Newzoo Estimates Less Than Five Percent of Users Have Paid For Super Mario Run

Pretty sure it's not going to fare any better on Android. Android users know all about installing APKs.

What do they base this estimate on? There is no info about that. Is it just a guess? If we are just guessing, I say 12% purchased the full version.

Is this bad? 90 million people interacted with their IP and I'm sure 30 million dollars is still a profit.

What exactly is this information based on in the first place? Just seems like a really wild guess at the moment.

The game gives me no reason to want to pay £7.99 for a mobile game and with it being online only and no intention for future support, I'm not bothering.

That's what happens when you grossly over-price your game. Whether these statistics are accurate or not, it would have done much better if it had a 5 dollar price tag.

lol

Now, just imagine if they priced similarly to other apps... They'd have made more money by selling it cheaper! ...probably.

I mean for a mobile game thats not bad sales but its pales in comparison to pokemon go... The main reason it is a failure is that it was a bad introduction to the mobile market for Nintendo but not its sales necessarily. All of its problems will surely damage its future mobile releases.

While that's all good I disagree with the investors trying to pull out as quickly as possible, because it never was going to be a Nintendo savior. If I was one of those investors I would wait until the reveal on the 12th before jumping ship.

Nintendo: "Oh...no... Mario Run only sold 3 million, that proves our IP's belong on a Nintendo console. Didn't hurt 90 million people were reminded about Mario though! Buy a Switch, please understand!"

I wouldn't mind being able to make $30 million in a couple of weeks. For a game that probably cost peanuts to make.

As much as I hate micro transactions, that's where the big money is. If people think the game is inexpensive, they start playing and then they start paying. By allowing the demo before a full purchase, a lot of people have gotten to play a few minutes of the game before buying. Micro transactions allow you to play much more of a game and once you're hooked, they lock vital content behind purchases. I truly believe Nintendo will get better in the mobile space but man oh man they are not doing well to start. Miitomo is already dead and Super Mario Run has a 3% attach rate. I'm on Android so I can't play the game. The only silver lining is that it's more exposure to Mario and Nintendo. Maybe people didn't buy the game but they are now thinking about Mario more before Switch comes out and that's key. As we saw with Pokemon go, the mobile space can lead to sales in hardware and software.

Idk, sounds pretty good.

The percentage of smartphone users that actually spend money in their games is only like 5% anyways, right?

So they got 3% to buy instead of 5%? Given the premium price tag I'd say that's pretty good.

These revenue figures should have been expected for a mobile game with a premium price tag.

Mario Run is an advertising tool for the Mario brand. Seeing as how Mario Maker 3DS has sold in Japan thus far, it seems to be doing its job.

@Loui Not happening, the game is a free download for this very reason.

@JaxonH

Actually, its between 1 and 2 percent. 3 wouldnt be bad at all!

If all this is true, of course.

@tsm7 exactly. super mario run was a huge success. 90million people downloaded the demo and played a mario game again. would be interesting to see how many of these people havent played a mario game in 10 years or so.
pokemon go boosted the sales for pokemon games on 3ds. maybe when this will come out for android we will see the new mario game for switch and it will boost sales too

Regardless of how much it sold, it did successfully do one thing. It got the Mario franchise more exposure, and similar to Pokémon Go, it'll probably benefit them in the long run.

I bought Mario Run and was pleased with my purchase. Then I bought final fantasy iv. Yeah...Mario what?

Where is this number coming from? Until Nintendo states actual numbers in their investor report I'll take this "educated guess" with a large grain of salt.

Since theu decided it was a good idea to only make the game accessible to iphone users I haven't even tried it yet. I highly doubt most people would pay 10 bucks for a cell phone game anyway.

I still haven't paid $10. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

@JaxonH Only in Nintendolife is $30 million in such a short space of time a failure. Only 90 million downloads too.

Ugh... Nintendo... SMDH, yet again.
Like it or not, $9.99 is a fortune in the eyes of mobile phone gamers.
Why not give players World 1 for free (as it currently is), then charge a dollar to unlock each additional world (2 through 6).
One dollar is the sweet spot with mobile gaming.
Players that want to unlock everything all at once should be given that option at a slightly reduced bundle price.
I'd wager that the above pricing model would have netted Nintendo a much higher return than current figures indicate.
But too late now for any of that.

It's funny how many silly people think this is bad news. 3% of people spent $10 on the game after playing the demo. Most games are $1 and get ignored. $30 million revenue after a few weeks for a game that shouldn't have been very laborious to develop seems like a big win. They furthered the brand in a big way and stole the App Store's attention for a few days.

