Maybe. Maybe not. If Nintendo were at the mercy of Google, their capability to iterate on their classic franchises could potentially be diminished. People look forward to the new Mario Kart, 3D Mario, Zelda, and such in part due to the promise of enhanced graphics. I am not familiar with the APIs used in Android programming, but I see many more games that feature lowest common denominator graphics than those that push technical boundaries.
Google imposes no limits. Furthermore, N. would (should!) likely use a middleware like Unity or Unreal Engine. Lowest common denominator is simply an easy way to target the huge range of devices. Nintendo would presumably go that route because it fits with their ethos. They don't care for the most powerful hardware, only that which gets the job done.
Nintendo would have to decide what their baseline device is and accept that users with devices below that baseline will play the game with a crappy framerate. Or not at all?
Their choice, but they don't need to worry about it, and certainly don't need to stick to hardware just to ensure a small niche gets 60 fps games. Consumers know they have the option to buy a better phone and play games better. Just pick a target that provides the experience you want (30 fps? 60 fps?) with the market size you want (100 million devices or 500 million) and stick with it.
There's also still the issue of controls and potential restrictions there.
Yep, but I trust Nintendo above all developers to use mobiles effectively. They'll have access to touch, multitouch, tilt, cameras, and all sorts of toys. Seems well suited as a HW platform for their willingness to play and innovate interfaces.
That's looking at it the wrong way. Are the n million users who'd pay $40 for a Nintendo game. Yes. Would those people suddenly be unwilling to pay exactly the same amount of money for the same game on an Android device? Why? Doesn't make sense. If Nintendo announced that they were only going to release on Android, why would everyone who wants to play Layton and Kirby et al suddenly decide those games are now only worth $2?
I doubt $40 would be particularly acceptable, but Nintendo could charge more like $20 and still make a good profit as the margins are large, and selling ot potentially 10x the audience means lots more money. SE is releasing games above $10 for example. It's where the industry has to be headed, because A-AAA titles are unsustainable in the present mobile space.
Race to the bottom pricing has absolutely devalued apps in the eyes of consumers. No, it may not make rational sense, but it is the unfortunate reality of the market that simply by being on mobile, the same software will be perceived as worth far less than on other platforms. I doubt that most Nintendo fans are somehow immune to this effect.
You appear to acknowledge this by doubting the acceptance of $40 apps, which are rare unicorns indeed after the early overoptimism of $50 asking prices. The current mobile market for paid games at all is a toxic crapshoot, particularly on Android. Even Square-Enix's relatively premium pricing only supports cheap ports and low-budget, low-content reinvestments. AAA may be unsustainable on traditional handhelds, but it is DOA with an audience that is cementing its conviction that "all games should be free".
That's why Nintendo should not simply start developing for mobile. Its a whored up market, and the shovel ware devalues everything else despite its poor quality. The majority of Nintendo's IP's still need a traditional controller to play well. Nintendo could certainly come up with plenty of mobile exclusive ideas if they were so inclined, but simply moving their IP's to mobile currently is not a good idea. That doesn't mean Nintendo cant opt to use the Android OS, allowing users to download from the Android store, while keeping Nintendo software completing separate.
The only thing worse than Nintendo trying to compete with Sony and MS again on power while trying to court the hardcore gamer would be them going mobile only.
Even $20 games would be laughed at by the smartphone / tablet market who are now conditioned on 99c and F2P mobile games. People do realise that for Mario Kart 9 to bring in the same revenues as MK8 at let's say $10 a pop (still incredibly pricey on mobile) it would have to sell in the region of 6 million copies and there is nothing other than pure speculation and guesswork to say that the mobile market would be interested in playing a MK game, nevermind a MK game using touch screen controls.
People might buy it, be offended by those touch screen controls and never again go near the franchise. Congratulations, you have now poisoned Nintendo's biggest franchise.
