While many folks on the internet felt the death knell of Mythic yesterday was a stab to the heart of free to play, recent numbers from the market research outfit Newzoo put in to perspective just how insanely successful the top-end of the free to play world is. Sure, you see these games on the top of the top grossing charts but it's unreal to consider the scale of things when compared to long-running household brands in video gaming.

As pointed out by A List Daily, in Q1 of 2014, Candy Crush grossed more money than all Nintendo games combined. Sure, that's easy to rationalize by saying "Well Nintendo didn't have any big releases and Q4 is where they make all their cash," but the fact remains, that's a mind-blowing thing to be able to report. They're not ahead by a small margin either, King is making 56% more money than Nintendo. King has mentioned in the past that Candy Crush generates 2/3 of their revenue, so, that game alone is beating everything Nintendo did.

It's a curious time to be alive as a gamer, as if you're 30-something or older right now, you grew up with the NES and Nintendo has likely played a massive part in both your overall life as well as contributing to your personal identity as a gamer. It's odd to see the company falling farther and farther behind in financials, because, come on, it's Nintendo.

I'd love to see an alternate universe where Nintendo was similarly riding the mobile gaming tidal wave, just to see how much these reports would change. I mean, my grandma knows Nintendo IP, that combined with something along the same lines as Candy Crush in regards to a free game with nearly universal appeal would be insane I'm sure. But, maybe that could be an episode for a future Sliders series reboot.

[via A List Daily]

  • lr1919

    Incredibly sad. The mighty has fallen.

    • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

      I'd argue the mighty has simply failed to adapt. It's an interesting thing to watch, as we're at a point now where there's an entire generation of kids who have grown up with free/cheap mobile games being normal to them. To kids like this, an "expensive" game is Minecraft at $20. Spending $60 is out of the question.

      Think about this: There are 10 year olds right now who in 20 years will feel the same nostalgia for Angry Birds and Candy Crush as you might for the original Super Mario Brothers.

      • tsargeant3012

        As much as I agree with you on that one Eli, it still weirds me out thinking that!

      • Tone

        I am glad to hear you feel this way. The saying is "Survival of the fittest." Those that don't "FIT" in don't survive. If you haven't read it yet check out "The Curve." It's a great book that explains why free to play exists and how this idea is spreading through every industry.

      • Dude.. Welcome..

        That's true. Nintendo's pretty adamant on keeping their franchises exclusive to their consoles, which would be a reasonable marketing decision IF their titles held their own enough these days. Growing up with Nintendo (and being a huge Nintendo fan until the Wii), I've come to adore the charm and quality of a lot of their big-name games, and it's heartbreaking to know that their most lovable characters might be wiped from the face of gaming if this trend continues. I hope Nintendo adapts to modern times, because otherwise, they might not be around for much longer (in the long-term, that is).

        Another awful marketing decision on their part, though, has been stamping the name of each old console onto each new one. I mean, come on, the Wii is a laugh at this point in the gaming market, so why sell their newer and genuinely incredible console under nearly the same title? Same goes for DSi, 3DS, the likes.

      • M M

        And that fact is incredibly depressing. An entire generation of kids who have more love for cheap games designed to steal money through IAPs rather than quality games that give a full package for a single price. Not a good step for gaming.

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        That's debatable. These free games are giving kids what they want, Nintendo isn't... Which is why news stories like this exist. Free to play has taken off because people enjoy playing those games. You don't make $641m in a single quarter offering a product people don't like.

        YOU might not like it, but it's incredibly myopic to think that folks playing these games aren't enjoying them or they're not "quality games" in their eyes. People don't spend money and time on things they don't like in the world of entertainment.

      • lll Anubis lll

        Eli I love you... You're like Touch Arcade's voice of reason.

      • iAjent

        I do kind of agree with your comments. Only 'kind of' because I don't think Nintendo have failed to adapt (unless they're actually reporting major losses?), it's simply a case that King have found something that sells.

        I do however agree with people's views that this is depressing. You offer the argument that King provide what their customers want, but King are doing so on a business model designed to monetise a persons addiction to their game. It IS a very shallow game. There is very little actual design that has not been (very slightly) adapted from already pre-existing ideas. This just seems a little unethical (a rather extreme example of another business that gives there consumers what they want but targets their addiction would be drug dealing !).

        A game from Nintendo offers a much higher level of quality. There is generally a lot more design (most of the time at the very least this is full stage/ level variations designed new, even stories that have to be written/ designed). It is a fuller package from the outset, and even though DLC may exist it is generally more supplemental to the originally purchased game rather than something that needs to be bought if you just want to keep playing. This just seems a much more honest method to conduct business.

        A shame King get so much recognition, as I totally appreciate this is the gaming is going but there are so many better examples of F2P games.

