Nintendo prefers Super Mario Run's payment strategy to Fire Emblem Heroes

Coming from Nintendo's Tatsumi Kimishima, as well as an unnamed senior company official...

- revenue from Super Mario Run "did not meet our expectations"
- Nintendo has no intention of switching focus to freemium games
- "Fire Emblem Heroes' is an outlier. We honestly prefer the 'Super Mario Run' model."

I have to say, I also prefer Super Mario Run's payment style. I'd rather pay an upfront amount and never have to pay again, rather than have gameplay mechanics tied to microtransactions. I like when a game gives me all it has to offer for a set price. I don't think either way is wrong, but Super Mario Run's style is my personal preference.


People would rather pay $1 or so a day then to pay $10 right away. Its weird they didn't try to make individual worlds purchasable (but still include the $10 option). Additionally they might have just made the whole app be $10 rather than free to download. People complained and complained that the app wasn't really free and that they prefer to have ads or other things that free apps have so they can play ._.

Also I never really get why SMR was compared to F2P games. SMR was never going to do as well as those, since you just pay once.

Fri Mar 24 17 08:37am
(Updated 2 times)

I too prefer Super Mario Run's model. But it just feels a bit too expensive relative to the other similar games you can get on mobile devices for much cheaper, if not free. It might objectively be worth the price Nintendo is asking, but I don't think many people with those devices feel comfortable paying that amount for it. To be honest, I think most of them would rather just get the game free and then be made watch ads, with maybe the option to then pay for game outright in order to avoid the annoying ads. And I do actually think that would work better for most people too, at least the gamers/consumers.

I prefer the model for SMR, too, but from what I've played so far, kinda feels hard to justify $10 for it. $5? Sure, no brainer there. But with $10, I could get Blaster Master Zero instead (haven't bought it yet, planning to).

Is it for mobile?

I think is disingenuous comparing the pricing from the 3DS digital games to the ones in mobile. If anything Mario Run shows there is a difference in terms of expectation from what I've read it's mainly that both pricing and content need to be tweak differently from a game in other platforms. I have just a superficial view of the mobile market but several games in there don't seem to have an end game, which may also be a small factor in regards to Pokemon Go.

Fri Mar 24 17 08:48am
Rating: 1

The only problem is mobile users prefer the other model.

The thing is that fixed pricing will never work well on mobile unless it's $.99. Mobile games focus more on getting people addicted with small gratifications and then charge up for every little thing to keep going. $9.99 for a mobile game is a major turn off for these people because the game wants your money first and won't guarantee to give you the addiction to keep playing instead of the inverse.

Fri Mar 24 17 08:53am
Rating: 1

I wish I could play on my Android phone the levels that I paid for on iOS. But apprently Nintendo thought it was a bad idea. Nope. You have to pay separately for both OSes.

I think this is like purchasing a game on Xbox and then having to rebuy it on Playstation if you want to play it on both. That being said, a model like "Disney Anywhere" would be cool.

Fri Mar 24 17 09:14am
(Updated 1 time)

Whether if you agree with Nintendo's pricing or not, it also doesn't help that Nintendo lately seems to have Mario games cannibalize each other.

Whose bright idea was it to have Super Mario Run follow Super Mario Maker (and then have the Android version follow Super Mario Maker for 3DS). Don't forget Nintendo had both New Super Mario Bros. 2 and U cannibalize each other as well.

EDIT - Oh and if anyone was wondering, I did not get Super Mario Run. Why? Thank Super Mario Maker for it. I can play SMR/dash-type levels in it whether if Nintendo built them or fans did.

Fri Mar 24 17 09:38am
Rating: 1

Wait...since when is releasing Mario games constantly been a bad thing? By that logic, then look at how Monster Hunter has been milked to death.

Fri Mar 24 17 11:35am
Rating: 1

Thank Super Mario Maker for it.

Well, this game technically is aiming for a new audience who has vague notions of Nintendo. This in turn may also be why the sales of the game aren't as broad. Also there's no comparison Mario Run is built to use one button, and Super Mario Maker is an ensemble of different 2D Marios (in terms of skills since momentum and the like are the same).