And all of that is ignoring Nintendo's extremely high standards when it comes to consumer experience with regards to the vastly different hardware specs of phones / tablets which would make getting on par performance a nightmare without going back to N64 level visuals and the terrible controls offered by mobile for 95% of their games (outside of Wario Ware I can't think of many Nintendo franchises that would suite touch screen controls).
If Nintendo want to get into mobile and the possible untold riches that reside there then they should start extremely small with a couple of tiny teams porting some of their most famous older NES / SNES games to the platform. If those sell well they should dedicate more development staff to create original mobile content with simple graphics / controls to suit the platform.
It's a far, far better option than going third party or mobile only. WiiU is a disaster but look back at Nintendo's financial reports and over half of their income since they got into the videogame industry has come from hardware.
Nintendo could totally charge a premium in the mobile market. The quality of their games is levels beyond the drivel that encompasses the Android games market. Their games offer good gameplay and high replayability adding value. I know the general disposition of the mobile market is free and cheap apps, but Nintendo has the games and brand recognition to overcome that. I think they could comfortably charge $20 for their games at release. I'd buy their games for my phone at that price. They could even release their own controller add-on to solve the button and d-pad problem.
It might not be the best option Nintendo has, but definitely an option worth looking into. I see little downside to it as their sales are waning and it looks like their days are numbered in the console market. Going mobile gives them access to hundreds of millions of potential customers, which is a shit ton more than they have now. They needn't go full guns a blazing releasing 5 Mario games and a Zelda to start out. They can dive in slowly by releasing a serious Pokemon game and watch their bank account grow.
As far as consoles are concerned I wouldn't mind them doing the smart thing and going 3rd party there as well. If they were able to retain the quality of their games then their games would likely sell far higher amounts than we've seen with the Wii U. If MS or Sony were able to gain exclusivity it would be a major trump and possibly a game changer. I believe the market would forgive Nintendo quickly for the transition and embrace them.
The primary thing Nintendo cannot do is continue down the destructive path they're on. The market is clearly not accepting a console on par with the ancient PS360. It's time to move on to more powerful hardware and release their stellar games on that platform, or go 3rd party and release their stellar games on those platforms.
...and there is nothing other than pure speculation and guesswork to say that the mobile market would be interested in playing a MK game, nevermind a MK game using touch screen controls.
Wrong assessment. The mobile market isn't a demographic with particular buying tastes - it's everyone. It's like TV. The mobile market covers countless millions of casual taptapstic gamers who won't pay a penny for games, but it also covers 100+ million core gamers who value good games. Every person who valued Nintendo games on a handheld who also owns a mobile phone is going to value Nintendo games on a mobile phone to the same degree (if they only liked Tetris, they won't be big consumers, but if they paid $40 for Paper Mario on 3DS, they'll pay $30
reduced price for digital distribution
for a new PM on mobile). Is there going to be price resistance of mobile? Yes, due to limited human psychology. But it is going to fade away. Mobile is on an accelerated schedule, reproducing the development of video games since the 8 bit era. I used to buy £2 Spectrum games as my core game experience. They were short and had limited content due to technical limits. As computing grew, the games grew and their price grew as was necessary. But people still bought them because they provided the experience they wanted at a price they were willing to pay. The reaosn people pay $60 for a console game is because it is worth that to them. A game worth $60 on mobile will still be bought, eventually, once people get used to not comparing games in relative terms to the rest of the market and instead start valuing them for what they are. Which core gamers are already pretty well capable of doing, I'd wager.
People might buy it, be offended by those touch screen controls and never again go near the franchise.
If Nintendo release MK as a carbon copy with naffy touch controls that doesn't work very well, then more fool them. But that also shows you doubt Nintendo's ability to adapt to the platform. In Wii games they didn't just add waggle on top of a conventional game. They designed a game to fit Wii. Same with DS. Same with mobile - they'll make games that fit the platform perfectly. MKMobile might be a top-down racer or tilt based or something, but whatever Nintendo released, you'd know it would play fantastically because they only release games that play fantastically.
