Would You Buy Mobile Nintendo Games?

[Cube]

That led to my friend recommending 2048 to me, just before it become this huge deal.

 

2048 is actually one of the terrible things about mobile gaming: ripoffs. 2048 has become hugely popular, but the original (called Threes!) was well received but hasn't shared in the same extreme success.

 

The developers spent a year and a half making the system for the game, which is really well balanced yet also difficult (it takes skill to get high scores, and nobody has worked out the correct way to beat it). In less than a month, someone copied the game in an incredibly lazy way (it makes it much easier and is broken as random pushes can beat the game) and made it much more popular.

[Fierce_LiNk]

2048 is actually one of the terrible things about mobile gaming: ripoffs. 2048 has become hugely popular, but the original (called Threes!) was well received but hasn't shared in the same extreme success.

 

The developers spent a year and a half making the system for the game, which is really well balanced yet also difficult (it takes skill to get high scores, and nobody has worked out the correct way to beat it). In less than a month, someone copied the game in an incredibly lazy way (it makes it much easier and is broken as random pushes can beat the game) and made it much more popular.

 

I didn't actually know any of that. Cheers for the information.

[Aneres11]

I've only just started browsing mobile gaming on my iPad and some games are pretty fun!

 

Would I be interested in a Nintendo mobile game? Hell yeah.

 

Sometimes the simpler games that have a basic control setup (like Temple Run etc) are really great. It'd be interesting to see what Nintendo could do on these devices.

 

I don't think it will ever happen, but i'd definitely watch with interest if it did.

 

Mobile gaming on the whole though is not something I tend to enjoy, outside of the odd game. Particularly from those type of games the need button input. It just does not work in my opinion, and nothing will take the place of a dedicated handheld machine.

 

I also get bored quite quickly of mobile games but I guess that's not an issue when the whole idea is for short gaming bursts on the go.

 

I don't think it's a bad idea at all to get some form of mobile game out there. I actually think a Mario Party style game would be a great fit! I'm sure there would be loads of great touch style mini games that could be done well on that kind of device. : peace:

[Daft]

Plague Inc. is amazing. Such a great game.

[Retro_Link]

Absolutely I would!

 

I'd love some Nintendo runner style games, like NES Mario, or Donkey Kong Minecart Mayhem...

 

I should download the Sonic and Rayman runner games.

 

And some of the ideas in this thread have been great! Mario Maker in mobile would be a brilliant idea. Surely there's great potential for something around the new Clay Kirby/Power Paintbrush mechanic too.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Retro_Link

[Gizmo]

Ahhh a a DKC Minecart game with the same visuals as the original and procedurally generated tracks would be awesome!

[Jonnas]

I would be against Nintendo doing this for very much the same reasons as DCubed: smartphone gaming is a bloody mess, it is currently hurting gaming (and people's perception of gaming) and it should be reigned in by the industry, instead of treating it like a future business model.

 

Feasibility and possibility of success aside, Nintendo should not be endorsing the currently-toxic environment of mobile gaming. Success seems to come out of nowhere (instead of relying on actually talented developers), or from outright stolen concepts (like the 2048 example that Cube brought up). Furthermore, the scope and ambition of these games is incredibly limited, as well as several gameplay options.

 

I say Nintendo should remain an elephant (see: Kyle Bosman). Many gamers here disliked it when Sony and Microsoft jumped on the motion control bandwagon due to popularity, instead of focusing on what they do best, so why encourage the same principle?

 

What do you mean, they have to strike it lucky? They already know how to make great games, they've made plenty of them before.

 

Essentially what you're saying is that you don't have enough confidence in them to make games people want to play?

 

Flappy Bird is a terrible game. I've played Flash games in 2004 that were better made than it. It was made by one person who, yes, got lucky. Ditto for Angry Birds (though that one capitalised on its success better)

 

One can argue that Nintendo should have no trouble marketing their own brands, a.k.a. Mario and Pokémon (their only truly huge brands), but one can also argue that it's a moot point: why take a gamble to market what's already incredibly popular in the first place?