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        Again, "quality" is wildly subjective. I think you'd have a very hard time finding someone who likes Candy Crush, Hay Day, Clash of Clans, etc. enough to buy some IAP that thinks they're not playing a quality game. That's million of people voting with their dollars on what constitutes quality in their eyes.

        As far as the ethics of the free to play model, there's two ways to look at everything. In free to play you know EXACTLY what you're getting and you only spend money on games you're already playing and enjoying. When I finally spent some money on Hearthstone, I was in love with the game, and more than happy to buy a $20 pack of cards.

        Comparatively, I've bought $60 console games on launch, played them for ten minutes, and hated them. In that case, I'm left holding the bag and have a $60 thing I bought which now has a personal value to me of $0.

        Traditional video game sales have taught us that's just the way things work, but my overall experience with free to play is typically better as they cost me $0 until I've hit a point where I love a game enough to spend some money. If everyone wasn't used to buying games the other way, it'd be easy to look at someone asking $60 for something you can't even try with no recourse if you don't enjoy it as incredibly unethical.

      • nini

        Saying it like that actually sounds far better for the gamer than it ever did paying out $60 for a game you don't like which has happened to me far more times than i'd like. Yeah, there was always returns or resale but seeing as neither occur in a data based market over physical media I can't fathom why some gamers feel that model can continue when there's no physical thing to give back or recourse should you feel goosed on your purchase and want a refund.

        $60 games will become a relic, I just don't see why that's bad if the underlying quality doesn't erode but as we know, gaming was a rich kid's sport and now it isn't because "casuals" got in and they're pissy about this disruption.

      • iAjent

        Fair enough, although I'd debate that quality is not subjective. Quality is defined as a measure of excellence when compared to something of equal nature. Quality has nothing to do with the cost of an item, although higher quality items typically cost more. You seem to be referring to the value found in a game. Which I agree. I imagine most people who have found value in Candy Crush would also argue that it is a quality game. But I'd also argue that they are wrong. I'd hazard a fair wager that those same people haven't actually played anything else other than similar F2P games, therefore how can they base an opinion of 'quality' when they don't have the necessary experience (in much the same way I wouldn't expect anyone to expect me to offer a valid opinion on the 'quality' of coffee just because I find value in a Starbucks mocha frappucino!). I believe people are entitled to opinions, but quality is clearly defined and Candy Crush is not a quality game when compared to other mobile video games (such as Super Mario 3D World or Uncharted on Vita). It is a cheap, easy thrill.

        Your mention of Hearthstone is perfect. F2P done right. I can play Hearthstone as much as I want. Even though you've spent $20 it doesn't necessarily put you at an advantage. It also doesn't ask you to pay if you use up any kind of 'energy meter'. It is a digital representation of what real life collectible card games are.

        King seem to have purpose built Candy Crush to pick on the unaware casual gaming majority with no base of comparison to estimate true quality. They get hooked on an admittedly addictive game mechanic, similar to how we all started on coin ops back in the day. They then built in game mechanics that charge money when people are hooked and want 'just one more go'. That's just plain gross.

        Comparing the F2P model to buying $60 games, I'd argue misses the point. If you spend $60 on a dud, I'd argue that you should accept the fact you didn't do better research before buying. I've done it myself, but I also accept the fact that it was an impulse purchase and that life (whether it's video games or - as I did more recently- a bottle of whiskey). My point isn't that F2P is bad. Done right it's good. Hearthstone, Warframe, I even like the way PVZ2 did it. My niggle is that King get so much credit when their mechanics are unsavoury, and then that 'credit' is used to bash a true quality establishment like Nintendo.

      • MrAlbum

        I would say that "competency", NOT "quality", is objective. It is obvious when a game works like it should and delivers the experience it advertises. Games that do this well are highly "competent" games, and are effective at delivering what they offer.

        For example, a game with polished presentation and theme, an evocative soundtrack, and effective gameplay mechanics, which are backed by a dedicated developer, would be a "competent" game, because on the surface it has all the check marks of a good game. Candy Crush Saga does have all these items as well.

        However, "quality" would come into the picture with regards to the player's subjective experience of the game. If the player has an experience with a game that leaves them with a negative feeling due to whatever reason(s), then the game, to them, is "bad quality". If the player has an experience with a game that leaves them with a positive feeling due to whatever reason(s), then the game, to them, is "good quality".

        Think of it like this: Consider Dungeons and Dragons. It is a set of rules and gameplay mechanics designed to allow players to role-play make-believe characters in a fantasy world. Let me ask this question: What is more important to a D&D session: the rules, or the players?

        The answer is simple: the players matter more than the rules. A bad Dungeon Master or a player who does not know what they are doing can ruin a gameplay session for all parties involved, and it is not the fault of the rules. Good players and DMs make good D&D games.

        Thus, good experiences are a result of player interactions within the rules set down by the developers. Incompetent rules do not matter as much as a considerate developer and a player base that enjoys the product of the developer.

