It's the 1st of April and you know that means - a handful of Mario games have been removed. Why has this happened and what is Nintendo's reasoning? Fans are still searching for answers to these questions.
While nobody seems to really be able to provide an answer, VICE reporter Patrick Klepek investigated the whole limited release thing last year and received an insightful response from a developer who has worked with Nintendo on multiple occasions in the past.
Apparently, it's rather "straightforward" - the video game giant is resorting to artificial scarcity because it believes it drives sales by playing on people's "FOMO", otherwise known as a fear of missing out:
"They have data that shows that rereleases of games tend to wither on wishlists," said a developer who's been involved with publishing several games on Switch, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not permitted to publicly discuss their meetings with Nintendo. "The manufactured FOMO [fear of missing out] helps them get those sales, or so they think."
Last year, Nintendo of America president Doug Bowser had a crack at explaining why Mario's games would be removed - stating how it was a "celebration" of Mario. At the time, he also noted how it would not be a strategy widely used going forward.
"Yeah, I think I use a simple word: celebration. It just — this is a celebration of Mario’s 35th anniversary. And we wanted to celebrate in unique and different ways, and we’ve done that through games like Super Mario 3D All-Stars, or we will be doing that through future releases, such as Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury."
"And then we’ve also done it through releases such as Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros., or through Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit. There are various ways that we’re celebrating Mario’s 35th. And with some of these titles, we felt it was an opportunity to release them for a limited period of time. They’ve done very, very well. Super Mario 3D All-Stars has sold over 2.6 million units in the U.S. alone. And so clearly, consumers have been able to jump in and enjoy that. And it’s not strategy that we’re going to be using widely, but it’s one we thought was very unique for the actual anniversary."
So, what do you think about the idea of Nintendo using limited-time releases to drive sales? How would you feel about similar offerings in the future? Share your thoughts down below.
Makes sense to me. Scummy? Yeah, but at the end of the day, they are still a business.
Not surprising. But at the same time, it is leaving cash on the table for all the future Switch sales. So I imagine there is something more to come (separate sales).
Yeah, limited releases like these usually just prey on people's fear of missing out. It's kind of scummy, but at the same time it's been shown to work. At least they made plenty of copies, so people can at least buy it used, and they didn't just make the game available for a month like some companies do. However, I still can't say that I like timed exclusives.
One thing I will say though, I perfectly understand why Super Mario Bro's 35 was pulled. The game was effectively made only for the anniversary, and I doubt Nintendo wants to keep the servers up for an online exclusive game that was made for the anniversary year. Not to mention, they might be planning to use the same servers for another game with the same style in the future.
If EA does a limited timed release...
Nintendo does a limited timed release...
"Oh dear, oh dear. Gorgeous."
Finally, now Nintendo can focus on their other anniversary games.
Unfortunately, the 8 million sales taught Nintendo that we will buy into their FOMO.
Seems to me they're just pushing people towards using emulators more.
FOMO sells. Pretty clear to me.
They're not wrong. I probably would have let 3D All Stars sit on my wishlist for years. I more or less convinced myself I wouldn't buy it, but the temptation was there. Two months after it released, I bought it on an impulse thanks to the limited time frame.
Had a nostalgia blast... and then sold it.
I can buy the explanation for some of Nintendo's other past decision-making. But in this case, is it really a case of FOMO if the game was available for 6 months and at pretty much every major retailer that sells the game and is probably still widely available now?
Buying the games by FOMO is not a pleasant experience in video gaming.
Just let peoples decide to buy the games very late.
I need to see convincing evidence that it has a notable impact on sales before I buy this explanation. It no doubt does over the short term, but if it was available permanently, then quite a lot of those extra sales would just be pushed back over the next few years, surely?
And this is why emulators and flash cards/R4 cards are so popular in the Nintendo modding community: Nintendo not respecting their fans or their own legacy.
So exactly what lots of others were saying. Ok then.
It's quite evident that leaving the games up will allow a ton more people to purchase them even if it's over a longer period.
Well, duh. Anywho, anyone care for a McRib?
Was this not clear before? Seems pretty obvious.
One should never refer to people who buy their products as “consumers.” It’s disrespectful and downright dehumanizing. From what I remember Reggie was much more respectful, calling people “customers” (as one would expect from a Japanese company).
Please let this topic die already, March 31st is over.
So are they not keeping Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury in stores?.
This is an unsubstantiated 4th hand account, hardly conclusive of anything.
I was happy to get the 3D collection, but I had no intention of getting the Game & Watch. Nevertheless, yesterday I took delivery of a Game & Watch from Amazon. Apparently FOMO is real, and I suffer from it.
This is what VICE is investigating?
I've heard more outrage over this in the last few months than anything EA has done in over a year.
I'm confused about a few things. First, why an anonymous source is quoted with no skepticism or counterbalance, and second, why FOMO is now so exploitative, when companies like Limited Run are celebrated for the exact same practice, and allowed to spin their narratives of nobly preserving games, when in fact they produce a fraction of the number of copies that Nintendo undoubtedly has.
I swear, nobody criticizes Nintendo like their fans.
These are Mario games. There is no way that sales would be anything short of a lot. Fire Emblem makes a bit more sense because that series isn't as popular as Mario but thinking that people wouldn't buy a Mario collection is just downright dumb. Nintendo just wanted to see if this was something they could get away with, so they can eliminate the need to offer games at a discount. Instead they'll just pull this collection "out of the vault" later, reprint more physical copies and make even more money from the people they missed the first time around. At full price.
@Joekun It is not disrespectful, and to call it dehumanizing is to have utterly no sense of the concept.
I think using anonymous sources makes this simply not believable.
@KingBowser That's not a timed exclusive.
@ATaco Disney? Is that you! Ahaa
"Dev explains what we all already knew"
Short answer: All of you who bought 3D-Allstars are the problem😂
Honestly, it’s a smart strategy. Games don’t have a sense of urgency. With new releases you might want to be in the initial wave, but if you don’t care about that you might wait for a sale. Nintendo wanted this game to sell well so they made it clear, if you waited for a sale, you’d miss out. If you wanted to own these games on Switch then you’d need to pay up.
Well, it's not that surprising. With that said, we won't let Nintendo forget about this so easily. I say we should name this day "Anti-Mario day" or something (just for fun).
I posted this once And I will do it again. (And if you can't see it just click on it)
They wouldn't expend the effort of internally crafting an emulator to function well on Switch if it wasn't going to be utilized again. These aren't the last we'll be seeing of these games.
@Shepdawg1 a stupid and idiotic buisness, but still a buisness nevertheless...I guess?