I like the price because they took a stand against devaluing their product, which the App Store generally demands most games to do to stand a chance. I don't know if it was the ideal price to make the most profit on the game, but it is worth asking price.

@WiltonRoots
I mean, could it have done better using microtransactions? Ya, definitely. Just how the market works.

I admire their desire to not rip people off, and they even stood by those morals knowing they would have made more money nickel and diming people.

But given the response, I say they should go for it. If people are going to complain about not being taken advantage of... if people are going to complain about having a complete game not tainted by cooldown timers and invasive microtransactions... if people are actually going to beg to be nickeled and dimed...

Then Nintendo should do it. And with a clear conscience at that. After all, it's "what the people want". (Just keep that premium purchase price tag as an option for people like me who would rather pay up front and rid the game of such things)

@ShadowForks If you don't think there'll be a cracked APK of this game then I think you're very much mistaken. You can download pretty much any popular Android app/game with the in-app purchases unlocked already. The 'free to start' setup makes absolutely no difference.

After I stated to go for the Black coins on the free levels I started to understand how the 10 dollar price tag might actually be worth it. I will buy the unlock at some point.

I paid for it and I'm very happy that I did. Toad Rally is beyond addicting!

Game was great fun. 100% it and still play toad rally.

Is this really all that surprising? Most people will only pay for the full game if they intend to keep playing it long term, but even Nintendo themselves aren't expecting this to be popular long term... that's why they built up as much hype as they could before release, but aren't planning to add any further content to the game.

So... basically smart phone users are lazy, cheap, and overly demanding. They sound like nice people.

I haven't seen it in my Android store yet. I like that I could (eventually) play Yoshi and Toadette, but I'm burnt out on Mario 2d platformers at the moment. Making the characters move on their own doesn't seem like an enticing innovation. I'm probably going to skip it and wait for Fire Emblem.

This is what happens when you charge $10 for a $3 game.

@Loui Really? I'm sorry for doubting you, it's been awhile since I've been familiar with APK exploits.

@MrGawain I'm always afraid that this will happen every time a franchise I like takes a creative direction I don't care for. How do I communicate that it isn't Mario that I'm avoiding, but instead the new spin on it that Nintendo thinks is more terribly clever than I do? I'd like a Mario phone game that gives the characters unique abilities instead of moving them around for me.

90 million phones with mario on them sounds like a job well done. I agree with the 5$ price tag been a better idea though.

It's 30 million and that's before Android release. Statistically, most gamers use Android instead of iPhone.
If that's failure, then man I'd love to fail that big.

$10 is cheap for what you get...

1 in 30 people isn't terrible and the 90 million total is pretty good.

Mario Run was my game of 2016!

The funny thing... these lazy, entitled misers have probably spent ten times the asking price of SMR on "digital style"-related microtransactions in the last six months alone.

It's a quality game with a lot of replay given the customisable castle town and Rally mode. I rather doubt it cost $30mil to make, so I can't regard it as a failure. Having an offline mode would have been a good idea, but I have a large data plan and usually play at home so I haven't found it a problem. I like the option of paying full-whack for an ad-free experience or lack of micro transactions. My partner's kid also didn't hesitate to drop some of his iTunes credit on it, so the idea it's "overpriced" is a bit silly - it's pretty cheap for a new Mario game!

@ShadowForks No problem. Yeah, it's just a case of downloading a modded APK which unlocks in-app purchases/micro-transactions. If people are going to bother cracking Candy Crush, I imagine they'll do the same to a high profile release like SMR.

I'll be paying for it on release day though.

30 Millions plus all the free Mario advertisement to 90 Million people, I'd call that a good day at the office. And it hasn't even released on Android yet!

iOS users have always spent a lot more on mobile games, so I doubt Android will see more success percentage-wise. (The Android version will probably sell more copies, though.) However, the free advertisement will go a long way in helping the Switch.

Just wait until it hits Android.
They underestimate the power of the dark side.

@loui this game is always-online, it will ping the server constantly to see if you're using a legitimate version and can't be played offline. Cracked copies will get banned. Many mobile games use this approach.

@AlternateButtons It's not to real gamers who know that quality games require a steeper price, but all the mobile "gamers" that are used to playing games like Candy Crush filled with micro-transactions don't understand that. Mobile is a whole different market than traditional consoles and handhelds.