Fri Mar 24 17 09:34am
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

I prefer the SMR model as well. I stopped playing FE Heroes because of the freemium model (though, it still is a fine enough game if you go the F2P route.)

I also don't think Nintendo should ever go the "free" route with any of their major IPs. When mobile gamers freak out over a $10 price tag, it shows that Iwata was right all along. The "race to the bottom" has done nothing but devalue software. In an industry where it's hard to keep your studio's doors open, creating an ecosystem where consumers expect everything for free was the dumbest move those game creators could make.

If Nintendo preferred SMR's one time payment over FE Heroes, then who is that idiot in DeNa that thought that doing the gacha mechanic was a great idea?

I'm not bashing Nintendo or DeNa here...its just that I find the statement a bit hypocritical.....

And that is why - "Fire Emblem Heroes' is an outlier.

Vastly prefer a $10 price point over a game being created around the idea of charging money for stuff.

A $10 price tag is fine as long as customers feel like they're getting their money's worth. A couple of other companies with "premium priced" games are Square and Cave and people still buy those. Heck, 5pb prices games at $20~$40.

Super Mario Run's problem is that it totally is not worth $10. Firstly, you have the always-online requirement, which is a major turn off. Secondly, it looks like and is named as if it's an infinite runner, which you can find loads of for free, on top of not being what people expect or WANT in a "Mario" game. Thirdly, there's the whole IAP fiasco.

I wouldn't mind the payment strategy either if it wasn't so expensive. If I can get a full, longer mario experience off the Wii U VC for $8 then the price for the SMR unlock so be $5 at most IMO, so I still haven't purchased the full version.

I say if it didn't have the name New in it & same graphics from Wii I think it would have sold better. Mario on 2day needs to do creative art style like he always did in the past. I would have like it more if the art style was like paper mario. I love how they do have different artstyle to the old Mario on there but it'd used as still images.

This "New" artstyle needs to end & a better one needs to come. A link between world's is one proof of concept.

I don't mind pay to play as long as it's reasonable. Fire EMblem Heroes is an absolute joke! It's like buying a pack of pokemon cards but instead of 7 cards for $3 its five cards for $10 and you're guaranteed to get 5 pidgeys. I will NEVER spend money on Fire Emblem. The same goes for Miitomo though - I went in fully willing to spend some cash but then I saw that it was $5.00 for a t-shirt. A digital piece of clothing... Five Dollars. It's just not going to happen.

Clearly someone out there is defining these figures (supply/demand) but if they every offered me some REAL incentive for my money, I would happily play with a F2P model.

Fri Mar 24 17 12:54pm
(Updated 1 time)

Surprised at the amount preferring Mario's pay model.

For Fire Emblem, I haven't spent any money and I have 57 unique characters, I beat the story mode and Paralogues and did a majority of them on Hard and Lunatic as well. Only things I haven't been able to do is 2 of the Grand Battles, due to being stupid hard.

The "pay" part is Orbs, which is primarily for summoning. I have been using the same team since I started though. I'm just summoning for the sake of it. Orbs don't help you win, and you get TONS for free all the time. I also have 22 of those things to restore my Stamina, 45 to restore the battle arena, etc. Can also use MyNintendo to get some stuff.

You don't have to pay for anything and it is painfully easy to get more things by just playing.

Not sure what you guys are doing wrong where it is such an issue.

As for Mario, the problem is justifying the $10. It is a watered down Mario where you barely control characters. The "pay once and have at it" model isn't the issue, but $10 for what it ultimately is? Yeah.

It would be like paying $10 for Miitomo so you had free access to all clothes and Miitomo Drop.

Of course Nintendo prefers that pay model. They get $10 from each player, rather than thousands who play the game and pay nothing.

The best method is to follow Pokemon Picross & Rumble World. Do F2P, but have a cap where you can pay to have it all at once. So basically give you both methods. Pay once & free to play.

Fri Mar 24 17 01:52pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

Brilliant. That's the Nintendo I know and love.

Dear investors.
That business model doesn't work as well as the other one.
But it's still the one we think should be done.

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!