Super Mario 3D All-Stars (RIP)

[Ashley]

In fairness that was more Odyssey. 

[Julius]

Looks like Nintendo's tactics have paid off, at least in America. On Amazon US, second-highest selling game of the year already. 

Sitting a bit lower over here on Amazon UK, just checked and it's down at #35 below Animal Crossing again, but also The Last of Us Part II, TLOU2 steel book, Minecraft (Switch), Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Pokémon Sword...and a three pack of Animal Crossing amiibo and Just Dance 2020 (Switch). 

But still, obviously doing crazy well. So, same time next year for some weird Zelda hijinks? 

[drahkon]

It's a shame their BS works...but I'm part of the problem this time, so I should just shut up

[Ronnie]

Wow, that's pretty insane. Masterpiece games sell huge numbers, as it should be I guess!

Edited September 7, 2020 by Ronnie

[Scratch]

Glad it's selling well. I hope this is like Mario 64 on the DS that has the other characters and other extra stuff, since I never played that. Although I figure not, since they'd wanna advertise that right away.  

[Sheikah]

1 hour ago, drahkon said:

It's a shame their BS works...but I'm part of the problem this time, so I should just shut up

To be honest unless we have a parallel universe where they released this collection but without the time limitation on its sale, we will never know where it would have charted. I imagine it would still have done well, which makes it a shame that Nintendo felt the need to go in hard with the FOMO tactics.

[drahkon]

1 minute ago, Sheikah said:

To be honest unless we have a parallel universe where they released this collection but without the time limitation on its sale, we will never know where it would have charted.

That's true, it still sucks that Nintendo (not for the first time) uses FOMO to sell their stuff. You'd think they don't need to...

[Sheikah]

1 minute ago, drahkon said:

That's true, it still sucks that Nintendo (not for the first time) uses FOMO to sell their stuff. You'd think they don't need to...

They've pretty much always restricted the number of copies they sell to stores as well to create artificial scarcity. In Jim Sterling's latest video he mentions how his video editor Justin worked for Target and they would only be able to source a few copies of their games on many occasions. They want to control the perceived value of their games and scarcity is one way of doing it.

One thing I've noticed as well is that many people (myself included) first thought that these 3 games would be available separately after the bundle stops being sold. But the more I think about it, the more I wouldn't be surprised if these games would be completely unavailable after March. Much like Disney do with their films by putting them away in the "Disney vault".

[Ike]

43 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

One thing I've noticed as well is that many people (myself included) first thought that these 3 games would be available separately after the bundle stops being sold. But the more I think about it, the more I wouldn't be surprised if these games would be completely unavailable after March. Much like Disney do with their films by putting them away in the "Disney vault".

There’s zero chance they’ll be released separately. At least any time soon.

The game would have sold regardless of the time limit, if there’s a boost it’ll be from scalpers.

[MindFreak]

I guess that about 20 % of those will end on eBoy or similar, asking for a very high price when it's no longer available.

[Dcubed]

 

Quote

One thing I've noticed as well is that many people (myself included) first thought that these 3 games would be available separately after the bundle stops being sold. But the more I think about it, the more I wouldn't be surprised if these games would be completely unavailable after March. Much like Disney do with their films by putting them away in the "Disney vault".

Yeah, no chance.  This is Nintendo's typical limited availablity thing they do for all of their anniversary releases.

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

They've pretty much always restricted the number of copies they sell to stores as well to create artificial scarcity. In Jim Sterling's latest video he mentions how his video editor Justin worked for Target and they would only be able to source a few copies of their games on many occasions. They want to control the perceived value of their games and scarcity is one way of doing it.

They only do this for their anniversary releases; and for products that are explicitely stated to be limited time releases (like the Classic Mini consoles).  Otherwise, no; that's bullshit.

Nintendo games sell in the millions (often tens of millions).  There's nothing scarce about that; it's just sheer demand.  Pokemon games maintain their value in the second hand market for instance, but these games sell 15 million+ on average.  That's not scarce!

Edited September 7, 2020 by Dcubed

[Ronnie]

Well explained @Dcubed I was debating whether to bother or not so thanks for putting in the work.

As if Nintendo, the kings of software sales need to engage in shady tactics to sell a collection of some of the greatest games ever made, on a console that's selling like crazy. If anything this limited run will lower the amount of money they make, not increase it.

