Nintendo is certainly enjoying something of a purple patch right now. The Switch is selling in astonishing numbers, the company is broadening its appeal via movies and theme parks and its franchises are getting more attention than ever before – as is evidenced by the way Animal Crossing: New Horizons has seemingly taken over the entire planet.
It's interesting to note, then, that even during this period of success, Nintendo still has people telling it how it should run its own business. First up was games industry analyst and long-time Nintendo critic Michael Pachter, who, in an interview with CNBC about Nintendo's past, present and future, stated that he felt the firm was missing out on revenue by not offering an Apple Arcade-style service for its existing retro content on smartphones and tablets.
That comment was followed by a report that claimed North American 'activist investor' firm ValueAct Capital Partners LP – which now has a $1.1 billion stake in Nintendo – had stated to its own investors that the Japanese giant was currently going through a digital transition that would see it become as big as "Netflix, Disney+, Tencent Interactive Entertainment and Apple Music."
It would be easy to dismiss both of these comments had they not arrived so close together; after all, Nintendo has long been accused of missing a trick when it comes to smartphones. While companies like Capcom, Sega, Electronic Arts and Konami were reasonably quick to leap on the smartphone bandwagon, Nintendo famously dragged its heels until inking a deal in 2015 with DeNA; it has since produced several original smartphone games, including Super Mario Run, Fire Emblem Heroes and Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp.
These steps, however, don't seem to be enough; what both Pachter and ValueAct are hinting at is a subscription-based venture for Nintendo where it leverages its enviable back catalogue to create an additional revenue stream from smartphone players who don't already own a home console.
Pachter's comments about an Apple Arcade-like service were met with a fairly predictable response – we already have Nintendo Switch Online, right? However, even the most passionate advocate of that particular service would be hard-pushed to argue that it's making the most of Nintendo's incredible legacy. While the selection of games offered so far is certainly decent, surely there's a chance here for Nintendo to really throw open the doors on its vaults and make every title it has the rights for available now? That seems to be the suggestion Pachter is making, but as he says, such a venture might ironically make more sense on a smartphone rather than a console.
As of 2020, around 3.5 billion people own and use a smartphone every day, which translates to around 45% of the total population of the world
That might seem totally and utterly illogical given that Nintendo's core business is on its own hardware, but it all boils down to numbers. There are over 50 million Switch consoles in the wild at the time of writing. That's a truly impressive figure in the world of video games, especially when you consider that the Switch only launched in 2017. However, compare that to the number of people who own a smartphone, and the contrast is startling. As of 2020, around 3.5 billion people own and use a smartphone every day, which translates to around 45% of the total population of the world. Now, it would be foolish to suggest that means 3.5 billion potential customers for Nintendo as not everyone is going to want to play games on their phones, but it does give you an idea of just how huge the market is for content on smartphones.
So, on a financial level at least, Pachter's comments make a whole lot of sense. If Nintendo started an Apple Arcade-like service on iOS and Android tomorrow which granted access to a massive selection of classic NES, Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance and SNES games, the uptake would be dramatic; millions would literally be made overnight using content which has cost the company nothing to make – outside of the logistics of porting the games over, of course. ValueAct seems to be of the same mind, given its comments about Nintendo challenging other subscription services, like Netflix and Disney+. While the former creates its own unique content, it's heavily reliant on movies and TV shows it has licenced from other companies, so Disney is perhaps a more accurate comparison here. Like Nintendo, it has a back catalogue of content which is the envy of the entertainment world, and its Disney+ service – while still finding its feet – is a good blueprint for how Nintendo could approach such a proposition.
Still, if it's so easy, why isn't Nintendo doing this on its consoles already? We can't speak for what goes on within the Kyoto firm's boardroom, but we'd imagine that the cost currently outweighs the benefit. Switch owners will subscribe to Nintendo Switch Online regardless of what's being offered for free in terms of games, because they want online play and cloud saves. The small selection of NES and SNES titles is merely a bonus. Nintendo Switch Online, therefore, isn't Nintendo's answer to Apple Arcade, because it falls way short of offering the depth and breadth of content required – it's more about getting users to pay for functions rather than content, and that's perfectly fine. After all, Sony and Microsoft do the same with their own subscription options (although Microsoft's Game Pass is closer to what Pachter and ValueAct are talking about).
Nintendo offering its games on phones for a monthly fee needn't have a negative impact on its console business – quite the opposite, in fact
One of the problems that Nintendo has with this kind of business idea is that its core fans feel that anything that's not directly related to a Nintendo home console is somehow negative or reductive; it's a distraction that should be ignored or avoided. The lukewarm response from core Nintendo fans to company's smartphone games is proof of this; while Super Mario Run and Fire Emblem Heroes have been commercially successful, there's a definite feeling that the people playing them aren't necessarily the same people who are playing on Switch – and that's a key consideration when approaching the idea of a smartphone subscription service.
