Dragalia Lost (Mobile) & Cygames’ partnership with Nintendo

[Dcubed]

3 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

1 hour ago, Dcubed said:

Mario Kart Tour is next...
Hopefully this spells the end for Nintendo's mobile initiative.  No more will we have valuable Nintendo staff wasted on this junk!

What gives you that idea? Mario Kart world tour generated $200M revenue as of last April. No way they're going to leave this kind of money on the table by dropping mobile altogether.

That's peanuts for a Mario Kart game; and those are lifetime sales, following a very frontloaded launch.  The game is basically not generating any significant amounts of money anymore.

Now with it being harvested for MK8 DLC, there is no point in wasting money and valuable staff on it anymore.  I give it 6-12 months until it gets shut down.

[darksnowman]

2 hours ago, FireMeowth said:

The stupid decision to never release the game in mainland Europe meant I never had a chance to play the game myself, despite being excited about it.

That's unfortunate. I knew it didn't come out on the EU mobile shops in tandem with the rest, but I figured it had made it by now. 

You never explored other means of getting it on your device?

[Sheikah]

1 hour ago, Dcubed said:

That's peanuts for a Mario Kart game; and those are lifetime sales, following a very frontloaded launch.  The game is basically not generating any significant amounts of money anymore.

Now with it being harvested for MK8 DLC, there is no point in wasting money and valuable staff on it anymore.  I give it 6-12 months until it gets shut down.

That's lifetime revenue up until April 2021; lifetime revenue up to now will be even higher. It's also essentially money for old rope, outsourced to a non-Nintendo company to make (so not using up their time and resources), and continuously generates money from existing customers (unlike main MK titles, which bar the rare release of DLC, customers generally pay once). I guess my point is that it continues to generate revenue whereas past Mario Kart titles (like MK7) don't, so you can't really compare the statistics cleanly. Even if MK Tour doesn't make what it used to make it still seems to have done pretty well over its lifetime.

There's also the question of why would they leave such a considerable sum of money on the table in future? Likely the main audience for Mario Kart Switch does not overlap too neatly with players of the mobile game, so it's not like people will only buy/play one or the other. Also I think when you say it's "peanuts", I'd argue it's still considerable given how little effort relatively speaking goes into it compared to a mainline title.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

7 hours ago, Sheikah said:

That's lifetime revenue up until April 2021; lifetime revenue up to now will be even higher. It's also essentially money for old rope, outsourced to a non-Nintendo company to make (so not using up their time and resources), and continuously generates money from existing customers (unlike main MK titles, which bar the rare release of DLC, customers generally pay once). I guess my point is that it continues to generate revenue whereas past Mario Kart titles (like MK7) don't, so you can't really compare the statistics cleanly. Even if MK Tour doesn't make what it used to make it still seems to have done pretty well over its lifetime.

There's also the question of why would they leave such a considerable sum of money on the table in future? Likely the main audience for Mario Kart Switch does not overlap too neatly with players of the mobile game, so it's not like people will only buy/play one or the other. Also I think when you say it's "peanuts", I'd argue it's still considerable given how little effort relatively speaking goes into it compared to a mainline title.

This is all completely wrong, I don’t even know where to begin.

I’ll just leave a couple of bombshells here and just leave it at that.

First off, MKT is a mainline Mario Kart title that was developed internally at EPD; with Hideki Konami himself at the helm.  It was NOT outsourced, but it did have Bandai Namco contributing art assets just like how they did for MK8.  Hundreds of people worked on this game! It contains almost 100 tracks (when counting all the different variations included) and dozens of characters!  It literally came at the expense of a brand new Mario Kart title for Switch!!

Secondly, $200 million in revenue is the equivalent of around 3.3 million sales of a $60 game.  That is a pathetic total for a Mario Kart title! Even Mario Kart Live (which IS a cheap outsourced spin-off) will probably end up pulling in more revenue than that!  And thus the opportunity cost was absolutely gigantic with MKT.

