Live service, free-to-play games are the new hotness. With massive fanbases built around games like Genshin Impact, Destiny, and Fortnite, which are regularly updated with new characters, content, and quests, it's easy to see how other game development studios might be tempted over to the dark side.
Games-as-a-service (GaaS) is a little hard to pin down when it comes to Nintendo, because the Japan-based mega-corp likes to forge its own path in everything.
When microtransactions were the new trend, we saw Nintendo dabble in haggling with Rusty's Real Deal Baseball. When ongoing mobile games were the flavour du jour, Nintendo made their first one to test the waters: The surprisingly-pricey-for-a-mobile-game Super Mario Run. Now that subscriptions are the current fashion, Nintendo offers the NSO service and the Expansion Pack, neither of which are fantastic value for money, but do offer extra content for existing games like Animal Crossing: New Horizons and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.
When it comes to live service games, Nintendo has once again dipped their toes in the water with games like Mario Kart Tour and Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp... but it seems like they're reluctant to leave the mobile game sphere.
So, will Nintendo get into live service games properly — or will they forever be treated as experiments that never quite reach the level of success of, say, Final Fantasy XIV? Let's take a look at which Nintendo games could benefit from a pivot into live service...
Splatoon
As many people have argued, Nintendo abandoning Splatoon 2 to make Splatoon 3 is a frustrating move for many who still play the former regularly.
Nintendo could have instead made Splatoon 2 into an ongoing live service game, with regular updates, season pass content, and server support to keep it going well into the future, rather than just ditching it for something new and shiny (that some seem to think isn't different enough to warrant a whole sequel).
Given that Splatoon draws its inspiration from other online shooters like Destiny, it's strange that the games are still treated as standalone releases with a limited shelf life.
Pokémon
The Pokémon series has dabbled in games-as-a-service a few times, and despite a few successes (Pokémon GO, Pokémon UNITE) many of the games just haven't really caught on in a massive way. There was the disappointing Pokémon Shuffle, which relied too heavily on timers; Pokémon Café Mix, which gets barely any promotion from Nintendo or The Pokémon Company, and Pokémon Picross, which was made by the Picross studio Jupiter, but involved too many stingy free-to-play mechanics.
They just can't seem to get it right. But Pokémon Sword and Shield made some moves in the right direction, with new Pokémon being added on a fairly regular basis, plus two large DLCs that allowed you to visit new areas, catch new Legendaries, and find new items. Given how many people get angry about limited Pokédexes in every single new release, we can imagine that a Pokémon game that gradually introduces every Pokémon over a series of months might be a very, very popular idea indeed.
Animal Crossing
Nintendo have already proved that they can do Animal Crossing-as-a-service with Pocket Camp — and that people really appreciate it, too.
Although Animal Crossing: New Horizons has a few updates here and there, notably the Happy Home Paradise DLC and the various items that get added for holidays and festivities, imagine an Animal Crossing game that gets the full attention of a dedicated GaaS team. Imagine an Animal Crossing game that gives you new furniture, villagers, and mechanics on a regular basis, with a season pass that grants you access to special events and maybe even mechanics before the rest of the world. It would potentially smooth over all the difficulties that people experienced jumping from New Leaf to New Horizons and finding a lot less customisation and personality!
Mario Maker
Maybe Mario Maker would be better served as a live service game, rather than the game Nintendo always seems to forget about. We could get new asset packs, Nintendo-made levels, festive content, and maybe some season-pass-only abilities, like being able to set multiple endings, bonus goals, boss fights, ghost data, or power ups. Call us, Nintendo. We have big ideas.
Mario Party
The Mario Party series has, for a while now, been little more than a light spruce-up every time it's about time for a new release. Cool new mechanics, like the ones involving HD Rumble, are welcome — but few and far between, even in more recent Switch outings.
Mario Party is one of the games that would suit the free-to-play model best — if everyone was able to access a base version of the game, you'd get a lot more people wanting to buy the freemium content within, rather than asking all of your friends to fork out $60 for a copy each.
The content that you could get as extra stuff could be new boards, items, characters, themes, minigames... the list goes on!
Smash Bros.
For the periods when Smash Bros. games are putting out regular stage, costume, and character packs, the series is basically a live service.