        In the case of Candy Crush Saga, it is a competent free-to-play game whose "quality" has come into question. The threat of having a "bad experience" unless you jump through some hoops, have the patience of a saint, or fork over some cash is not a positive thing to experience for a small subset of players. This, combined with the knowledge that King have acted in ways detrimental to competition on the App Store by attempting a ludicrous trademark application and using the incomplete application as a legal bullying tool, makes even more players uneasy about playing the game, which is also a negative thing to experience. Thirdly, there is the stigma "free-to-play" has among established gamers, where free-to-play games are cheap Flash-based knockoffs with little to no competency in their mechanics or their presentation, and will do everything in their power to "extort" players for money in exchange for convenience.

        Granted, when you are actually playing the game, many folks have had a lot of positive experiences with it, especially if they are okay with dealing with the negative things listed in the above paragraph. It is fun and challenging to play, and requires more strategy than its genre cousin, Bejeweled. Extra Credits talk about the design of the game in one of their videos and point out all the ways it gives the player a fun time... as well as all the elements they put in to monetize their game, but devs gotta get paid somehow. Whether or not their monetization is morally acceptable is a separate debate, but one that has already been mentioned in the above paragraph with regards to the free-to-play stereotype.

        Judging by the game's statistics, the vast majority of players have had positive experiences with the game, which indicates that the game is "good-enough quality" to reward the devs with the sales figures mentioned above.

        Does this mean that those who had a bad experience with the game are wrong? No. It just means that, for whatever reason, the vast majority of folks who play the game have had an experience that you did not have. Nobody has to change their opinion just because everybody else around them sees the game a different way.

        Make of my thoughts whatever you will.


        Mr. Album

      • MrAlbum

        Continued after the cutoff:

        Granted, when you are actually playing the game, many folks have had a lot of positive experiences with it, especially if they are okay with dealing with the negative things listed in the above paragraph. It is fun and challenging to play, and requires more strategy than its genre cousin, Bejeweled. Extra Credits talk about the design of the game in one of their videos and point out all the ways it gives the player a fun time... as well as all the elements they put in to monetize their game, but devs gotta get paid somehow. Whether or not their monetization is morally acceptable is a separate debate, but one that has already been mentioned in the above paragraph with regards to the free-to-play stereotype.

        Judging by the game's statistics, the vast majority of players have had positive experiences with the game, which indicates that the game is "good-enough quality" to reward the devs with the sales figures mentioned above.

        Does this mean that those who had a bad experience with the game are wrong? No. It just means that, for whatever reason, the vast majority of folks who play the game have had an experience that you did not have. Nobody has to change their opinion just because everybody else around them sees the game a different way.

        Make of my thoughts whatever you will.


        Mr. Album

      • iAjent

        The very definition of quality: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.

        Mr Album/ Eli, you both describe individual user experiences defining the 'quality' of a game on an individual basis. But that definition still needs a base comparison if the experience is to be used to define 'quality' as it needs to be compared to a similar experience. In reference to the article, we are comparing it to Nintendo games. Now, if you put 1000 people in a room and ask them to play Super Mario 3D World and then Candy Crush (or vice versa) and then ask them which game they believe is better quality, then I believe more people would pick Mario. I believe YOU would pick Mario (or whatever 'full' 3DS game you wish to offer as comparison).

        Quality is not value. Value is the effect of quality plus cost. That was my point regarding quality.

        But again, missing my ACTUAL point. King should not be the poster child for F2P. I play plenty of F2P games from other devs that are much more deserving of the attention. I consider myself a core gamer, I've been gaming for 25+ years. I don't hate F2P. I don't feel like 'casuals' are invading my hobby (like some pompous entitled goon). I simply respect Nintendo for what they have done, what they are doing with the 3DS (I actually believe their issues lie in the home console sector!) and I don't like Kings business ethics. Just because King have made a ridiculous amount of money does not mean Nintendo are doing anything wrong. I'm under the impression the 3DS is actually still doing really well (and by extension, 3DS games)? Kings success should not be used to unnecessarily bash Nintendo. This is like all the doomsayers proclaiming that 'typical' console gaming is dying due to the rise of F2P and tablet/phone gaming. And then the PS4 goes and shifts a record breaking 8 million units in 6 months, XB1 another 6 million. Just because one medium is doing really well does not mean another, maybe more traditional medium is doing badly. In fact, it may be of beneficial mutual gain. If you disagree with me, we'll have to agree on that. But an enjoyable debate none-the-less.

      • Mekklesack

        I agree, I only made IAP's after I played through enough content for a while getting hang of a game and enjoying it. Games like that include, Shadowgun DeadZone, and Modern Combat 4 (even though the latter is not free-to-play, and even then I didn't spend any money until I reached a certain prestige ranking).

      • Tone

        Where's the like button? Oh there it is.