I bought it and have no regrets. It's what I would expect for an initial mario mobile game.

i can't see android fairing much better though.

Not surprising as people's expectations for smartphone games are free to play (or a few dollars max) with microtransactions.

@Syrek24 Rayman Jungle Run - $3 (4 hour main story + extras)
Sonic CD - Free w/ ads (3 hour main story + extras)
Plants vs Zombies - Free w/ ads (8 hour main story, 19 main + extras)
Limbo - $5 (4 hour main + extras)
Bastion - $5 (9 hour main + extras)
Castle of Illusion - $5 (3 hour main + extras)
Deus EX Go - $2 (6 hour main + extras)
Dust: An Elysian Tail - $6 (13 hour main + extras)

Super Mario Run - $10 (5 hour main + extras)

Source: HLTB

Just because it has Mario in it, doesn't mean it's worth $10.

@Mijzelffan I'll be very surprised if no-one can find a way around that to be honest.

I paid for it. I play a level a day, do my toad rally a couple times, and bonus box. I haven't beat it yet but I am not someone who expected a full fledged mario game and beat it in an hour, then complained it was too short. Mobile games are meant for 10 min of distraction and then back to the real world. I have 2 other systems for real Mario games.

For 9.99 it sure is a small game. I've collected all 3 sets of coins. I hope they add more levels.

Well 3 million times $10 still means they've collected a cool $30 million. Not too shabby, don't you think?

Super Mario Run for Android version, please...

@Solid_Stannis Don't forget that many of those entitled misers who think they deserve unlimited content for a dollar (or whatever your local unit of currency is) gladly pay hundreds of dollars every year to get the newest phones because Steve Jobs told them it was cool.

@tsm7 For sales kind of. But to impress investors, not at all.

@rushiosan As far as I'm concerned you've proven all those other games are underpriced.

If it wasn't online only I'd have bought it.
Don't see the point in a game my kids can't play when out the house.

I played a fair bit of it with my (surprisingly good) cousin since I don't have an iPhone and all those people who haven't bought it don't realize what they're missing out on. It's not as much content as a full Mario game on a Nintendo console but it's just as good.

Would be interesting to see numbers on other pay games. Like titles from square enix. Had they made something near to 30millions? What have been the % of installs? I think 3 millions purchases in this case is a big number. And this numbers are not different from others pay games on the App Store. Of course a lot of people would download the thing out of curiosity but only a small percentage of that would actually buy it. In the case of Super Mario Run, with it premium price it was to be expected. I'm not sure why people like to pretend Nintendo is failing even when they succeed. There's an interesting psychology research hiding there.

90 million is extremely good. and 3 million sales..yeah, it could be better, but SMR did cost them almost nothing to make..it's all reused assets lol

$30 million in revenue in less then a month for a game that probably cost less........so a failure it probably is not. Maybe it will have the same effect as Pokémon Go and add to Mario games sales as well. We don't know that yet. To be real though I haven't spent a dime on any app game yet so any money they get from mobile gamers is more then I expect based on my spending habits

@PanurgeJr "Nintendo game prices are okay, if there's anything cheaper they're underpriced"

Nice logic, sir.

@Pink_Floyd Not happening, it was already officially confirmed there's no future content planned.

@rushiosan yeah..remember when they said that they were done with updating Splatoon, but then continued to update Splatoon? Nintendo pretty much lies every time about these things.

@rushiosan "Anyone who thinks Nintendo's prices are acceptable must do so only because he's an unthinking fanboy who always thinks everything Nintendo does is correct and not from actual consideration of the market as a whole." There, I've included the unstated portion of your argument for you.

The price is steep, no doubt, but the big disappointment from my perspective is that they won't keep the game going with additional level packs. They spent all this money doing the groundwork just to abandon it immediately? From an occasional iOS gamer perspective, and I can only assume the shareholders feel the same, this is idiotic. They could've charged $5 for the full game and then $5 for additional "worlds" of 24 levels every two or three months. I guarantee I'd be shelling out that additional $5 indefinitely. Seems like an obvious missed opportunity.

@Tarzan
The point isn't that $30 mil is bad (though how much of a cut does apple take?). It is a very bad business perspective to look at it like that, focusing on short term gains.

The point is, nintendo is trying to break into the mobile market. The most important things for them right now are:

-exposure, the lower the price, the more people will consider trying it. 90 mil is too low a number in my opinion. They want to reach the people who don't care enough to go on websites like nintendolife, because that's the point of the mobile market. Just think about how many apple users aren't playing mario run!

