Expain to me why mobile is so evil?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -

The main complaint I always hear about mobile as to why they're really not a viable core gaming device (and I tend to agree) is that they lack traditional control methods. But since when has that stopped Nintendo? Does Nintendogs require such things as buttons and a stick? Would Warioware iOS? Would Advance Wars mobile? Is Nintendo incapable of making decent games for touchscreens? No. They've been doing this since the advent of the DS.

The only thing that prevents them from doing it is pride, refusal to acknowledge and embrace the reality of a market they are unable to dictate, and greed.

If they're going to put an app on iOS with demos of games that'd cost hundreds of dollars more to play than the games those they're advertising to are used to paying a buck for in an attempt to lure them away, they're in for a very rude awakening. As my friend El-Z noted to me, mobile is an entirely different market. Is Nintendo honestly so arrogant they think they can simply pop their head into that market, wave some demos around, and be the ones that determine what people are (or should be) willing to pay?

That's such a degree of delusional arrogance that I can't even begin to express it.

My question is: what is the harm of Nintendo investing in and dedicating two-three studios to produce games for phones/tablets that would go anywhere from $1-5 to bring in a continual steady revenue which could then be used to sustain its core pillar businesses, their console and dedicated handhelds?

What is so wrong with that?

There are 1.5 billion smart devices out in the world right now. Nintendo has the best developmental talent on Earth. Those two combined, to ignore that user-base is absolute insanity. Even if people are paying .99$ per game, Nintendo would make a killing with that many users. The ROI would be immense.

Now we hear of Nintendo humoring "unwearable software" to monitor and aid in our health. Hey, I'm all for that, but NOT MOBILE!!!

C'mon.

People want to tell me Nintendo developing games on a phone is "selling out" or "betraying" gaming more than having Mario telling me my burnt calorie count at the end of the day? I would lovingly embrace mobile as being a compliment to Nintendo's core strategy than have them go some stupid "quality of life through entertainment" route as they're currently contemplating.

#2 Edited by Chozofication (2764 posts) -

Why do you want them to do this? Would it help you out? Maybe you could explain to me why so many people are so concerned with Ninty's supposed financial woes. Let them figure it out.

What *I* want them to do is keep making better games and the best hardware to play them on, and stupid phone BS and junk gizmo's have nothing to do with that.

#3 Posted by ANIMEguy10034 (4705 posts) -

I would not mind or care if they released cheap smartphone games as long as it doesn't take away focus from their handheld. I still do not see how this will help them sell more Wii Us, though.

#4 Edited by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -

Why do you want them to do this? Would it help you out? Maybe you could explain to me why so many people are so concerned with Ninty's supposed financial woes. Let them figure it out.

What *I* want them to do is keep making better games and the best hardware to play them on, and stupid phone BS and junk gizmo's have nothing to do with that.

They have everything to do with that, in a very negative sense, don't be naive. I'm concerned over Nintendo's financial woes because they are a business. If you care for their games, then you should keep tabs on the business side of things, because if they can't make $$$ then they won't be able to continue to make what you enjoy. Games cost money to make. And these "stupid phone BS and junk gizmos" you speak of are raping and further encroaching upon Nintendo's traditional handhelds with a business model that Nintendo simply cannot compete with and is refusing to adapt to.

I don't think Nintendo going mobile would be harmful to them because:

1) it already IS harming them. It's affecting 3DS sales. To make additional games for the mobile market wouldn't mean there'd be less games for the U or 3DS, or future systems. On the contrary, the extra revenue stream mobile would give them would allow them to focus more energy on their dedicated offerings.

2) many DS games are touch interface only (or focused). Gameplay would not suffer due to lack of buttons/stick, this is Nintendo we're talking about. It would only limit the types of games that would be a good fit on the platform. I'd love to have an Advance Wars type game on the go.

3) there will always be the "core" players (like you) that vehemently hate mobile and don't see it as a viable gaming alternative, and the existence of genres that are better suited to tangible control methods (platformers/shooters) would make people willing to pay a higher price to be able to play them.