      • Pakkunn

        Eehh, It's giving the Kids what the parents want. Free shit. The free stuff just happens to be good enough to satisfy the kid. Is there a study to show if the kids prefer Candy Crush to Mario Kart? Or is it just that money, or lack thereof, determining which game they play?

      • DannyTheElite


      • vai_levar_no_cu

        its also incredibly myopic to think that we all would be better of offering only that kind of gameplay. noone would benefit from only being offered that. if youre too cheap to buy good gameplay, stay with Candy. If not, you should be offered the chance for something better. not everyone is brainless & undemanding

        there has to be something else, different kind of games, something with quality, imo

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        Absolutely no one is saying that.

      • Squablo

        I believe the only thing that is failing is society as a whole. That is all.

      • lr1919

        You make a good point. Nintendo still has a ton of cash and isn't dead in the water by any means, but they could be so much more... The main reason I shifted anyway from them is their underpowered systems. I really want to like the Wi U and 3ds, but not being supported by some of the best publishers because of lack of performance is a killer. Anyway, I'd like to see them compete with sony and Microsoft in the future, because I prefer Nintendo IPs over theirs, but I've got to have some Battlefield/Fallout/Etc on my console of choice.

        Do I really want Mario brothers on my iphone?? Not really, it would probably not translate well with virtual controls, but Nintendo innovates, so maybe???

      • spedav

        I agree with the later part of your post about needing fallout and the like but I think you're letting nostalgia block out how underpowered Nintendo has always been.

        I grew up on Nintendo and I'll always like them but their systems have pretty much always been behind their competitors. Back in the day they just had the catalogue and brand recognition to edge out their competitors.

        Gameboy vs Gamegear for example. I mean Nintendo didn't have a backlit handheld till the ds and that was dimmer than the Gamegear!!

        I respect Nintendo for sticking to their guns and not "selling-out" for lack of a better word. They may be able to survive doin what their doin but if they want to thrive again they need to change with the times. They're no longer holding all the cards and can't push their competitors around like they used to anymore.

        And as for the original topic: I completely disagree Eli. Quality is not as subjective as you're saying. Ex: Toyota's profits are around $27 billion usd, whereas Ferrari's are around $3 billion.

        Does that mean that a Corolla is better quality and an Enzo just because more people bought it? I think not. Like another poster said you're talking about value not quality.

        Crush, overall, is a impulse buy, not a thought out decision. Again, that's in general, some of you may think out your IAPs but 99% do not.

      • anabolicMike

        Yes they have. I read the title as candy crush made more money then all Nintendo's titles of ALL TIME combined! I didn't believe it but now I understand what your saying lol. The sad thing being now that Nintendo is going to read that and decide that is indeed time to leap into the mobile world. Why is that sad? Ever want to buy coins in Mario for 1.99? More missiles in Metroid for 0.99? More gas for your Mario kart for 0.99 a litre?

        Nintendo would make massive amounts of money by going into mobile. With or without freemium. I am scared which way they would go. I do however want new Mario adventure on my phone. It would be awesome! Super smash brothers multiplayer! Just putting out the old games they made for a buck or two would make em richer.

      • CkX82

        As Triple H would say, adapt or perish.

      • tommet

        Hopefully in 10 years they will feel a nostalgia for free to play.

        Cause they just can't get that anymore,

      • http://dustinwilson.com/ dustinwilson

        It's not simple enough to say they haven't adapted. They're simply too virtuous to rip their customers off. If Nintendo were to make smartphone games they wouldn't in any way try to glean money and rip people off like these games do. They've lost either way. Even Angry Birds (which you used as an example) and other legitimate games have lost out to the games that cater to the gambling bug many people have by holding that carrot in front of them for a small bit of change. That's absolutely no different than a slot machine's holding its carrot in front of weak-willed people who continuously throw change or even bills into it.

        So, if Nintendo and others falter for having a conscious then so be it.

    • Stormourner

      the mighty nintendo shall never fall

      • Alexythimia23

        Haha guys Eli knows what he is talking about, pointless debating him, cos it is remarkable they have wooped the ex mighty nintendo with ONE game lmao and all those saying nintendo is not dead in the water urmmm YES they are! You honestly think they are buying there time to to do something amazing?? Cus whilst they are planning there almighty move, games like candy crush and even flappy bird are beating them to the punch every time, and they wont even share their platform to make more revenue. I mean cmon guys your not that special anymore, times change and so do consumer needs cus the amazing thing iphones and tablets have done is introduce gaming to a whole world that never bothered before, thats huge and i say fair play to them for supplying the demand, cus lets face it... Its more then nintendo ever did. R.I.P Nintendo lol

      • Stormourner

        I ain't special ;P
        nintendo shall never rest in peace

  • HCastle23

    Yet another piece if evidence that proves that Nintendo is falling farther away from the current culture of gaming and it's changing demands and profitable market. Perhaps someday, they'll rise again. Until that happens, Nintendo will become more of an afterthought

  • JCman7

    Good news MK8 is out today! Go buy it!!! Stay away from mobile Nintendo don't belittle yourself.