 

Maybe use those brands to market stuff like Zelda and Metroid? That suggestion would have some merit, if there were a few known cases of a single successful mobile game bringing recognition to other games by the same developer, but I don't know any.

 

I do know of one case of a major gaming company bringing their games to mobile gaming: the iOS Megaman games. It's impossible to know how well they worked for Capcom, but I think their subsequent abandonment of the brand speaks for itself. The other mentioned examples from major companies (Rayman and Dragon Quest) have been released recently, and their success cannot be measured yet.

 

And some of the ideas in this thread have been great! Mario Maker in mobile would be a brilliant idea. Surely there's great potential for something around the new Clay Kirby/Power Paintbrush mechanic too.

 

Mario Maker sounds pointless if Mario is unplayable without buttons, though. And the lack of a stylus would make the editor frustrating to use, no?

 

Speaking about the lack of a stylus, wouldn't Kirby Paintbrush need it, too? Fingers alone are incredibly imprecise.

[Sheikah]

One can argue that Nintendo should have no trouble marketing their own brands, a.k.a. Mario and Pokémon (their only truly huge brands), but one can also argue that it's a moot point: why take a gamble to market what's already incredibly popular in the first place?

 

What gamble? What are they staking? These games don't cost much to produce, probably a drop in the ocean for a company like Nintendo. It'd just be something like a Mario runner game tailored to phones, not a full fledged super Mario title. It'd promote the Mario brand to people that aren't otherwise exposing themselves to Nintendo. It's mostly about Angry Birds, League of Legends and Minecraft for kids these days.

[Glen-i]

Surely there's great potential for something around the new Clay Kirby/Power Paintbrush mechanic too.

 

The thought of a Canvus Curse game without a stylus is utterly horrifying!

[Retro_Link]

I only said there might be potential.

[Jonnas]

What gamble? What are they staking? These games don't cost much to produce, probably a drop in the ocean for a company like Nintendo. It'd just be something like a Mario runner game tailored to phones, not a full fledged super Mario title. It'd promote the Mario brand to people that aren't otherwise exposing themselves to Nintendo. It's mostly about Angry Birds, League of Legends and Minecraft for kids these days.

 

Every business venture and marketing move has risks, whether they're initially obvious or not. It could be a harsher blow than they expected to their image, or just a shady contract with unexpected caveats (maybe they would have to lend the Zelda license for 3 games again ).

 

More importantly, what is the reward? Extra marketing for franchises that don't really need it*? Slightly improving their image before investors or journalists? Flimsy rewards, I think.

 

*(Seriously, how many kids don't know about Mario? Just because it's not their favourite game, it doesn't mean they aren't aware of the franchise. It's not like a runner game would be the straw that would make them get a Wii U/3DS. I would argue the opposite, as they would then have the wrong idea of what kind of platformer it is)

 

Minecraft and LoL aren't mobile games, by the way.

[liger05]

I'm not convinced a Mario runner suddenly people more aware of the Mario franchise which would result in more sales for the fully fledged Mario games. What is the evidence for this?

 

Has Rayman Jungle, Sonic Dash (as well as a bunch of other sonic games) done anything for the console games? Those games still bomb.

 

Do not the majority of people that buy this titles buy them for that experience? Simple games to take up 5-10 mins when sitting on a train, bus, waiting in a queue etc.

Edited August 5, 2014 by liger05

[Sheikah]

Every business venture and marketing move has risks

 

If I'm being clearer, I mean the risk is so small/unimportant as to not be worth considering. It will cost them next to nothing to make, as apps are generally pretty cheap, and can hardly hurt their image. They already loan Mario's face to everything. I'm still expecting Mario does the ironing to release at some point.

 

More importantly, what is the reward?

Money. Fucking lots of it, if they use their strong brand and tailor a game to the mobile audience. It can be done, and they're in a great position to do it. Mario and his games are well known, but for how much longer if they don't continue to engage today's audience?