Nintendo offering its games on phones for a monthly fee needn't have a negative impact on its console business – quite the opposite, in fact. The additional revenue generated would most likely be poured back into Nintendo's core interest – game development – which would be nothing but good news for Switch owners. It also wouldn't necessarily 'cannibalise' the market, either, as a great many people who sign up for the service on their phone won't currently own a games console (and, if they did choose to buy one in the future, such a service would perhaps convince them to make it a Switch). That's extra revenue Nintendo wouldn't ordinarily have access to. Touchscreen controls – another negative that hardcore gamers tend to throw at smartphone games – aren't seen as such of as problem by seasoned iOS and Android users, so that shouldn't be considered a barrier to entry, either (and besides, it would seem that the company has already considered how to overcome potential interface issues – if this patent from 2018 comes to fruition, at least).
It's also important to remember that we're living in a world which is becoming more and more agonistic when it comes to technology. Services like Netflix work on phones, tablets, laptops, games consoles (ironically not Switch at the time of writing) and televisions; in a digital future, the hardware you're using to consume content is almost the least important piece of the puzzle as service providers want you to have access to their services no matter what device you own. There's no reason, then, that Nintendo couldn't lay down the foundations for its subscription service on smartphones before extending the platform to Switch, which – lest we forget – is built on mobile hardware. In that respect, Nintendo launching a smartphone service could eventually benefit home console owners.
Whatever happens over the next few years, it's clear that the world of entertainment is shifting towards subscription services as digital distribution takes hold. Music has already made the leap, and you could argue that movies and TV are already almost there. Game streaming may be frowned upon at present – and rightly so, given the flop that has been the launch of Google Stadia – but the notion of being granted access to a vast catalogue of downloadable (rather than streamable) games, like you can on Apple Arcade, is a more realistic proposition right now. Like it or loathe it, physical distribution is on the wane and companies with as large a library as Nintendo are quite right to look at how they can monetize their existing assets – and there's an excellent chance that they can do this in a way which complements their core business of making video games.
Thanks to Mobile Fun for supplying the iPhone SE 2020 used in the photography for this feature.
Comments 130
It would just be more shovelware and the crapfest that is mobile gaming.
If mobile gaming had been treated as anything but a dumping ground and freemium crap fest the Switch would never have succeeded
Why not offer a subscription service that applies to the Switch and your mobile device.
Imagine playing mario on your Switch and then continuing on your phone later.
Mind you, platform games on mobile are usually kinda bad. Still, it's an interesting thought.
Heck yes. Apple Arcade is amazing and Nintendo and Apple are the best.
I can’t imagine a lot of their games being a good experience on smartphones unless they released some sort of official peripheral that allows for non-touch controls.
A what?
No thanks. Why would I wanna play crappy mobile games instead of playing on my Switch and PC?
And don't follow Apple's example, their products suck.
I don't even understand why this so-called "analyst" Michael Pachter guy is still getting a platform on Nintendolife. He's been wrong so many times, nobody should listen to his nonsense.
Also, Nintendo should make phones and compete with Apple. Apple is so good they have zero competition. Like Nintendo, the industry just copies them all the time.
Would be interested if it was on the switch but not on smartphones. Prefer non-touch controls...
I wouldn’t get it but I absolutely think they should do something. It’s free money, millions of it, just waiting for the taking. I just hope it doesn’t affect its console customers much, if at all.
If only Nintendo had a subscription service that gave access to a bunch of nes and SNES games, on a device that had buttons...
It would be a nice bonus if it was included with the switch online subscription
@Kalmaro platforming games aren’t bad when you get used it it, I beat super mario 64 chaos edition on my android
This is an excellent article that talks about both sides of the coin
@Steel76 It's especially infuriating that they haven't added any N64 games yet.
Only if they are stupid.
Abandoning making hardware is a favorite battle cry of stock market experts...who are obviously clueless.
Let's see what happened to previously console makers who became just game makers?
Going to other platforms has been a terrible approach in the past.
Putting stuff on a platform that doesn't play to your strengths (mobile is TERRIBLE for platformers or anything that requires precise controls) is a way to devalue your content and destroy your value.
DUMB idea - by people who don't consider history when talking about the future.
I think the odd game or 2 each year on mobile is not an issue. I don’t and have never seen mobile games as proper gaming but every now and again a dip into a Nintendo game is fine for those want to.
I think my personal concern would be that it may take away from Nintendo’s core support and if it makes them mega money then they potentially might lose focus if the Switch.
For me the Switch is a console that should now run for many years as PlayStation and Xbox series X has. It’s the console that just suites everything Nintendo and I would never want them to lose sight of what a gem they have on their hands for decades to come.
