I would've happily paid for a $10 upfront cost(Not in-app purchase, though it's not *that* huge of a deal) with offline play. How it's currently setup is the exact way to NOT get me to pay.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Super Mario Run' Survey Asks Players How Much Game Should Cost And If They Would Play a Sequel
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would've happily paid for a $10 upfront cost(Not in-app purchase, though it's not *that* huge of a deal) with offline play. How it's currently setup is the exact way to NOT get me to pay.
$10 for an iPhone game is bold, and I want to encourage this kind of boldness.
Having said that:
Having said that:
- people may be turned off from this price tag. Maybe $6-$8 would've been more appropriate. Hard to say.
- I don't think it's that good a game. I far prefer, for instance, Tiny Wings. The Mario brand alone doesn't justify the price tag; it also needs to be good.
- The experience is further (and needlessly) marred by ******** like a required always-on Internet connection (way to ruin the game for commuters, Nintendo!), friend codes, etc. These combined don't make it feel like much of an iOS game. They should've put more thought into taking advantage of GameKit, etc.
Get rid of the online requirement and I'd pay $10. I've paid $20 for Final Fantasy games on iOS -- it's not the price, for me it's the always online, plus the annoying "can't go backwards endless runner" gameplay style that doesn't appeal to me.
Classic SNES-style Super Mario? I'd go $20 even. Meanwhile, Raspberry Pi (RetroPie emulator) will have to do.
Classic SNES-style Super Mario? I'd go $20 even. Meanwhile, Raspberry Pi (RetroPie emulator) will have to do.
I was expecting the game to be around $3.99 - $4.99. Also, the upfront price would've been much clearer to me. I hate IAP.
Would gladly pay $10 for hours of entertainment. Sadly most people are far too cheap. They don't realize that it takes countless hours of work for developers to create a quality product.
You want quality apps but don't want to pay for them. Then you wonder why there aren't more of them available. Most here wouldn't work for pennies, why should developers.
You want quality apps but don't want to pay for them. Then you wonder why there aren't more of them available. Most here wouldn't work for pennies, why should developers.
It would be if it were any good. For a 1 tap game on rails!?
I think its a great game and excellent value for money. I've had hours of fun with it so far! As someone who plays on consoles, £8 is a bargain for a game of this quality.
I think the issue stems from the App Store, when people are used to paying little to nothing for games/apps they will always complain when something costs a bit more!
I think the issue stems from the App Store, when people are used to paying little to nothing for games/apps they will always complain when something costs a bit more!
would easily fork out another 10 euro for the same amount of content.
There is however something i dont like and thats the random factor of races. if you get a star out of the ? boxes, you win. If you dont, you usually lose. I dont like competitive games to be random...
But still fun to play.
There is however something i dont like and thats the random factor of races. if you get a star out of the ? boxes, you win. If you dont, you usually lose. I dont like competitive games to be random...
But still fun to play.
Exactly. It's a typical iOS game with Mario in it. $5 with family sharing enabled and offline availability would be reasonable given the polish that this game has.
As others have said, I would pay $40 for a full Mario game on iOS. Since that's not going to happen, I'll just get my Mario fix on the 3DS and eventually Switch.
$10 for 40+ hours of content is worth every penny, IMHO.
$10 for a iOS game which has no further in-app purchases, ads, or in-game "wait to play" times is practically priceless.
In 1986 you had a controller with a proper directional pad and buttons, something the iPhone lacks.
Besides, Nintendo wants you to buy their hardware for "actual" Mario games. This is just a taste.
To be fair, that's what Nintendo wants in the end anyway.
$10 for a iOS game which has no further in-app purchases, ads, or in-game "wait to play" times is practically priceless.
In 1986 you had a controller with a proper directional pad and buttons, something the iPhone lacks.
Besides, Nintendo wants you to buy their hardware for "actual" Mario games. This is just a taste.
To be fair, that's what Nintendo wants in the end anyway.
Last edited:
Lack of integration with family sharing is most annoying to me. IAPs aren't setup to be shared. Not sure if this was one of the reasons that Nintendo chose this route or not.
If they didn't want it to be shared among immediate family members then $10 is too high. I did the work around but so annoying.
If they didn't care if the game was shared between parents and kids then it's a fault of Apple's infrastructure that it doesn't allow what we called shareware back in the day.
What Nintendo is doing is nothing that wasn't done 20 years ago when we had shareware which later turned into demos and now trials.
If they didn't want it to be shared among immediate family members then $10 is too high. I did the work around but so annoying.
If they didn't care if the game was shared between parents and kids then it's a fault of Apple's infrastructure that it doesn't allow what we called shareware back in the day.
What Nintendo is doing is nothing that wasn't done 20 years ago when we had shareware which later turned into demos and now trials.
Last edited:
I think it was fine and worth the $10, if you like that kind of Mario game. I also think this is a good example of IAP, you pay it once, you get all the stuff, and it's not a consumable of any kind. I definitely don't mind paying for levels or more content, if I choose to.