This was supposed to be a Pokémon Go style mega seller.  It was Nintendo’s trump card in case the Switch failed to take off; and it was a spectacular failure.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

This is all completely wrong, I don’t even know where to begin. I’ll just leave a couple of bombshells here and just leave it at that. First off, MKT is a mainline Mario Kart title that was developed internally at EPD; with Hideki Konami himself at the helm.  It was NOT outsourced, but it did have Bandai Namco contributing art assets just like how they did for MK8.  Hundreds of people worked on this game! It contains almost 100 tracks (when counting all the different variations included) and dozens of characters!  It literally came at the expense of a brand new Mario Kart title for Switch!! Secondly, $200 million in revenue is the equivalent of around 3.3 million sales of a $60 game.  That is a pathetic total for a Mario Kart title! Even Mario Kart Live (which IS a cheap outsourced spin-off) will probably end up pulling in more revenue than that!  And thus the opportunity cost was absolutely gigantic with MKT.This was supposed to be a Pokémon Go style mega seller.  It was Nintendo’s trump card in case the Switch failed to take off; and it was a spectacular failure.

Clearly I stand corrected on who made it (although most places you look list DeNa first and foremost). But at the very least DeNa and Bandai's involvement shows this wasn't a purely Nintendo effort, so my general point about this being less of a strain on Nintendo is true. I would also disagree on this being a "main" title at least on grounds of budget and quality (and with the mobile style monetisation in place - it feels far more "spin off" to me). The tracks are generally far less detailed (as we are now seeing with them being more or less ported over in the MK8 DX expansion pack) and the game has a distinctly budget feel. To me that is like trying to say the mobile Animal Crossing game is a main title in the series because it has a lot of furniture in it. It wouldn't surprise me if Tour took Nintendo far less time and money to make than a normal MK game.

 

You also ignored my point that the $200 million statistic is a year out of date (it will have made even more now), and also my point about Tour being something people continuously pay for so makes money year after year. The total revenue when they finally close down MK Tour could be much higher.

 

Your point about MK Tour taking up Nintendo's time/resources resulting in no new Switch Mario Kart being made sounds like pure fantasy/conjecture to be honest. So many questions. First, how do you know this? Second, are you saying that they would have released a second Mario Kart game for Switch (which they would never do)? Or, perhaps more probable, are you saying they would have developed and released MK 9 instead of re-releasing MK8 as a deluxe version? If the latter, I don't see any reason to believe MK Tour is why we never got MK9 on Switch. We have seen time and time again Nintendo releasing Wii U games on Switch, that's more to do with them wanting to see return on investment which was never realised on Wii U with its small audience. Nothing to do with the respective studios being too busy to develop a full sequel on Switch.

 

And the biggest point I made, that you didn't address - it's money left on the table for them not to pursue mobile; that's why I originally challenged your point about them moving away from it. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if it makes less money than say MK Switch, that'd kind of be an absurd comparison to make anyway in my opinion because you'd be comparing Tour to the best selling game on a best selling system (and yeah, I'm aware it's comparing a MK game to a MK game, but still). That's not a credible measure of success - requiring it to outsell one of the best ever selling games in order to see it as a success doesn't really make sense. It could generate far less revenue yet still make a heck of a lot of profit.

 

I mean, it has ultimately still made quite a lot of money so far so it doesn't make sense to me for them to ignore mobile. It's not like they're cannabalising mainline title sales by having a mobile game on the side, are they? You can ignore the rest of my post if you want but just answer that for me - what point is there for them to leave hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue on the table?

[Glen-i]

3 hours ago, Sheikah said:

I would also disagree on this being a "main" title at least on grounds of budget and quality (and with the mobile style monetisation in place - it feels far more "spin off" to me). The tracks are generally far less detailed (as we are now seeing with them being more or less ported over in the MK8 DX expansion pack) and the game has a distinctly budget feel. To me that is like trying to say the mobile Animal Crossing game is a main title in the series because it has a lot of furniture in it. It wouldn't surprise me if Tour took Nintendo far less time and money to make than a normal MK game.

It might feel like a spin-off, but I can't agree that it is. Wouldn't a spin-off imply that the fundamental gameplay is different to what you'd expect? Tour is still a kart racer where item usage plays a big part in winning.

By your logic, games like Pokémon: Legends Arceus would be classed as a spin-off, when that's not the case.

[Julius]

I feel like spin-offs area very slippery slope of semantics which differs from one series to another, and how each individual interprets a spin-off (which could easily be it's own discussion), but I personally wouldn't consider Mario Kart Tour to be a mainline entry in the Mario Kart series either. I also don't think it matters in the slightest, but I'm struggling to figure out how I could view it as a mainline entry, so figured I'd voice my take. 