 

*(Seriously, how many kids don't know about Mario? Just because it's not their favourite game, it doesn't mean they aren't aware of the franchise.

 

A lot of kids don't even have/bother with the devices to play Mario games these days, opting for an iPad or some other device with cheaper and free options, so whether they know about the character is less important. If they don't even get the devices to play these games (and I'm sure that's many kids these days) then they're not going to know much more than the character, ie. the games themselves will be lost on them.

 

Minecraft and LoL aren't mobile games, by the way.

Incorrect on one of those, Minecraft is available on a variety of mobile platforms. Either way, my point was that kids are more and more opting for these sorts of games instead, some of which are on mobile formats.

 

I'm not convinced a Mario runner suddenly people more aware of the Mario franchise which would result in more sales for the fully fledged Mario games. What is the evidence for this?

 

Has Rayman Jungle, Sonic Dash (as well as a bunch of other sonic games) done anything for the console games? Those games still bomb.

 

It doesn't have to boost sales. It just has to not impinge on the sales of the other games, while also making money itself.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[liger05]

A lot of kids don't even have/bother with the devices to play Mario games these days, opting for an iPad or some other device with cheaper and free options, so whether they know about the character is less important. If they don't even get the devices to play these games (and I'm sure that's many kids these days) then Nintendo are failing there.

 

Not sure how going mobile changes that predicament.

 

It doesn't have to boost sales. It just has to not impinge on the sales of the other games, while also making money itself.

 

I think it would though. I get the whole its not proper games argument but I fail to see how Nintendo going mobile in any form doesn't effect there hardware business. Maybe I'm wrong but I think going down that route would be the start of the end for Nintendo handhelds.

[dazzybee]

Only read the first page so don't know if I'm repeating.

 

Firstly, there are some AMAZING mobile games, if Nintendo make games that are for mobile devices then I'm all for it, as smaller tastes of their bigger releases. I guess the worry is them finding success and then bothering. But in theory I love the idea of donkey kong mine kart game like jungle run, or simple puzzlers using their characters.

 

I guess the big issue is the wider concern of mobile gaming taking over all gaming. On the whole mobile gaming is awful, it has business practices which make me sick, the more popular all this the more it will infect all gaming... It's an issue, a scary one, and one I respect Nintendo for not engaging with...

 

So it's a really difficult thing overall...

[Sheikah]

I think it would though. I get the whole its not proper games argument but I fail to see how Nintendo going mobile in any form doesn't effect there hardware business. Maybe I'm wrong but I think going down that route would be the start of the end for Nintendo handhelds.

 

In which case, same question to you: is there evidence that the iOS/Android versions of Rayman Jungle Run impinged upon the sales of the console Rayman games?

 

Not sure how going mobile changes that predicament.

 

They're already using tablets to play their Minecraft Pocket Edition and Angry Birds, so the audience is there. Put interesting software using a strong brand in front of a large and listening audience and you're in with a very good shot.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[Gizmo]

Every business venture and marketing move has risks, whether they're initially obvious or not. It could be a harsher blow than they expected to their image, or just a shady contract with unexpected caveats (maybe they would have to lend the Zelda license for 3 games again ).

 

More importantly, what is the reward? Extra marketing for franchises that don't really need it*? Slightly improving their image before investors or journalists? Flimsy rewards, I think.

 

*(Seriously, how many kids don't know about Mario? Just because it's not their favourite game, it doesn't mean they aren't aware of the franchise. It's not like a runner game would be the straw that would make them get a Wii U/3DS. I would argue the opposite, as they would then have the wrong idea of what kind of platformer it is)

 

Minecraft and LoL aren't mobile games, by the way.

 

1) Money to reinvest in other titles?

 

2) Minecraft Pocket Edition, top selling Android game, says hi. Also I don't know much about LoL but a quick Google suggests there are mobile apps for things like playing with builds.