-develop a following. The more people who buy the game, the more people will actually complete it, thus more people who will want a smr2 and will likely buy other nintendo smartphone games. They need mobile fanboys!

-establish brand recognition. This is their first mobile game, it's their first impression to the mobile market. They are showing everyone that they make premium mobile games that aren't for everyone. Who are their target audience? They are known as a family game company, but this high price point makes it difficult to make the game accessible to the whole family. $20+ to get your kids the game? At say $2, everyone in the household would have a copy.

I would argue that they would have made more than $30 mil at $2 or $5, but immediate profit is not the point, they are putting their worst foot forward into the mobile market. They continue to show that they are out of touch with the consumer and fail to consider their needs
Any halfway competent businessman can tell you that you'll end up failing if you don't consider the consumer's needs, because someone else will, and they'll steal the market share. Every other developer is watching nintendo to see how they do. All it takes is another major player to make quality games at a competitive price to muscle out nintendo

@Niinbendo

"it's nice to see that people are making lemonade out of lemons in regards to the fact there have been 90mil downloads, however how many of those downloads reminded people Mario was not for them anymore/didn't like the game or fulfilled their Mario fix and now may not purchase a Switch based on Super Mario Run."

Pokemon didn't have that problem at all. Go seems to have gotten plenty of people to crave the full Pokemon experience again and that's even after it had lost 60% of it's paying base (Funny enough today while I was waiting in the Advisory office at my college, I noticed a person playing S&M on the Black Friday 3DS). Go was a more positively received game of course but from what I've gathered, most people were fine with SMR itself, they just don't want to pay a "premium" price for it. But they still want to play Mario or they wouldn't be complaining about that looming $10 paywall preventing them from continuing.

All this news really says to me is that Nintendo may need to acquiesce to this mobile culture if they want to reap the full benefits from it. If your intention is to just use mobile as a means to advertise your games then F2P works just fine for that. Consider the initial investment (which really couldn't have been much) an ad expense and since mobile users apparently LIKE being nickel and dime'd to death, you'll earn it back in due time so it's essentially free. Or if you really want to stick to your principles then price it more competitively and keep the game relevant with updates so that people feel like their dollar is going further. However, we've yet to see if SMR will have any impact on how the next console Mario does at all so there's a chance this current approach could work out just fine and we're going DOOOOMMMMM over nothing. 90 million with Android users still to come... that's a lot of minds to have Mario on with a new console around the corner. We shall see.

What do you guys think it costed to develop?

Phone gamers don't want quality. They want crap

Pretty good attach rate, all things considered.

Yes, that's considered a good rate of attachment at that level of engagement.

Seems very likely that cutting the price in half could have lead to higher revenue.

The price would be fine...if it were a real Mario platformer and not a one touch mobile game

At half the price do you think there would have been double the amount of purchasers?

You guys defending this are ridiculous. Do you think investors are going to be pleased with this? And guess what, investors are the only thing that matters to the company of Nintendo from a business standpoint.

I've said it before I'll say it again, Nintendo seems lost anymore.

Personally I find the cost acceptable for the game. It's short and sweet but that doesn't mean it should be free or cheap. I also appreciate that the game is not getting the usual update, money-grabbing nonsense that is so prevalent. It just makes me sad that I am in the minority.

Everyone knows Apple users will spend anything for the hardware, but they're cheap doodoo heads when it comes to buying software. Super Mario Run should sell much more on Android.

@westman98 "Premium"? This costs only a fifth of a regular Mario game. This game has about a third of the levels found in NSMB U along with having Kingdom Builder and Toad Rally modes. So it's fairly priced.

I wouldn't say this is bad, but I feel like Mario should've had more draw. It is good that brand recognition got a boost, but I do wonder how much it really matters in the long run

@Mando44646
Indeed. They are really addicted with crappy mobile games but refuse to play better games like on 3DS quality at least. Their excuses just only the price. No freebies, no play, period.
But we can change their mindset by a little bit of positive influence. Show them that Nintendo games are really worthed to play.

If it had been F2P they would have made double that. The always online nature would be easier to swallow as well.

I have it sat on my home screen next to Pokémon Go. PoGo gets way more play and uses a lot less data.

sounds like an easy 15 million dollars in profit, assuming apple paid nothing for exclusivity and is taking 30% off each sale, which is the worst-case scenario.