An Apple style arcade sub though? I’d rather the sorted the switch online sub first before flogging us another under par service,
Most of these smartphone games that they're making are just cheap imitations. And of course, they're supposed to be that way when designed for one hand and competing with the money to be made from Free to Play. Problem is, no one wants to pay for cheap imitations of Nintendo's games.
The only games that made sense from the get-go were Pokémon GO and Fire Emblem Heroes. Naturally, they're doing gangbusters in freemium sales because those games married "sense of competitive achievement" with intuitive gameplay. Mario Golf: World Tour was their first robust foray into both live competition and shady DLC, so I'm a bit surprised that they're "throwing all the darts" on the approaches between SMR's one-time purchase and Dr. Mario/Mario Kart's freemium models (unless it's to silence a stubborn higher-up) when they've had plenty of internal and external data to highlight the clear PoGO/FEH paths.
But the absolute strangest thing still, is how they haven't created a Virtual Console or subscription of such where Sonic has already had stellar phone ports for years AND there has yet to be other innately-compatible full games made such as a WarioWare or Rhythm Heaven. Waluigi and added track DLC's for both would sell quite well.
@shani If Apple's products actually sucked they wouldn't be worth billions. If you don't like them for a specific reason that's cool, but saying something sucks means you don't have an argument you just don't like their brand etc. I prefer Apple over most products but not always, and honestly there are few top tier products that "suck". I prefer Bose and Apple but I think Android and Sony make great phones and headphones too. None of them "suck".
No. I don't see Nintendo bumping up their effort to release more games because it's on a smartphone and not the Switch, and I'm not buying extra accessories so I can comfortably play my phone with a controller.
The smartphone game market is absurdly lucrative, but if Nintendo wants to go that route they should create a new dev branch that focuses on making NEW officially liscensed smartphone games and release arcade ports on the switch instead. Maybe offer discounts or free smartphone games if you own a switch. But just releasing arcade games on phones is a stupid idea imo.
@Kalmaro I know people don't like the Switch's online service as a whole, but I think most people gladly play for the retro game service on there. My ideal would be them charging nothing for online (worse than the competitors, but doesn't cost anything) and them offering a robust game selection up from for a bunch of old titles, from NES-Gamecube, including some handheld consoles.
I don't think it'd hurt anything to offer NES/SNES games via an app. You can already play ROMs on smartphones fairly easily anyway.
If the service extended to cover a broader array of games, I'd want it to be made available on Switch as well. I like to play my games on devices with actual buttons.
I mean, I guess, but why smartphones? They should do a Google Stadia-esque (but decent) / Netlix-style subscription service with their games, but like, you know, all of them, including recent ones (at least two year-old or something)
Smartphones and tablets (at least in their "default" state) aren't made to play Nintendo games in the way Nintendo designed and developed them. Nintendo should just put everything into their own service (Nintendo Switch Online) and attract as many people as possible to buy their hardware including this service. Period.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: If Sony isn't putting PlayStation exclusives on mobile, and Microsoft only ports games to Nintendo Switch when they themselves are doing poorly, why should Nintendo put their legacy content on mobile? Such an idea would make sense for Nintendo during the dark years when the Wii U was drowning in its own obscurity, and Nintendo was struggling to convince people they were still a strong company, but that isn't the case. Also, this Apple Arcade-style service thing was Michael Pachter's idea, and I'm ashamed you take anything that analist says seriously. And no, that wasn't a typo.
Won’t happen. Nintendo isn’t going to threatened its unique trait to its hardware: their valuable IP. Miyamoto has customers conditioned on this mentality, if you want to play real games, you’ll carry a portable system. At the time, he was referring to the 3DS, they don’t view this segment as a ground for their “core” games. They suggest, which in a way they’re right, there’s a different type of audience or mindset with these devices that doesn’t make them pure gaming devices like the Switch, 3DS or Shield.
My iPhone and iPad are tools I use for information and productivity, not gaming. My Macs have turned into the same thing. My Switch, Xbox One, PS4 and PS3 are for gaming, plus my custom built PC.
After all, “Macs for productivity, Linux for development and Windows for solitaire (video games).” — MacSurfShop T-shirt, early 2000s, haha.
Seems like a bad move if Nintendo wanted to remain in the hardware business. Assuming it was separate from Nintendo's current service. If it were additional, it probably wouldn't hurt that much. Basically, if it were Game Pass-like, Nintendo could probably still sell hardware.
Every comment that's saying, "How dare you suggest subscription?!"
They're already doing it with Nintendo Switch Online's NES and SNES line. They're already thinking it.
@shani I agree on mobile gaming. Apple’s products, they’re great for work and any kind of creativity. Gaming on Macs... it’s back to being the old oxymoron it was in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Patcher is such a fool. He recommended that Nintendo exit hardware altogether. Put everything on mobile and other platforms.
I think what they are doing now is fairly smart. Use mobile to create awarenesses for their brand and have an income stream that didn't exist before.