    • anarchy in the app store

      Then why are you here?

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        We have a pretty dedicated contingent of people who read and comment on TouchArcade every day who don't like mobile games. It's weird.

      • Stormourner

        I hope those people aren't from IGN or Gamespot

      • vai_levar_no_cu

        they do like mobile games, but they also like other portable games. is that too weird to believe?

        love my ipad for carcassonne, ascension, drop7, threes, broken sword5,... but will certainly never defend garbage like Flappy Bird or Candy Crush, even though theyre popular. thats not the type of games i bought my ios machine for

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        Maybe I'm weird but I typically just focus on things I enjoy instead of getting hot and heavy in comment threads of things I don't. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean someone is wrong for liking it. That'a seriously important life lesson.

      • vai_levar_no_cu

        agree with you if that means nintendo could release for both publics something (core games + brainless drivel)

        but imo, everyone would lose if nintendo would just focus on casual stuff

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        I'm not criticizing you or disrespecting you, I'm having a discussion in the comments thread of this article which exists solely for the purpose of discussion. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who immediately jumps to feeling criticized or disrespected when someone disagrees with them. :(

      • NinjaKitteh

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a "normal" discussion people throw both positive and negative opinions into the ring. You just commented on how you didn't understand how people would come onto a thread with negative intentions. That in itself is a critique, so you were , regardless of intent, being critical of vai's post.

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        In the most literal, pedantic definition, sure.

      • NinjaKitteh

        What a negative way to say the word yes.

      • bilboad

        No, the post Eli was responding to wasn't merely critical of Candy Crush. The poster said Nintendo should stay away from mobile to avoid belittling themselves, which seems to imply that they think mobile games as a whole are inherently trite and beneath Nintendo. I agree with Eli that it's a little weird that someone with that attitude towards mobile games would hang around on a website devoted entirely to mobile games. It would be like if I spent time trolling through forums about golf merely to jump in threads and state how boring a game I think golf is.

      • NinjaKitteh

        People can have discussions about topics that they really have no interest in. It happened all the time in my debate class or talking with my father. If only one perspective is culled there is no discussion just dictation. Don't get me wrong, I never even said what Eli posted was wrong either. They're both just opinions. But to act like you're not critiquing someone else's opinion when it's plain as day that it is, is childishness at its worst.

      • Jake7905

        You continue to confuse a critique with a negative opinion. That's the source of all your frustrations.

      • bilboad

        It seems like you're just making strawman arguments though. No one said anything about culling anyone's opinions. All Eli said was that he finds it weird that people who profess to completely dislike mobile games would still choose to hang out and regularly comment in these forums.

        While I take your point that it's possible to be interested in discussing an activity that you don't personally engage in, I don't see much value in it if your only contribution to said discussion is to state how uninterested you are in that activity. Asking why the person is here commenting if they feel that way about mobile games seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

      • iAjent

        Not necessarily. What if the OP compartmentalises his genres. 'Console' games and 'Mobile' games. If the OP holds 'console' games to a higher regard, it does not necessarily mean that he doesn't like 'mobile' games or that he does not value the information on TA, but that he holds Nintendo to a higher standard in his personal preference. Therefore, I think he is entirely justified to post his comment in a thread to an article that would seem obvious to raise such issues?

      • Jake7905

        You are so very wrong. Critiquing and debating a topic is not the same thing as being "negative" and picking a fight. A critique doesn't mean "be negative".

      • NinjaKitteh

        I'm not sure how I'm confusing the two. The post I remarked about stated that maybe he was weird but didn't understand why someone would post in a topic they didn't care about. That isn't a negative opinion, nor did I ever say it was, that's a subtle critique of vai choosing to comment on something he doesn't care about. If it were a retort in a debate the next thing after Vai would be to present a counter point, which wasn't done. I think you don't really know the difference between the two. But whatever, as I stated, everyone has an opinion and none of them are particularly valid in overall reality. Besides, Eli admitted he was critiquing so that invalidates your argument anyhow. At least he knows the difference.

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        I basically just gave up because I don't have the time/energy to have these kind of arguments with serial internet pedants.

      • Silverfish

        I'm on both sides of the coin. I've always loved console and handheld games, but now I have mobile devices in my life and enjoy the gaming opportunities they present. What saddens me is when developers abandon full featured games for a set price and start churning out free-to-play games and hoping they have a hit. Games like Candy Crush really reinforce this ideology. It brings joy to my heart when developers release gems like Leo's Fortune or Monument.

      • JCman7

        I've been a member of TA since 2009 and have been gaming on an iOS device since 2008. On the other side I've owned Nintendo products since I was a little kid. I like both but Nintendo games are quality like none other. To put them on mobile devices is just wrong and TA constantly put articles bashing Nintendo and how their games should be on mobile. It's just a dumb concept that keeps getting brought up when Nintendo has kept saying that will not happen. Just buy a freaking Wii U or 3DS it's not that difficult if you want the Nintendo gaming experience. If you can't afford it and would rather buy an xbox or playstation then that's your fault.