If Nintendo want to get into mobile and the possible untold riches that reside there then they should start extremely small with a couple of tiny teams porting some of their most famous older NES / SNES games to the platform. If those sell well...
A game with crap graphics and shoe-horned gameplay that everyone's played before across 4 generations of Nintendo hardware and countless free emulators should be the litmus test as to whether mobile gaming wants Nintendo's best efforts on mobile or not?
Mobile games business is all about user acquisition.
Right now IAP is so dominate that the only way to make money is to create some carrot on a stick F2P game (within a few established genres) and spend tens of thousands a day on UA. Like I said previously, consumer confidence for premium game software is low, F2P is almost 100% expected from consumers because of the sheer amount of garbage. Its a totally different animal.
I don't even know where to start to knock some sense into people who think controller add-ons are going to do jack shit.
Look... Mobile throwaway hardware exists to be general mobile content consumption devices. It doesn't make sense to add cost just to include features to make them into better gaming devices never mind any kind of universal adoption of a standard for gaming input.
See my post above. Just because that's where current mobile developers target doesn't mean there's no other market possible and common sense tells us it does. There are tens if not hundreds of millions of core gamers all with mobile phones. The fact they aren't being catered to in the mobile space is not proof that they don't exist and the market with a billion devices has only one modus operandi defining all products and services available on it. eg. I've spent £7 on Photoshop Touch. It's very limited and I'd easily pay way more for a fuller-featured photo editing app but they don't give me that option. The lack of a £30 Photoshop app on the store is not proof that there's no market for one as long as it provides that value.
For those that think Nintendo should actively pursue mobile gaming, which I have no issue with, I think Nintendo would very capable of creating compelling games even with the limitations mobile currently presents, but what about the games like Zelda, Metroid, and 3D Mario games that currently, the mobile market doesn't accommodate very well? I believe that one day it will be common for tablet/mobile gamers to have an HDMI cable and wireless controller to play games on their tv, but currently that is not commonplace. So Nintendo would still need a platform for their more ambitious projects. Where are you guys expecting Nintendo to move those franchises if they no longer have their own hardware?
I still don't see a reason why Nintendo cant develop a hybrid system that gives them a solid platform for both mobile and console experiences, even if they want to release some games in the Android market.
See my post above. Just because that's where current mobile developers target doesn't mean there's no other market possible and common sense tells us it does. There are tens if not hundreds of millions of core gamers all with mobile phones. The fact they aren't being catered to in the mobile space is not proof that they don't exist and the market with a billion devices has only one modus operandi defining all products and services available on it. eg. I've spent £7 on Photoshop Touch. It's very limited and I'd easily pay way more for a fuller-featured photo editing app but they don't give me that option. The lack of a £30 Photoshop app on the store is not proof that there's no market for one as long as it provides that value.
I don't disagree with you. Its a perfectly plausible argument. The question isn't can it happen, its how does it happen.
Android based phones are open platform making them cost attractive but fragmented to hell. Apple is the opposite and the could change policies to help support premium games. BUT.... phone manufacturers sell phones and tablets, where is the incentive? Its reeeeeeealy hard to foresee anything but the continued dominance of F2P behind the backing of the mega publishers.
If you are an indie developer there are far more lucrative platforms especially with changes to console business models and lax gated control allowing for self publishing. Next generation consoles are starved for content atm and I foresee many Independent successes on them in the near future.
I dont agree with the reasoning that just because you build it, they will come. I don't believe Nintendo is doomed and I don't believe Moble devices will gobble up all the "gamers" because there is a very sizable consumer base that wants premium content on platforms that offer good user experiences. And I dont see that changing anytime soon on throwaway mobile devices because there is no incentive for the manufactures and content platform owners to do so.