I have a slightly different theory than some people. I feel Nintendo genuinely likes putting out limited time anniversary collections for the reasons they say...AND they're thrilled at the financial reasons too! People think its just the latter, which is not very Nintendo imo. This is the same thing with like how mainline Pokemon has two versions. It was done for a non-money related reason, but they sure are happy for the money related reason that came with it!
also I have a feeling this anonymous dev is just saying what they think they know and not what they have confirmed for themselves in any way. Just a hunch.
Good move for Nintendo but terrible for consumers. I really hope they continue this trend of anti-consumerism.
It wouldn't surprise me if they return 3DMAS to the e-shop next March for another "limited buying opportunity due to high demand".
This is what I've been saying all along. Nintendo is playing the games, not us. They are forcing their loyal fans to buy games they don't even want to play for fear of losing the opportunity forever. And they call it a collector's item so people will buy extra copies. They are the most anti-consumer company.
Shrugs They gave plenty if notice and were transparent upfont. Bought on launch day because I wanted to play it. All of these games but one have already been rereleased. Nintendo would have caught heck no matter what they did. As usual.
What ab out Mario 35.... makes no sense yet.
People tend to ignore the fact that rereleases don't make a lot of money because they're not multimillion sellers in the overwhelming majority of cases, and they're also sold very cheap. This was a smart move in a category that is ripe with failure and Nintendo found the formula to beat those odds. Mainly because they recognize how the market reacts to the release and rerelease of their titles, or how little they release and rerelease.
Surprised this is considered news, but anyway, I'm glad I kept myself from buying it (though I was never really tempted... I've played these games plenty already).
It really does make Doug Bowser look quite inauthentic though, huh? I'm sure Reggie would've made the same/similar comment because you can't admit your crappy practice outright, but still.
It’s the evolution of what happened with Wii then those classic consoles and amiibos, they want people to panic at the thought of not buying their products when given the chance, digital purchases get in the way of this because scalpers can’t prey on a digital game to make it a coveted item so here comes limited availability just so happens to come in the time of them pretty much running out of Wii U games to use as a crutch for yearly releases.
Manufactured scarcity doesn’t make sense for a Mario collection that includes two of the most highly regarded games ever for a system that is on its way to reaching Wii/DS levels of sales.
I honestly think this practice made less sense for this game than OG Fire Emblem. But I guess Nintendo what Nintendon’t. Or whatever.
It's all shameful.
No one made a big deal when super Mario all stars on wii was limited edition...or the Kirby collection...or whatever random flavor mt dew flavor they come out with every summer.
The only thing to be displeased about would be super Mario 35...but I’m still thinking we will see it again somewhere. And this opens up room for the next big thing (please please be Zelda 35!).
It worked on me anyway. I caved today and bought it from the Eshop just before I left for work as I knew by the time I got home, it would be gone. I had talked myself out of buying it, despite initially looking forward to it.
Played 64 earlier for the first time in many years and I really struggled with the camera. It's not how I remember it.
At least they stocked stores well enough that scalpers couldn’t really make jack off FOMO
It's basically a special event I reason.
@mattesdude I think with All Stars on Wii, people were more upset about them charging 50 quid for what was a straight ROM dump, than to care about it being a limited edition. I might be wrong, but I think the Kirby collection wasn't much better.
Ya, I already said they were doing this on purpose but it's just a burst in sales before they get discontinued. What I want to know is how many games would've been sold up all the way to their next system but unfortunately, we'll never know. To me, Nintendo is losing points in respect by doing it this way. Also, another reason why I hate this, is it will drive up the price of physical copies because now there's only a certain amount available. All this does is "enable" the scalpers more.
If this were EA or Activision, everyone here giving this company a pass would be ripping them apart. Don't let your love for this company blind you, for god's sake.
On one hand, why don't you ask someone like my friend who's uncle used to work at nintendo?
On the other hand....duh?
Companies have done this for YEARS. Anyone else remember the 80s/90s and every Disney movie being limited time, “Get it before it goes back in the vault!” only to get another release in 1-3 years time....
It’s no different than any other psychological marketing ploy companies use. Just have a look at how stores and outlets are mapped out. Sales is all psychological in how to get a consumer to buy a product. Some tactics, as such, are more effective than others.
As @Asthmalaxrd pointed out, at least there was PLENTY of opportunity to get the collection before they yanked it, unlike Disney movies in the 80s/90s, ugh....
Plus we’ll see these 3 again in shops/eshop, just broken apart and without the musical players and such.
It's still March 31st in my area, and I just played my last game Super Mario Bros. 35 and now I'm sad.
@JimmySpades If you say so. I don’t like being referred to as a “consumer.” I am aware that it is in regards to someone who uses up the value of an item, making it worth less. I find the concept altogether backward. As a producer, one should look at customers as people who are enriched by your products, assuming that you believe your products have value. One can understand a concept and still find it repulsive.
In Japanese the word for customer and guest are the same, and that is a more respectful way of looking at people.
Meh if you want it you could still buy it physically, those who want it digital will probably had to force themselve to get physical and I'm sure by Mario's 40th anniversary Nintendo will probably release a more better collection for the Switch Pro (if that thing even exist by then).
It’s infuriating to see this put so bluntly by an actual Nintendo developer. I’ve been a huge Nintendo fan for my entire life and I’ve never seen them do anything like this. It makes my heart sink and it forces me to doubt this company in ways I hoped I never would.
@Joekun Reggie always used the word 'consumer', without fail. One of the things I never liked about him.
Yeah, the game never went into my wishlist for similar reasons. Wishlists aren’t shopping carts, their wishes of what you think you want. Mine currently has a lot sitting in it and to be honest most will never be purchased because they are wishes. Like if I had a million dollars and infinite time.
Nintendo games linger there for eternity because the ones in there I like the idea of, but something holds me back. Usually it is the years of history of disappointment caused by games that are really at the edge of what I prefer. If the price becomes right, which Nintendo never does, I might purchase if A) I have funds and B) I don’t have other games (or really anything else) that are higher priority to purchase.
Super Mario 64 is an edge game. I have no nostalgia for it, but I can purchase at a much cheaper rate elsewhere. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is perfectly playable on my Wii U that is still hooked up and is superior to the first game which I gave away. Super Mario Sunshine was tempting but not at a $60 asking price.
This does make me wish I had thrown them into the wish list now just to irritate their black Disney-esque hearts with their “locking it back in the vault” mentality.
The easiest way to beat FOMO with this is to realize that you're already 25, 19, and 14 years late to those 3 games anyway. Then think, hmmm, are these three games worth $60, if yes buy, if not, don't buy. That or that you already played them all like me. Made my decision to not purchase them a whole lot easier.
@King-K-Rool Ah, my mistake. I was watching that “Playing With Power” documentary and heard him say “customers.” Just assumed he said that all the time.
@peppermillian Almost my post verbatim.
Only worth adding this is not even Nintendo’s first limited collection. The Wii All-Stars and the Zelda Gamecube collection were much harder to find and were very expensive on the used market. 3D All-Stars was infinitely more available.