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        None of our articles "bash" Nintendo. We post them because industry news is interesting, particularly as Nintendo tries to figure out its place in the world as it has changed in the nearly 31 years since the NES was released. Every single one of them has been written with the tone of "Huh, it's crazy seeing the way things are going."

        If you think we're "bashing" Nintendo, you're reading between the lines and finding your own personal bias.

      • JCman7

        I guess by bash I mean the frequency of articles on this and you always questioning why they aren't going mobile. Think it's your own personal bias cause you want Nintendo games on mobile. How about articles on Microsoft or Sony once in awhile? I'm sure there are comparisons with those companies with mobile gaming,

      • JCman7

        Just doing a search I count 8-10 articles about Nintendo and mobile gaming let alone countless others...odd

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        We post about relevant mobile gaming news. Microsoft doesn't have any kind of mobile side to speak of aside from Windows Phone which is sort of dead in the water, but whenever there's a second screen companion app we've got a story up. Similarly, whenever a good Vita game heads to iOS, we're on top of it. Again, we post about things that we think our readers will find relevant or otherwise interesting. The amount of traffic, both in hits and comments, that Nintendo stories get indicate we're providing our audience what they want.

        If Nintendo articles upset you, we've posted other stories today that you can check out. No one is being bashed here though, we're merely posting relevant news stories.

      • JCman7

        Loud and clear Eli, think it's nice to hear various viewpoints though on articles. You are right it is a popular debate. Anyway It would be nice to have a fair share of positive and negative articles then. Microsoft and Sony articles are usually in positive light. Hope you mention the Mario Kart TV app when it comes out, right now the website is great on my ipad. I usually read every article posted on TA so yeah just wanted to post my thoughts didn't realize it would blow up like this. Most of the comments are geared toward how freemium games are dominating this market and I just don't see Nintendo games fitting in that market. Their two free to play games that Sub game and the baseball game are mediocre and really aren't doing that well. I could see that doing some weird casual mobile endless runner and them making money but in the long run I think that hurts their company more then the profits they would make. Their move to NFC I think will help greatly and they aren't stubborn anymore look at Mercedes being introduced to MK 8 and Callaway golf gear in Mario Golf.

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        We posted about it when it got announced- http://toucharcade.com/2014/05/08/nintendo-announces-mario-kart-tv/

        Not sure why we wouldn't post about it when it goes live.

      • JCman7

        Awesome look forward to it! Thanks for the discussion

      • iAjent

        Quite an assumption about one of your users. You do seem defensive about this article. Here's what I posted in reply to another comment below.

        Not necessarily. What if the OP compartmentalises his games. 'Console' games and 'Mobile' games. If the OP holds 'console' games to a higher regard, it does not necessarily mean that he doesn't like 'mobile' games or that he does not value the information on TA, but that he holds Nintendo to a higher standard in his personal preference. Therefore, I think he is entirely justified to post his comment in a thread to an article that would seem obvious to raise such issues?

        To me, he doesn't necessarily dislike tablet/phone gaming. He just prefers Nintendo?

      • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

        What is "OP"?

      • fenderbendr

        Original poster

      • thiagovscoelho

        If Nintendo ever makes a game for a non-Nintendo platform, that means they've lost.

      • Stormourner

        seeking attention I presume?

    • Dude.. Welcome..

      Belittle yourself by dipping into a different gaming market or kill yourself by staying exclusively within your own (unfortunately) failing margins.. Which is wiser?
      You're basically asking Nintendo to sign a suicide pact.
      If you need proof, check out the article above.

    • vai_levar_no_cu

      mobile nintendo is amazing. what the problem? more gameplay in them than all the top phone games together

  • HCastle23

    I would agree in that the biggest flaw of Nintendo is their stubbornness to NOT adapt to the ever-changing culture and demands that gaming society has. As someone who plays extensively on my iPad and Mac, I know that paying top dollar for a game is a rarity. I either wait for Steam sales (which are very often) or wait for an app to become free for a time. Occasionally, I will purchase at launch a game, but that happens only once a year it seems. Plus, children who do not have extensive monetary assets at hand, can't get the newest GTA or Halo or whatever is at the top of the market due to its expensive cost. They rely on the free games or sales to be able to enjoy the latest and greatest. Should Nintendo ever embrace this philosophy and implement it expertly, which I think they would do, they would regain much of their losses and gain many followers, both those who grew up with the old consoles and the new generations, just getting their feet wet into the gaming world. I know their were tears spilled on Nintendo games when I was young, it would be similar if that occurred again... On my iPhone...

  • Harlan

    I don't want to live on this planet any more.