Tell me, what's Nintendo's other options here? Advertising their games for $100+ with demos in a sea of free-$15 won't work. Should they just ignore mobile entirely and continue to lose money to it as they are? Or should they try to capitalize on it to help sustain the market that it's eating away at, as well as help their overall business? Shit man, USE Warioware type games, USE Nintendog type games, USE Advance War type games on iOS to tap into that goldmine. Keep in mind I'm not at all advocating putting their entire backlog on phones with crappy virtual controls. Just establish a mobile developmental division. I don't see it as "selling out". It's smart business, and certainly sounds preferable to "unwearable QoL health monitoring software" or some other crap.

#5 Edited by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -

I would not mind or care if they released cheap smartphone games as long as it doesn't take away focus from their handheld. I still do not see how this will help them sell more Wii Us, though.

It wouldn't. The focus is already being taken off their handheld regardless. And it wouldn't help with U sales, though it would bring in money which is just as well. Perhaps they could create some sort of way for phones to communicate with the U or 3DS so progress on one game platform could transfer onto another's? Kind of encourage people to buy their other hardware?

That's a nice sig, btw. I like your taste.

#6 Posted by JordanElek (17766 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

The only thing that prevents them from doing it is pride, refusal to acknowledge and embrace the reality of a market they are unable to dictate, and greed.

Why don't they make games on the PS4? Is that because of pride and greed, too?

I love mobile games. I've put way too many hours into games like Puzzle and Dragons. If Nintendo made mobile games, I would definitely play them and probably love them. The same goes for if they made games on the PS4.

But they're not going to sell their games on competitors' hardware. The 3DS is already a mobile device, and Nintendo makes much more money with each game sold on that then they ever could on someone else's mobile app store.

#7 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (8626 posts) -

Maybe you should have read all of Iwata's Investor's brief? I did, and you know what? I used to want Iwata out of the company and now I don't.

Iwata and Nintendo will NEVER follow the game industry

#8 Posted by Kaze_no_Mirai (11117 posts) -

I personally dislike the model many mobile games take. Pay to win is not cool. So what do you do? Grind it out if you don't want to pay. Interested in climbing leader boards? Better pay for continues or to re try a level like the top slots do. The microtransactions are terrible. Then there's the occasional DRM. Games that require an internet connection to boot up. Not such a big deal if you're on the street with your smartphone but a problem during flights or if you use offline iPods tablets or other mobile devices.

#9 Posted by Chozofication (2764 posts) -

@MirkoS77:

I'm the furthest thing from naive, I just don't care what a company that has no relation to me does to get money if it doesn't cater to my interests. Least of all I don't think about how to rip off people with garbage throwaway games with micro transactions on behalf of somebody else. Because that is what mobile entails.

Most of what you say makes sense for Nintendo if it's just to make money, what I can't understand is why people care so much about trying to make Nintendo money... It's pretty sad if paying fans have to take the reins to make sure Nintendo stays afloat (this isn't the case).

#10 Edited by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -

@JordanElek said:

@MirkoS77 said:

The only thing that prevents them from doing it is pride, refusal to acknowledge and embrace the reality of a market they are unable to dictate, and greed.

Why don't they make games on the PS4? Is that because of pride and greed, too?

I love mobile games. I've put way too many hours into games like Puzzle and Dragons. If Nintendo made mobile games, I would definitely play them and probably love them. The same goes for if they made games on the PS4.

But they're not going to sell their games on competitors' hardware. The 3DS is already a mobile device, and Nintendo makes much more money with each game sold on that then they ever could on someone else's mobile app store.

Yes, they don't make games on PS4 because of pride, absolutely. Nintendo would rather die as a company than lessen themselves in such a way. For the almighty Nintendo, savior of the industry, house of Mario, to concede to putting their wares on a "lower" platform would be seen as an admission of defeat. Nintendo's a Japanese company, and that's a very Japanese way of thinking. Iwata's already said they'd go down taking all of their IPs with them before even considering going 3rd party.

If he's not saying that out of pride, then where's it coming from?

The 3DS is mobile sure, but it's a different market. Dedicated handheld. Smart devices are not, and that huge base that Nintendo targeted with titles such as Brainage, etc, on their dedicated handhelds have moved onto. The casuals, a market Nintendo still is trying to get. People who are willing to throw away a buck or two here or there at iOS games, but would laugh at the thought of laying down $150+ for a system, no account system, and $40 per game.