For me I think the deciding factor would be that, even if there is overlap with the core Mario Kart audience, Mario Kart Tour is squarely not aiming for that audience, they're aiming at a mobile audience with a simplification of core mechanics and, as far as I am aware (happy to be corrected here as I've honestly not seen too much of the game), doesn't add much in terms of new mechanics either. It's not aiming to be the best-selling Mario Kart game on the market right now, and there's no cannibalisation of sales going on as, generally, I don't think their audience views it as the next mainline Mario Kart game. I wouldn't consider Nintendo's other mobile games based on already existing IP so far to be mainline entries either, or any of the other Mario Kart games for that matter (such as the arcade games). 

52 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Wouldn't a spin-off imply that the fundamental gameplay is different to what you'd expect?

Glances over at Yakuza, Final Fantasy, and I'm sure plenty of other series which have gone through fundamental gameplay overhauls during their existence

I wouldn't say so? Maybe it's just how I view the term originally through the lens of TV and film growing up, but I always consider a spin-off to be anything which is an expansion on a series, whether that be into a new medium, a new story which is distinct and separate to the "main story", etc. 

In the case of gaming, I think how a game is marketed speaks volumes, because I think the intent of the creator makes it crystal clear whether we should view a game as being a spin-off or not. And in this case, maybe I'm missing something, but, outside of Directs, I've seen zero marketing for Mario Kart Tour -- as I said before, it's just not the main sales focus of the Mario Kart series right now, even if it is still bringing in a fair bit of money. 

39 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

By your logic, games like Pokémon: Legends Arceus would be classed as a spin-off, when that's not the case.

I mean, to be fair, that's only not considered a spin-off because TPCi said so when marketing the game, otherwise I do think it would be. That game is so different mechanically and in terms of its design when compared with other core series Pokémon games, not to mention the fact that it's the first and only original core series entry (as in, not a third version) to not have at least one other version release alongside it. Game Freak basically just experimented similar to how they did with Town before Sword & Shield, but this time used the IP and it gave us an idea of what they wanted to test for the series moving forwards. 

At this point, being a core series Pokémon game just means it was developed by Game Freak, there's not much rhyme or reason to it, and there's been some level of unpredictability to how they handle the core series ever since Black 2 & White 2 were announced. Let's also not forget that this is the same company for which fans labelled these games as "main series" titles before they eventually came out in Gen VI/VII (can't remember which) as calling them "core series" in the first place. 

[Glen-i]

1 hour ago, Julius said:

I mean, to be fair, that's only not considered a spin-off because TPCi said so when marketing the game, otherwise I do think it would be. That game is so different mechanically and in terms of its design when compared with other core series Pokémon games, not to mention the fact that it's the first and only original core series entry (as in, not a third version) to not have at least one other version release alongside it. Game Freak basically just experimented similar to how they did with Town before Sword & Shield, but this time used the IP and it gave us an idea of what they wanted to test for the series moving forwards. 

At this point, being a core series Pokémon game just means it was developed by Game Freak, there's not much rhyme or reason to it, and there's been some level of unpredictability to how they handle the core series ever since Black 2 & White 2 were announced. Let's also not forget that this is the same company for which fans labelled these games as "main series" titles before they eventually came out in Gen VI/VII (can't remember which) as calling them "core series" in the first place. 

Legends: Arceus (And Let's GO while we're at it) still are turn based RPG's that utilise the base mechanics of Pokémon battles. Granted, my issues with those games are that they strip back a lot of what makes them interesting for no good reason, but that's beside the point.

The spin-offs, even the turn based ones such as Conquest and MD, function very differently to the mainline games. So they feel like Spin-offs, as far as I'm concerned.

It's also for this reason that I think the whole "Core games are the ones made by Game Freak" falls apart quite easily when you consider BD/SP. If that doesn't count, then none of the remakes do, either. Hell, I didn't even think it applied back in the GameCube era thanks to Colosseum and XD. They play very much like the mainline games.

Typing that, it does seem that the line is different for each person. But I don't think quality or the developer that works on it really count.

[Dufniall]

4 hours ago, Julius said:

For me I think the deciding factor would be that, even if there is overlap with the core Mario Kart audience, Mario Kart Tour is squarely not aiming for that audience, they're aiming at a mobile audience with a simplification of core mechanics and, as far as I am aware (happy to be corrected here as I've honestly not seen too much of the game), doesn't add much in terms of new mechanics either.