But imagine if the game had a longer shelf life, and the season pass granted you access to — for example — new characters as wide-ranging as those that Fortnite adds on a regular basis, plus massive events, tournaments, taunts, voice lines, and more. Smash Bros. could be a lot more colourful if it had lasting, ongoing support from its fans and players, rather than being supported for a few years and then left to slowly decay before the next instalment.
Mario Kart
Nintendo's approach to Mario Kart in recent years has been quite weird. First, they released Mario Kart 8 in 2014 for the Wii U, later adding on DLC courses, characters, and free content like the Mercedes Benz pack (which we all agree was an odd choice). Then, they re-released Mario Kart 8 on the Switch, bundling in all the DLC (which was a much better choice).
Then there was Mario Kart Tour — the closest we've got to a Mario Kart live service game, but arguably not what many people wanted — and Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit, an AR/AC racing game that sold a fraction of what MK8 did, and seemed to be aimed largely at families with kids. Nintendo's clearly experimenting with the Mario Kart franchise, but to what end?
Now, Nintendo is releasing 48 tracks — doubling the number already in the game — as even more DLC for MK8 over the course of two years, which many people will get for free as part of their Nintendo Switch Online membership. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is, at this point, a live service game that only has half the benefits. We're not getting game updates, new characters, or new modes, and although 48 is a lot of tracks, a few people have felt let down by the quality of the textures and the fact that it feels a bit like an ad for the phone game version of Mario Kart.
At this point, it's easy to wish for an all-or-nothing approach: If you're going to turn Mario Kart 8 into a colossal, bloated behemoth of a game, rather than releasing Mario Kart 9... then go all in on it. Release one new course a month, and add new cars, new characters, new battle modes, new challenges. Would that please everyone? Nooooooooooooo. But it's better than the halfway-between-new-game-and-old-game we have now, right?
Now, we know that the free-to-play live service model isn't necessarily a good thing. Many players end up spending more on cosmetics and content than they would have done on just the base game, and in some cases (like loot boxes and gacha packs) the F2P model can be predatory and unfair to those who don't have huge amounts of money to drop on making their character better. And you'll always get the rich jerks whose avatars are level fifty billion because they paid for it.
But Nintendo doesn't have to go down those routes. A lot of the suggestions we've made above are the cosmetic kind — and we've been imagining that other players would still be able to see and appreciate the content, even if they don't have it.
Imagine visiting an Animal Crossing: New Horizons island, and seeing it decked out in stuff that people paid real money for, or being able to play a Mario Maker level with items in it that you don't have access to. Sure, it might feel a bit like you're locked out of using those items yourself, but that's sort of the point of F2P, at the end of the day, and it wouldn't make a mechanical difference.
But tell us: Do you agree with any of these games being better as live service games? Have we missed an obvious one? Do you think F2P and live service games are a blight on the industry? Head to the comments!
Comments 117
Yeah splatoon by far, it's the easiest game to incorporate free content updates while keeping the game fresh via new weapons, maps, splatfests and more.
It's sequels are looking to be less different than the last game so this will be the perfect solution for it.
Mario Kart is also a close second instead of begging for a sequel with another forgettable gimmick just give us more of what people asked for - maps, vehicles and a good character roster.
I voted None since I don't want free to play games.
I want a paid games with retail box + manual booklet + game in cartridge or disc and all contents already inside.
So I just pick an existing game I want to be free-to-play forever?
Fine, I pick Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.
I own it already, but the more the merrier!
Splatoon and maybe Smash are the only games that could work with the F2P nature. Pokemon in theory could but as shown with Go and the moba game greed would be heavy as well as exploiting the compulsion in people to have them all. Like look at the Victini we just got for free, if Sword and Shield were free to play we would have to pay for it or grind really hard in a short time to unlock it. Pokemon for me can stay full price with an Expansion or two a year later added to it.
Splatoon could work imo the most
"Which of these series would benefit most from being turned into a free-to-play game with frequent updates?"
None. I rather pay once than having a game that tries to get your money out of your pocket ever 2 minutes
Let’s dream of a world where we pay more for less!
Why are we putting ideas in their head? I hate FTP, please Nintendo don't buy into this cancer to the industry.
Since I'm smart, I voted "No" on every game.
No. To all. The reason Nintendo has such a loyal fan base in the first place is because they're one of the only gaming companies left that steers clear of this nonsense. The Nintendo fan base likes paying a one time fee and getting the whole game. If we lose Nintendo to microtransactions the only bastion left for gaming is indies.