Any reason to complain I guess.
Meh, no big loss.
@DocRompler They did it for bit.generations for GBA and other Club Nintendo exclusive titles in Japan; they did it for Mario All-Stars for Wii and they did it for the Zelda Collection for Gamecube.
Difference was none of those were available to everyone digitally.
Man I Called it =(
I love how the comments are just buying into this without looking at the current date. XD
Iwata once said, "Games are meant to be one thing: Fun. Fun for everyone."
Exploiting people's fear of missing out through artificial scarcity is not fun. It's not fun at all. If Iwata could see what is going on with Nintendo right now, I imagine he would be very displeased.
It's no wonder he's the only one at the company who would say, "Please understand."
I do not understand, Nintendo. Not one bit.
"They have data that shows that rereleases of games tend to wither on wishlists." Probably because people are waiting for a sale. I'm guilty of it myself. I see all these ACA Arcade rereleases and for some, I wait for a sale before I buy.
It will make sense if they will have made some physical anniversary, and it will have ended after awhile. But to delete the game from the shop, makes no sense at all. Let people enjoy the game, this is so silly.
Fear of missing out is one thing. Worse is the Fear of Not Posting About It. The FONPAI here is so big that we get multiple Nintendolife articles per day.
Also FOMO is just how most companies operate. For instance it's "Limited Run Games" entire business model. (All their releases are very limited). And I don't see people hating on that. Why now with Nintendo? They CLEARLY stated BEFORE release that they would be limited releases.
@sanderev NOTICE ME FONPAI!
Nintendo is the businiest of businesses. No surprise there.
Stupidest thing ever. It's not going to drive sales. Every single Mario game is "ever green". So the longer its out the more it sells.
@God_of_Nowt I had to check the URL bar to see where I was. Never expected to see you over here! Though it does seem indistinguishable from the home team these days, so why not, right?
I think much of this has been overblown. "Nintendo killed/murdered/destroyed/eviscerated Mario," we get it, the links have to be clicky, and there are endlessly creative ways to describe the reality of this one event.
It is clear that this was an experiment, and fan backlash like this is a key indicator it is unlikely to become a common practice for Nintendo, regardless of how much revenue this experiment generated. This is the one company that actually does put forward a decent effort in making legacy content available to fans. Are their efforts lacking here and there? Certainly, I say this as someone who plays the Game Boy Advance Golden Sun titles on a hacked New 3DS XL, as that is the preferred option for me considering the screen size (and because their most recent Virtual Console re-release was limited to the Wii U); but generally speaking, you will find far more care taken by Nintendo in making legacy content available than any other publisher.
Nintendo aren't perfect, but they are hardly an EA level repeat offender, here; it was a single limited campaign conducted during a "time of plenty," given the Switch's large userbase, that has proven to be particularly unpopular. They routinely use the Mario series for experiments (good and bad) of this nature, as fans of the latest Paper Mario game surely know all too well. They are releasing a port of another game in another equally classic Nintendo series for its anniversary in just a few months from today that is entirely unlimited in the scope of its release, if that tells you anything about the insights Nintendo have apparently gleaned from this divisive campaign.
Some dude, not a Nintendo employee, is telling everyone what Nintendo is supposedly thinking?
Or is it just that Nintendo compiled 3D All-Stars for Mario's 35th (and also as a way to test out their emulation tools) and plans to release the games separately at a later date?
Honesty, my opinion sounds more reasonable and most likely.
Also, let's make it be clear, Super Mario 3D All-Stars being delisted isn't "delisting popular Mario games".
3D All-Stars is a totally different SKU than say, a standalone version of Mario 64 or Sunshine for the Switch.
Well there is a certainly an element of that but does anyone believe that Mario 64, Sunshine and Galaxy wouldn't have sold very well anyway?
@JuiceMan_V It's simple Nintendo could ask €50-€60 per game of the collection. They didn't, so they made it limited (it doesn't devalue the games this way).
I think we'll either see a 3D Zelda collection or a Metroid Prime HD collection this year with a similar setup. (And limited to next year April)
Also look at 3D World + Bowser's Fury, it's one full game rereleased on Switch for €60. That game release isn't limited. I wonder why... (because it doesn't devalue the game)
An article featuring Klepek is an April Fools joke in very poor taste...
Ehhh if Nintendo was shipping small quantities of Super Mario 3D All-Stars, then sure, FOMO would apply.
But has likely reached 10 million copies shipped by now. That's not a small number - retailers should have plenty of retail copies of the game. You should easily be able to buy one at normal price.
I genuinely think Nintendo execs believes that anniversary events should only last for a limited period of time and therefore require the removal of anniversary-related products after that limited time period is over.
Nintendo's strategy with these games has been an eye opener for me. After spending quite heavily on their games for a couple of years, now I literally scrutinise abd try to avoid every cent I give to them. My wallet is happier.
Companies become problematic when the methods that they use to earn money are morally incorrect to their fanbases. Nintendo has enough profit. They can always make more in other ways, and just let a few profitable ideas that are in bad taste go.
@Shepdawg1 Makes sense to me. Scummy? Yeah, but at the end of the day, they are still a business.
It's scummy you say but it's ok because they are a business?
When people wonder why game companies have become so anti-consumer it might be because so many game consumers 'understand that they are a business' and defend them.
He's just saying what everyone was saying since the release.
On the flip side, the game holds it's value, so I'll be able to sell it to buy something else. Hahaha. My kind of celebration. But seriously, I think it's time we moved on from this. Can't see why folk are complaining at having almost a year to buy something. If it was much shorter period of time and you genuinely missed out, THEN I can see the grievance. But this is just comes accross as spoilt.
@Crono1973 If I was truly defending them, I wouldn't have called this move scummy.
Much prefer Xbox's way of treating consumer's purchases with respect and allowing them access to older digital purchases across generations.
Imagine using "VICE" as a source!!! 😂😂😂😂
Imagine having 'FOMO' over the span of 6 months. Haha. Shame when even devs don't seem to know what they are on for lol.
I thought this was obvious?
Has it gone, good job this site kept on reminding me of the impending take down.
31 March has gone...but that won't stop this site from posting yet another article moaning about the removals. Of course, why wouldn't they?!
Oh no, now NLife won’t be able to talk about some old Mario games being removed from the Switch anymore, such a shame.
Is this NL’s April Fool’s article for 2021? It’s not quite as obvious or silly as previous ones.
@Burning_Spear Thankfully your not a journalist ay...This is just coffee break work mate, not an actual investigation 😂
. Cant believe you though this would have required an investigation lol
Plain bollocks, the re-released WiiU games aren't underperforming, they're doing about as well as regular Switch games.
Hell the Virtual Console games on WiiU constantly charted to the point I suspect the Switch doesn't sell them to allow indie and 3rd party digital games to stand a better chance on the charts.