First of all, I find it curious how fixed everyone is in fitting a game as either mainline or spin-off. I'd argue that you just have to separate the mobile games and put them in a third category: Nintendo mobile games. Goes for Mario Run, Pocket Camp, Fire Emblem Heroes, Dr. Mario and Tour, all could be classified either as a main series or spin-off with the right arguments but they are all mobile games based heavily on the console main series. Category 3.

As for Tour, I feel there is a lot to it where main series Mario Kart could learn from. Most tracks have variations: remixes, reverse versions and trick versions with extra ramps for jumps etc. The game also isn't necessarily aimed at coming in first, it's all about scoring the most points which is done mostly by maintaining combos which would be a cool second mode for a new game. Every cup has a mini mission like beat giant Bowser, drive through rings, get all item boxes etc, almost similar to what the DS had. Next to that there are the plethora of characters and different costumed characters.

The main gripe of course is the whole gacha mechanic but if you play it just for fun? You can unlock plenty and obtain enough coins and gems (in-game currency) to get a lot of good stuff.

Controls are indeed simplified because of the inaccuracy of touch controls. You can hardly go off course, auto steering is there and tracks are generally wider. But the core gameplay (using items, drifts etc) is all there.

But back to Dragalia Lost: I always had the feeling that game was more for Japan anyway, I'm curious how much revenue it generated there. I remember being in Tokyo and there were plenty of Dragalia Lost banners to be spotted:

Edited March 23, 2022 by Dufniall

[Sheikah]

It might feel like a spin-off, but I can't agree that it is. Wouldn't a spin-off imply that the fundamental gameplay is different to what you'd expect? Tour is still a kart racer where item usage plays a big part in winning.
By your logic, games like Pokémon: Legends Arceus would be classed as a spin-off, when that's not the case.

I would ask please don't get sidetracked with what was a very small part of the conversation (I've noticed both you and DCubed have focused on very small parts of the post that avoid addressing the thrust of the point I was making - that avoiding mobile right now is leaving money on the table). Like you I agree there is some interpretation here when it comes to what is a "main" title, but I'd be lying if I thought you were being genuine in your comparison of Arceus to a mobile title riddled with monetisation.

[darksnowman]

4 hours ago, Julius said:

I feel like spin-offs area very slippery slope of semantics which differs from one series to another, and how each individual interprets a spin-off (which could easily be it's own discussion), but I personally wouldn't consider Mario Kart Tour to be a mainline entry in the Mario Kart series either.

Pretty much. It'll be clear where Tour stands if the next one is Mario Kart X but it's not really here nor there at this point. 

1 minute ago, Dufniall said:

I'd argue that you just have to separate the mobile games and put them in a third category: Nintendo mobile games.

Or just this because it's what I had these games categorised as up until now anyway!  

Dragalia Lost though, is it mainline, spin-off, neither, both??  

[Dcubed]

Tour is not a spinoff.

When Nintendo put up their Mario 35th Anniversary website, they included a timeline of every mainline Super Mario game and every mainline Mario Kart game.  Tour was included as the latest game in the Mario Kart timeline (and Mario Kart Live was indeed absent).

Sadly the site is gone now, and nobody had the foresight to take screenshots of the timeline page unfortunately, but you can see evidence online corroberating what I am saying if you want further proof.

Mario Kart Tour IS Mario Kart 9, whether you like it or not.  And it absolutely did come at the expense of a brand new Mario Kart game for Switch.

4 hours ago, Dufniall said:

But back to Dragalia Lost: I always had the feeling that game was more for Japan anyway, I'm curious how much revenue it generated there. I remember being in Tokyo and there were plenty of Dragalia Lost banners to be spotted:

This is absolutely true though.  Dragalia Lost was an external IP being developed by Cygames that was focused entierly on the Japanese market alone.  Nintendo simply decided to jump in to take over and assist with development & localisation as an opportunistic mobile IP grab, because they desperately needed some sort of safety net in place if the Switch was to fail.