Wana upgrade your house in animal crossing?
You need 7$ plus tax
Any multiplayer-focused game can be turned into a F2P game as long as it has a sufficient recurrent monetization, something that Nintendo has yet to implement for their non-mobile games.
Easy, splatoon and smash
I've never finished a proper Fire Emblem game, but I'm still playing Heroes, so I say that one. Strategy games with hour-long levels, and games in general that don't let me do everything in one playthrough, stress me out by forcing me to make choices I can't take back. Heroes is way better for the style of play I like.
None of them. Free to play games ruin the market eversince they arrived.
I'm saying none the thing with mobile games I dont like its microtranscation and gacha bad enough we have it for mario kart tour I just prefer buy full game with everything included.
Obviously something heavily focusswd on multiplayer so games like animal crossing, mario maker and pokemon won't work.
For me though games like Mario kart and smash bros fit the bill, especially with the success of multi-versus and Mario kart online
None of the above, honestly. Splatoon probably suits the model the best, but there's nothing wrong with it being a full priced game either. I wouldn't want parts of Splatoon(single player campaign for ex.) get compromised due to it being F2P.
Splatoon would work best with Free-to-Play compared to the other games mentioned.
But I suggest something else... Mario Sports games. I'm not a fan of DLC that is free but takes months or even a year or two to release, like the recent Mario Tennis, Golf, and Strikers games. I'd rather just pay for them now than wait a long time for free.
Hear me out here guys…F2P zelda rpg akin to genshin impact! (Plus I’m not surprised that so many people said no)
I play Rocket League for free...and it´s a BLAST. (120 million people playing)
I play MULTIVERSUS for free...and it´s a BLAST. (20 million people playing)
If Splatoon does not have offline play against bots....this game needs to be Free to Play.
90% of this game is online. One day they will be paperweights. This kind of game needs to have million(s) people playing everyday.
obs: MULTIVERSUS and Rocket League = online and offline game modes against bots.
Splatton doesn't even have this.
None of them, please. This trend needs to stop.
I understand that it won't and it makes quite some money for the developers, but speaking in hindsight as someone who got sucked into quite a lot of these: they all waste your time so much more than any other "paid" game. Sure, the more clever ones are made in a way that you don't really notice and they feel addicting, but you could use that time so much better. Even for other games.
If you don't let them waste your money, that means you bought stuff from them already - probably for even more money than a new game would cost. Now is Fire Emblem Heroes really that well-made or interesting as any of the mainline games? How about Mario Kart Tour? Or Animal Crossing Pocket Camp?
To everyone saying Splatoon FTP is a bad idea...
As a Splatoon player who loves the game and wants my friends to appreciate it and play with me, it's difficult to vouch for a game that seems to come off as a silly children's game and actually get people to dump $60 to get into it. Splatoon is a lot more fun that people think, and the core gameplay actually has a lot of depth. Just look at the competitive scene and how pro players talk about how they're playing.
I understand the dislike for FTP, but the positive effect of reeling in more players is something the Splatoon franchise especially would benefit greatly from, especially as one of Nintendo's flagship esport games.
If the next Animal Crossing launches like New Horizons did, then it may as well be free to play, because at least that would give it an excuse have bare minimum amounts of content, but I would rather pay $60 for a full-fledged experience out of the box, with updates only adding new content, rather than stuff that was already in other games, like the cafe, or the ability to dream.
Arms would be amazing!
If they packed a download code in with new switch consoles, consumers would gain some perceived value. Great game to showcase and drive joycon sales from a business prospective, and this amazing game would have the amazing user base it deserves!!
Easily the most slept on game of this generation!!
I voted no for all of them. The past 5 years has shown to me that while live service by definition isn't necessarily a bad thing, in practice it will be the vast majority of the time.
Regarding FTP, I think Halo Infinite perfectly sums up the problems with that model. The focus becomes massively on the cosmetic microtransactions to the extent where the core gameplay is ruined by people trying to complete their challenges instead of playing the modes normally (e.g. trying to get kills with a weak weapon instead of playing the objective).
The closest to good live service are games where it's questionable if they're even live service in the first place. For example Splatoon has regular free updates which come with weapons, modes, maps and gear but it doesn't have:
Ultimately the best multiplayer model is the traditional model where you buy the base game and down the road you get normal DLC which adds extra content to the game. So like what MK8 Deluxe is currently doing.