@TheLightSpirit Why exactly? It allows indie developers get more recognized. The payment system isn't intrusive or skeezy. The subscription is tied to an account, rather than a device, meaning that you're subscribing for games on potentially your phone, tablet, laptop and microconsole. It's a great alternative to paying for games upfront. I've already played games like Shantae, Shinsekai and Sayonara Wild Hearts on it and I haven't looked back.
The Switch is great, but I think Nintendo should have another pillar into gaming. As it is, buying a Switch is and always will be a fairly large paywall that Nintendo can't get passed. Some people aren't going to ever be willing to play $200 for a Switch Lite. Nintendo should absolutely look into making a a service that people can easily play for cheap, people can easily play on the systems they already have and people can find compelling games on regularly.
Simple answer, yes.
Will Nintendo do it, no.
They're way too stubborn to do it. They'll let Microsoft games come their platform, but the XBoxOne has yet to see a Nintendo game appear on it!
I don't think traditional Nintendo games translate to mobile phone. Looking at a phone in the context of a games machine, it's quite restrictive for older games. Things like Yoshi's Touch and go are perfectly suited mind. But who played Mario 64 on the DS? It was awful. Not because the game was rubbish, it's a classic. But because touch screen is simply not as tactile as an analogue stick.
So if they can't portray their games in which they are meant, then their strategy of using mobile phones for another avenue of entertainment, in order to get folk to buy Switch is the best course of action as it won't tarnish their legacy.
Nintendo work best when they make games around the hardware. It's what they are experimenting with on mobile phones. Sure, plonking a catalogue on an arcade is easy money, but it's like the opposite of what Nintendo do. They may do it, but I think it would have repercussions on their brand image / perception that I'm not clever enough to figure out on the top of my head.
I see where Mr Pachter is coming from. It's from the perspective of a short term gain for his investors. (The American Dream these days.) It's certainly something to consider further down the line, but I don't think now is the time while they are successful. Strikes me as a plan B strategy that could become a plan A from necessity as opposed to a business plan.
Apple Arcade’s fantastic and anybody who writes off its content is only doing themselves a disservice. Nintendo’s forays into mobile gaming have been unfortunately pretty dire lootbox-filled messes for the most part. If they made innovative games such as Monument Valley, Reigns, Florence etc then there wouldn’t even be a question of subscribing to this, I’d have done it in a heartbeat.
Without controller buttons, an apple style Nintendo arcade on a smartphone seems like it would fail. I could be wrong, but I definitely wouldn't buy it.
@Ralizah I agree. I don't have much interest in mobile gaming or subscription services so this wouldn't be for me, but that's fine, not everything has to appeal to me. Emulators of old Nintendo games are already very popular on mobile so I think a service like this offering NES and SNES games would go down well among casual gamers who don't want to buy a Switch.
My problem with those kind of services are pretty much two:
1. Game ownership.
2. The type of games these services encourage.
A game you love can disappear with next to no warning.
When you have to come up with new ways for people to subscribe and keep renewing to the service, you stop giving them games and instead release it in monthly updates, and maybe after a year or so, you get something resembling a complete game.
And I think NSO collections have shown that retro games are popular with only a small group. It's almost heartbreaking when an obscure, great game gets added and instead of being celebrated, it gets downvoted to hell.
@AG_Awesome Honestly I don't know how much money they'd really get.
In a way, it's kind of the reverse situation to the birdman's fallacy that people applied to the Wii; i.e. when the Wii introduced motion control EVERYBODY tried to introduce their own take on motion control stuff assuming that it was motion control alone that was popular and not what was -done- with it and how much it was applied(or not).
In a way here's it's assuming that just because someone -may- be experiencing(and it might just be based on biased perspective/etc) something good, then anybody can jump in that thing without regard to context/etc to really figure out how to actually make it work.
Recall a lot of people literally faceplanted when they tried to release motion control to other platforms than the Wii.
Because say Nintendo introduce their own Apple Arcade-like service as Apple Arcade is experiencing a surge of popularity... would the people -already- subscribing to Apple Arcade truly want to pay for -another- subscription service to play another set of games they could argue should just have released to the existing service(over which Nintendo would have gotten a smaller share of income than if it had been their own service)?
If it came with Nintendo online it’d be a nice bonus I guess. It’s more work than it sounds though, supporting all the different mobile platforms and their respective OS out there is constant work. It’s far from money for nothing, it’s money for a lot of work from a dedicated team.
@cyrus_zuo Keep in mind, those were prior to the advent of smartphones. There are plenty of game-only studios that hold plenty of industry sway. For the moment, though, Nintendo would be wise to hold its course given the lack of processing uniformity in phones and other hardware laments like this one below:
@WoomyNNYes For sure. For that matter, I don't know if Android/iOS even allow a controller communication method that is lagless. If I'm going to get substantial input lag, might as well play on an emulator.
@Ogbert Oh yeah, I was totally forgetting about that myself.