3D Allstars is temporary because its a limited edition product to celebrate the anniversary.
This is absolutely not sugoi.
FOMO? This is my first time seeing this. Bet I’ll start seeing it everywhere now.
Since Iwata passed out things has gone downhill...
Oh wow, thank goodness Mr Dev's here to drop those truth bombs. I would have never seen the hilariously blatant FOMO ploy otherwise.
Really, for whom is this news? Fanboys in extreme denial?
Doesn’t exactly explain why they took down mario 35
FOMO has too be the most pointless acronym, I don't think I've ever seen/heard it written/said without being followed by 'fear of missing out'.
Seriously, if an acronym still needs to be explained more than two years after being in circulation it's time to dtfsn!
Why are we celebrating a 35th anniversary at all? It is completely arbitrary. Is it because it is a multiple of five? Are we going have to go through this tedium every five years?
And why five? Why not work in multiples of four or three. It's completely arbitrary, artificial and manipulative.
@Old-Red great point!
I love how the internet has turned this into a meme, there are some proper raging kevs out there.
My opinion about this has always been simple: if you want it buy it, if you don't.... Well, don't.
These games aren't dead, they wont be deleted, and the code is more than secure.
Nintendo exist to make money from you, so of course they will leverage their IP over and over. The day that they see more value in doing a service like Gamepass and decide it is viable then they will do so, but let's not be under any illusion that MS are doing what they are doing to be your friend..... At some point, inevitability even, the costs of that service will rise significantly.
@mattesdude Can't they co-exist? Tetris 99 is still a thing.
@Iggy-Koopa Good points. MS are only doing what they're doing is because they're in last place and have been losing billions since Xbox began...
The 'Limited Edition' tactic is also used in various industries, fine when there is an actual number, but it's basically meaningless most of the time.
I remember falling for it with the Men In Black DVD release. It was limited edition, I was young. On release date I ran to Woolworths on my lunch break to grab a copy before it ran out. It was still available everywhere 2 years later!
Another example, the Vauxhall Corsa 'Limited Edition' here in the UK. Nearly every model sold was an LE for months on end, it's simply a marketing tactic and a nice buzz word.
"And it’s not strategy that we’re going to be using widely"
Dude, Fire Emblem literally was removed the same day.
You should probably have nothing more to do with Nintendo mate.
FOMO is a great selling technique and with Nintendo products always retaining the full retail price, you don’t need to wait around for a discounted copy before you buy. .
Also many Nintendo games are a given day one purchase.
Now give us ports of F-Zero, Starfox, Metroid on timed release.
That doesn't really explain why they remove Mario 35 though.
Well, as long as they don't do this with actual new games, I personally couldn't care less.
As a consumer I really don't like that idea. Especially since there is absolutely no technical reasons to limit the time window to buy the game, they have to maintain the ability for those who bought the game to download it for a long period of time so it's a bit of a headache.
To add insult to the injury, 3D All Stars features lazy ports and is/was overpriced. I'm glad they made a physical release though, I felt like replaying Mario Sunshine and it's cool that I was able to resell the game once I was done with it. If it was digital only I would have skipped it.
Yeah, right like Nintendo told that Dev this. I call BS.
The simplest and most logic reason is likely to be the real reason. More revenue before the end of the financial year.
@Mince In fact, I am a journalist. I do this Nintendo commentary in my spare time. Hear that, VICE?
Lol of course. It’s also why they create artificial shortages too. Nintendo also doesn’t drop prices of games because it makes some consumers believe the games are worth more than other games.
Well it's not like this was ever rocket science.
But even aside from "manufactured FOMO" both Mario 35 and 3D All Stars are concepts that, in the long run, either hurt brand value perception (3D All Stars) or revenue (Mario 35) so it was obvious from the get-go that they would eventually have to leave again.
You can keep the game after March 31st when you download or buy physical. It's not scummy business.
@Kilamanjaro Are you that dumb? Switch uses cartridges and Wii, Wii U and GameCube uses discs and the other cartridge-based Nintendo systems have bigger and unusual cartridges. Plus you have the old damn Nintendo systems, play on them instead.
@Toy_Link Because EA hasn't really done much that would elicit harsh criticism over the past 6 months duh
@Kirgo Agreed. I can kinda understand the logic
@mattesdude Those were physical copies and obviously those were going to be limited. We live in the digital age now and Nintendo thinks removing a game from its digital store is OK. Digital releases are not limited by physical space. You can't compare this to those games from 10 years ago.
Exactly the reason I thought it would be
Did anyone think this wasn't the reason?
There are more news about Nintendo pulling off a game than Sony closing several entire stores.
Oh but Nintendo control the press and their review scores are bought. They are very dangerous for your freedom of speech and consumer's rights. lol
@Shepdawg1 If you weren't defending them, you wouldn't have said: "Makes sense to me".
Anti-customer at its finest. It's a big "f* you" at the end of the day.
@Spiders The difference is that none of those were blatant cash-grabs. Club Nintendo rewards were free. Zelda Collection was a pack-in. The games in SMAS for Wii were all individually available on the Wii Shop for years. All of them were marketing campaigns and none of them were as transparently cynical as this one.
My nieces might get a this year, but we probably can't get them 3D All-Stars. Screw them, right?
Really hoping there will be another way to get Mario Galaxy on the Switch in the near future.
That person has to be a genius. Nobody could have realized that.
@OorWullie part of the struggle with the camera is we’re now using a stick to control it when on the N64 it was just directional buttons. So the stick isn’t acting like a stick it’s replicating button presses. I know they didn’t update the games at all but at the very least updating the camera controls would’ve been really nice touch.
@DocRompler yeah this is the problem. They made it so literally the only current legal way to play this game is this thing they only made available for 6 months. I bought it because I never played Sunshine and barely played Galaxy but I honestly waited until I had the chance to get it used. Maybe it doesn’t matter but I felt a little better about it.
@DocRompler Fair points, and I might agree if 3D All-Stars wasn’t infinitely available for the last six months. Those titles I mentioned - free or not - were prohibitively difficult to get for most players.
I think it sucks if you wanted this game and for some reason couldn’t get it in the window and can’t get one of the millions of physical copies in the wild at a decent price, but I don’t see the cynicism on Nintendo’s part.
Nobody cries anti-consumer at the McRib or pumpkin spice lattes or any other limited time style promotions. It feels like a particularly “gamer” kind of entitlement, shaped from the high costs and addictive nature of the hobby.
Now if they announce a free Galaxy 2 DLC I will lose my mind and join the internet mob.
@WoomyNNYes Used physical copies will be kicking around for about the same price once the initial wave of price gouges subsides and it’s apparent there’s millions of copies out there.
