Closing this deal with Nintendo is just the beginning of the Apple+Nintendo partnership. Cook is a master of closing deals. Great job Mr Cook
Cook is a genius now? But you have 62,017 rants each day, raging that he's not fit to lead Apple and demanding he step down ASAP, and you consistently call him every name in the book. Are you bipolar or something? You're really a piece of work. Maybe you took your meds today? Who knows.
I criticize Tim Cook and you call me names and swear at me. I complement Tim Cook and you call me names and swear at me.
I don't get it dude. Seems like you are the one that needs meds.
You pro-Cook comment sounded sarcastic. Why? Because of all the anti-Cook stuff you post and this article being about a Nintendo App Store game that doesn't even call for Cook to be brought up at all. If you do have a deeper connection to which you start to elude in your questionable post, it would behoove you to make a more detailed comment as well as make it absolutely clear you're not be sarcastic. Given your history, it's an odd duck. It would be like seeing Apple ][ praise Android for something out of the blue—your first thought it going to be "that must be sarcastic."
It's funny I read the story thinking always-connected was a knock on the title, but I have Clash of Clans which is also always-connected, and never thought twice about that.
I wonder how limited the free one is. I've never been much of a Mario guy, but could give it a go.....or a jump.
My opinion about Cook is based on results and his performance. When his performance changes so does my opinion.
That's not remotely accurate. When you read an article that says something you agree with or disagree with, your opinion of Cook whiplashes from extreme to another. To wit, you have zero idea what Cook is doing day-to-day to gauge his performance, and yet you will base your radical feelings off how you feel on a given day. How do I know this to be true? Well this article is proof since you're now complimenting Cook on his "performance" despite this deal with Nintendo having been known for many months when we first saw the demo of the Mario game on stage of the iPhone presentation; and that doesn't even get into his "dealings" with Nintendo who knows how many months before the announcement when all you did was slam him for being ineffectual up until now.
Already born dead. I don't think iOS users will rush to buy this game just because it is Nintendo or just because it is Mario and 75 MB/hour is not a small amount for a sprite animation game. Assessing a huge platform by less than 0.01 percent incident and building the whole implementation on that is a stupid business decision.
Already born dead. I don't think iOS users will rush to buy this game just because it is Nintendo or just because it is Mario and 75 MB/hour is not a small amount for a sprite animation game. Assessing a huge platform by less than 0.01 percent incident and building the whole implementation on that is a stupid business decision.
I plan to buy it. I expect it to be the best and fastest selling game on the App Store, even with its higher than normal price.
I plan to buy it. I expect it to be the best and fastest selling game on the App Store, even with its higher than normal price.
I think that it will sell a lot too.
Just because people are used to freemium games and apps that costs 99 cents (self entitled millenials and others who aren't used to paying for anything), that doesn't mean there isn't a market for other sorts of games, which costs more.
Just because Android phone makers have engaged in a race to the bottom strategy and flooded the market with garbage phones that cost nothing (welfare people strategy), that doesn't mean that there isn't a market for people willing to pay more for great phones (iPhones).
I actually find the constant internet on strategy to be a good one, because if it truly is effective and prevents piracy, then I doubt that we'll be seeing this game exist on the devices of many Fandroids.
My opinion about Cook is based on results and his performance. When his performance changes so does my opinion.
That's not remotely accurate. When you read an article that says something you agree with or disagree with, your opinion of Cook whiplashes from extreme to another. To wit, you have zero idea what Cook is doing day-to-day to gauge his performance, and yet you will base your radical feelings off how you feel on a given day. How do I know this to be true? Well this article is proof since you're now complimenting Cook on his "performance" despite this deal with Nintendo having been known for many months when we first saw the demo of the Mario game on stage of the iPhone presentation; and that doesn't even get into his "dealings" with Nintendo who knows how many months before the announcement when all you did was slam him for being ineffectual up until now.
Why are you so hot and bothered about me praising Cook? Am I in bizzaro world?
You fail to understand my comment. It's your trolling that bothers me, but it's your lack of critical thinking regarding Cook that is the problem. I neither want you to irrationally shower praise nor blame on the man—I want you to use your noggin before posting.
Already born dead. I don't think iOS users will rush to buy this game just because it is Nintendo or just because it is Mario and 75 MB/hour is not a small amount for a sprite animation game. Assessing a huge platform by less than 0.01 percent incident and building the whole implementation on that is a stupid business decision.
I plan to buy it. I expect it to be the best and fastest selling game on the App Store, even with its higher than normal price.
I'm buying it.
And if anyone is into gaming they should buy it. Even if they don't like this game.
Why? Cause it could change the whole pricing structure of games. I dispise the current 'Free - with in app purchases' model.
I want to pay something once and own it. Not be nickled and dimed to death.
I would much rather pay $10 for a game versus a free crappy game that's all about micro transactions. I wish more game publishers would follow suit.
Already born dead. I don't think iOS users will rush to buy this game just because it is Nintendo or just because it is Mario and 75 MB/hour is not a small amount for a sprite animation game. Assessing a huge platform by less than 0.01 percent incident and building the whole implementation on that is a stupid business decision.
I plan to buy it. I expect it to be the best and fastest selling game on the App Store, even with its higher than normal price.
I'm buying it.
And if anyone is into gaming they should buy it. Even if they don't like this game.
Why? Cause it could change the whole pricing structure of games. I dispise the current 'Free - with in app purchases' model.
I want to pay something once and own it. Not be nickled and dimed to death.
I would much rather pay $10 for a game versus a free crappy game that's all about micro transactions. I wish more game publishers would follow suit.