Sure it sounds like easy money but... that's for a service people are already suscribing to. And there's no saying those people would be ready to add -another- subscription of top of that.
And on top of this point, as you mention yourself, that doesn't get into all the tech support/etc they'd need to do for such a service as well, the bug testers/etc they would need to pay for and so on.
Haha, no, I already don't use the arguably superior service I'm already paying for. :3
As said before (in fact most likely the last time an article like this appeared), if it was in Nintendo's interest to put their games on mobile they probably would have done it by now. If anything about Nintendo has been shown, it is they like money. How else have they managed to resell Super Mario Bros on just about ever console they have produced in some form or another?
Gaming requires a real controller. Smartphones offer terrible controls.
At first I thought I'd say maybe, but the more I think about it, my answer would be no. For one, I already subscribe to NSO, so I already have unlimited, mobile access to these games. Also, playing these games without a controller would not make them very fun to me. All of these were designed around having a control pad of some sort to play them. The reason Pokemon Go and Fire Emblem Heroes work on mobile is they were designed as touch-screen games from the ground up. So, I won't spend more money to play games I already have on a format they weren't meant to be on when they were created.
Really should do it for pc
I'd rather Nintendo make a Switch Lite Mini instead. Their phone games have proven to be uninspired cash grabs. The exception being Mario Kart Tour
@graysoncharles By partnering with a trusted phone company. Hardware like the Switch just carries them until technology sorts itself out. The Nvidia Shield is already practically like it, a number of clone hardwares have been released, and the Switch itself runs on a modified Android OS — it's only a matter of time and negotiations before we see a serious foray.
@KingBowser86 I think a mobile Street Pass would be awesome! Not sure how much I'd pay for it monthly, unless they added a lot of content regularly somehow.
Oh yeah, I totally want to play precision platformers with touch screen controls. Definitely wouldn't be a frustrating experience at all. They COULD release a controller or other peripheral to allow traditional controls, but I don't think I've ever seen a single person whip out a controller for their phone while out and about.
@frogopus the problem with putting say Mario 3 on phone is that majority of phone gamers will expect it to work and work well without an extra input peripheral. Mario 3 was obvs not designed with touch screen in mind so it’ll be a lesser experience than on Switch /NES/ VC and consequently will dilute the Nintendo brand. People would start to associate Mario and Nintendo with sloppiness and that is not what Ninty are about.
They haven't gotten Switch online right yet. Of course not.
Mobile games and their pay walls will spell the end of gaming as we know it now.
If Nintendo took the mobile route, the company would be dead to me.
Again, if you want the full Nintendo experience you need Nintendo hardware.
i think they should, but only afte rthe switch fades out and nintendo has no more consoles in the pipeline.
The mobile market is a different beast to the console market. I do not think mobile is canoblising Nintendo core business. Think about it, Animal Crossing is a "casual title" and yet every game site is talking about it endlessly. And yet they have long forgotten Pocket Camp except to report on it's loot boxes.
Sam with Mario Run, it didn't exactly bring a new mobile gamer to rush out and buy a switch.
No it is a different type of customer and a different type of gamer. There are some crossovers but mostly console gamers mess with a mobile and soon leave it for their console games. And mobile gamers are off to the next lootbox free game with a big brand on it.
As long as Nintendo still focused on Switch/their dedicated gaming platform, it would be fine. The flawed argument I always see made with this always turns into some nonsense about Nintendo going full third party.
Putting their retro titles on phones and tablets would be a nice, easy revenue stream.
@TheBigK I beat Castlevania 3 on my iPhone a few years back and while it took some getting used to, it wasn’t any worse than trying to play a 2D platformer on the Switch with those terrible sticks and nonexistent D-Pad.
I have always distrusted anything Pachter states. He has proven time and time again that he might be a very good analyst, but he is very much a ‘suit’.
Thank god he isn’t actually responsible for any decision making and he’s just a professional guesser !
They should keep their classic games separate. If they offered a service similar to xbox game pass at a 4.99 per month service on the Switch with more games (N64, Gamecube, Gameboy, Wii, etc) I would be willing to buy into that.
Real gamers don’t use phones
Let's face it, realistically anyone who wants to be playing NES and SNES games on their phones already are doing. If they did start bringing real games to mobile then they would have to be on Switch too
Well I guess that settles it. Pachter thinks it could happen, so there isn't a chance in hell. I can't count how many times this "analyst" was crazy wrong. I don't really understand why anyone takes him seriously, and have a theory that video game sites only mention him because his name sounds like Pac Man.
@mesome713 maybe NL should do an age of gamers on NL poll
@rockodoodle Street Pass and Miitomo present challenges, don't they? You'd think it wouldn't be hard - connect Nintendo fans with one another. For a time, Miitomo worked. But, it quickly gave way to the usual mill of advertising, idol worship, and good ol' scarcity-based networking.