@Crono1973 So...you're basically saying that I was lying when I said I wasn't defending them? You're trying to correct me and tell me how I should be feeling when only I know how I feel? And you're trying to tell me that it's impossible for things we don't like to make logical sense?
I didn't buy it, I don't like being kind of forced to buy it because of a stupid deadline. I would have bought it eventually. And the $60 price tag wasn't enticing either. It was also not in my budget. Oh well my loss I guess.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here but if Nintendo actually wants to turn Wishlist items into sales, then maybe they should actually try discounting their software? ($10 off a $60 MSRP does not count .) Also, the Switch is 4 years old now, and we still don't have a "Nintendo Select" or budget line of titles. Arms should not cost $60. 1-2 Switch should not cost $50 either. I'm not saying they're not well-made or innovative. I'm just saying they're not worth that price point to me.
@streetzman ooo insult guy over here everyone! Ever heard of the Nintendo eShop? For Wii? 3DS? Wii U? Where many of those older gen titles are held? Lots of us have purchased on those digital eshops as recently as the last few months and definitely over the past 15 years. Not everyone holds onto those consoles & digital purchases aren't tied across the ecosystem. So why don't you use the energy you have to insult other people to use your brain to think about & understand the limitations of the Nintendo eShop and online ecosystem from this century.
@Agent069 yeah agreed. Really a money grab. They'll probably bring some of it back anyway to continue churning a profit
Nintendo should've extended this 6 month into a 12 month. If Covid didn't happen, then we would've had more time to get like the poster set, which I wanted all this time, but never got a chance to because shipping is $5. I'm not paying for something I literally can get for free! Release these posters in stores, I don't get it, Nintendo!
@Minecraft_Master If you hate Nintendo so much that you make slanderous claims about them, why are you on this site?
@KainXavier Even prices for digital 3DS games rarely ever drop. Pokemon and Fire Emblem games still cost full $40. Even the DLC for Fire Emblem Fates still costs full $20 like it's still 2016.
How does anyone fear missing out when the thing was very widely available for half a year?
@BAN I saw a copy at a local Walmart today. They will remain widely available for the next few weeks.
EDIT: Just checked still on Amazon (US and Canada) for retail price WITH Prime shipping! So yeah Nintendo did not just Thanos snap copies out of existence if they did not finish selling out by March 31st 2021
Do I think this was a money grab tactic? Honestly yeah. Do I regret buying Super Mario 3D All-Stars? Absolutely not. I got two great games... and Super Mario Sunshine out of it, and I know for a fact, it's a game I'll happily revisit down the road.
No amount of FOMO gains would overcome the amount they'd get in future sales.
The only reason Nintendo would take this off the eShop would be if they plan on releasing them all separately at a higher price than they cost together in the bundle, meaning we're looking at a minimum of $30 each, but considering this is Nintendo we're talking about - $40-$60 each isn't impossible either.
It makes a certain amount of sense. How many games do you ultimately wait to buy until they're heavily discounted or you find them in a used games store? I think re-releases would indeed end up in that category for a lot more gamers than the typical "new" release. Whether or not that makes them more money in the long term is hard to say.
@KainXavier @Leo626 Maybe not Pokémon and Fire Emblem, but there are plenty of 1st and 2nd party 3DS games in the Nintendo Selects line that also affects their digital price. It's just still a little too early for a Switch "Nintendo Selects" line. Plenty of people still buy the games at full price right now.
Besides, if someone can find a physical copy of a game for cheap from an online seller or used game store, what does the retail price matter?
@BulbasaurusRex I find it interesting that Nintendo barely drops their prices on their digital games. I've seen God of War discounted as low as $10 with PS Plus, $15 without it. The day gaming becomes "all digital" is when I'm going to be curious of Nintendo's digital pricing. Like when you might (emphasis on might) have to pay full $60-$70 for a decade old game.
@Dezzy Sure, but how many of those eventual sales would then be rentals or used copies where Nintendo doesn't get the money?
@Leo626 That's not the issue. All companies have to keep digital prices in line with physical retail prices, otherwise the retail games market would collapse. When games are permanently discounted as "Nintendo Selects," then the prices in both markets are dropped simultaneously. Are you sure "God of War" was a permanent discount and is still being sold physically at a higher price?
You can question why Nintendo doesn't put their 1st and 2nd party games on sale, or why they wait so long before giving permanent discounts, but their digital pricing itself makes sense.
Besides, most of Nintendo's 1st and 2nd party games are so popular that it makes no sense to even temporarily price them at $10-$15 when people are always willing to pay at least double that much even several years later. Also, only the 3DS launch games are barely a decade old, and I don't think even any of those are still sold at a full $40 in price, while naturally anything from older systems is not officially sold anywhere near $40 (if at all), either.
Also, I highly doubt gaming ever goes all digital. There are legitimate reasons for physical copies.
@BulbasaurusRex God of War is part of the Greatest Hits lines and is retailed for $20. But that being said, what exactly is the criteria for a game to be part of the Nintendo Selects? Pokemon and Fire Emblem sell in the millions. Fire Emblem Awakening is nearly 9 years old and is still $40 on the eShop. The 3DS is discontinued and hardly anyone's buying these games and yet it's still stuck at $40. Instead of giving my money to Nintendo, I'm going to the C2C market and get it way cheaper and it's physical so I actually own it.
This is the first I’ve heard of it. Why couldn’t NL give us an article warning about this earlier...
that makes sense and all but why remove super mario 35 from the switch online?
Mario games would sell more over time... the short release, if anything, is to protect the value of the other Mario games. Parents will always pick a set of three £50 Mario games over one Mario Odyssey. This is a common value-protect solution, it’s why they stopped manufacturing the SNES Mini after they launched Nintendo Online
Just because they need to earn money doesn't justify every stupid business strategy. I understand, this sells, but its also not very customer friendly. As long as its about games I don't need to buy (again) anyways, they can do what they want.
I do understand that for instance Netflix can only offer certain movies as long as they pay for the licenses so they will just regularly changer their offering. but for in-house productions its just ...
I mean its generally ridiculous how Nintendo treats its old franchises these days. On the Wii, it was kinda weird how much they asked for old ports in the VC but then again, they still did it and it was a pretty cool thing and must have worked out for them quite fine.
But now its like they don't really know what to do with their archive of gems. And then this.
I think this dev is wrong. I mean, yes, it is one of the effects of their choice but I don’t believe that is why they did it. It’s difficult to judge intentions but I think this dev is assuming they are deliberately manipulating the public for money. I think that is a very negative and cynical viewpoint. I don’t think they are that crafty. In this case, take Nintendo’s explanation at face value. I think leadership really has convinced themselves that it’s a way to celebrate something. I think it’s dumb and they can’t clearly see the difference between an in-person event with limited release items and the digital world which they have struggled to utilize for the past two decades. I think they see the negative internet coverage as a sign they are doing something correct — they are leaving future digital sales on the table. I think the right question to ask Nintendo isn’t “why did you do it?” it’s “Nintendo has long been accused of creating artificial scarcity around its products. This is obviously a case of Nintendo doing just that. What would Nintendo say to future Nintendo Switch owners who can only purchase 3D All Stars from scalpers at double the MSRP because of your choice to remove it from the eShop?”