Progressively. I looked up Professor Layton on mobile. It's got rave reviews but also complaints from DS players that it's too short. Level 5 approached the platform cautiously with a small F2P game, failing to appreciate that every Layton fan with a mobile wanting a sequel is already comfortable paying full dollar for a full game. If they had the nerve to release a 5*, unique mobile experience in a sea of really basic games, at full price, would it really be shunned? I don't think so. I think the market is there as evidenced by every core gamer who slags off mobile gaming!
Android based phones are open platform making them cost attractive but fragmented to hell.
Middleware seems to deal nicely with that. You don't have to worry about different OS versions in a game. For apps using the system libraries it's a complete nightmare to really support all the features, but for games, you just fire up Unity or whatever and create your own UIs that don't care two hoots about the OS as long as the machine runs it. The only issues really are performance, for which you set your own baseline, and screen proportions which you need to approach smartly from the outset.
Apple is the opposite and the could change policies to help support premium games.
Why would their policies need to change? Also, a game doesn't have to be $30 up front. Episodic content can spread the cost. Just don't try hoodwinking core gamers with $3 in game consumables because we're not going to fall for it!
BUT.... phone manufacturers sell phones and tablets, where is the incentive? Its reeeeeeealy hard to foresee anything but the continued dominance of F2P behind the backing of the mega publishers.
Software development is independent of hardware. An indie could release a $999 game if they wanted - they just have to have the right product at the right price.
If you are an indie developer there are far more lucrative platform...
That depends on how well you do. My friend was at Sony's Devnet meets this week and was telling me that most developers give up on the indie process because of all the issues involved. A hit title on mobile (which could be 50k 'sales' as long as its suitably monetised) can potentially be a better ROI than a console game if you factor in headaches and stress. But ultimately I expect indies to target multiplatform anyway, which we're seeing a lot of.
...there is a very sizable consumer base that wants premium content on platforms that offer good user experiences.
I think Nintendo should honestly pay close attention to where Indies are finding the most success. If Indies are finding the majority of their revenue being made on consoles and PC's, with very little return from the mobile market, then perhaps that's a good indication of that market. There is no question that the mobile market is huge, but whats the percentage of people gaming there that are willing to pay $30+ for games? You could have 300 million mobile gamers, but the percentage of them that purchase games costing more than $5 may be incredibly low. I know that in its current state, I have no desire to play Nintendo games on a phone or tablet instead of a console or dedicated portable.
Wrong assessment. The mobile market isn't a demographic with particular buying tastes - it's everyone. It's like TV. The mobile market covers countless millions of casual taptapstic gamers who won't pay a penny for games, but it also covers 100+ million core gamers who value good games. Every person who valued Nintendo games on a handheld who also owns a mobile phone is going to value Nintendo games on a mobile phone to the same degree (if they only liked Tetris, they won't be big consumers, but if they paid $40 for Paper Mario on 3DS, they'll pay $30
reduced price for digital distribution
for a new PM on mobile). Is there going to be price resistance of mobile? Yes, due to limited human psychology. But it is going to fade away. Mobile is on an accelerated schedule, reproducing the development of video games since the 8 bit era. I used to buy £2 Spectrum games as my core game experience. They were short and had limited content due to technical limits. As computing grew, the games grew and their price grew as was necessary. But people still bought them because they provided the experience they wanted at a price they were willing to pay. The reaosn people pay $60 for a console game is because it is worth that to them. A game worth $60 on mobile will still be bought, eventually, once people get used to not comparing games in relative terms to the rest of the market and instead start valuing them for what they are. Which core gamers are already pretty well capable of doing, I'd wager.
What ? ! What evidence do you have that there are "100+ million core gamers" who buy premium paid for games on mobile ?. And even if there were, who is to say they would be interested in Nintendo games when they have so much choice of free and 99c games ?.
This argument is the same one when people talk about Nintendo releasing games for PS4 and Xbone, people think that their games would sell well on those platforms but until they release a game for them and we see sales it's all "if's, but's and maybe's". A large percentage of PS4/Xbone owners have zero interest in colorful platformers, adventure games, JRPG's or party games. AAA cinematic third person shooters, mp FPS's and sports games dominate the software sales on those platforms.
