Nintendo asking partner iPhone developers to avoid gouging gamers on in-app purchases
In what would be an unusual step for most companies, Nintendo is reportedly telling its partner mobile developers to avoid squeezing players too hard for in-app purchases -- even though both parties would stand to benefit from the revenue.
The company is mostly interested in drawing attention to popular console franchises like Mario and "Fire Emblem," and doesn't want to damage its brand by milking players the way many mobile apps do, sources told the Wall Street Journal. A number of so-called "free-to-play" games can in truth be very expensive, forcing players to spend real money on in-game currency or speeding up essential actions if they want to make progress. More innocuous examples limit transactions to cosmetic items.
"Dragalia Lost" developer CyberAgent recently cut its fiscal year earnings forecast for the first time in 17 years, in part blaming per-player revenue from that game. Officials from the company told the Journal that Nintendo specifically asked it to improve the chances of winning access to rare characters.
"Nintendo is not interested in making a large amount of revenue from a single smartphone game," one official said. "If we managed the game alone, we would have made a lot more."
A Nintendo spokesman simply confirmed that the company discusses "various things, not just limited to payments, to deliver high-quality fun to consumers."
In February another Nintendo partner, "Super Mario Run" and "Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp" developer DeNA, said that most of its smartphone titles are struggling except for "Megido 72" -- an independent production.
Nintendo is treading a fine line with mobile games, its next project being "Dr. Mario World." It has had to balance the added revenue with the potential for diverting people from its profitable console business.
The company is mostly interested in drawing attention to popular console franchises like Mario and "Fire Emblem," and doesn't want to damage its brand by milking players the way many mobile apps do, sources told the Wall Street Journal. A number of so-called "free-to-play" games can in truth be very expensive, forcing players to spend real money on in-game currency or speeding up essential actions if they want to make progress. More innocuous examples limit transactions to cosmetic items.
"Dragalia Lost" developer CyberAgent recently cut its fiscal year earnings forecast for the first time in 17 years, in part blaming per-player revenue from that game. Officials from the company told the Journal that Nintendo specifically asked it to improve the chances of winning access to rare characters.
"Nintendo is not interested in making a large amount of revenue from a single smartphone game," one official said. "If we managed the game alone, we would have made a lot more."
A Nintendo spokesman simply confirmed that the company discusses "various things, not just limited to payments, to deliver high-quality fun to consumers."
In February another Nintendo partner, "Super Mario Run" and "Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp" developer DeNA, said that most of its smartphone titles are struggling except for "Megido 72" -- an independent production.
Nintendo is treading a fine line with mobile games, its next project being "Dr. Mario World." It has had to balance the added revenue with the potential for diverting people from its profitable console business.
Comments
Nintendo has a weird way of being innovative but moving slow. Nintendo had a monopoly on indie developers until iPhone came out. They just sat back and watched Apple take all these developers under their wing. Strange because Nintendo is a gaming company while Apple seems to not give a sh**. Point is, a successful mobile platform from Nintendo would have been their ideal, instead they have deal with this freeware model that Apple brought to market.
Before anyone mentions the Switch being successful tell me how it's selling 200 million a year and has iOS-level indie developer support.
Nintendo is arguing against gouging - that's a bit vague on the face of things. Almost on the level of "I know it when I see it"
Edit: Aside
I've got some free to play games on my phone - you can really see the pay to win aspects on some - the competitions that encourage spending. It's fun to figure out strategies to win and generate a lot of in game resources without paying.
Depends on what games you're playing. If you're playing one of those stupid games that makes you wait 72 hours for an upgrade, you never win. There's people who have spent thousands on Clash of Clans and are still below other players.
You never "win". It's a never ending loop like chasing your tail.
I've never played that Star Wars game but games like Clash of Clans have no end. Even when you collect everything the game has to offer they just add more things to collect. Even when you max out your stats, they add a higher rank. Keep in mind you could blow $1,000 before getting to the highest rank or collecting everything.
I'm in the same boat. I started playing SimCity BuildIt a couple of years ago. I used IAP a couple of times initially, when EA Games chose to donate 50% of that for fighting AIDS or some other charity.
After that, I've never made an IAP again and I really get a lot of pleasure from the game. I've reached pretty high, as far as achievements are concerned.
It's certainly not for anyone looking for a rush. It's just a nice game for lethargic people like me.
The only IAPs I do are for the Star Wars Pinball boards in Zen Pinball.