But, if something like that were tied to events that were a combination of tournaments and these pop-up cafés we keep seeing in Japan but never elsewhere, THEN there's a flexible and public venue for meeting local people AND an electronic means by which introverts can "filter" beforehand.
No, Nintendo should put some effort into a proper legacy service on their own system before doing it on smartphones.
You can outright buy the Apple Arcade games like Virtual Console or on the eshop. Why Nintendo doesn’t step up their legacy content and allow purchases ala carte is beyond baffling. It takes what less than a minute to download a ROM from the internet and insert it into an emulator and you gave access to a full library compared to what Nintendo is offering.
@g_ruz like a joy con that can connect with the phone
Very simple answer.
NO.
Also Apple Arcade isn't just on smartphones. It's also on the Apple TV, iPad OS and macOS.
Nintendo should extend their online subscription service to include all NES, SNES and N64 games. But ALL of them ONLY on the Switch. Just start the software and select up to 100 games to "pre load" to your system and play them on the go. Done with a game, replace it with a different one (save game is stored on the system and the cloud)
@KingBowser86 I think Miitomo was merely a beta for Nintendo to get into mobile and workout kinks on a harmless app. I don't think they intended for it to do much else.
Sorry but that is never to happen, a phone is not perfect for core gaming and why would Nintendo want to put all their eggs in someone else's basket when they already got their own?
@shani
Apple Arcade is a great service, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. It's literally the best thing to happen to phone gaming.
That being said, I don't see Nintendo doing this. At least, not before starting it on the Switch first.
Nintendo have failed before, but pulled back with a new console idea. And they will again. It doesn't hurt for a company to diversify, as long as it does not forget its core customers.
I have stuck with Nintendo since the N64 launch. A home console and a handheld. Now I have just a Switch, one hybrid console that tries to be everything for everyone.
For example, after ZBoTW I turned to a few third party open world games to get my fix on this new type of game on the Switch. Five year old games that were praised for being on the Switch at all, while having their shortfalls pointed out, having made the transition.
Open world is one of my favourite new genre's, and my logic tells me, why spend top money on a five year old port when I can invest in a new PS and pay the same top price for the latest release. That could half the money I spend with Nintendo a year.
And apart from Nintendo's own games, most of the other stuff can be found on the PS.
The way round this for Nintendo is to get off its high horse and make a console that can play new third party games.
The more games Nintendo release on the smartphone the more sales they will sacrifice on the Switch.
@Kalmaro The thing is the Switch is Nintendo's mobile device, why would they want their service on mobile phone or other portable devices? You don't see Apple putting Apple Arcade on Androids do you? Why is that cause then why would people buy Apple's devices when they could get the same service on other phones or products. Same reason with the Switch, if Nintendo were to have such a service it needs to stay exclusives to their own product. Heck they could even make their own phone if they want to.
Everything is getting to expensive with all these online services. It'll get to a point where each individual company will want to have their own. I'm just gonna stick with individual purchases. At least that way I won't get bogged down with crap I'm not gonna play.
@mesome713 Imagine liking Apple more than PlayStation 🤮
@HammerKirby I dunno, on iOS I can redownload a game from 10 years ago and pull the save for it from the cloud and carry on where I left off.
There are a few Xbox games that still support leaderboards 15 years later (notably Geometry Wars) but that’s a rare occurrence.
I'd much rather see "Nintendo Switch has Games" be more accurate.
I'd get it, if it was free as part of NSO
Give us:
1.) Gameboy Classic Console
2.) Gameboy Advance Classic Console
3.) Nintendo 64 Classic Mini
I don't know if they should, but if they do, the main thing they need to fix first is making sure all their games are available worldwide. To date, most of their games aren't available in many countries, even the Switch app itself. Currently you have to fake your account country to download them.
One of the great things about Apple Arcade is that not only it offers plenty of great games, it's also available everywhere in the world from what I can tell, at the same cheap price.
As long as the service was available on the Switch, as well as smartphones, I don't see a problem with it. Having it available on both would give it its widest appeal. I have no interest in gaming on my phone, but I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for access to Nintendo's catalog of older games on my Switch. It should be a cross platform service including Switch, smartphones and PC. That would basically hit every demographic of videogame player. I fear a smartphone only model.
"One of the problems that Nintendo has with this kind of business idea is that its core fans feel that anything that's not directly related to a Nintendo home console is somehow negative or reductive; it's a distraction that should be ignored or avoided."
Bingo! I don't want Nintendo watered down to mobile quality. I need physical buttons.
@retro_player_77 Why not do both?
The Switch is portable but still not as portable as a phone. If Nintendo can use mobile devices as an advantage and pit games there and give people the option to play their and on their Switch, I'm not seeing a problem.