Splatoon, definitely.
It would pull in a lot of players who aren't interested in gambling $60 on a multiplayer game with a unique gameplay style that they may or may not enjoy. And the fanbase would be happy to spend on cosmetics and such.
As long as it's not pay to win, Splatoon makes a LOT of sense. It also could be a great game to feature special events that essentially serve as free advertising for other Nintendo games. Fortnite does lots of cross-overs and concerts and such, and Splatoon is a perfect avenue for that sort of thing.
Splatoon is the obvious choice, but I also don’t think we have room for an ever-growing list of live service games. Just like there are too many streaming services, there are too many games demanding constant attention and interaction to get the most out of them these days.
SUPER MARIO BROS 35 😭😭😭
Please no! Part of why I love Nintendo games is the feeling of getting a solid game with all the parts. I know there has been a few exceptions, but I loathe the idea of having to buy every character/pieces. Smash or Mario kart would be horribly different feeling (to me) if they sold karts or skins. Imagine if you had to buy the yarn yoshi recolor. Or instead of unlocking fighters you solely had to buy them. Mario kart wheels cost 3$. Poke balls cost .25.
Please less live service games.
None.
On the simple premise that you are entirely at the company's will of how long you get to play it on ANY level.
I hate when Paladins adds new content and discover it broke half the good things and then you have to wait for the next major update for those fixes.
"Keeping things fresh" doesn't seem to be a problem with games like Smash Melee, or Toadstool Tour. But apparently it's a necessity to do so nowadays.
Splatoon would work the best as free to play live service, but the other ones would not. Also the article always mentions live service and constant updates but not free to play, which the article is titled
Despite a few games having done it relatively well, free to play games are a curse in the industry that needs to be broken in my opinion. So, none. Let us not lower the quality of our favorite games or have them sink into pure corporate greed. Mario Kart Tour already did that and it's an absolute abomination.
🗳I voted 'Mario Kart' but I was torn between it and PokéMon.
I really do think now, after buying the DLC Pack, that there SHOULDN'T be a MK9 but a Mario Kart Ultimate a lá 'Super Smash Bros'.
@Rykdrew most of the 120 million people played Rocket League since before it went free just saying after it went free the number of players online dropped
Read the question topic for this article. My immediate answer was, "NO!" XD
Free to play, games as a service are a cancer of this world runing the medium. I am truly happy that Nintendo is not giving up into this trend even though it prints money. Although with each rendition of Splatoon I feel ripped off because it becomes obsolete quite fast. Most likely it could become a f2p service with paid skins or something and it would make way more sense than 60 euro title.
>Free-to-play
>Good ideas
Pick one
No Thanks, i don't want spend money to get the "Animal Crossing Island Paradise Froggy Chair Pack" or "Mario Kart Super Speed Kart Pack"
Also, all of those Nintendo franchises already sell incredibly well as premium games, so there is no need to make them F2P.
For example, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe + Animal Crossing New Horizons have sold a combined total of over 80 million copies, which amounts to over $4.8 billion in revenue. I don't see any universe where Nintendo will be able to earn $4.8 billion in microtransactions from two F2P games.
There are quality free-to-play games, but they're not the most common. If I am paying for a game, I am typically confident that there will be at least some level of quality. In addition, free-to-play games are prone to disgusting gacha practices.
@BadTango Smash Bros, free to play, at least it would have a great Netcode (like MULTIVERSE) to play online with quality... and the game wouldn't be dead online due to the bad quality of the Netcode that Nintendo put in the game!
See, everything has a positive side. would have millions of people playing online. The game would never die!
Splatoon is really the only game that can work in this format. I mean they already got the Grindy level system roadmap and all so it wouldn’t really feel different apart from the fact you would pay for skins I guess.
@westman98
PUBG: US$ 2,8 billion (only 2021)
Honor of Kings: US$ 2,8 billion (only 2021)
FreeFire: US$ 1,1 billion (only 2021)
Fortnite: U$5,7 billion (only 2021)
****
8 years on sale of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe + 2 years on sale of Animal Crossing = 80 million/sales * $60.00 (we should still subtract the retailers value for physical copies...but I won't...but we know the final number will be lower) = U$4,8 billion
FTP is the best current business model (from a profit point of view)
These games make more profit than Nintendo games in the current model.
@CodyMKW No
Rocket League was 25 million people before it is free to play. Now it´s 120 million!