@koffing I completely disagree. What about the people who got into Switch late? Or just bought it today? They are missing out on good games that at least, could have stayed on the eshop. I see no reason to defend such scummy practices.
@Sakaixx you didn’t read what I wrote. I do not like what Nintendo did and I am not defending them. I am saying I think this dev’s opinion is wrong. I then gave what I think is a better way to approach the problem.
So make the physical version a limited edition item but keep the digital version up. Removing both just feels unnecessarily harsh.
And this is coming from someone who bought 3D All-Stars on day one.
@OorWullie Things were different with the Wii release of Super Mario All Stars, you couldn't download a digital copy of it. If digital was available and Nintendo pulled the digital download, people likely would have been more upset.
@Shepdawg1 "Makes sense to me. Scummy? Yeah, but at the end of the day, they are still a business." Why does them being a business make this ok? I don't understand this apologist attitude. It's one thing if it's a limited edition or limited physical, but pulling digital? Contriving sales in this way because they don't release enough new compelling releases is a really dangerous thing for us consumers. The fact they created this FOMO during a pandemic is extra scummy. Think of all the stuff that's missing that the WiiU had offered digitally too. They aren't reselling any of that, except in new "Deluxe packages." This contrived limited time release is just the next evolution of that. Don't be an apologist for them.
@Dringo "Mario games would sell more over time... the short release, if anything, is to protect the value of the other Mario games." Yes that's true in the first part, but questionable on the second. But the point has never been how much it'd sell over time, it was about 'how much can we sell in short period of time to boost our 3 and 4th quarter financial sales during the pandemic." It's just gross.
@valcoholic "But now its like they don't really know what to do with their archive of gems. And then this." I think...maybe...it's not so much "they don't know what to do" but realized that if they withhold stuff they have a chance to sell more of it, as tentpole in the year, rerelease. See Skyward Sword or 3D World. People are hyped to buy this because it's not available on an shop or VC. The "remaster" doesn't look like much more than the basic level remaster that a company would do to pop it into a collection or put it up digitally for 20 or 30 bucks. 3D World is almost exactly the same (with a bonus sandbox level). Funky Mode costs ya 60 bucks. It seems clear to me what's going on. Same reason I've had severe drift on 4 joycon. They're being cheap to their fanbase.
@Lony85 "Do I think this was a money grab tactic? Honestly yeah. Do I regret buying Super Mario 3D All-Stars? Absolutely not. I got two great games... and Super Mario Sunshine out of it, and I know for a fact, it's a game I'll happily revisit down the road."
But it's more about the new consumers never getting a chance to play these.
@Dang69 yeah absolutely, but still, while they just shoveling money here and then, it feels like a very fragmented concept. 3D Allstars is one way to do it, Wind Waker HD slightly different, then theres Nintendo Online thing, then they do a SNES mini.
Of course they do that, because they're Nintendo and they can just do what they want at this point.
But still it doesn't feel like they really have a plan.
The problem with this is, that I would gain more trust if they'd appear more like people who know what they're doing. Assuming they would now release some kind of subscription based service like Nintendo Online but way bigger and more expensive, I wouldn't be as easily ALL IN as I would be with Gamepass (if I had an XBox) as MS has been working on a certain reputation for quite a while now. Not saying MS is doing everything right but if I was to commit to any Nintendo service that is demanding more than 20 bucks a year, I probably would really hold back. And looking how I would be the target audience and how the industry is slowly but surely moving toward these models, that could become a problem for Nintendo one day. Because the fact alone that they do this Nintendo Online service and can't ask for more money just shows how insecure they are about this themselves. They're barely supporting it with interesting things although it holds a lot of potential, also saleswise. 3D Allstars sold well now? Fine, but what if just a small part of the zillions of Switch players would subscribe to service on a monthly basis that would not suck for once? They might not have figured how much money this would actually earn them.
I mean, I'm a bit solitted here because while I do believe this would be a probably better working strategy that would make them look a bit more forward thinking and future proof, its really not like I love committing to subscription models all the time. But if pulled off right, it could just be a way better and more interesting solution than what they're doing now, especially for casual audiences who don't read online artickes about why they now can't buy 3D Allstars as an easter present.
I remembered FOMO for this
Well, I know that companies take rare strategies for their business, but this is something that I don't know.
@valcoholic It's not that I think they have a plan, it's more that I think they do know what they are doing. Does that difference make sense? Withhold access to things that would go on any companies digital shop, throw the game in a Direct at some point and promote it. Then you don't have to do more than the minimal effort in what you are financially investing in, in new releases. The NES and SNES mini, I sort of don't include in these talk because those really were failsafes in case the Switch was a bomb like the WiiU and to make up for a big release in 2016. They needed something Xmas 2016 and then needed something as some sort of failsafe in the future (the SNES). They could have kept those on the shelf and created a line of Classic Consoles. I really think those were failsafe releases.
Nintendo today is Sony circa going from the Ps2 to the Ps3, or the 360 moving into the One. Everyone of these companies gets so full of themselves when they are super successful, and pull back on the consumer friendly practices.
I'm in a foul mood about Nintendo this week because my gf's kid Joycon that I bought her last April, are now drifting BAD. I bought them for her last April after giving her my Switch and a "newly fixed from the Nintendo repair shop" Joycon set Xmas 2019. So that makes 4 sets of Joycon that have had awful drift that I've experienced. Their Pro Controllers don't last super long either. I've had drift on my Dualshock I bought with my system, but it only shows up when I set insane high sensitivity settings in games. That was after 2 years. SO I look at that, look at the expensive rereleases of WiiU games, the limited releases of All Star and FE...I just kind of hate them now. I rant about more, about their 3rd party quality control and all the sub HD games, yadda yadda, but I won't muddy the convo like that, lol.
Really appreciate the well-worded reply from you. And yes I do think, for all of Microsoft's issues (cmon guys you have a new console and no new games lol), their games pass Strat is so the future. I do think Nintendo would have dipped a bit last year if not for the pandemic.
It is no different to Pumpkin Spice Latte, the McRib, Cadbury's Creme Eggs, Disney movies and pretty much anything else that carries a Limited Release tag and people only freak out when Nintendo do it. They said it was limited when the games were revealed and gave you 6 months to buy/play the games. Plenty of time. Also, I was just in my local supermarket and Super Mario 3D All Stars was still sitting on the shelves. The physical copies didn't disappear in a puff of smoke.
