imo, especially when there are so many other runner type games out there for free. Had this release been a port of the original Mario or something very, very similar, then the end result for Nintendo might've been different. I'm sure that they'll do well with this game, but sales won't be what the stockholders expected, thus the $11 drop in price of each Nintendo share as of this week.

Let's face it, the marketing for this particular game built up the most hype I've EVER seen for an Apple App Store release. Nintendo delivered a good game, but not a killer app game like many people were expecting.

 

[dennysanders]

The biggest problem with this launch was the lack of management of user expectations. The potential end-user expected one type of game but Nintendo delivered something slightly "off-kilter" from what most people had anticipated.

i thought they made it very clear what the game was all about. i wasn't surprised by anything.

 

[OliverFoggin]

i thought they made it very clear what the game was all about. i wasn't surprised by anything.

I knew pretty much exactly what I was downloading when I got it. The marketing, the videos, the appearances on TV. All told me exactly what it was. Including the in app purchase.

I don't think I've really done any more searching than the average person.

I'm puzzled as to where any confusion might have come from.

 

[Small White Car]

lol you said "i always knew family sharing was a scam." what made you say that? that's all i wanted to know.

Because I paid $10 and my whole family gets to play it for that price.

The other poster claims he had to pay $30 because he's on family sharing.

Thus, I concluded that the only reason family sharing exists is to milk more money out of people by preventing them from sharing apps, the way I currently do.

Calling something "family sharing" when the point is to prevent sharing = Scam

 

[dennysanders]

well i screwed that one up. how do you delete a message????

 

[mi7chy]

This is more like temple run. The original Mario Bros is more entertaining (arcade, Apple II, Commodore 64 and Nintendo versions).

 

[wigby]

I am not sure I agree.

NES Zelda 2, Metroid and TMNT, they were 2D platformers that required left and right movement. All three of those games are better than any Mario game imo.

There are other platform games that went left too.

Zelda is isometric or overhead, not a platformer so it requires left/right/up/down. Either way, it's hard to compare any of those games you played on a TV with a dedicated controller to a one handed, small touchscreen experience. I like both casual and more complex games but I like those on their respective platforms.

 

[ftaok]

Zelda is isometric or overhead, not a platformer so it requires left/right/up/down. Either way, it's hard to compare any of those games you played on a TV with a dedicated controller to a one handed, small touchscreen experience. I like both casual and more complex games but I like those on their respective platforms.

He said Zelda 2, which is a side scrolling platform game

 

[imlovinit]

eh I downloaded, paid for the game and actually quite enjoy it. I'm not a huge gamer, I just enjoy the simplicity & nostalgia this game brings while I have some down time here and there. $10 isn't a bad price but I agree with others it should be available for play offline. Other than that, its really not a bad game.

 

[smoledman]

Installed. Played for 2 minutes and uninstalled. Garbage app.

 

[Juicy Box]

Zelda is isometric or overhead, not a platformer so it requires left/right/up/down.

I said Zelda 2: Adventure of Link. Probably my favorite Zelda game. At least for me, it was also the hardest.

Either way, it's hard to compare any of those games you played on a TV with a dedicated controller to a one handed, small touchscreen experience. I like both casual and more complex games but I like those on their respective platforms.

I agree with you, I too think that playing these games on an iOS device would probably not be enjoyable, unless using some type of controller. On screen controls for games like this might not work well.

I played the NES Ducktails port on the iOS, and it was pretty impressive. But, the controls were very hard to get used to, and even as I beat the game, it never felt as accurate or controlled as playing on the NES controller.

But, the reason I posted examples of left scrolling platform games was because of this post:

I neve really understood running left on any Mario games. They should only be about getting as many coins as fast as you can. Don't you think that makes them more challenging anyway? As soon as you can run back left, you're trying to create some kind of exploratory game out of a 2D platformer. Makes no sense.

Games like Metroid, Zelda 2, TMNT are exploratory platform games, and they make sense, at least to me. I think they would be difficult to play with on screen controls though.

It would be better if there was tvOS versions.

 

[MarLop]

One great first week but a hard first month

Source