After ftp = 95 million people more!
Bleh, phone games are boring and sucky.
@Rykdrew
Well, I assume we are talking about F2P games on Switch rather than F2P games on mobile, which Nintendo already makes.
Of those games you listed, the only one that generates most of its revenue on consoles (rather than mobile) is Fortnite.
Ew, free-to-play games, no thanks.
I don't know about entire series, but I had originally thought Kirby's Dream Buffet was going to be free to play. However, it almost certainly would have been a worse game if it was, so making it not-free but cheap seemed like a reasonable compromise. I like that Nintendo games tend to be biased towards higher quality, even if it sometimes means higher initial price.
I'm not sure about Splatoon, but I'm always undecided with, for example, Fall Guys because in some ways the change to F2P made the game simply less fun in subtle but real ways, but on the other hand there are more players so less wait time etc. It's always a hard balance for online multiplayer games.
@Rykdrew I literally have zero problem finding a match. Yes the net code is a problem, and they should fix that. But again personally I don’t have issues with lag/delay.
Also this is not about the money, why do you care how much money a ceo makes? Quoting the billions made is not a indication of quality or enjoyment. Personally I hate the monetization of everything. I won’t list the things, but the “predatory” practices are absurd.
@westman98
PC games are strong in profit!
League of Legends on PC generates more revenue per year than Pokemon sword/shield in years!
@Rykdrew
Cool, but Nintendo doesnt make PC games.
@BadTango Because the money indicates that a huge amount of players have a lot of fun with these games.
Rocket League alone has more players playing than the number of Switch sold.
Among US, for example, 130 million people playing.
This means that these games generate fun for more players than any installed base of consoles.
It seems, I repeat, it seems... that online games themselves are becoming entire ecosystems, no longer mattering whether they are played on console, PC or mobile, as it is cross play and everyone plays with everyone else.
Consoles are becoming less important in today's gaming universe.
BY FAR legacy content. Nintendo consoles should come with the basic round of nes, snes, n64, and game boy software preloaded ready to go. I know this isn’t exactly the same the free to play software we’re talking about here, but still
@westman98
And Nintendo may be losing money by not doing it these days.
Erm, none of these ideas are good. F2P is horrid. But also, only really works by targetting as many people as possible i.e multi platform or mobile phone. It's business model is basically the same as begging on the street. It doesn't cost you anything for you to be asked if you have any spare change but if they can ask everyone, they make a fortune from the generous <1%
@Rykdrew you clearly never played Rocket League in the past or you would know just how many people played the game before it went free I played before free to play and the in-game counter that showed how many players were in each playlist was much higher then it is nowadays
For real tho, Nintendo has IP for every current trend and genre. I think F2P would really have to be a new franchise of some kind. I feel like splatoon would drastically lose quality. Pokémon makes more sense to me.
@CodyMKW
I've been playing Rocket League since 2016. I paid (cheap) for it...on my gaming PC. On my wife's gaming PC, it's free (Epic Store). I play this game every week. You can see the number of players playing online in the steam database (since launch day). And even after the Epic Store...look, the numbers are much higher today:
"How many Rocket League players are there 2021?
Data compiled from several sources (including Statista) by activeplayer.io indicates that Rocket League had an average of 99.5 million players in the last 30 days with 7.3 million max players in a day. Activeplayer.io reported an average of 95.9 million players during June 2021, a 2% increase from May 2021."
Rocket League database:
Rocket League
Peak of simultaneous players in 1 day
Paid Game
2016: 46,665
2017: 82,360
2018: 83,207
2019: 80,374
September, 2020 - Free to Play
2020: 147,632
2021: 7,300,000
Switch Sports would have been the best candidate for a free to play game.
I think Pokémon will probably be the best for the model. Making some kind of massive MMORPG like FF 14 and such. Actually building on top of what already exists instead of your yearly rushed games that all throw their own gimmicks in it.
Mario Maker would benefit from selling a cheaper ‘player’ that didn’t have all the design tools included. Or even better, have a ‘free’ Mario Maker Player on NSO.
Pokemon will be the answer!
If Nintendo would EVER release a first party console free to play game* I will stop playing Nintendo games entirely. It's the MOST EVIL thing a gaming company CAN do. Honestly lawmakers should outright ban free to play and lootbox games. Luckily that latter of that is already banned here in the Netherlands and Belgium.