    • lll Anubis lll

      Hmmm. Maybe I could get some big PVC pipe and a few cans of hair spray and then launch you off this planet... For a price of course.

  • anarchy in the app store

    Not surprised, tiger electronics probably made more than Nintendo last quarter...

  • Holcman

    A combination of failure to adapt and bad business decisions, along with fewer big-name releases. It's sad, but it represents this generation of gamers.

  • Seniku Moonjewel

    Very sad to see do many dumb people throwing money at this trash. It only encourages more crap freemium junk :(

    • thiagovscoelho

      The crowds are stupid.mofnyou make a game for dumb people, you cater to the crowds.

  • vic_viper_001

    Well that just depressed the hell out of me.

  • curtneedsaride

    Those that want to play Nintendo games on iDevices bad enough probably are playing them. And a lot of those are missed sales for Nintendo. Seriously I don't understand them. I want to give them money for their IP's... only if they can be had on my phone, which is my main console these days.

  • Stormourner

    I know nintendo fans isn't gonna be happy about this. of course the misers are the ones causing trouble for nintendo. ask yourself why did 3DS had a poor sale when it was first launched? because of the misers!!, when kids want a nintendo consoles the miser parents refuse to buy it despite having alot of money and torture their kids through studying and homeworks >:(

    • Silverfish

      I bought all my consoles and games growing up and I ended up fine.

      • Stormourner

        aaawww!! I'm grateful for your parents to let buy every video game consoles despite the expensiveness of the price ;)

      • Silverfish

        Nah, man, I only had a DS Lite for most of my childhood. I bought it with snow shoveling and lawn mowing money. Saved up for nearly half a year, in fact. Had some good times with Pokemon Pearl.

      • Stormourner

        only DS Lite? you deserve alot of consoles, one console isn't enough

  • http://www.jeandenis.net/ Jean-Denis Haas

    Nice Sliders reference.

  • Goggles789

    And it's still a big piece of shit.

  • vai_levar_no_cu

    really, candy crush garbage is not what i want from a nintendo game

  • Speedster117

    The worst part about this is that it's a free game. A FREE game made more money then Nintendo.

  • vai_levar_no_cu

    if by adapting you mean starting to do candy crush garbage, thank god they didnt adapt

  • JudahJames

    Video killed the radio star!

  • falco

    Wait candy crush is supposed to be a free to play game no ?

  • Paul Downs

    That is deeply deeply depressing.

  • witedahlia

    Why can't Nintendo just port their games over to iOS like Squeenix does? We don't need them to be F2P, we just want to play their games on the device we carry around with us all day, every day.

    • Stormourner

      as always nintendo will NEVER port their games on iOS devices

      • vulcanologist5370

        Can I borrow your time machine?

      • Stormourner

        I wonder what are you going to do with the time machine?

    • thiagovscoelho

      Nintendo games go on Nintendo consoles. That's how it's been since time immemorial. If Nintendo makes a game for a non-Nintendo device, that means they've lost.

  • pcburcham

    Evolve or die. It's as simple as that. Applies to every facet of life. Gaming is no exception.

  • iValerio1990

    how can people spend money for this...lets call "game" ? there are people so stupid ?

    • C4

      Yes. So many idiots.

      • Shadowlord

        You will get no argument from me regarding that.

        Spot on!

    • visualplayer

      We live in a country where people are so dazzled by bright colors and the excessively shiny that they'll happily pay money for fast food which is essentially harmful and has no nutritional value. These games are the fast food casino of the gaming world. They also seem somewhat addictive.

  • PoloBaquerizoH

    All because of the pride of nintendo, they do not realize that they are losing and wasting a whole generations of legendary and classic games, is a shame

  • Tomate Diseño

    Key phrase here is "long-running household brands". Nintendo will be around long past the time that King has shut its studios with a trail of debt. Just look at Zynga, once darling of the mobile free-to-play, now never heard of except for staff layoffs.

    I think of it like this, Album bands like Led Zeppelin, seldom had a no1 single but they're still selling albums, well known and always an interest in what they're doing. Downside of course is that they can keep doing the same material for decades and people will be happy with it.

    • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

      What's interesting about Zynga though, as far as a mobile gaming history perspective is concerned, is that they put almost all their eggs in the Facebook wall spamming basket. One Facebook API terms of service change, and they were left scrambling for acquisitions and other things to try to figure out where to go next once they were stripped of the ability to essentially treat their games like viruses inside of people's profiles.

      King is structured a little differently, in that their "saga" back end isn't specifically tied to anyone one specific social graph. So, if Facebook changes or some other social network rises up, they're flexible enough to switch things around without much issue. This also works well for them when it comes to implementing other networks abroad like Kakao, WeChat, etc.

      The whole thing is fascinating to me, particularly as these companies evolve and learn from the mistakes of previous outfits.