I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't really mind the price they set, and I think the approach they took to changing up the play for a one- touch style game works well. My main gripe is still tethering it to the online requirement. You don't really get to completely own the game in a real mobile sense. Maybe they didn't want to take the portable distinction away from the 3DS, so they crippled its ability to be a game you can play anywhere on the go into a game you can play if you stay in wi-if range. I already have a few settings that would be ideal for it but I'm limited to playing it on my couch at home, where I could already play any console as well. But what if the power goes out? At least you could pass the time playing it then but whoops... the wi-fi's out too.

What's it been, 18 days so far? Is it really time already to declare that those who will want to buy it would have done so by now? Over 80 million people have 3 levels and a timed tease of a 4th to fiddle with now. You don't think a few will eventually decide they want to see more after all? It's different enough from the classic Mario formula that some people may need to get in the swing of it more before deciding to buy it. Still, nearly half the amount of people that bought a Wii U over 4 years have bought it within 18 days? Not exactly a failure.

@electrolite77 No, that's not my logic. I've thought and said for a long time, long before Nintendo was producing mobile games, long before it was even known they would produce mobile games, that the mobile market was fundamentally unbalanced, and that demand had so overwhelmed supply that it and it alone determined pricing, not the interaction of the two. By one estimate I've seen by 2018--which at this point is next year--fewer than one in ten thousand apps will be profitable. Undoubtedly many will deserve to fail, but 9,999? Not a chance. But that's where the market is headed, unless somebody resists the trend and demands that producers who produce quality work be entitled to some return on their investment.

As for me allegedly saying people are wrong in how they spend their money, well, you've got access to everything I've said. Find it and I'll admit you're right and that I was wrong.

@gatorboi352 Investors shot Nintendo's stock through the roof until they realized Pokémon Go wasn't really a Nintendo game. They're idiots.

I bought the game. Was ok but short.

What I think is that it's not even a remotely disappointing outcome for Nintendo. First of all, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing going in, and to see a "low" conversion rate (which isn't actually low) is doubtless not at all surprising to them. They've said all along that they will never sell their soul for quick cash and that they would never join in on the "race to the bottom" of App Store pricing. They stuck to their guns, and in doing so they just made $30-million in two weeks time on a game that probably cost less than a couple million dollars to make, and that's just on iOS so you can expect that revenue figure to increase significantly when the game launches on android (obviously). They also proved that a pay-up-front/premium-price model CAN be viable in a market where anything that's not free-to-play has been written off entirely.

But most importantly, they made a massive profit off of what's essentially a giant commercial for the Nintendo brand that more than 90-million people have seen in just a few weeks time, at a time when Nintendo clearly needs/wants attention. It has to be stated that this was likely Nintendo's chief objective with this game; its release timing is no coincidence. Nintendo does things for their own unique reasons, and they do them in their own unorthodox ways, so I find it a bit perplexing that anyone would expect this to have played out any differently than it has, or differently from the way Nintendo expected it to. They aren't stupid. They know the types of games that generate endless cash flows for their publishers. If they wanted to go that route, they would have.

Edit: I also think Mitch should have done a little research before posting this article, because at $30-million, you're looking at a 3.3% conversion rate, and if you look at the rest of the mobile games industry you'll find that less than 2% of all mobile gamers actually pay anything for the games they download, and that nearly HALF of the money generated by mobile games comes from just .19% of mobile gamers. Those people are what the industry refers to as "whales", and Nintendo are extremely fortunate to have made $30-million without having to desperately chase after those types of customers just to turn a few bucks. To have reached a conversion rate that's nearly double the industry average is to be applauded, especially on a game that costs $10 in a market that is mostly "free". Certain people in this comment section clearly just have no clue what they're "lol"-ing about.

http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/23/half-of-all-mobile-games-revenue-comes-from-only-0-19-of-players-report/amp/

@JaxonH It would be amazing if even 5% of smartphone gamers paid money for the games they play. It's actually significantly lower than that. The number is actually less than 2%.

@Nintendofan83 They're doing better than the average by far, so....

I think in any regard this is a good result. 3 million in the span of a few weeks is actuaĺy impressive for a paid app.

By comparison Lara Croft Go is a paid app that has sold only 280,000 on iOS since launching August 2015 and that was a big paid app and getting mobile game of the year awards.

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/12/21/super-mario-new-game-mode-download-record/

Considering the aim for Super Mario Run was awareness it has done extremely well. Letting the 3% purchase blind you to the actual sales figures is kind of shoddy journalism, compare it to other paid apps sales figures, not its own download figure.