[Sheikah]

24 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Yeah, no chance.  This is Nintendo's typical limited availablity thing they do for all of their anniversary releases.

It's funny you should say no chance because I've seen others believe absolutely the opposite. The truth is we have no idea. This is an absolutely anti-consumer move if they completely remove all games from the digital store after that date so you can see why people believe they'll be available separately. On the other hand we have a precedent for this kind of behaviour with companies like Disney. But truthfully, there's no completely like-for-like previous example that can look at from Nintendo to know exactly what they'll do.

24 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

They only do this for their anniversary releases; and for products that are explicitely stated to be limited time releases (like the Classic Mini consoles).  Otherwise, no; that's bullshit.

He worked for Target so I'm sure he knows whether they were eligible to receive many copies or not. Nintendo have proven here that they want to control the supply so there's no reason to disbelieve this guy's report whatsoever.

24 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Nintendo games sell in the millions (often tens of millions).  There's nothing scarce about that; it's just sheer demand.  Pokemon games maintain their value in the second hand market for instance, but these games sell 15 million+ on average.  That's not scarce!

I'd say games like Pokémon aren't going to be scarce, but for other games it's probably a different story.

Either way, what are your thoughts on the limited time availability of these 3 Mario games? I can't help but feel that if this was another developer you'd have been up in their grill by this point.

[Sheikah]

11 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

As if Nintendo, the kings of software sales need to engage in shady tactics to sell a collection of some of the greatest games ever made, on a console that's selling like crazy. If anything this limited run will lower the amount of money they make, not increase it.

Had to read this a few times to check if you're joking.

Nintendo are downright using FOMO tactics here with the limited time availability. So yeah, maybe they don't "need" to employ shady tactics, but they sure as hell are.

[Ronnie]

5 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Had to read this a few times to check if you're joking.

Nintendo are downright using FOMO tactics here with the limited time availability. So yeah, maybe they don't "need" to employ shady tactics, but they sure as hell are.

For what purpose?

They'd make similar or even more money by not doing this.

They've always liked to make an event out of anniversary things. Limited editions are a thing pretty much everywhere, and not just in games. 

[Sheikah]

For what purpose? They'd make similar or even more money by not doing this.

They've always liked to make an event out of anniversary things. Limited editions are a thing pretty much everywhere, and not just in games. 

 

For the purpose of encouraging more people to buy it in a short space of time than they otherwise would have if it wasn't time limited. In fact, maybe more will buy it than they ever would have if it wasn't time limited. FOMO is power.

 

Or even worse, as I suggested might happen, maybe they will be sold individually afterwards. So they get the boost to sales now due to the effect of FOMO, then more later on when they're sold again separately.

 

Answer me this - if someone buys a Switch in April next year but finds out they can't buy this game, even digitally, is that a pro-consumer move or anti-consumer one? A shady tactic or an angelic one?

[Ronnie]

Just now, Sheikah said:

To the purpose of more people buying it in a short space of time than they otherwise would have if it wasn't time limited.

Again, for what purpose?

Why would selling a high number in a short space of time be more important than selling a likely even higher number over the rest of the Switch's lifetime?

Just now, Sheikah said:

Or even worse, as I suggested might happen, maybe they will be sold individually afterwards. So they get the boost to sales now due to the effect of FOMO, then more later on when they're sold again separately.

Why don't we wait for that doomsday scenario to actually happen before we grab our trusty gamer pitchforks?

[Dcubed]

33 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

It's funny you should say no chance because I've seen others believe absolutely the opposite. The truth is we have no idea. This is an absolutely anti-consumer move if they completely remove all games from the digital store after that date so you can see why people believe they'll be available separately. On the other hand we have a precedent for this kind of behaviour with companies like Disney. But truthfully, there's no completely like-for-like previous example that can look at from Nintendo to know exactly what they'll do.

He worked for Target so I'm sure he knows whether they were eligible to receive many copies or not. Nintendo have proven here that they want to control the supply so there's no reason to disbelieve this guy's report whatsoever.

I'd say games like Pokémon aren't going to be scarce, but for other games it's probably a different story.

Pretty much no Nintendo game is produced in limited quantities.  When their games are consistently selling 1 million+; that's not scarce.  Even their lesser selling games, like The Wonderful 101, Rhythm Heaven Megamix or Wario Ware Gold, are not hard to come by.

People just don't want to sell their copies.