Here’s the thing; though I’d rather see them bolster their offerings with the switch online games, and make improvement to the switch UI in general (themes?), I truly believe that smartphone games wouldn’t be a bad thing. They wouldn’t kill the revenue of the switch, but draw in customers the way the nes and snes classic did. When I worked at a game store, people would often say how playing older Nintendo games made them want to give the switch a chance. So I see it as a good thing.
Plus, no matter what, there are many casual gamers out there who just want to play games on their phone. Who cares if Nintendo sells them the NES Mario games and makes them happy? Seems like a win for everyone. Besides, I doubt it would be much work (licensing aside) since Apple has a great partnership with Nintendo already.
I play games on game systems. I don't use my phone for gaming. Now if Nintendo had a PSNOW or GAME PASS style subscription service for $10 to $15 a month I would be all over that.
It isn't as easy to port old games to mobile as many think, specifically from a controls perspective.
There is a reason why Mario Run, Mario Kart Tour, Fire Emblem Heroes, etc exist.
@rockodoodle It certainly wound up that way, intention aside. But it doesn't change the endgame any - increased socializations and networks (even amongst the Old Core) are how Nintendo will solidify its franchises to something akin to Disney staying power and status (not to be confused with their legal power), fight its brands' stigmas, and ensure social value (and ultimately, financial) going forward. In tandem with creating successful new IP's, of course.
Touchscreen controls for Snes classics are horrible! I played via emulators and it was not worth the effort.
People would prefer the cheaper option. At first one would argue it'd be smart, but keep this in mind, smartphones are usually more expensive than the Switch, plus they force you to buy new ones in half the time of a system's lifespan. What would you prefer? A $300 system for about 7 years, or a monthly subscription on top of having to spend roughly $500 twice on new phones three years at most average in the same amount of time? Not including the shovelware argument here just the cost for the platform.
No. I hate subscription services
@mesome713 That's a wonderful idea. I hope they make that move next.
are you crazy? they dont even care about NES/SNES Online Service...not that to have another one for mobile ....
@WhiteTrashGuy Nintendo would shudder at the thought of allowing a range of games to be played every month for such a low price.
Yes, but with good games instead.
I’d rather do an Apple Arcade style on the Switch where I could pay like 30 bucks a month for a rotating selection of Nintendo Selects style games, but I’d honestly do both. Especially in these times, I’d rather have a “derivative” Mario or Dragalia Lost when I can’t play my Switch than Bottle Flipper 2020 edition.
@graysoncharles https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/03/nintendo_approached_cyanogen_for_switch_os_but_was_told_to_stick_it
They still used bits of it, familiar enough with the OS to request its use (or at least dead-set on the future potential it would reel in).
Lmao make your own subscription service better, the way they went to 2-3 games monthly to whatever they feel like whenever they feel like it is a absolute joke an a even bigger joke is that these sites will take them to task for it.
@graysoncharles That's fine, but there are still Android elements in there. Meaning they're eyeing smartphones for a mainline strategy.
No - no they shouldn’t
@Saro I think I like what Microsoft is doing, but I have no need for it bc my backlog is so huge.
Considering how much shovelware makes it to the switch, why not put it on smartphones were it belongs and leave us the good stuff ?
I wouldn't see this as a problem as long as they keep their focus on the switch. I don't think this is really necessary or in line with their business model though.
@RadioHedgeFund uh there are a lot of old iPhone games that don't work now. My whole point was that this guy is a massive Nintendo fanboy and hates Microsoft and Sony yet loves Google Stadia and Apple for some reason??? Idk he might just be a troll at this point
IMO- 1) smartphones do not have D-pads...yet. Nintendo is lucky that there isn't a new Xperia Play. Everyone would be playing Mario on the bus from a pirated rom, no internet check-in or subscriptions required.
2) Switch online is so bad they should improve that first, I doubt mobile offerings from Ninendo would be very good. Plus add a D-pad to the switch and bring back eshop; the official way of playing these games should not be an inferior experience to piracy.
3) It is so easy to emulate these games for free on a phone already. As a business, Nintendo should not encourage the habit of and find solutions for playing these games without buying them. A Nintendo D-pad phone would need to be locked out of android. Even with this measure, if it was popular, it would encourage someone else to create an android phone with a D-pad. When googling 'snes rom' is quicker than entering a credit card number, nobody would rent an old rom file, or buy it for 7.99 ever again.
Nintendo gets online services about as well as the guy from Slingblade understands trigonometry.
i would say "yes", or more likely a possible "maybe" but unfortunately i hate Apple.
The Switch is actually not as advanced as most smart phones nowadays. I see that subscription based service happening in a few years...
@graysoncharles I was talking about the controls, not the games themselves. I just said that without physical controls, you can't control the game well. Mobile phones will always be a last resort when it comes to gaming, because the controls suck.
Hell, NO. They don’t even have a proper Virtual Console on Switch, yet!