 

I think alot of people must have missed my previous post;

 

Apart from the many other things wrong with what you're saying, I just wanted to highlight this one to point out that the top selling android game right now (and for a while) is Minecraft Pocket Edition, which is essentially a stripped down Minecraft, selling at £4.99. That's a fairly big game selling at a relatively high price because of brand. Als oin the top selling list is Football Manager at £6.99, The Sims at £4.99 and several GTA games at £3-5 each. You really don't think Pokemon would do the same, if they were to release something on mobile? Imagine they released Fire Red/Leaf Green on mobile or something and sold it at £5. They'd make a shit tonne of money, and controls wouldn't be too much of an issue because theres no twitch gaming in Pokemon. If Minecraft can sort out reasonable controls then I'm sure Pokemon can...

 

A cheeky Pokemon port or a Mario runner are not going to harm the brand. I'm also not quite sure why we are all fixating on a Mario runner, that was simply one idea that was thrown out there.

 

How about mobile Dr Mario, in the same vein as mobile Tetris? Pokemon Puzzle League? Mario Picross even?

 

I really don't think anybody is suggesting that the next 3D Mario should be iOS exclusive or that Nintendo should put Retro on porting Captain Toad to Android instead of making the new Metroid Prime.

[liger05]

In which case, same question to you: is there evidence that the iOS/Android versions of Rayman Jungle Run impinged upon the sales of the console Rayman games?

 

Who knows but the risk isn't as high. Nintendo's handheld business is vital to the company. I think once they start offering software (no matter the kind) offering the same franchises they then run the risk of less people buying hardware. I just don't think can have a successful hardware business as well as going mobile. Initially I could see the benefits but long term I don't think the two together would work.

 

 

 

They're already using tablets to play their Minecraft Pocket Edition and Angry Birds, so the audience is there. Put interesting software using a strong brand in front of a large and listening audience and you're in with a very good shot

 

Isn't the real challenge then offering hardware and software to get people away from tablets?

 

I think Nintendo should be looking at what needs to be done to make there hardware desirable.

Edited August 5, 2014 by liger05

[Sheikah]

Who knows but the risk isn't as high. Nintendo's handheld business is vital to the company. I think once they start offering software (no matter the kind) offering the same franchises they then run the risk of less people buying hardware. I just don't think can have a successful hardware business as well as going mobile. Initially I could see the benefits but long term I don't think the two together would work.

 

People will still buy the hardware for the games they want. Pokemon is hugely successful and newer versions could continue to be released on their proprietary hardware. A Mario runner isn't likely to take over as their main Mario handheld game, but what that fear does show is how pitifully stale some of their franchises have become. Minecraft does extremely well both on PC and Pocket Edition. Why? Because the PC version is mod/customisable friendly, has proper online and controls. Nintendo need to up their game and they could easily make a premium, comprehensive version on their handhelds and a lite version (that could be even very different, like a runner). TL;DR - they need to pull their finger out.

 

 

Is the real challenge then offering hardware and software to get people away from tablets.

 

That's tough and looks like that avenue is somewhat doomed. Even the premium, all about games Vita with dual analogues didn't take off. It genuinely seems like the people have spoken. To join in or to drown, really.

[Goron_3]

I would be against Nintendo doing this for very much the same reasons as DCubed: smartphone gaming is a bloody mess, it is currently hurting gaming (and people's perception of gaming) and it should be reigned in by the industry, instead of treating it like a future business model.

 

Feasibility and possibility of success aside, Nintendo should not be endorsing the currently-toxic environment of mobile gaming. Success seems to come out of nowhere (instead of relying on actually talented developers), or from outright stolen concepts (like the 2048 example that Cube brought up). Furthermore, the scope and ambition of these games is incredibly limited, as well as several gameplay options.

 

I say Nintendo should remain an elephant (see: Kyle Bosman). Many gamers here disliked it when Sony and Microsoft jumped on the motion control bandwagon due to popularity, instead of focusing on what they do best, so why encourage the same principle?

 

 

 

Flappy Bird is a terrible game. I've played Flash games in 2004 that were better made than it. It was made by one person who, yes, got lucky. Ditto for Angry Birds (though that one capitalised on its success better)

 

One can argue that Nintendo should have no trouble marketing their own brands, a.k.a. Mario and Pokémon (their only truly huge brands), but one can also argue that it's a moot point: why take a gamble to market what's already incredibly popular in the first place?