*) Talking about a big budget game, not a mobile game or a port of a mobile game.
I will always pay once for a game, not 100000x €1.
Congratulations Nintendolife! This is the worst article of all time! I hate it!
For a serious note, Splatoon or Metroid Prime Hunters could easily be Nintendo's answer to Team Fortress 2 and be monetized in a similar manner.
@MajorTom Honestly I would love a Pokémon MMORPG. But one with a subscription model, indeed like FF14. It should then link into Pokémon Home and allow you to start in any of the regions of Pokémon.
Or a model like Guild Wars on PC, where you buy the game and then pay for expansion packs. But the online aspect is without a subscription Sadly Guild Wars 2 also has some pay to win mechanics in it's store, so that isn't a good example.
Pokémon should stay FAR away from F2P.
@Anti-Matter you don't have to play F2P games, but that doesn't change the fact that they're seriously popular right now and won't be going away anytime soon.
I'll throw an entirely random one into the mix: Excitebike. Look me in the eyes and tell me it couldn't work as an endless runner, like come on.
On the article itself, I guess I'd say something like Mario Kart or Splatoon but I wouldn't really be comfortable with it since, while they are multiplayer focused, the single player is too much for me to say with certainty that it could work. Smash being there honestly reminded me of Maximilian Dood's video where he talks about the concept of F2P fighting games and it makes you wonder: would something like Smash work as free-to-play? Yes (Brawlhalla and Multiversus already show that off), but I'm not sure I'd want Smash to go that route since it has such a massive pedigree in the FGC sphere (something like Killer Instinct 2013 where it has a free version with rotating characters would be cool though).
Also, mainline Pokemon as F2P? Pull the other one.
I could totally see Smash Bros being a live service F2P game in the future. It makes perfect sense for fighting games that get regular updates throughout the years. Multiversus is a prime example of the success that the model can bring Nintendo. Eliminating the barrier of cost is huge for fighting games. Feels so bad to drop 60 dollars on a game only to be bodied constantly online by people who no-life the game then all of a sudden you dont even want to play it any more.
@Thief
And that's why I don't like such popular things like that.
Most of popular things are suck for me.
@sanderev Most subscription / expansion based games also have a F2P model don't they? Pretty sure FF 14 has a rather generous free trial. World of Warcraft has their first 20(? I think) levels for free, Runescape has a part of the map for free while having the whole map and more skills available with the subscription etc. The subscription and expansion model pretty much was the first profitable F2P model that started it all.
Do you want your favourite game series ruined by microtransactions? yes/no
I actually had an idea for a Star Fox MMO that takes place after Assault (and ignores the continuity of Command). The Cornerian military is left devastated after the Aparoid invasion, and as a result, crime and lawlessness sweep across the Lylat System.
The resulting chaos allows Andrew Oikonny to rebuild his own decimated fleet, using the remnants of the Aparoid horde to build new ships and weapons, landing a killing blow on the Cornerian fleet, imprisoning General Pepper, and finally conquering the Lylat System.
Due to chaos and the destruction of the Cornerian fleet, Team Star Fox opens up recruitment in order to restore order, put down the crime wave sweeping the system, and eventually defeat Oikonny.
The game would be similar in gameplay to Assault, with a variety of weapons and vehicles to choose from, but with the added ability to create your own character of any included animal race (fox, frog, hare, bird, wolf, lizard, cat, dog, etc.). You can play with others in raid battles, form your own fleets (guilds), and explore more of the Lylat System than we have seen before.
How about none of them? Why do ppl want Nintendo to be like everyone else?
Screw f2p, the worst thing that has happened to gaming
Absolutely Pokémon, gamefreak wants to release new content so frequently that making modern games is incredibly unrealistic so going further maybe have a big mainline game that gets expanded on for one or half of a console generation would probably work better.
@strollin_stu lol I’m not 100% sure it would be done competently, but I’m sure there’s something they could do that would be addicting and fun enough to actually play. I guess there’s some Pokémon and Kirby games that currently free, but they just don’t seem that compelling imo
@Rykdrew
Not really. Over half of Nintendo's revenue comes from hardware sales, and Nintendo's hardware sales are largely driven by the appeal of their exclusive 1sy party software.