@SwitchplayerJohn and the fact that you can log into Pocket Camp to claim some exclusive DLC items in Nook Shopping in New Horizons .
I’d love Star wars:jedi fallen order with cross save! Nhl 21 and nhl arcade and bring mirrors edge over. Even the mobile game, that was released for the iPad years ago. Maybe the Simpsons games they made.
@HammerKirby I really don't think he's trolling, I wish he was though. I'm always surprised in a bad way by whatever comment he leaves on almost every article I check.
OR... Put it on the Switch. Make the NES and SNES thing better by adding lots more games from different Gens
Sorry if this has already been said, but while the idea is appealing. What I hope Nintendo do first before that or in parallel is really give us a solid virtual console, the nes and snes online is ok but Nintendo strength is its library and ip. So sure why not have a phone service akin to Apple Arcade but they should not alienate there current core demographic of home console owners....though with the switch what does mean anymore???
No they shouldn't, dedicated hardware is what makes Nintendo so good
I voted maybe. I would maybe hesitantly get it, if that was the only way to play certain games. However, I would for sure pay more for Nintendo Online for Switch if the correct games were on there in stead. If I didn't already have a Switch, I would for sure get one. The current offering on Switch is too little. Give me all the stuff from the Virtual Console, and I'll pay. They should put all retro-resources into making Virtual Console a service that would work on all Nintendo hardware as long as it has the omph to run the emulator in question. Give us Gamecube and Wii games. I never really got to play Mario Galaxy that much, and I really want to. I would like to play Eternal Darkness as well. And F zero GX. And tons more, both that I played and that I didn't. Gamecube should be easy. Wii is perhaps a bit more challenging to make work seamlessly, but at least get us something.
@westman98 What are you on about?
You get an emulator buy a license and package it with each rom as a signed binary for the device.
The licensing of games is way harder than the technical problems.
@StevenG
I'm specifically talking about translating physical controls to touch inputs, not the actual porting process, which should be fairly easy.
NDS games would also struggle to translate well on smartdevices (particularly smaller smartphones) due to the two screens that each need to be displayed.
@RPGamer aye aye; fingers crossed that it never comes to pass..
@westman98 Why would you translate them to touch?
I would think a gamepad like all the other services use would be the solution to that.
DS games would be played with the device in portrait mode, getting you probably similar screen sizes and way more pixels. I just checked and my phone display is in portrait wider than a DS display. Only the latest 3DS would be an issue, and the 3d is going to work anyway.
@RPGamer I wouldn't stop, I don't see why you would either. I would think like me you would just stop buying newer games.
@StevenG
Nobody makes mobile games that require a gamepad controller accessory to play.
And unless your phone is massive, I don't see how DS games would translate well on them unless the touch inputs overlap the bottom screen.
Either way, all of this speculation is moot - Nintendo is never going to create Nintendo Arcade for mobile.
@westman98
I was talking about porting classic games, not garbage mobile games.
My phone is a normal size. A DS display is tiny.
DS layout would be simple, phone in portrait, top half top display, bottom half bottom display.
@RPGamer That wouldn't impact you existing game library. I have already canceled one streaming service and netflix might be next. If I can't count on the stuff I want being on them, I might as well just go back to buying disks and renting them.
@StevenG
The issue is that the NDS control inputs (face buttons/d-pad/shoulder buttons) wouldn't translate very well onto a phone unless it overlapped with the bottom-half screen.
@westman98 Why would the inputs be on the phone?
Again, if you are porting games that need a controller, you sell a controller.
This is how all these other services work. Look at google stadia.
@StevenG
The whole point of Nintendo porting their back-catalog to mobile is so hundreds of millions (if not billions) of poeple, many of whom don't otherwise play games on dedicated gaming platforms like the Switch, will have access to them.
Requiring that people purchase a gamepad accessory to play those games would defeat the entire point of this endeavour, as very few people use a controller with their phones. Nintendo might at well port those old games over to Switch, because I guarantee you the number of people who actively use a controller accessory with their phones is far less than the number of active Switch players.
Requiring a controller to stream games on your phone is one reason why I think game streaming on mobile devices will never really take off, at least to a degree that would make something like Google Stadia somewhat successful.
@westman98 I have to disagree. Anyone who wants to play those now is using an emulator and a gamepad or suffering for not.
The general non-gaming public isn't ever going to play classic nintendo games, they are way too hard.
@RPGamer So you would still have your old games, which is what I meant. sorry for being unclear.
@StevenG
The whole point of developing mobile games is to tap into an audience of hundreds of millions, if not billions, while also making money off of microtransactions (or in this case, a subscription) from loyal whales
Requiring people to use a gamepad accessory drastically decreases the potential audience and defeats the whole purpose of developing for mobile plarforms in the first place. It won't happen.
@westman98 That's not this article though. This is about bringing nintendo titles to mobile as they are and having subscriptions. Not making mobile games.
Tap here to load 130 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...