 

Maybe use those brands to market stuff like Zelda and Metroid? That suggestion would have some merit, if there were a few known cases of a single successful mobile game bringing recognition to other games by the same developer, but I don't know any.

 

I do know of one case of a major gaming company bringing their games to mobile gaming: the iOS Megaman games. It's impossible to know how well they worked for Capcom, but I think their subsequent abandonment of the brand speaks for itself. The other mentioned examples from major companies (Rayman and Dragon Quest) have been released recently, and their success cannot be measured yet.

 

 

 

Mario Maker sounds pointless if Mario is unplayable without buttons, though. And the lack of a stylus would make the editor frustrating to use, no?

 

Speaking about the lack of a stylus, wouldn't Kirby Paintbrush need it, too? Fingers alone are incredibly imprecise.

 

Designing levels on phones and tablets would actually be BRILLIANT now I think about it! Imagine designing a level on the bus on your way back from work and being able to upload it from your Wii U account.

[Hogge]

Releasing a Nintendo controller will not solve the problem. Nintendo will in all likelyhood make their games work even without the peripheral, which will mean that the game will have to be dumbed down to work.

 

This is a matter of culture and voting with your wallet. To make things clear: if you want to continue seeing the types of games that you like in the future, then deny the mobile devs any of your money, invest it in console experiences instead.

And for the love of god, it should be no less strange to demand your 10-year old to read more advanced books than Curious George, than it is to demand that he grows out of Flappy Bird and in to console/PC experiences.

 

 

That being said, the days of the dedicated portable console are over. By next gen, portable consoles will have to hook up to your TV and deliver full HD experiences. Buying one device every five or so years still has an appeal and will keep that appeal, both from a gaming, economic and environmental perspective.

 

The 3DS could get a reasonable boost in sales, if Nintendo release a version that can handle telephone calls in a reasonable fashion. But in that case, it's not a question of just releasing a 3DS with a GSM/3G transmitter. It would need to be considerably slimmer than any current 3DS, a touchscreen on the lid (which probably would actually mean a third screen) to handle phonecalls without actually opening the device up, significantly longer battery life and support for typical mobile applications, like Facebook and Spotify. And of course, it should be priced to compete with mobile phones.

[Sheikah]

This is a matter of culture and voting with your wallet. To make things clear: if you want to continue seeing the types of games that you like in the future, then deny the mobile devs any of your money, invest it in console experiences instead.

 

The problem with this option is that people aren't happy with their console offering either, so are letting Nintendo know by their wallets in that way too.

[nekunando]

I feel like I've posted this image about a million times now but I'd probably only really be interested in mobile games from Nintendo if they were to come on something like this:

 

 

I know there are plenty of people who will rightly or wrongly brand it a bad idea for whatever reasons, but I'd love a mobile phone from Nintendo that allowed me to download Virtual Console games as well as offering other games that wouldn't need buttons at all, such as a 'Donkey Kong Cart' game that would consist of mine cart levels where you'd only have to press the screen to jump without having to slide the phone open

 

The image above may be based on 3DS but it wouldn't have to be as one screen would be enough, unless they wanted to provide DS games on the VC

 

Anyway, I currently own a Blackberry Curve that is a couple of years old so I'm obviously not interested in mobile gaming at the moment. In fact, the only mobile game I've ever really played was.....

 

 

: peace:

[Gizmo]

"Donkey Kong Minecart Madness"; Part DK, part Minecraft, part Mario Kart, part Marble Madness. I'd buy it!

[Hogge]

The problem with this option is that people aren't happy with their console offering either, so are letting Nintendo know by their wallets in that way too.

 

I did the same. My first first party game for the Wii U was Mario 3D World, and I haven't bought any of Nintendo's sidescrollers. Nintendo have a major issue in not listening to what people want or what the rest of the industry is up to.