Stuff like Panzer Dragoon Saga? Where SEGA only ever produced 10,000 copies outside Japan and made it a point in their advertising to gloat about how it was only available in very limited quantities? Now THAT is actually rare, and it's horseshit!

Quote

Either way, what are your thoughts on the limited time availability of these 3 Mario games? I can't help but feel that if this was another developer you'd have been up in their grill by this point.

It's no more bullshit than any of their other limited-time releases; like the Wii release of Super Mario All Stars, Four Swords Anniversary or the Kirby Dream Collection.  It's the typical Nintendo anniversary re-release, I'm kinda indifferent really.  I'm more pissed off that they don't just put out a bloody proper Virtual Console service!!! (Yes I'm still bitter and no I won't let it go!)

Edited September 7, 2020 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

5 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Again, for what purpose?

For the purpose of making more money, because FOMO does that. There are games where microtransactions are centred around FOMO with seasonal content, and they generate millions.

Tell me, if not for the reasons I'm giving, what purpose is there of making this time limited, from a business point of view?

If they are going to lose money like you said, why would they do it?

Either they believe doing this will make more money overall, or they want to make a lot of money quick (in the COVID setting and meeting quarterly targets that makes sense), or they will sell them individually afterwards and capitalise on this twice...or they are adopting a Disney vault approach to make their products seem scarce or higher value, so they will sell well again when they bring these games back into circulation. All of those possibilities are rather shady in that they work against the customer's interest - choose your poison.

5 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Why don't we wait for that doomsday scenario to actually happen before we grab our trusty gamer pitchforks?

Just to clarify, you're saying the scenario where Nintendo continue to sell the 3 Mario games to the public after March next year is the doomsday scenario?

[Sheikah]

22 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Pretty much no Nintendo game is produced in limited quantities.  When their games are consistently selling 1 million+; that's not scarce.  Even their lesser selling games, like The Wonderful 101, Rhythm Heaven Megamix or Wario Ware Gold, are not hard to come by.

If Nintendo flooded shops with new copies to the point that supply outstripped demand, I doubt we would see the games retain such value. It's not the first time I've heard that Nintendo carefully manage stock for certain games - and I've no reason to believe someone working at one of the major chains would lie about it.

22 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

It's no more bullshit than any of their other limited-time releases; like the Wii release of Super Mario All Stars, Four Swords Anniversary or the Kirby Dream Collection.  I'm more pissed off that they don't just put out a bloody proper Virtual Console service!!!

Right, but here's the thing, it may be no more bullshit than some other things, but bullshit is deserving of criticism nonetheless. 

I know your posting on these forums and you're often very vocal about lazy remasters, ports, and emulation, so a bit surprised you haven't touched on this colleciton. And you're very often chiding gaming companies and praising Jimquisition episodes that call bad practices to light. To me this limited availability of very, very well regarded games is on a level unseen from Nintendo before, to the point that this is indefensible.

[Dcubed]

28 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

If Nintendo flooded shops with new copies to the point that supply outstripped demand, I doubt we would see the games retain such value. It's not the first time I've heard that Nintendo carefully manage stock for certain games - and I've no reason to believe someone working at one of the major chains would lie about it.

Right, but here's the thing, it may be no more bullshit than some other things, but bullshit is deserving of criticism nonetheless. 

So... it's a matter of supply and demand? Like what I've been saying already? Thought so.

28 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

I know your posting on these forums and you're often very vocal about lazy remasters, ports, and emulation, so a bit surprised you haven't touched on this colleciton. And you're very often chiding gaming companies and praising Jimquisition episodes that call bad practices to light. To me this limited availability of very, very well regarded games is on a level unseen from Nintendo before, to the point that this is indefensible.

Clearly you have a short-term memory then, because Nintendo have been doing this for quite some time now.  I distinctly remember how much of a fucking nightmare it was to get my hands on Super Mario All Stars for Wii! It was exactly the same deal then as it is now (And digital scarcity isn't a new thing either, see Four Swords Anniversary and Donkey Kong Original Edition).

[Jonnas]

8 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

For the purpose of making more money, because FOMO does that. There are games where microtransactions are centred around FOMO with seasonal content, and they generate millions.

Tell me, if not for the reasons I'm giving, what purpose is there of making this time limited, from a business point of view?

