Mario Kart Tour

Funnily, the game notification explicitly stated that Tuxedo Mario is from Super Mario Odyssey, nice that at least now they are acknowledging the source of so many Mario alts…
 
This is the 64th page of this thread :D
 
Mario_Smacks_Luigi.gif

Everyone saw that joke a mile away, you pizza-brained drain!
 
Nintendo should allow us to turn off designated paths so we can drive reckless if we want to.
(Turning off smart steering does not do this)
 
SuperShyGuy said:
Mario Kart Tour if filled with Microtransactions.

There are literally microtransactions as soon as you complete the tutorial.
Click to expand...
And that isn't even the worst part: microtransaction might be an annoyance, even more annoying are pay2win mechanics, but gacha is absolutely the worst. Paying for a chance of getting what you want just feels wrong to me on so many levels, even considering how widespread gashapon machines are in Japan.

I just hope that the investigation on loot boxes going on in Germany will have decisive outcomes - it's not like it's impossible for Mario Kart Tour to prevent paid currency to be used for random prizes, just introduce a second currency that is the only one that can be obtained with money and that can't be used at all for any random prize. Not particularly good, but still much better than the current gambling-like situation…
 
Rubies are supposed to be "premium" currency that is actually useful. The useless currency is there to make you feel like you earn a lot and to keep rewarding you, but all the prices for that useless currency is inflated so you have to grind a lot. That's where the rubies come in where you can pay to skip a grind but in the end, there's no guarantee you'll get what you want even if you lay hundreds of dollars. And that time and money for.... Mario Kart but plays worse in every regard?

This is standard for the so-called free-to-play economy. Doesn't make it good at all. But Nintendo is copying from them and with benefit of brand recognition.
 
Striker Mario said:
Rubies are supposed to be "premium" currency that is actually useful. The useless currency is there to make you feel like you earn a lot and to keep rewarding you, but all the prices for that useless currency is inflated so you have to grind a lot. That's where the rubies come in where you can pay to skip a grind but in the end, there's no guarantee you'll get what you want even if you lay hundreds of dollars. And that time and money for.... Mario Kart but plays worse in every regard?

This is standard for the so-called free-to-play economy. Doesn't make it good at all. But Nintendo is copying from them and with benefit of brand recognition.
Click to expand...
What's even more telling is that for months the game has had a stable monthly revenue of $5 millions, pointing out how the majority of the revenue is coming from the Gold Pass, this being also the conclusion of Sensor Tower.

I can understand trying a continuous development model that thus requires continuous revenue streams - it's an interesting experiment in the context of Mario Kart - but the current numbers suggest that the Gold Pass would have been enough, this gacha infrastructure was basically unneeded. Granted, we still can't say a lot about the pay2win mechanics as well as the pay-to-skip-grinding, that are staples of free2play games, but it's interesting nonetheless.
 
From what I can tell, microtransactions are not even necessary to the business model (and if I recall correctly companies say this right to the shareholders). People saying otherwise are mislead or are lying to you. Mario Kart Tour would've sold really well if it adopted Super Mario Run's pricing method, but it just wouldn't be enough for expectations (which Super Mario Run is, it was very successful but disappointed investors who wanted to make much more money, and this led people to think Super Mario Run was a failure and justifies Mario Kart Tour).
 
Not only does Mario Kart Tour have microtransactions, but also Dr. Mario World.
Is Nintendo forcing us to pay for something that shouldn't even cost money, or are they greedy and just want that cash to be the best Video Game company in the world?
Even for Nintendo standards, this is still interesting to me.
 
Nintendo isn't forcing anyone to pay money. They're just coercing players to do this. It's bad. Also they are greedy and billions of dollars will never be enough regardless of the harm they cause; that's just business and they will continue harming players if they can get away with it and make money off them. If they could manage relying on labor for conflict minerals where impoverished people are literally dying, I think they can try exploiting kids and adults with spending issues.

That's a big issue with capitalism as a whole, but that's another story.
 
Striker Mario said:
From what I can tell, microtransactions are not even necessary to the business model (and if I recall correctly companies say this right to the shareholders). People saying otherwise are mislead or are lying to you. Mario Kart Tour would've sold really well if it adopted Super Mario Run's pricing method, but it just wouldn't be enough for expectations (which Super Mario Run is, it was very successful but disappointed investors who wanted to make much more money, and this led people to think Super Mario Run was a failure and justifies Mario Kart Tour).
Click to expand...
Just one thing I'd add: Super Mario Run's pricing model (just one payment) is adequate for Super Mario Run, which is not exactly a continuous development game. Continuous additions of content would require continuous income to be profitable, historically this was done by paying DLCs (and it still is one of the cheapest methods for the players, despite their prize), the monthly pass is a worse-for-the-players solution, as it potentially never ends.

As you might guess, financially I only support one-time payments, it helps that they are the only one I can afford. I'm not a fan of software-as-a-service (subscription model). I find it a bit sad that almost nobody ever tried the "continuous DLCs" method - most games based on DLCs see their development stopped quite early in comparison to some still ongoing continuous development games based on other pricing models.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think Super Mario Run is particularly so expensive that adding more content after launch would strain the budget for the game. Sure they could add paid DLC as extra content, but what they should focus on is delivering a full game first. I don't think its price justifies the kind of game, but the microtransactions in the other games make it look really modest.

Also there's no guarantee that "live services" work. On the contrary, some die really early because the base game lacks good gameplay or content. Smash Bros. does have a pretty good post-release life as well as Overwatch and Fortnite. Fallout 76, Anthem, Marvel's Avengers, Destiny, though? No. I guess DLC eventually stops because sales do drop off after a while and they probably calculated that releasing a new game is better than supporting an old game, especially when the old game is starting to look dated. I also don't think Nintendo has the infrastructure to just apply a layer of fresh graphical paint in terms of updates as I've seen with League of Legends. I still think Smash Ultimate can continue to be supported with DLC and I don't know exactly why the decision is it is to eventually stop the new fighters from coming but I suppose the Switch won't last forever and maybe the team is just overall burnt with the game and just wants a deadline (though I'm sure there are developers working on games for longer than Ultimate's lifespan, usually through patches and such; the Sims 4 from 2014 is still getting content updates but they're nowhere near the scope of a new character and new stage in Smash Bros).
 
Well, yes. Super Mario Run costed more than the usual premium mobile game, so they could have added more content without even falling into the red. Funnily enough, last month it made $270k in revenue, so it's still grossing them something.

Admittedly, with console games there's also the issue of the platform becoming legacy. So far, the most frequent approach with Nintendo consoles has been making a sequel for the new console - or in the case of the Switch also an enhanced port.

PC and mobile on the other hand feature long-term platforms - the underlying hardware changes but the software remains. This also explains how games whose content is unchanged since years like Super Mario Run can still have grossing potential on those platforms. Sadly, the metrics to evaluate this needed to be very different from the ones that deemed it a failure.
 
New Pipe, Tricolor Yoshies, you can get blue yoshi, white yoshi, and red yoshi in honor of the French Flag. I pulled and got blue again, kinda makes me hard work earning him by getting 1st in the leaderboards seem pointless though.
 
I got the Blue Yoshi and White Yoshi Karts I was missing! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back