@kurtasbestos Maybe, if anything, it will convince Nintendo that the mobile market isn't something they should invest heavily in. I mean, SMR is mostly recycled assets right? Seems like a win-win to me, even if only 3 million converted to full purchases.

Anyway, yes, the Android release should see further sales. Perhaps they may even drop the price, or change their stance on additional content.

@UK-Nintendo Toad Rally is a massively-overlooked major portion of the game. If you're trying to unlock items and areas in the kingdom builder, or to unlock all the playable characters, Toad Rally can easily give you many hours of additional play time.

Totally worth the price. I had no problem paying 10-18 bucks for other games(square-Enix/RPGs) and this game is giving me the same amount of hours with Toad rally. No ads /fun/ amount of polish is all worth it for me . I agree with others that 5 dollars or equivalent currency would have been the sweet spot but .... I am pretty loyal to Nintendo. Add me! 8607-0961-2721

@BAN yea true but I also finished that with 9999 points and all items. Good game

A couple of my friends and co-worker have it and like it. But others say they won't buy it till the price goes down.

Which is funny to me considering I have a friend who thinks $9.99 is too much for a mobile game, but spends about $20 a week on pokemon go for egg incubators and lucky egg (because leveling up after 20 is a pain).

Really hilarious to me. And sad this is the mindset off a lot of people.

Nintendo doesn't go into the dark side and they are disliked for it

It's just an estimate. No proper solid information...

If they priced this game as $3 and got even %20 purchase rate they'd have $54 million and I'm sure the purchase rate would have been higher.

I'm quite sure that their main goal with mobile games isn't making a huge profit, but to bring their IPs under the spotlight and attract new people to their console. IIRC Kimishima himself compared the smartphone games to the '80/'90 TV commercials. Just look at how Pokemon Go helped Sun and Moon sales.

Imagine pricing SMR AT $3 then looking at the backlash as Mario Switch is $40!

I've always thought this,free games with micr transactions is what mobile gamers want.It's a con as we All kown but it's free which is the hook and the paid micro transactions that's the wallet sinker.But it can also happen on console devices to I.E World of Tanks xbox one.I've spent on buying Gold £250.YES I'm very very stupid.This is only time in playing for 45 years that I've done this.Nintendo may not have made loads of money but I repeat them for this one off payment.There trying to look after you,not con you.

@boatie 20% purchase rate would be 18 million, In two weeks. Minecraft Pocket edition took over 5 years to sell 40 million and that's during peak Minecraft hype.

I'd think even if Super Mario Run was $1, based on the mobile market, the rate of sales may not even double.

@Lizuka Because there's such a massive difference between barely any money and barely more than barely any money, right? Sorry, I just don't understand the thinking. Especially from people on this site who probably buy games at least as expensive as this one on a regular basis, and probably many that are significantly more expensive. I mean if you're buying Nintendo's first-party output, you're paying many times more than $10 for every single one of those.

@Dr_Lugae it took Minecraft 4 years to sell 40 million because it costs something over 20 bucks. Mario Run was already downloaded 90 million times. Do you think Candy Crush hasn't had micropurchases from %20 of people downloading it?

Just a thought.Mario has been as said down loaded 90 million times.But I see RUN as and Advertstment for there main Mario s on There home consoles and portable.So you make 30mil+ and you'got massive unpaid Advert for Nintendo games ect.

@Mainer82: Agreed! 24 levels that have 3 different variations, toad rally (which is super fun), and Kingdom builder with 5 or so areas is a lot of content. But people race through the demo stages and think they've mastered the game. Heroes.

I don't think it will do even the tiniest bit better on Android, android-users don't pay for anything...

Frankly, if what we have now is what we can expect from Nintendo's grand plan for mobile, they should just pack it in and focus on their own systems (And pray that Switch pans out well), i don't think this half-assed stuff is making anybody happy.

That's actually pretty decent for a $10 game on mobile; like 1 in 20 users have paid for the full game. Christ, I only frikin' wish I could get that kind of attach rate.

o

Nintendo's strategy isnt about simple revenue gain. 90 million installs means the Mario brand is alive and kicking....and this is only iOS numbers.

It'll be just like PKGo. Analytics firms will poop all over these mobile apps and act like they're failures which no one plays. Then PKSun and Moon release and it sells amazingly. Then the Switch releases with a couple Mario games.....and they could sell amazingly.

And when these things do sell, they're at full price.....we arent seeing PKSun and Moon flash sales cutting 50%off the price like the rest of the games industry has been doing every other week.