I agree but game app developers aren't all that different from other businesses. They price their products where they achieve the highest profits. In-app purchases in a desireable game might well produce a whole lot more than $10/player. https://www.appboy.com/blog/in-app-purchase-stats/
Unless Apple and Google discourage those types of monetization (which ain't happenin IMO since both profit immensely from it) don't look for one-time payment games to be the rule instead of the exception.
Nintendo Mario game on iOS exclusive for a period of time? It will be one of the best selling if not the all time best selling game on the App Store ever. Mario is the most popular Nintendo character and part of the reason that they have been able to stay in business. If they need a constant internet connection to protect this game from piracy then it makes sense to do it. The cost of the game is not high and I would personally pay double that for it.
Bringing it to Android I'm sure has some technical issues with piracy and is causing the delay. That and the differences if hardware and iterations of Android between device makers. Just imagine if they only released it for Sony phones only in order to keep it under control! Or only one model of Samsung Galaxy phone. That's the only way they might be able to lock it down. Also Android users have been reported to be less inclined to spend as much money on apps as iOS users.
My opinion about Cook is based on results and his performance. When his performance changes so does my opinion.
That's not remotely accurate. When you read an article that says something you agree with or disagree with, your opinion of Cook whiplashes from extreme to another. To wit, you have zero idea what Cook is doing day-to-day to gauge his performance, and yet you will base your radical feelings off how you feel on a given day. How do I know this to be true? Well this article is proof since you're now complimenting Cook on his "performance" despite this deal with Nintendo having been known for many months when we first saw the demo of the Mario game on stage of the iPhone presentation; and that doesn't even get into his "dealings" with Nintendo who knows how many months before the announcement when all you did was slam him for being ineffectual up until now.
Why are you so hot and bothered about me praising Cook? Am I in bizzaro world?
So you are the judge to determine if my opinions stem from critical thinking?
Yes, but you still fail to understand the core issue with your whiplashing anti-Cook/pro-Cook comments. In the AirPods thread you wrote, "This is why Timmy Cook is the CEO of Apple. The guy just gets it." when you've previously been saying he should be fired, that he's a horrible for Apple, and have even used the delay of the AirPods as your reasoning for your opinions. I'm flummoxed that you don't understand how your 180° reversible on Cook since yesterday doesn't sound sarcastic for those that have been reading your comments for years.
Pokemon Go this will be not. Too bad, the game is old enough to attract 40+ year olds, but this aside, still, $10 for the game will also be a limiter. Good luck Nintendo.
Pokemon Go this will be not. Too bad, the game is old enough to attract 40+ year olds, but this aside, still, $10 for the game will also be a limiter. Good luck Nintendo.
According to the following report, Pokémon GO only achieved $0.25 per daily active user. While that seems low, that did result in $268 million.
Based on that statistic, and a $9.99 price for Super Mario Run, they will need to get about 26.8 million purchases, or 2.68% of current iOS users to buy the app. Personally, I think that's doable.
I also wonder how many Pokémon GO users spent over $10 with in-app purchases.
Pokemon Go this will be not. Too bad, the game is old enough to attract 40+ year olds, but this aside, still, $10 for the game will also be a limiter. Good luck Nintendo.
According to the following report, Pokémon GO only achieved $0.25 per daily active user. While that seems low, that did result in $268 million.
Based on that statistic, and a $9.99 price for Super Mario Run, they will need to get about 26.8 million purchases, or 2.68% of current iOS users to buy the app. Personally, I think that's doable.
I also wonder how many Pokémon GO users spent over $10 with in-app purchases.
Every single Pokémon Go User has spent money - I'd bet on it. And $10 at least.
i dont know why people are complaining. Lots of games (including Pokémon Go) require a connection to play.
Closing this deal with Nintendo is just the beginning of the Apple+Nintendo partnership. Cook is a master of closing deals. Great job Mr Cook
Cook is a genius now? But you have 62,017 rants each day, raging that he's not fit to lead Apple and demanding he step down ASAP, and you consistently call him every name in the book. Are you bipolar or something? You're really a piece of work. Maybe you took your meds today? Who knows.
Psych drugs do not make a person think better. All they do is mess with the symptoms of diagnostics criteria in the "science by committee" psychiatric bible called the DSM.
Comments
I wonder how limited the free one is. I've never been much of a Mario guy, but could give it a go.....or a jump.
Heh heh.
Have a good weekend all.
E.
Just because people are used to freemium games and apps that costs 99 cents (self entitled millenials and others who aren't used to paying for anything), that doesn't mean there isn't a market for other sorts of games, which costs more.
Just because Android phone makers have engaged in a race to the bottom strategy and flooded the market with garbage phones that cost nothing (welfare people strategy), that doesn't mean that there isn't a market for people willing to pay more for great phones (iPhones).
I actually find the constant internet on strategy to be a good one, because if it truly is effective and prevents piracy, then I doubt that we'll be seeing this game exist on the devices of many Fandroids.
https://www.appboy.com/blog/in-app-purchase-stats/
Unless Apple and Google discourage those types of monetization (which ain't happenin IMO since both profit immensely from it) don't look for one-time payment games to be the rule instead of the exception.
Bringing it to Android I'm sure has some technical issues with piracy and is causing the delay. That and the differences if hardware and iterations of Android between device makers. Just imagine if they only released it for Sony phones only in order to keep it under control! Or only one model of Samsung Galaxy phone. That's the only way they might be able to lock it down. Also Android users have been reported to be less inclined to spend as much money on apps as iOS users.
Based on that statistic, and a $9.99 price for Super Mario Run, they will need to get about 26.8 million purchases, or 2.68% of current iOS users to buy the app. Personally, I think that's doable.
I also wonder how many Pokémon GO users spent over $10 with in-app purchases.
Every single Pokémon Go User has spent money - I'd bet on it. And $10 at least.
i dont know why people are complaining. Lots of games (including Pokémon Go) require a connection to play.