Nintendo going 3rd party by porting their games to PC greatly diminishes the appeal of their hardware and thus hurts their overall business. Mario Kart and Animal Crossing are huge successes in their own right, but they also drive millions of people to buy a Switch, which is more money for Nintendo.
But going back to the original point, for every juggernaut blockbuster like Fortnite or PUBG Mobile, there are a graveyard of unsuccessful F2P games. For example, none of Nintendo's mobile games have been a juggernaut success outside of Pokemon Go.
splatoon is the one franchise im glad isnt ftp. piling on weapons and maps between 2 and 3 just wouldnt work balancing wise, and kill any flow of story.
ftps work better as spinoffs. id rather buy the whole game up front then wait for season passes i still have to buy and deal with gatcha mechanics
that said turn brain age into a mobile game lol
Removed - inappropriate
Some of these could work as F2P games, but they shouldn’t just be released as-is, it should be a spin-off with limited features (like the ones most of these series already have…)
Wow… you people really hate free to play games. How dare people make games accessible grrrr
They've already diluted mario kart.
Why is this even a discussion when live service games are generally bad ideas?
@KateGray What even is this article? This legit sounds like brainwashing propaganda paid for by the mobile gaming industry which I doubt is your intention...
I highly recommend not doing things that actively lose active members here at Nintendo Life because this article is likely going to cause more than a few members to shy away from this site.
What a disgusting article. The second this becomes a thing for Nintendo I'm out, I'll find a new hobby.
None. Free to play are really just pay to win.
@HeroponRiki They don't stay clear at all, look at the mobile side or stuff like the Pokemon moba. They even go hard on season passes, i mean Xenoblade 3 has day one DLC. Nintendo while not as bad as Sony and MS with this stuff do still do what they do just to a lesser extent what is becoming less lesser as the years go on.
No, please.
But like, F-Zero maybe.
@sketchturner Hi, splatoon fan here.
Uh, no. I would not be happy to pay for cosmetics and the way Splatoon works, cosmetics would be a competitive advange (gear system in splatoon) I really enjoy having a lot on how much can be spent on a game and splatoon is limited ($60 for the game, although free at certain times, and $20 for the dlc that added SUBSTANTIAL content). Free to play may get more players, but splatoon already has a fan base that is growing at a good rate. This would overall be a bad idea. FTP games get Players not Fans. Look at Fortnite, COD warzone, honestly, just about any battle royal. They require large player numbers and they have to have an easy barrier to entry. When I look in at these fanbases, I see endless complaints and people upset at the game, but with splatoon specifically, I see people enjoying the game for what it is; making art and enjoying all there is to enjoy. Cosmetics and FTP bread toxicity and an angry player base.
Splatoon alreasy is. Get f@€#€ if you own 1 or 2, you're buying season 3 now... That'll be 60 bucks, and more for the expansion please!
Mario Kart tour works, and works well. But the booster pass has shown how important it is to give these tracks the full attention every once in a while. MK Tour feels like a high calorie snack: delicious at times, but every now and then you want a real meal!
I generally hate f2p, because you're always missing something or not playing optimally because you ain't paying. Give me everything and then let me suck. Then I have no excuses and must face my suckiness! 😂
Nintendo's games are too brilliant to be F2P, unless they came up with a new series specifically made for this model. Live service on the other hand would work like a charm for Splatoon, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing - the last two already have one entry per gen anyway, so keep the updates coming and we'll all appreciate it.
Fall guys proved that Mario Party would make a good F2P game. Also Pokémon on mobile would be great just have Pokémon centres and inns ask money to heal you and increase difficulty and cost of all items
I can not take this article serious. It is as if the writer is fantasizing about killing Nintendo franchises. I do not want to pay more for less. I do not want to play when the developer tells me to play. I do not want to grind or work substantially more in videogames. The grind in videogames is as is often too much nowadays in paid games. And I heavily dislike the Ui in those games. No advertisment please. Please stop making things miserable.
I love F2P games. But that's because I work in a mobile game company who does F2P games. As a player? NO. I would never touch any free to play games. Every single decision taken on the development is to induce players to pay more.
No no no no no no no no!
Lol, I voted everything no because I hate it. As mister Peele would say: NOPE!!
How about none? Just let me buy my completed and fully functional and tested Nintendo products at a fair price. I'm not a fan of an ever-changing, unstable game environment. I guess if the question was what game would fit best under a free-to-play model, then Animal Crossing would probably be the answer.