It's also worth noting that Dragalia Lost, in particular, completely spat on the late Iwata's stated plans for Nintendo's mobile division.  The entire point of Nintendo first entering the mobile market was to try and use these games as a "bridge" of sorts in order to court players over from mobile and onto Nintendo's own platforms; through the use of existing Nintendo IP that ties into adjacent console games.  Dragalia Lost is NOT an existing Nintendo IP, and has no relation to Nintendo's home consoles whatsoever.  It was purely a means to support the company while they were floundering with the dead Wii U and the dying 3DS, when the Switch was anything but a sure thing.  It was also late and overbudget by the time of its release; as was Mario Kart Tour and pretty much every Nintendo mobile project not called Super Mario Run.

How quickly everyone forgets just how bad a position Nintendo was in just a scant 5 or so years ago.  It was so bad that even the head of The Pokemon Company thought that Switch was doomed to fail, and TPC were already making arrangements for the Pokemon series to move entierly over to mobile platforms.

Dragalia Lost and Mario Kart Tour are our insight into that dreadful timeline where Switch was a failure and Nintendo gave up entierly on the dedicated hardware/software business.  The death of these mobile efforts are something that we should be celebrating!

Oh, and before anyone brings up Pikmin Bloom? That is all Niantic, Nintendo have absolutely nothing to do with that game whatsoever other than licensing out the IP (most likely as a grandfathered contract following the success of Pokemon Go).

Edited March 23, 2022 by Dcubed

[darksnowman]

DCubed on Dragalia Lost back in April 2018: "Smart move."

DCubed on Dragalia Lost in the present day: "They spat on Iwata's grave!! Nintendo doing mobile games is the lowest of the low! Arglesmargleblarrrgh."

[Dcubed]

2 minutes ago, darksnowman said:

DCubed on Dragalia Lost back in April 2018: "Smart move."

DCubed on Dragalia Lost in the present day: "They spat on Iwata's grave!! Nintendo doing mobile games is the lowest of the low! Arglesmargleblarrrgh."

A smart move isn't necessarily a good or respectful one; but thanks for digging up the past anyway.  Always fun to see what things were like way back then compared to now and seeing a very different world!

I did think that Dragalia Lost was going to be a big success for both Cygames and Nintendo; shame it didn't end up panning out, but I'm glad to see Nintendo move away from the mobile sector either way.

[darksnowman]

58 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

A smart move isn't necessarily a good or respectful one; but thanks for digging up the past anyway. 

Oh come on, it was one page and less than "a scant five years" ago.  You take us all to the fair with your antics.

[Sheikah]

Tour is not a spinoff. When Nintendo put up their Mario 35th Anniversary website, they included a timeline of every mainline Super Mario game and every mainline Mario Kart game.  Tour was included as the latest game in the Mario Kart timeline (and Mario Kart Live was indeed absent).

Sadly the site is gone now, and nobody had the foresight to take screenshots of the timeline page unfortunately, but you can see evidence online corroberating what I am saying if you want further proof.

Mario Kart Tour IS Mario Kart 9, whether you like it or not.  And it absolutely did come at the expense of a brand new Mario Kart game for Switch.

You're presenting these opinions as though they're facts; there's nothing I can see that supports what you're saying. On the anniversary site you are referring to it's hardly going to have had a section saying "main MK titles, not spinoffs". In fact a quick YouTube search shows examples of people browsing the timelines on the anniversary website you're referring to and there's absolutely no mention of "mainline" anywhere on them. Also bear in mind that Nintendo will have been very keen to publicise and show off Tour given its massive uncapped revenue potential. Not surprising at all for them to feature it on the site.

 

And that Reddit post...yeah. Not sure what point you're trying to make there, other than to undermine your own argument? Someone saying "here's the proof", while offering no proof whatsoever.

 

You're using all manner of imaginative methods to argue your point, as I see it. Just one method works for me - common sense. The majority who see or play Tour who are familiar with other MK games would no doubt come to the same conclusion. They would see it as a budget, monetised, mobile MK spin off. Because that's what it is.

 

I see you also doubled down on saying they "absolutely" skipped making a new MK game for Switch due to them making Tour instead. Where is your proof of that? Seriously, where? Because to me it looks like they did exactly what they did with numerous other Wii U games - ported it to Switch, seeing as how the Wii U didn't sell too well. Unless you have evidence to the contrary I see no reason to think MK8 DX was any different. They didn't make a new game because they thought they didn't need to. And they were right.

[Julius]

The game's shutdown date has been announced as 29th November 2022:

Whilst I don't think it ever got as big as Nintendo and Cygames might have wanted, four years is still a very solid run.