The biggest selling games on mobile are either Minecraft or F2P games. I have no idea why you think there are 1 million core gamers on mobile nevermind 100 million lol...
If Nintendo release MK as a carbon copy with naffy touch controls that doesn't work very well, then more fool them. But that also shows you doubt Nintendo's ability to adapt to the platform. In Wii games they didn't just add waggle on top of a conventional game. They designed a game to fit Wii. Same with DS. Same with mobile - they'll make games that fit the platform perfectly. MKMobile might be a top-down racer or tilt based or something, but whatever Nintendo released, you'd know it would play fantastically because they only release games that play fantastically.
But then it wouldn't be Mario Kart then would it and thus would lose much of it's appeal. I totally agree with you that if they built games for mobile from the ground up they could create some amazing games. Shoehorning older IP's esp ones that don't suite the control layout of mobile devices is madness though and a great way of destroying franchises they have worked 30 years to built.
Just so I understand your stance, are you seriously putting forward the notion that Nintendo should abandon both handheld and home console for mobile, abandon one of them for mobile or make mobile games on top of both of their consoles ?.
A game with crap graphics and shoe-horned gameplay that everyone's played before across 4 generations of Nintendo hardware and countless free emulators should be the litmus test as to whether mobile gaming wants Nintendo's best efforts on mobile or not?
Believe me, if Nintendo ported the original Mario Bros to iOS/Android and released it tomorrow for 99c with competent controls and decent marketing it would break sales records. I would put money on it being the biggest selling mobile games of all time apart from Minecraft after a few years.
The reason they don't do it is because Iwata believes it would devalue their franchises - "Why would consumers pay $60 for the next Mario game when they have just paid 99c for one" is the jist of his reasoning. Of course he is wrong, they pay $5-$10 for virtual console Mario games and still eat up the new ones at $60 but I do understand his concerns.
In short I think there is too much money to be made in the mobile market for Nintendo to ignore it much longer but I don't think for a second they should get out of the console market to go "all in" on mobile. If they want in to that market they should first do a couple of high quality ports of much older games to announce their arrival to the market and then make small teams to create unique, quirky, great Nintendo games that take advantage of the strengths of mobile devices.
80 million XB60s sold, 80 million PS3's sold, and the vast majority of owners and user who enjoy core games on those own a mobile device. 150 million DS's too. Edit: I'll throw in the runaway success of Minecraft too, which is very much a core game rather than a casual tapfest. It's just as popular on mobile as PC/console.
And even if there were, who is to say they would be interested in Nintendo games when they have so much choice of free and 99c games ?.
Common sense. If the consoles were to get free and 99c mobile-quality games, would the core gamers give up playing COD and Watch Dogs and Forza et al? No, because if they wanted those experiences they wouldn't bother buying a console. Why do they buy a console? Because they want games with quality and depth. This is supported by visiting core-gamer hangouts on the internet when it comes to discussing mobile games. They by-and-large are insulted by mobile gaming and micro-transactions. And in those same forums, you hear of gamers who are attracted to a Nintendo exclusive but are unwilling to buy a whole platform for a few exclusives. And you have a gaming press that loves Nintendo's games and, as platform agnostic core gamers, show good games are worth their money.
The counter argument, that you must be presenting, is that people who like computer games with depth are happy to play shallow tap-screen games when it comes to gaming-on-the-go, won't ever pay for games on mobile despite paying for games on other platforms, and that Nintendo's not competent enough at game design to be able to make great games on mobile/tablet that will appeal to that core gamer. Effectively that the core gamer becomes a different person with different interests when it comes to a handheld device.
Just so I understand your stance, are you seriously putting forward the notion that Nintendo should abandon both handheld and home console for mobile, abandon one of them for mobile or make mobile games on top of both of their consoles ?.