@speedyboris Totally agree. There haven’t been shortages, so six months is enough time for people to pick up a physical copy. However, there is no reason to remove it from the eShop.
@Dang69 But they smashed their financials... so that doesn’t make sense. They sold more games and consoles than their estimates so had to raise their estimates twice. There was no need to do it for short term gain, because if anything it will hurt them for the next FY.
So I don’t buy they either
Nintendo will never tell the public why they do the things they do. I assume this info is false.
Yeah, Vice is right up there with BuzzFeed, TMZ, and Jezebel in terms of quality journalism 😂
@Dang69 lol I'm still using my launch switch with my original joy cons and no drifting.im also not a kid and I take care of my stuff
You know fomo is a strong market munipulation tool but so is good will.
And this kind of stunts hurts Nintendo's pretty bad in my opinion.
I'll switch console brand real quick if this becomes a common thing.
Making Amiibos scarce on purpose back in the day, the joycon drift, removing VC console, the current state of Super Mario Party, charging 60€ for WiiU ports, no headphone jack on the pro controller. It's droplets of irritation that can quickly add up to an overall bad experience.
Anyway I'll go back to playing Monster Hunter Rise now.
I think it's stupid but it's their game so it is what it is🤷🏾♂️ Sucks for the people who will be getting their 1st Switch and have to buy this game off of ebay at a higher price because Ninty had that whole limited release gimmick🙄
I don't really mind
I have another theory. Here it is: https://waldorf-the-gamer.medium.com/super-mario-apocalypse-a-theory-74d509311d21
I didn't pick up this collection because I saw it for what it was, a shameless cash grab. I don't regret my decision for one second.
@God_of_Nowt Well, color me surprised!
LOL, yeah, the PS bunch over there is, err, special? Not that every console doesn't have it's face paint level super fans, but there's truly a level of "everything else is the devil" not seen elsewhere. I actually avoided that place for YEARS. I lurked and swore I'd never ever join in from what I saw. The new gen launch pushed me into it though.
It's not that there aren't the blind fans and anti-fans for nintendo here, and the corporate defender berserkers are especially extreme when it comes to nintendo, but it still isn't quite the same as over there. Then again I remember the worst of the 360 era, of which I assume most of those corporate warriors are the ones that jumped ship to ps4 and then became the ps warriors. Somebody they'll be the Stadia warriors.
Funny thing is a few of us were talking about this very thing on the green site recently, and somebody pointed out that the cyber punk genre writers in the 70s already predicted and explained this phenomenon, that after religion and nation stopped being the unifying identity, people would seek self identity in corporate brands. I don't get the mentality but it's easy to see how many people truly base their identity on the brand on their game device. Or sneakers, or anything. Planting flags, evangelizing... Console warriors may be the tip of a societal iceberg.
It's fun to see you outside the echo chamber!
Look on the bright side, at least Oddworld is getting a collection.
@Dringo They didn't know what would happen with COVID and release schedules and did this (in my opinion) as a contingency plan to maintain strong 3 and 4th quarter sales to balance with the AC stuff earlier in the year (sales were hot earlier in the year but who knew how things would pan out going forward). They obviously didn't need to do it, with how spending during the pandemic favored gaming, but that's sort of after the fact.
@Darkyoshi98 Just shut up - quit acting like the joycon thing is something a few of us make up - there's plenty of industry regulars that have had multiple issues too and have talked about it (all the NVC people, some NL staffers, etc) - either you got lucky with your set or you don't play your Switch much in handheld mode. Quit being a Nintendrone zombie. It's super pathetic.
@KillerBOB Vice might not be my first choice for news, but holy crap is it way above effing Buzzfeed and TMZ...not sure what Jezebel is.
@Dang69 They knew by September they were going to smash their targets, they raised their estimates only in the next update a few weeks later.
This has nothing to do with adding a few million onto quarterly sales. This isn’t a desperate company in need of satisfying shareholders. It’s in very strong health.
Nintendo did this to celebrate Mario’s birthday. And the only ‘business’ reason I can see is due to the quantity of competition. A Mario collection on sale for the same price as a single Mario game is potentially harmful in the eyes of your average consumer. If you look at the UK charts last week, there were 5 Mario games in the Top 20. They’re all competing with each other.
The biggest threat to Mario 3D World was Mario 3D All-Stars. It’s not a surprise the latter is discontinued only a few weeks after the first
@Dang69 Totally feel you, after being a Nintendosheep for over 30 years now, the Joycons are like the worst thing I ever experienced. Not just myself but also just looking at Nintendo acting like this wasn't an issue while there must be Millions of customers affected and annoyed now by this. If this is really a matter of how you build the stick, then I'd rather pay more for a Joycon that lasts than replacing them or sending them in every year.
And I sorta disagree with them being like SOny at any given time. I mean you're not wrong in what you mean, but generally, Nintendo stays Nintendo and they have been even more overbearing and corporate during the N64-times when Yamauchi was still the head of the snake. I felt like it gained some warmth during the Iwata adminisration, but in the end, it was always Nintendo and whether they made comments about them being superior to the whole industry or attacked every youtuber who expressed his fandom, they never lack the potential of being douches.
Its always a sorta ambivalent relationship you have as a Nintendosheep, as there are quite some bitter pills to swallow, but I feel like they're slowly learning and in the end, thank god, the reason why we are here, their actual hard and software (despite joycons damn) never ceases to impress and jesus, for a company that's now around for over 130 years, its a goddamn achievement.
@Kilamanjaro What did I even say!?
To be honest FOMO didnt have an affect on me. Nostalgia and the lack of games available on the switch is what drove my purchase. But I get it. Buy it while you can. For old games that are not remastered or having any dlc. I thought the trio was a bit overpriced. I think $20 tops per game would've been fine but only if they could be made as seperate purchases.
@Dringo You're missing my point. Nintendo did that as a failsafe with covid stuff and delays, one so successful they will prob do it again.
@Dang69 Financials had nothing to do with it. They didn’t even need to do a failsafe.
@Dringo No one knew what would happen, all of last year. It's a failsafe for their investors for year end numbers, not for their actual giant Uncle Scrooge money pile. Nintendo has enough actual cash on hand that they coulda bombed on Switch and still not went under.
@Dang69 It wasn’t a fail safe. Animal Crossing had already smashed and exceeded its sales target by May. There was no need to do it for the reasons you’re stating
@Dringo That was one game and they wanted sales in the beginning of the 3rd quarter and at the end of last financial quarter (March 2021) to match the uptick in software sales started earlier in the year, otherwise to investors that looks like Nintendo was slumping due to the coronavirus. Remember that Nintendo, like everybody else, took a took a hit in stock numbers in March when the pandemic became a reality to everyone (they recovered very very quickly though). You sound like a little kid defending your hero or something. They are a business. They didn't do this because "Mario is special and this is how we celebrate and this makes the game more special" like they stated. They did this to kick people in the butt during the pandemic to BUY THIS NOW, when they wouldn't be sure what other software (1st, 2nd or 3rd party that they get cuts of) would be delayed, or how conservative people's spending habits would become.
