-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Vice: Nintendo's likely reason for stopping the sale of games such as Super Mario 3D All Stars is to juice sales
- Thread starter Samiya
- Start date
Pretty much, the fact that is not the first time they do this (like with Kirby and Zelda Four Swords before) means that is just them taking the whole "anniversary" thing very literally
A headline published on a mainstream publication trying to address a seemingly obvious but still perplexing question is not written for a member of a video game message board lol
I see few points against it,
first, the game would have probably sold more and being an evergreen without it (so they made less money than possible, and more bad publicity)
Second, if the Fomo was the main point... why don't ever mention the expiration date on the ads targeting the majority of the gamers (TV and other ads, where -at least in France- the end date is not even mentioned)
Third the end of fiscal year argument... seriously? Is there any need for them to inflate their revenues, even more the year where animal crossing was slaying its way and the console is making record numbers?
Fourth, what was the point to make it for FE? Even the sales caused by fomo should be a drop in Nintendo revenues, and even more, it's not like it was a test for the serie to have a next episode or thing like that
Fifth, SM35 don't make sense in this case, since it's a game which can drive people to buy NSO, so removing it is pure loss for them
I only see that as a way to make an event to mark the anniversary, a shitty way, but not much more since honestly i don't even see any advantage to it
first, the game would have probably sold more and being an evergreen without it (so they made less money than possible, and more bad publicity)
Second, if the Fomo was the main point... why don't ever mention the expiration date on the ads targeting the majority of the gamers (TV and other ads, where -at least in France- the end date is not even mentioned)
Third the end of fiscal year argument... seriously? Is there any need for them to inflate their revenues, even more the year where animal crossing was slaying its way and the console is making record numbers?
Fourth, what was the point to make it for FE? Even the sales caused by fomo should be a drop in Nintendo revenues, and even more, it's not like it was a test for the serie to have a next episode or thing like that
Fifth, SM35 don't make sense in this case, since it's a game which can drive people to buy NSO, so removing it is pure loss for them
I only see that as a way to make an event to mark the anniversary, a shitty way, but not much more since honestly i don't even see any advantage to it
One important aspect that's not being mentioned in the OP is also the incredibly poor quality of the ports in this collection:
- Super Mario 64, a 25-year old game runs at only 30 fps.
- Super Mario Sunshine, a 19-year old game also runs at only 30 fps.
- Aside from a few better textures / higher resolution, there aren't any other big improvements.
This is one of their most important franchises, and they couldn't even be bothered to get those games to 60 fps for the 35th anniversary. Because they knew that people would still buy them if they artificially limit the availability. Just adds another layer of shadiness to this whole thing.
- Super Mario 64, a 25-year old game runs at only 30 fps.
- Super Mario Sunshine, a 19-year old game also runs at only 30 fps.
- Aside from a few better textures / higher resolution, there aren't any other big improvements.
This is one of their most important franchises, and they couldn't even be bothered to get those games to 60 fps for the 35th anniversary. Because they knew that people would still buy them if they artificially limit the availability. Just adds another layer of shadiness to this whole thing.
As someone who felt like I had to buy 3D All Stars a couple of days ago even though I didn't really want to be spending the £50 on top of what I'd already spent this month, this was a bullshit move from Nintendo.
There's no possible way for them to spin this as a benefit for consumers.
There's no possible way for them to spin this as a benefit for consumers.
The same reason why their sales for their games are few and far between with no significant discounts, which makes them feel like it's better than nothing to get more people to jump on them.
1. It may have sold more if they didn't limit it, but Nintendo doesn't want people paying $60 for 3 Mario games if they could get them to pay $60 for 1 Mario game. It's not about just making money on this particular game but not conditioning consumers to pay less going forward.
2. You don't want to make the FOMO too obvious that it starts to feel scummy and harms the brand.
3. Yes, lots of video game companies do this and it's just a generally convenient end date anyway that covers what is generally a weak part of the year sales-wise before March.
4. Same reason for Fire Emblem, it's an anniversary release and FOMO will 100% propel it to higher sales. Whether they should have sold it individually or included it in NSO is totally up for debate, but it makes sense they would have two anniversary products with somewhat similar business models end together.