They should go cross-platform and make games for devices that sell.
The reason they don't do it is because Iwata believes it would devalue their franchises - "Why would consumers pay $60 for the next Mario game when they have just paid 99c for one" is the jist of his reasoning. Of course he is wrong, they pay $5-$10 for virtual console Mario games and still eat up the new ones at $60 but I do understand his concerns.
Yes. If you can make $5 billion a year off 99c apps versus $1 billion a year off $60 games, you should do it. And let's make note that Nintendo has lost money three years in a row, where they never used to. It's not as if they are making money form their hardware as is their strategy. No-one would argue that a few years of losses is reason to abandon the hardware market, but Nintendo's position is one more data point suggesting as much. They aren't making money from their hardware now, and it doesn't look like they will in the near future, and it doesn't look like they have a decent long-term strategy to turn things around either.
Why would their policies need to change? Also, a game doesn't have to be $30 up front. Episodic content can spread the cost. Just don't try hoodwinking core gamers with $3 in game consumables because we're not going to fall for it!
Because the freemium sandstorm doesn't do anything to help premium gaming. It drives away consumers who would interested in premium games, or as a mobile game developer told me "we are losing the "taste" in the market". Those people aren't being catered to so they go elsewhere and the developers who want to cater to those people aren't finding it lucrative enough. If all you have left interested in mobile gaming is the majority who like P2W crap then you can drive them to whatever as long as you have the UA money to do so. It really creates a helpless feeling to content creators.
There is plenty that could be done to since Apple and Google control their own proprietary markets, there just isn't any incentive to do so.
Which mobiles can provide, to a far larger audience than a proprietary box.
Since the discussion pertains to core gamers I am going to emphasize, "Good user experience". Once again, mobile devices aren't built for gaming and thus have limited input hardware leading to limited possible game designs. Adding controller support doesn't solve the issue because the games still have to be designed to the lowest common denominator or it will negate the gigantic customer base. The only way this changes is if there is backing from the platform holders, and they have no incentive to do so.
Having a large audience means nothing if that audience isn't interested in premium games on throwaway mobile devices.
See my post above. Just because that's where current mobile developers target doesn't mean there's no other market possible and common sense tells us it does. There are tens if not hundreds of millions of core gamers all with mobile phones. The fact they aren't being catered to in the mobile space is not proof that they don't exist and the market with a billion devices has only one modus operandi defining all products and services available on it. eg. I've spent £7 on Photoshop Touch. It's very limited and I'd easily pay way more for a fuller-featured photo editing app but they don't give me that option. The lack of a £30 Photoshop app on the store is not proof that there's no market for one as long as it provides that value.
The PC market has been a bigger than the console,but the biggest $ is in the console, not in the PC.
The tablet/smartphone IS the new PC.
The mayor market is still the consoles/dedicated machines, and the problem of Nintendo is not the market change, but the slow adaptation .
They don't have to kind of portable game machine that the customer wants.
However they have a big asset,that has to be amortised to 0 , and if they jump from the existing platform to the mobile then they will have the cost, without the income.
And frankly, I can't see any business that make serious money from the smart phone space.Every market analysis that I saw put the market size around 10% of the overall gaming market.
If you have a different analysis please share it.
Probably it will change in the future, but there are many other probabilities ,that can be real in the next couple of years.
Also, a game doesn't have to be $30 up front. Episodic content can spread the cost. Just don't try hoodwinking core gamers with $3 in game consumables because we're not going to fall for it!
I looked up Professor Layton on mobile. It's got rave reviews but also complaints from DS players that it's too short. Level 5 approached the platform cautiously with a small F2P game, failing to appreciate that every Layton fan with a mobile wanting a sequel is already comfortable paying full dollar for a full game. If they had the nerve to release a 5*, unique mobile experience in a sea of really basic games, at full price, would it really be shunned? I don't think so. I think the market is there as evidenced by every core gamer who slags off mobile gaming! 