Do you really think that Nintendo would profit more through charging much more to a significantly lesser audience than charging much less to a significantly larger one? Sorry, I'd rather charge $1-5 to a prospective audience of 1.5 billion than a lot more to a smaller base. What they'd lose in cost they'd make up for with a userbase already established.

#11 Posted by JordanElek (17766 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

Yes, they don't make games on PS4 because of pride, absolutely. Nintendo would rather die as a company than lessen themselves in such a way. For the almighty Nintendo, savior of the industry, house of Mario, to concede to putting their wares on a "lower" platform would be seen as an admission of defeat. Nintendo's a Japanese company, and that's a very Japanese way of thinking. Iwata's already said they'd go down taking all of their IPs with them before even considering going 3rd party.

If he's not saying that out of pride, then where's it coming from?

It's a business decision. They make more money from software when they control the hardware. And they make money from hardware, too, at least they usually do. Unless it's absolutely impossible for them to do those things, it doesn't make sense not to. They're the most established company in that space, so they're not going to just give up on that money so easily.

...that huge base that Nintendo targeted with titles such as Brainage, etc, on their dedicated handhelds have moved onto. The casuals, a market Nintendo still is trying to get. People who are willing to throw away a buck or two here or there at iOS games, but would laugh at the thought of laying down $150+ for a system, no account system, and $40 per game.

They have moved on, you're right, like the Wii Sports people have. They're still not going to buy the vast majority of Nintendo's games regardless of platform.

Do you really think that Nintendo would profit more through charging much more to a significantly lesser audience than charging much less to a significantly larger one?

Honestly, that depends. Let's do some math. If Nintendo sells a million copies of a full-priced 3DS game, that's $40 million in income. If they sell 40 million copies of a $1 game on the iOS store, they get $28 million in income (Apple takes 30%). The iOS game would cost less to make, but 40 million copies is also a ridiculous number. Unless you want them to go the route of Candy Crush and rely on in-app purchases.... Now THAT is something that can be evil.

So yeah, I think Nintendo would profit more.

#12 Edited by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -

Maybe you should have read all of Iwata's Investor's brief? I did, and you know what? I used to want Iwata out of the company and now I don't.

Iwata and Nintendo will NEVER follow the game industry

Yea I've read it, been on Neogaf, seen the slides. The more I see, the more I want Iwata nowhere near Nintendo (at least in a management role). I want him gone ASAP. The briefing honestly astonished me. Iwata did nothing to lay out remedies to anything to do with the Wii U. It's like he doesn't even believe there's a problem. How in God's name can this guy even think about entering something such as QoL, a highly competitive field with companies that have far more experience in it than Nintendo, when Nintendo can't even perform adequately in a field that they helped build?

And considering I enjoy games, I would like a company to keep within the industry. Is non-wearable health software really the direction you wish Nintendo to go in? I don't give a fuck about quality of life.

#13 Edited by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -

@Chozofication said:

@MirkoS77:

I'm the furthest thing from naive, I just don't care what a company that has no relation to me does to get money if it doesn't cater to my interests. Least of all I don't think about how to rip off people with garbage throwaway games with micro transactions on behalf of somebody else. Because that is what mobile entails.

Most of what you say makes sense for Nintendo if it's just to make money, what I can't understand is why people care so much about trying to make Nintendo money... It's pretty sad if paying fans have to take the reins to make sure Nintendo stays afloat (this isn't the case).

This sounds like it's spoken from someone who hasn't played one mobile game. Yea there are a lot of garbage games laden with MTs, but there are also some fairly decent mobile games out there as well. Nintendo doesn't seem to believe in MTs (at least not heavily, though I've seen them step towards them). What makes you automatically assume just because they'll create mobile software that they'd plague them with MTs and F2P?

And again, you should care about Nintendo making money because it directly caters to your interests....good games. If they can't make money and are losing it, that affects their ability to make them. And fans do ensure Nintendo stays afloat, where do you think Nintendo's $$$ comes from?

@jordan: can you post something? I can't post more than two messages in a row thanks to GS's brilliant anti-spam feature. I'd like to reply to you but in my own msg. Fucking ridiculous.

Love this new site redesign, amazing work Gamespot.

#14 Posted by JordanElek (17766 posts) -

So Gamespot's anti-spam feature inspired you to encourage me to post spam? LOL, gotta love it. They really didn't think a lot of these features through, did they...