The only other plausible theory is that Nintendo before the pandemic, along with withholding all the other classic title releases from the eshop, has a long term plan to withhold old stuff so they can release limited time or full priced, low effort, remastered releases in tentpole spots on the calendar instead of relying on selling newly developed software. Nintendo is classically cheap and thrifty, so this also makes sense in that mindframe, as it costs much less than doing new games or full on remasters on the regular (feel like 2017 and 2019 are the last times we saw a lot of NEW stuff from them). You'll "just be happy they are releasing something" and buy up the old titles (see people buzzing about Skyward Sword). I think this theory is much less likely than what I've been stating above, but you could make an argument for it.
@Dang69 I don’t buy either of that. I’m a business journalist by trade, and my take is that a collection of Mario games at the same price of other standalone Mario games creates competition for themselves. And with the plan to push 3D World + Bowser’s Fury, they’ve sunsetted the other.
@Dringo It's possible Nintendo sees it that way but that'd be foolish...if you're into 3D as a kid rn or an adult, you're not gonna stop at one.
So on the kid end of the spectrum, I bought the 3D collection for my gf's kid JUST BECAUSE SHE MIGHT ONE DAY WANT IT, so I FOMO'ed for her future self. She was 7 when it came out, and she watched the Nintendo Mario Anniversary Direct, but all she talked about was Mario Odyssey, that she saw in some clip show (think they had that in the newsfeed and referenced it briefly in the Direct) and 3D World because of the cat suit. She could have cared less about there being 3, 3D Mario games in one card for the price of one game (yes she's savvy about prices and preorders and deals lol, I've been a bad influence - and she was only minorly interested in Galaxy because of the music). By the release of the Feb of this year I got her all 3 games by the time xmas and her bday rolled around. 3D World was the big hit, so no competition there from the collection. The idea of 3 games in one package held no candle to Odyssey's Paulina song or 3D World's cat suit. My point is the only reason she got 3D Collection was because Nintendo FOMO'ed me into getting it for her because it wouldn't be available some day.
On the other end of the spectrum, most adults, like me, are gonna buy Mario 3D games, as they become available or as they have disposable income for said games. A collection wouldn't really compete with other releases, as per some sort of value proposition stopping the buck on the other games. I doubt most adult fans would stop at a collection of Mario games, and not buy the others. BUT, given the state of things last year, the not knowing what the hell was gonna happen, it's likely that some may have waited to get a collection of games they already played, if they were in a rougher financial situation toward the end of the year, and maybe put the money to something else. But, if given no choice to get it now or never, a fan would buy the game before it's no longer available. Add to this the fact that Nintendo (like the rest of us) were unsure of how the year would play out in general, and if their other releases or 3rd party games (that they get cut of) would get delayed, making Mario 3D Allstars a limited release, INSURED they'd get BIG numbers in relatively short span of months. So it's the opposite of what you said in a way, they created purposeful competition with the 3D Collection BECAUSE by making it a limited time release. Saying Nintendo was worried about it being competition with their other games because of the value of 3 games in 1, so they made it limited, feels to me like you're being a bit of an apologist for this slimy practice.
@Dang69 When I was a kid my mum went out to buy my a Mario game. She went to the shop and saw Super Mario World and she saw Super Mario All-Stars. She bought me All-Stars because it had more games in it so she viewed it as better value for money.
It’s not a case of being an apologist. It’s a business decision either way, rather than a fan decision.
But the idea Nintendo did something as short sighted as stopped selling a game early because they wanted to have a better quarter is even more ridiculous. They would have made more money off that game if they kept it on sale. It may have taken longer, but overall install base would have been higher. All for what? A slightly better financial result over one quarter... that’s daft.
Either way, it’s daft. Honestly, I think they’ve done it genuinely because it was Mario’s birthday. But if there is a business decision behind it, my theory is that it is to ensure the value of the other Mario games, because game value is important to Nintendo (it’s why they rare discount much). This was just a temporary deal for core fans, and not an alternative to Odyssey or 3D World.
I don’t agree with it. I think it’s a shame. Could easily have done 15m, I’d say. But Nintendo be Nintendo
@Dringo BUT in fairness, when All Stars came out, there was only one other Mario platformer on the shelves, right? And Super Mario World was probably already a pack in game with your SNES? But if she bought it around the time Yoshi's Island was out, then that All Stars cart should have had Mario World included in it with the 4 other games it as well. Or am I confusing my release dates?
"But the idea Nintendo did something as short sighted as stopped selling a game early because they wanted to have a better quarter is even more ridiculous. They would have made more money off that game if they kept it on sale. It may have taken longer, but overall install base would have been higher. All for what? A slightly better financial result over one quarter... that’s daft."
Lol I agree, but that doesn't mean they didn't still choose to do it. So as of Dec 2020 the game sold 8 million. BUT in the final week of sales, in the UK the game spiked to 276% sales from previous weeks. What I'm saying is yeah it's a dumb decision for the long term, but in the short term it definitely drove sales up, and gave them definite BIG numbers to juice up both their 3rd and 4th quarter sales. It gave them a predictably safe BIG selling game, no matter what else got delayed, or no matter how people's pocket books may have been due to COVID. It was a safe bet to protect their stock in the short term, at the sacrifice of bigger, slower sales in the ling term. It was their way to play to play it safe with guaranteed huge sales in an unpredictable year. They aren't worried about taking the hit on more sales in the long term since they could have easily reversed the decision if it hadn't have worked out well for them. Safe bet. The did the same thing again with FE as a test run I'm sure, not because of COVID, but prob to see if they could apply the same strategy to a niche game and boost sales that way.
@Dang69 But that 270% sales increase was about 900 units. It’s not as big as the percentage looks (I’m the one that reveals those figures, by the way)
It did drive sales up. But not to the extent that it materially impacts their financial results.
@Dringo I think you're making that number up. If it increased week to week by sales of 276 percent, and you're saying the increase lead to a sales difference of 900 copies then the previous weeks sales would only have been 239.36 copies. That doesn't sound right. I'm getting "my uncle works at Nintendo vibes" from you right now.
@Dang69 Sorry, I missed a 0. It increased by 9,232 units (unweighted figure) in its final week. Now that’s not nothing, but it’s not huge, either. Of course that is just retail figures, because GfK don’t have the digital numbers and Nintendo doesn’t share them anyway, even with the GSD charts.
I don’t deny that it would have caused more sales over a shorter period. But we are not talking the sort-of significant sales increases that would materially impact Nintendo’s financial results.
(By the way, my name is Chris Dring. I run GamesIndustry.biz)
Tap here to load 206 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...