5. Mario 35 could totally stay up, but as far as they care the anniversary celebration is over, so it makes some sense to end the anniversary special game along with it. The way things are going lately they don't seem to be worried about NSO's value, if they were concerned about sub numbers perhaps they might have extended it.
Well that's not happening. Mario All-Stars was a title that was released to celebrate Mario's birthday. It was a limited release available for a limited time. It has always been advertised as such since day 1. I guess you could compare it with something like the Scott Pilgrim movie that's getting a limited re-release at theaters soon. You can only watch it at theaters then. If you go to the theaters next year you won't be able to watch Scott Pilgrim there.
I'm not defending this because I think it's bullshit as well, but I can understand their reasoning for this (outside of the obvious sales thing they want people to join in with their celebration of Mario as it happens). And since titles like the ones you mentioned never had a delisting date attached to them I don't think you have to worry about them leaving the eShop.
It worked. I'm ready for Metroid Prime Trilogy HD, limited time release. I'm ready, Nintendo, do with me what you will.
for real! I don't even get why Nintendo is doing this; it s fucking Mario! Shit would sell well regardless of the artificial squeeze in demand.
Nintendo games never get on sale, they remain at full price for years. Considering Nintendo, i really think they would make more money just leaving the game up.
I think it was pretty clear from the beginning why they did that.
And I'm sure the game will return on the eShop in 1-2 years and Nintendo will be like: "We heard you loud and clear. You folks want another chance to buy Super Mario 3D All Stars, so it's available now for the next 3 month. Go get it fast!"
Business wise it make sense but I definitely dislike this approach.
They definitly got my gf with that move, though. She bought the collection Day One.
And I'm sure the game will return on the eShop in 1-2 years and Nintendo will be like: "We heard you loud and clear. You folks want another chance to buy Super Mario 3D All Stars, so it's available now for the next 3 month. Go get it fast!"
Business wise it make sense but I definitely dislike this approach.
They definitly got my gf with that move, though. She bought the collection Day One.
It's still weird that Super Mario Bros 35 will have been shut down less than six months into its existence.
It's not shitty at all, who actually is happy about having to double/triple/etc dip on a single game? Of course most of the time those sit on wishlists because people are willing to wait for a sale on a game they have already purchased in the past, and especially when it's not some sort of grand remake/remaster. Merely the ability to play that game on a new platform almost never gets a full-price purchase from me unless it's one of my absolute favorites.
Much like 3d all stars they may be time limited releases but they both had huge print runs. You can bet 3d all stars will still be on shelves in most places at least until holiday 2021.
Hopefully tomorrow or soon they announce that they are doing seperate releases for each game or something along those lines. It's totally possible they don't though and that would suck long term
I mean, yes, but you would think something as notable as a 3D Mario Collection would be an evergreen seller just like all the other Mario titles on the platform. I feel like the legs the collection would have had would far surpass the number of people who hastily bought it before April 1st. For something like FE1 I can see the benefits of having a limited release (although the concept still sucks as a whole).
I remember when Nintendo fans were suggesting that the claims of false scarcity were nonsense and conspiratorial
lol
lol
Someone, somewhere: "Wait. You mean Nintendo isn't my best friend, and is trying to... make a profit by selling me video games?!"
Eh, the circumstances is a bit different. For one, Nintendo made it clear upfront that the games are time-limited.
Also, the nature of gaming products are never assured of their longevity on digital storefronts to begin with. Racing games and licensed games that have limited shelf-life don't tell us that they will go away one day, only when they're going to go away soon.
In general, we should be able to take most products at face-value. Mario 3D All Star, was at -face value - a limited-time product from day one. They said it was one, and it turns out to be exactly what they said. No 4D chess at play here.
All you're saying is that "they did what they said they'd do up-front"
and not at all addressing "why release a product like this?" it REEKS of FOMO marketing. which is scummy and exploitative
I mean, we knew the why. It's FOMO, end of story.
They did it because they can do it, believed it would work to their beneift, and it did.