#15 Posted by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -

Ah thanks, like I said, brilliant web designers...

"It's a business decision. They make more money from software when they control the hardware. And they make money from hardware, too, at least they usually do. Unless it's absolutely impossible for them to do those things, it doesn't make sense not to. They're the most established company in that space, so they're not going to just give up on that money so easily."

Yea, it makes sense from a business standpoint, but you're mistaken if you believe that pride has nothing to do with them refusing to put their software anywhere else. I'd bet that if it came to it, Nintendo would choose to go under rather than 3rd party.

"They have moved on, you're right, like the Wii Sports people have. They're still not going to buy the vast majority of Nintendo's games regardless of platform."

Eh, I don't buy that for a minute. If one thing Nintendo has, it's mass appeal. People bought those games by the shitload on the DS, why would they now not sell? The only reason they're not buying them on Nintendo's hardware is they've found a better value proposition elsewhere.

"Honestly, that depends. Let's do some math. If Nintendo sells a million copies of a full-priced 3DS game, that's $40 million in income. If they sell 40 million copies of a $1 game on the iOS store, they get $28 million in income (Apple takes 30%). The iOS game would cost less to make, but 40 million copies is also a ridiculous number. Unless you want them to go the route of Candy Crush and rely on in-app purchases.... Now THAT is something that can be evil.

So yeah, I think Nintendo would profit more."

This is all speculative. Aside, even if you're correct and I'm wrong, it still makes absolutely no sense. Should a company that sells tobacco cigarettes neglect the chewing market because they already sell cigarettes? Why should one market be excluded? Where's the logic behind this? Nintendo would profit more from embracing ALL the markets that they can. Again, pride. There's money on the table, but in Nintendo's continual arrogance, if they can't be the one to create an industry or lay claim to innovate in some way, they hold whatever it is in contempt and neglect it.

#17 Edited by FireEmblem_Man (8626 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@FireEmblem_Man said:

Maybe you should have read all of Iwata's Investor's brief? I did, and you know what? I used to want Iwata out of the company and now I don't.

Iwata and Nintendo will NEVER follow the game industry

Yea I've read it, been on Neogaf, seen the slides. The more I see, the more I want Iwata nowhere near Nintendo (at least in a management role). I want him gone ASAP. The briefing honestly astonished me. Iwata did nothing to lay out remedies to anything to do with the Wii U. It's like he doesn't even believe there's a problem. How in God's name can this guy even think about entering something such as QoL, a highly competitive field with companies that have far more experience in it than Nintendo, when Nintendo can't even perform adequately in a field that they helped build?

And considering I enjoy games, I would like a company to keep within the industry. Is non-wearable health software really the direction you wish Nintendo to go in? I don't give a fuck about quality of life.

Well then, Good-Bye! I'll be glad to support Nintendo's new direction

#18 Posted by Jaysonguy (37564 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@FireEmblem_Man said:

Maybe you should have read all of Iwata's Investor's brief? I did, and you know what? I used to want Iwata out of the company and now I don't.

Iwata and Nintendo will NEVER follow the game industry

Yea I've read it, been on Neogaf, seen the slides. The more I see, the more I want Iwata nowhere near Nintendo (at least in a management role). I want him gone ASAP. The briefing honestly astonished me. Iwata did nothing to lay out remedies to anything to do with the Wii U. It's like he doesn't even believe there's a problem. How in God's name can this guy even think about entering something such as QoL, a highly competitive field with companies that have far more experience in it than Nintendo, when Nintendo can't even perform adequately in a field that they helped build?

And considering I enjoy games, I would like a company to keep within the industry. Is non-wearable health software really the direction you wish Nintendo to go in? I don't give a fuck about quality of life.

Well then, Good-Bye! I'll be glad to support Nintendo's new direction

The fact that you support Iwata, the man who single handedly put Nintendo in the worst position they've ever been makes you just as much of a problem.

#19 Edited by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

And considering I enjoy games, I would like a company to keep within the industry. Is non-wearable health software really the direction you wish Nintendo to go in? I don't give a fuck about quality of life.

That stuff isn't really meant for you or me. The health market is huge and Nintendo wants to retain that success in some way. For the past 10 years they've wanted both the core and expanded markets, but haven't been able to cater to both successfully on one platform. This is their attempt at segregating the two and trying to be successful in both, if they can do it through acquiring companies focused on health, and without taking too many resources from core Nintendo teams, then I really don't care. It'll be a secondary income for them.