How about none of them go f2p ever. Yeah, that sounds better. The fact it’s even being suggested is disgusting.
Splatoon and Kid Icarus would have potential as F2P battle royale games. F2P F-Zero would be interesting to see as well, considering weak sales of previous releases.
Mario Strikers Battle Football should've been F2P or free to start. It's not going to be worth 60 dollars anytime soon.
I get why f2p Splatoon seems like a good idea, but do you really want Splatoon to be ruined by f2p nonsense? I personally can't stand the idea of something like a Fortnite-esque shop in the games, especially since clothes directly correlate to power with their buffs rather than just being cosmetic.
@Anti-Matter Yeah, I absolutely hate how all nintendo switch game cases have the holder for a manual, but barely any use it
I wouldn't mind "Nintendo Arcade" where the core game is free, like Capcom Arcade Stadium, and you just pay for individual Virtual Console games. I don't use the online service so I'm cut off from those games now.
Like I have been saying since around 2013 when Shigsy said "we don't know what to do with F Zero". Perfect fit for a Battle royal racer which could easily have been free to play. 100 racers, one ridiculous death race track that changes monthly, or seasonally. Free to play elements could be fuel for your racer or just skins, new machines, parts, pilots etc. Sales tag line "The fastest Battle Royal ever". Bad racers last 30 seconds, good ones could be racing 5 minutes before the track (or opponent) takes it's toll. Progress through tiers by racing well, eliminating opponents and time racing. Possible limit on "tries" per day to encourage unlimited battle/racer pass. My two pence.
I love content updates but prefer an experience where games aren't trying to upsell you every single second. I stopped playing Street Fighter V because of the ads hampering my enjoyment.
It is interesting to note that Ninty is experimental with Kirby, that I think a side project there would be a game as a service first. Super Kirby Clash is F2P already and Dream Buffet seems like it could have been (it is also a very fun time).
Why can't we go back to the old days of buying a physical game, complete at launch, and owning it forever?
Bring back manuals too while we're at it.
None, leave this blasphemy alone!
F2P will ruin gaming(for me), that's all.
Mario party, it would benefit from updates, but not necessarily live service stuff. splatoon doesn't need live service things to get it's updates so no way.
@Snatcher Regally? Typo lol?
@TowaHerschel7 That comment was full of typos, thanks!
I think Splatoon, Mario Party and Mario Maker would probably be my top 3. Splatoon has lots of customizable gear, and it wouldn't be too difficult to make it so that people could buy gear that looks cool (maybe new skins for current gear) but doesn't provide any competitive advantage over non-paid gear.
Mario Party is pretty ideal for a free-to-start model. People could have fully playable boards and minigames without paying anything and spend money to get what they want, or the whole cost ($60?) to get the whole game. Kind of like how Nintendo handled Stretchmo, though I don't know how Stretchmo sold.
And Mario Maker...well, as much as I like having a full-fledged game as a set price, I recognize Mario Maker thrives on community. I think Mario Maker can make a good free-to-play game.
Free2play = garbage game experience
throws you on a grind conveyer and dribbles you little rewards that you can't escape cause you can only pay to buy cosmetics or the haters would scream Pay2win
@Beep_Beep pirates forced a lot of companies to go free2play
@HeroponRiki they were smart to just do a little with mobile .. mainly Fire Emblem Heroes was done really well. I only played it for a year but there is so much content on that game it is worth whatever you throw in since you are never really able to keep up with everything you can do so you never feel forced to buy anything.. you just end up wanting to since it is so good
...37% of folks want Splatoon 2 f2p/an f2p Splatoon? I'm actually rather shocked by this result, I would've thought that Mario Kart or even Animal Crossing would be the popular pick, considering Mario Kart Tour and Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp exist and could be an interesting (yet weird) model for consoles! 🤔
The ONLY big Pokémon game that should be live service would be the inevitable MMO that one day will come. The aim of the mainline games should be, above all, substantial AAA single-player, story-based experiences with online multiplayer included.
If anything, Splatoon was the perfect candidate for a live service game by Nintendo. But only live-service elements. I'm not rooting for them to make Games as Service for consoles, instead I wish they did their take on the business and implemented them as the main feature of games such as Mario Kart, Splatoon, and most especially, Animal Crossing.
Asking the future of the series is also asking about the future of New Horizons. Who knows if they're working on a new AC game, or secretly planning something else.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...