Nintendo's playing this smart and as usual, analytics firms are crying wolf.

Don't know what the problem is 10$ vs 30$ on handheld plus it's actually a really cool game once you get good at it

I'm guessing it will be out on Android January 12th, as an "Oh by the way".

No casual iPhone game should exceed $ 1.99
I simply ignore anything beyond this price. Just play the demo, delete it, and move on

@H_Hunter I think £5 should be the limit. I'm not going to pay £8 for a few hours worth of content and DRM.

It's funny because if this came out on the 3DS eShop, everyone would be exclaiming how cheap of a Mario game it is. But since it's on a phone, people somehow think it should be free. I can understand casual people complaining about it who don't play other Mario games, but people who come to NintendoLife and other news sites shouldn't be. It's a Mario game people, not the new Candy Crush Saga Farm Deluxe Kitchen Bash. People thinking this game should be free or a $1 are ridiculous. Normally a game like this on the 3DS is $40. It's simple enough to give this a $10 price tag because it's arguably a quarter of a real game. This is still a Mario game, not a cheap mobile game. Compared to those other games, this is worth $10. So quit your complaining and go back to playing Mario on 3DS then. Or if you want a free game go and download Hamburger Rush 5: Diner Dilemma.

@MrGuinea Nobody's arguing it should be free

I got into an argument with this guy at a New Years Eve party about it. Yeah I was a bit inebriated! Basically he was saying that he wasn't going to pay the £7.99 for it and I laid into him haha! I said that was CHEAP for a Mario game and he should be grateful for that. There's heaps of content, I have easily spent 20 hours on it over christmas and new year and it's ridiculous you would be able to get such a valuable IP for free. Micro-transactions are awful and are there to suck up your money in the long run and that's not what Nintendo is about. People have missed the point, drives me MAD! He agreed with me eventually haha.

@MrGuinea I couldn't agree more! And the pricing was well documented before it came out.

@MrGuinea I don't understand where your going. Super Mario run is a mobile game. You use one finger to control everything. It auto runs. If it was on the 3ds it won't have cost 39.99 trust me. New super Mario bros 2 is 39.99 as it uses buttons and a dpad and has a lot more content.

They should've made this game more for the casuals but ended up making it for Mario fans like most of us on this site.

Think like a average iOS user who doesn't game much or any at all. if he browses through the games on the App Store and finds games, you really think the average iOS user wants to spend 8 pounds on a mobile game.

@khaosklub
I think your argument has seem solid points, but your premise is invalid. You think that selling their game for $10 is for the biggest immediate gain? Not a chance! They're stepping into the mobile sphere taking the long-term stance of Square-Enix, charging a premium but also standing behind their product. If you're going to devalue your product on mobile I can't see how the expectation of devaluing your product your owns systems won't develop. Super Mario Run and 3D Land are obviously very different games but as it stands their price comparison is reasonable. They drew their line in the sand with the pricing, as one of the few developers who can I think it's commendable that they have as the current App Store market is unfriendly to developer's who want to make real games instead of addiction machines and I very much hope for change.

They established themselves for the long-term, they got exposure, and then they showed that as far as brand recognition and having a following goes, they've got it going on.

@feelinsupersonic nice avatar. she was legit at IGN back in the day

I despise IAP. Will gladly spend $10 for SMR when it releases on Android.

"Sources" inside Apple have said that the 3% number is too low and is based on incorrect assumptions.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/01/03/super-mario-run-app-store-purchases-exceed-reported-3-guesstimate-apple-says

It isn't even out on Android and they have made 30mil what is the problem exactly? You have PR with the game and them profit from the ones that buy. Win Win?

I still can't believe people are complaining about gettin roughly 3/4ths of a regular New Super Mario Bros. game (6 worlds instead of 8, multiple reasons to replay levels, including multiple race modes) for 1/4th the price. Even if you want to say it's only 1/2 the content, that's still a good value.

I think the way most people handle their mobile games market has ruined the perception of value on most people. Why would any of you play a Nintendo game, then? Why are you even here? Why play Mario when you can buy free, terrible, hollow games on your phone? Why buy a 3DS? or a Switch?

Forever waiting on android release.....

I believe it! Besides from what I understand, you get very little game for a pretty steep price. I expected at least 32 levels, but even that doesn't seem the case. Epic fail, happy that I don't have it!

In other words, "Since it isn't one of the all time most lucrative games ever it's a failure."