Definitely not the reasons you're giving. The reason microtransactions make that sort of money is because a select few "whales" spend hundreds, with some even spending thousands, on one single "game as a service". Limited availability of in-game content drives them to spend money there and then, in a game that is constantly updated, sometimes with permanent content, sometimes with seasonal one.

Nintendo can't profit like that with this collection, because no customer will ever spend anything beyond the initial €60.

If you need a reason... because Nintendo believes this is how anniversary collections should be. From a business perspective, it would make more sense to make it available for more customers in the long run (you know this is how they usually operate), but if this is a trend in anniversary products, then yeah, tradition does sound like a reason Nintendo would have.

[Sheikah]

14 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

So... it's a matter of supply and demand? Like what I've been saying already? Thought so.

The ongoing narrative amongst some members on this forum is that Nintendo games are a special kind of quality that stand above other games. As we have seen here with timed/limited availability and the number of copies they ship for some series, they induce scarcity through careful management. If this was purely a case where quality dictating price we would see Witcher 3 still at £50 five years after launch.

Quote

Clearly you have a short-term memory then, because Nintendo have been doing this for quite some time now.  I distinctly remember how much of a fucking nightmare it was to get my hands on Super Mario All Stars for Wii! It was exactly the same deal then as it is now (And digital scarcity isn't a new thing either, see Four Swords Anniversary and Donkey Kong Original Edition).

I see you didn't address the first part of my post. Where is your criticism of this lazy remaster? Not even 60 FPS for Sunshine, which was supposed to be that in the first place. Very little work on Mario 64, or any of it for that matter. No GameCube controller support for Sunshine, despite Nintendo releasing an official GameCube controller. Full £50 price.

I'm surprised because I know how vocal you can be about lazy remasters and crappy practices (see the Jimquisition thread). I remember you giving the Tales of Symphonia remaster a right earful. Not going to lie, if I had to pick a company which I thought you would give a pass, this would be the one.

As for the bit you bolded - nope, those other games don't compare. You can't tell me that this 3 pack of Mario games are comparable in terms of impact/desirability/significance. Not only that, according to Wikipedia (and also what I remember), the individual games from Super Mario All Stars were available separately on the Wii Virtual Console store, thus making the limited digital availability in this case even more shitty. 

Also - just to point out here that the Mario All Stars games being sold separately on Wii kind of proves that they can and do pretty much whatever they like with regards to selling their games. 

[Jonnas]

Just now, Sheikah said:

Where is your criticism of this lazy remaster?

Ok, that's enough. I ignored your previous egging, because I figured it was a question (if an aggressive one), but please don't ask other forum members to take a stand, or have the same opinions as you. It's been pretty clear nobody in this forum is particularly happy with the collection, and there's a multitude of reasons for that. Don't go around demanding they show the same level of indignation that you do.

It's bad enough faith when politicians do it, don't bring that habit here.

[Sheikah]

Just now, Jonnas said:

Definitely not the reasons you're giving. The reason microtransactions make that sort of money is because a select few "whales" spend hundreds, with some even spending thousands, on one single "game as a service". Limited availability of in-game content drives them to spend money there and then, in a game that is constantly updated, sometimes with permanent content, sometimes with seasonal one.

For traditional microtransactions, sure, it's whales. But not seasonal battle passes - a lot of people buy them.

There are many people who are not drawn to microtransactions because they don't have any real value, and people can see through them.

This however is a 3-pack of games that people appreciate. Maybe people would have bought them down the line, or don't have a Switch yet. The fact that this 3 pack of games will only be available for 6 months will mean that if people have any interest in them whatsoever they will need to act - perhaps even purchasing a Switch to do so. 

I find it interesting that you discounted every single possibility I gave with very little reasoning. For instance, how can you say that it isn't a clever tactic to instill a sense of FOMO now, capitalise on sales, then sell them separately afterwards? Then they haven't lied but they'll have made more money.

Heck, as I mentioned, they've sold Mario All Stars individual games before on the Wii Virtual store. Why not the same for 3D All Stars?

Just now, Jonnas said:

If you need a reason... because Nintendo believes this is how anniversary collections should be. From a business perspective, it would make more sense to make it available for more customers in the long run (you know this is how they usually operate), but if this is a trend in anniversary products, then yeah, tradition does sound like a reason Nintendo would have.

Nintendo are a business out to make money. Ultimately all these decisions come back to making money.

There's no good consumer-friendly reason that this should be sold digitally for a limited amount of time - none at all.