For me, the consumables IAP psychology stuff for "games" that aren't even fun have ruined the app store, and everyone wanting everything for free. I find it really amusing that software developers that I know are happy to pay $10 for a really overpriced, terrible lunch in SF and not even bat an eye, but pause at paying $10 for a game that's well polished and clearly took some effort to build. And these are people who know how hard that actually is to do!
For me, the consumables IAP psychology stuff for "games" that aren't even fun have ruined the app store, and everyone wanting everything for free. I find it really amusing that software developers that I know are happy to pay $10 for a really overpriced, terrible lunch in SF and not even bat an eye, but pause at paying $10 for a game that's well polished and clearly took some effort to build. And these are people who know how hard that actually is to do!
I think $10 was reasonable. It's a fun game with a lot of depth that becomes apparent after playing a while. I'm not bothered by the online requirement, but i understand why others are.
I drastically prefer $10 up front to get a full game that doesn't spam you with IAP. Apparently that's not what the market wants though.
I drastically prefer $10 up front to get a full game that doesn't spam you with IAP. Apparently that's not what the market wants though.
Wonder how much the Mac/MacBook Pro would cost if Apple did a similar survey......
Nintendo recently began sending email surveys to a few Super Mario Run players who linked the iOS game with their My Nintendo account, MacRumors has learned.
The 10-minute long survey asks basic questions pertaining to how users found out about the game, what modes they liked, and how much they are willing to pay for a game like Super Mario Run. The survey fluctuates between multiple choice and written answers.
The survey's construction and questions are similar to the ones Nintendo used to give out to Club Nintendo users so they could receive points to spend on exclusive merchandise from the company. Now, it appears Nintendo is aiming to discover for itself what players think of Super Mario Run, following a week of press that mostly centered around the opinion that $9.99 is too high a price for the amount of content presented within the game.
With the new survey, players can now give Nintendo their own thoughts on the matter. One of the questions even asks if users would play a sequel to Super Mario Run "if one was released in the future." As of now, Nintendo is supposed to be gearing up to announce more information on the launch of Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem for iOS, both said to debut before March 2017 if the company's original plan from 2015 remains intact.
The negative reactions to the pricing structure and online requirements of Super Mario Run have gone so far as to cause Nintendo's stock to lower earlier this week, with players rating the game a 2.5/5 on average on the App Store. Although news has been scarce, in May it was reported that Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem would adopt the free-to-play model, with users able to purchase in-game items and boosts of some kind after downloading at no cost.
Miitomo -- Nintendo's first true iOS game -- was free-to-play, but the user base slacked off precipitously after launch, with data suggesting "users didn't really get" the game and its basic, social network inspired gameplay loop.
Super Mario Run [Direct Link] got its first update this week, introducing a new "Friendly Run" mode where players can compete against ghosts of friends and family members, with the caveat that no coins or Toads can be collected during each run. There's also a few new holiday-themed items in the Kingdom Builder shop.
(Thanks, Dan!)
Article Link: 'Super Mario Run' Survey Asks Players How Much Game Should Cost And If They Would Play a Sequel
Online only is definitely a no go for me or my family.
There are just too many situations where there is no wifi or 3g around. Ten dollars isn't a lot for a game but the constant connect is a definite turnoff.
Why this release sucks:
Make it 2.99 and remove always online and you got a deal
We understand that you want to make profits and avoid pirating, but y'all would probably make more money selling the game for cheaper and allowing offline play. Sure there would be pirates but you'd sell a higher volume and the result would be more money.
- Nintendo is bullying customers with it's brand name to inflate the price (just like Apple)
- Always connected is awful, but despite that it uses a lot of data.
- Game it's OKAY at best.
Make it 2.99 and remove always online and you got a deal
We understand that you want to make profits and avoid pirating, but y'all would probably make more money selling the game for cheaper and allowing offline play. Sure there would be pirates but you'd sell a higher volume and the result would be more money.
I answered them honestly and felt $5 was fair. Though for level packs maybe the lower amount is fairer, at $10, i rather it been the upfront cost so i can use it with my family and other devices on my account.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
Normally I'd agree, but this is one of the only times that I thought IAP was implemented very well. You can play three worlds, so you get an idea whether or not you like it. Then it's a one-time purchase if you want the full game. If more games were like this, I'd buy more games.
The need to always be connected is what the problem is for me. For too many people, there are too many times (commuting, traveling, bad signal) where you can't play the game even if you pay full price just because of this.
The vast majority will answer "Free" or 99 cents. And in that case, Nintendo won't take the results of survey seriously.
Actually, IAP is the reason I haven't bought it yet.
Family sharing doesn't work with IAP. So for my wife and I to use it, it would cost $20. Too much.
Maybe games need a "like the demo, here is a one time purchase" feature that provides family sharing etc just like up front. I hate IAP with all its coins and various ways of nickel and diming. I do not let my kids purchase them.
Apple-centric website but Nintendo ought to stick with a simultaneous release for iOS and Android. The kind of spotlight Apple gave them was too good to walk away from so I can't blame them.
Can't agree more. Upfront pricing that includes all updates is better than the paywall that ends up being worse. Online only is ridiculous, but ninetendo is very pro anti-piracy. I doubt that'll change.