It's been out a month and 3 million people bought it, If they had launched it on Wii U and it sold 3 million copies this quickly people would be jumping for joy

@rushiosan

When did Sonic CD become free and where?

@Loui APk protection has become a lot better by big companies, presumably nintendo will be able to have decent piracy protection

@iGen check appstore, got it for free w/ ads a couple days ago, I guess it's a permanent change

@Syrek24

Well that's just like, your opinion man.

Ask any developer who has released at least 2 games on the App Store or Google Play. $10 is simply not how the mobile marketplace works.

You ideally need to strike a healthy balance between sales and downloads. SMR was technically a "success" because it produced ultimate profit and the IP gained public attention, so I don't think anybody will really complain, but that isn't the- I'm just going to drop this comment now because I need to reply to another one immediately.

@rushiosan

Omg, must get now! Thank you so much for letting me know!

I paid for it, and play it every day since launch. Not a single regret. It's an awesome Mario game once you give it a chance, with a lot of hidden depth in the mechanics and level design.

@BAN Yup, Toad Rally is also the reason why I don't care about the online requirement, it wouldn't work without it, and every Mario game going forward should have a mode like it.

$5 max

We did not pay. While it was fun to play, the vertical orientation and the jumping mechanic really turned me off to this game so we are a demo only family.

Well, that isn't too surprising, with how bare bones SMR is, plus how the $10 was presented, and that it's $10 instead of $5... Looks like the stats are usually skewed by Nintendo to make SMR look like a better performer than it really is. $30 million isn't bad by normal standards, but it's terrible by Nintendo standards, especially on mobile. The only really good take away here is that tens of millions of people may be interested in getting the next Mario console game. Now that would vindicate SMR's existence.

Biggest mistake was not releasing it on ios and android simultaneously

@Lizuka Get out of town. If you haven't actually paid the $10 to unlock the game and seen everything that's actually there to do and play, then you 100% cannot comment on the amount of content. It's like you're complaining about the number of noodles in a can of soup that you've never actually opened.

@Syrek24

You put a lot of thought into that in order to impress me, didn't you?

Sonic cd is free. Try it out on the App Store

I have several devices I could play this on but I'm not the least bit interested. Nintendo doesn't belong in the mobile market. Obviously. 😂

@ShadowForks The game isn't like most APKs. Mario Run requires a constant internet connection to validate it. This would require the games software to be hacked. This would probably take anywhere from 3 months to 3 years depending on how tough it is to crack. By then anyone who would have paid probably already did.

If it worked offline, and was out for Android, I'd buy it...but as I play phone games on the subway, underground, without service, I'd never pay $10 for a game that I can barely ever play.

Getting 3.33% of your audience to actually pay for the full Mario Run matches up with the percentage of people who pay microtransactions for any F2P game overall. It's actually a pretty average payment-to-download ratio. It certainly isn't good, but it certainly isn't terrible either like how some are suggesting.

@amiiboacid
For the mobile market, $10 is absolutely a premium price.

I am personally fine with $10, and I will probably pay that price to buy Mario Run when it comes out on Android, but the vast majority of the mobile market wants free mobile games with microtransactions thrown within, rather than an unusually high upfront (in the context of mobile gaming) one-time cost.

@electrolite77 I can't tell if you are intentionally misreading my statements, or just assuming what you should find there, not finding it, and responding to what you believe should have been there.

I never said anyone was wrong in how they spent their money. I never criticized anyone for shelling out hundreds every year for the newest and best toys, which is all smartphones really are. What I criticized was the inherent contradiction in being willing to spend so much on hardware and being so unwilling to spend on software for it; for being glad to contribute to the vast profits of one company, and loath to allow developers working with them to even be profitable. If you are an audiophile you spend on music in addition to your stereo; if you are a movie buff you buy movies to play on your home theater; if you are a mobile gamer you...deserve to be given free games because you just spent hundreds replacing a seven month old phone, apparently. That is my criticism. Mobile games are underpriced because market demand includes an element of entitlement that I find both baffling and disgusting. And I don't know how to spell it out any more simply.

And I don't care to. You haven't demonstrated to me that if you say I come across as condescending that I actually was, nor that if I was that yours is an opinion that should concern me. Assume my ideas as you see fit; it makes no difference to me.

IT IS A GOOD GAME CONSIDERING THE CRAPPY GAMES I HAVE SEEN IN MOBILE, I GOT IT DAY ONE ON MY IPHONE AND DONT REGRET!!