Also about this "Iwata being the problem, if you're supporting him you're a bad human being" doesn't really make sense coming from you Jason considering you've supported Microsoft under their terrible leadership, but that's not really appropriate for here.

#20 Posted by JordanElek (17766 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

Aside, even if you're correct and I'm wrong, it still makes absolutely no sense. Should a company that sells tobacco cigarettes neglect the chewing market because they already sell cigarettes? Why should one market be excluded? Where's the logic behind this?

There's no logic in that because it's not an equivalent analogy. Your example is more analogous to Nintendo not making RPGs because they already make platformers. I can't for the life of me think of another market that would provide a good analogy.

What's at play is the same principle that gets Microsoft and Sony to spend huge amounts of money for exclusive games on their platforms. When you can say "only on Sony" or "only on Nintendo," it's very clear where you need to go if you really want those games.

But after all of this, I'm not even the person you asked the original question to. I like mobile games and I wouldn't mind if Nintendo chose to make them. But I understand why they haven't. And it's not pride or arrogance, at least not in the immoral sense of those words. I'd say it's pride and confidence in the potential of their products.

#21 Edited by MirkoS77 (7168 posts) -
@haziqonfire said:
@MirkoS77 said:

And considering I enjoy games, I would like a company to keep within the industry. Is non-wearable health software really the direction you wish Nintendo to go in? I don't give a fuck about quality of life.

That stuff isn't really meant for you or me. The health market is huge and Nintendo wants to retain that success in some way. For the past 10 years they've wanted both the core and expanded markets, but haven't been able to cater to both successfully on one platform. This is their attempt at segregating the two and trying to be successful in both, if they can do it through acquiring companies focused on health, and without taking too many resources from core Nintendo teams, then I really don't care. It'll be a secondary income for them.

Also about this "Iwata being the problem, if you're supporting him you're a bad human being" doesn't really make sense coming from you Jason considering you've supported Microsoft under their terrible leadership, but that's not really appropriate for here.

Thing being, why was Nintendo not taking action on this at the height of the Wii's success? Why now? Usually with well-run companies that have a vision you'll see a steady progression towards a particular field or area, not an abrupt change in direction when things don't go as planned. This feels very much like a desperate reactionary move for Nintendo, not a plan they have had for years and been working up to.

This whole QoL comes off as incredibly hastily put together half-measure from a company that didn't really think things through. I have to wonder, if the Wii U were performing well and Nintendo did not find themselves in the position they are today, would we even hear the term "QoL"? I hold zero confidence in Nintendo these days. NONE under Iwata's "leadership". Like I said, they struggle in even the industry the helped build with the most basic of things. Now they want to get into QoL. A HUGELY competitive field against companies who have far more experience, which, when considering Mr. Iwata is seemingly petrified of anything to do with competition, doesn't bode too well. The man can't even kick his company's ass into gear in order to get things such as universal accounts working when others have been doing it since 2005. Think on that.

Everything from him and Nintendo is talk. "We realize this", "We're going to do that", "We need to do this", "We've failed at that". Jesus Christ, man. That's great, Iwata. I know the obvious. The guy talks and talks and talks and promises the world, and nothing ever happens. In any other company, you don't hear words......you see action (most of the time before the consumer even realizes it's an issue). This, to me, is entirely demonstrative of Iwata's incompetence. He is in way over his head, so all he can do is make promises to the Heavens and lead people on.

And now we're expected to believe that this man can lead Nintendo into a whole new direction? I don't buy it, because like the saying goes, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and if Iwata's past behavior is anything to go by, he is capable of jack shit that he says. If Nintendo were leading the field in which they already reside in, I wouldn't be singing this tune, but they're not. They're very much a laughingstock to many and heavily lacking in many areas of the industry. So this gives me confidence they can succeed in another.....how exactly?

For Nintendo's sake I hope I'm wrong. Despite how I sound, I do want them to survive, even if they go this QoL route because they are still going to make games and make the best out there, but I'm very concerned. Nintendo has severe issues it needs to address before even considering entering any other field. I really fear Iwata may run this company that I've loved for so long into the ground.