      • Alexythimia23

        I love how people are trying to come up with their little anetodes of comparing nintendo situation to led zepplin lmao face it, you guys dont know what you are going on about. Eli and the gang WORK in the business, they no more about whats going on then every one of you put together. Made me laugh they talk about Zynga going downhill and think thats the same with kings candy crush, well guess what these companies are evolving and learning from the dinosaurs like nintendo. Im 33 and had all the consoles you can name, but get over it, times change. As much as eli probably loves nintendo, there is no bashing going on except by me lol any company that dont care enough to evolve and move forward deserve bashing, not praise for the same old regurgitated mario or zelda spinoffs. Nintendo has lost cus it is know a minority, sad but very very true

  • adamishrobinson

    It really is hard for me to see Nintendo in this position. I am 30 years old and grew up with them. I've always had an affinity for Nintendo, but in reality...these things happen. Companies have to adapt to stay relevant. In their defense, Nintendo has been innovative. They just have to offer what resonates with people (remember the original Wii craze?). Right now Candy Crush is hot and, like it or not, that's just how it is. Time will tell whether Nintendo can recapture the gamers, and I really hope they do. Strong first party games is a really great place to start. I'm looking forward to MK8 and any following Marios or Zeldas, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

  • Tiberian_Fiend

    "It's odd to see the company falling farther and farther behind in financials, because, come on, it's Nintendo."
    Or if you're not a drone, you realize Nintendo commited suicide with the N64, and it's been little more than a zombie for almost two decades, shambling about while it waits for someone with a shotgun to put it out of its misery.

  • JCman7

    Another sad fact according to the quoted articles data, Apples gaming revenue is only 7 million more then Kings. That's a scary fact.

  • Ubisububi

    Research numbers show that the overwhelming majority of IAPs are made by less than 2% of the players. Perhaps Mr Hodap, in his ongoing campaign to sell us on F2P, has mistaken true gaming value for tragically addictive behavior.

  • fenderbendr

    Why do people waste their money on these games? By the time they spend all that money, they probably could've bought a few premium games that are much better.

  • PlannedObsolescence

    that was last year when King was IPO'd as the game was popular. it won't last and King's stock has already dropped with most analysts indicating there's no way it won't keep sliding as CC revenue is sharply declining. but as long as initial 'investors' made a ton of money who cares, right? most forums and new releases that have no IAP you'll see people who actually play games don't like IPA/freemium.

    • Phil_Lapineau

      King had this year's worst IPO, losing 16% on its stock price on the first day, so the initial investors are actually quite PO'ed right now. Those stockholders will have to hope that King finds similar success in China if and when they port their Saga lineup to that market.

  • Ubisububi

    Freemium is great for people with no money, and people with a lot of money. For the rest of us, it's just a bad value. That being said, those of us who dislike F2P had better be ready to throw down money on full-price premium games. We shouldn't be starving developers by waiting for big price drops because it's the "race to the bottom" that got us into this mess.

  • Phil_Lapineau

    The question is whether King can last 125 years like Nintendo has so far, or will their lack of a diverse IP portfolio, as is also the case with GungHo and Supercell, cause their bubble to burst when new gaming trends emerge and current ones die. As Zynga demonstrated, they can lose all that money as quickly as they have earned it.

  • DannyTheElite

    Hasn't candy crush lost #1 on the top grossing charts to clash of clans?

  • benjitek

    Nintendo is the new Atari :-(

    • Stormourner

      I think not!!

      • benjitek

        On it's way -- pretty obvious ;)

      • Stormourner

        nintendo isn't another atari or sega

      • benjitek

        Not yet -- shouldn't be much longer :-(

      • Phil_Lapineau

        If you had at least elementary competence of business or stock market analysis, you would think otherwise. Unfortunately, your videogame journalism-skewed mentality has swayed your views to this simplistic direction.

      • benjitek

        You're taking a lot for granted there buddy. We'll just have to wait and see how things go. Wish I were wrong, sorry to burst your bubble -- thanks though for stopping by ;-)

    • David Curry

      Atari, during the NES and 16-bit era? Where they're still healthy enough to release hardware, but the masses are starting to not care what they do anymore? Not a perfect comparison, but it still works.

  • Squablo

    One more thing. Just because lots of people like something doesn't make it good. Look at Music for example. Remember all those Hair Bands, and Boy Bands? Where are they now?Let's see where Candy Crush is in 5 years. They are just a flash in the pan. Nintendo has always been in a marathon, and not a sprint. They know what they are doing. Nobody will remember Candy Crush in 5 years, unless they are still paying for all those IAP lol.

  • I am Error.

    So sad.
    Still, Candy Crush is more of an idiot app. Not a real video game.
    I'd rather play some dedicated Nintendo titles on my 3DS any day.
    For smartphones I love titles like Wayward Souls and Battleheart. I feel like they use a lot more brainpower than pushing digital sweets around.

  • arr4ws

    Im off to play mario kart 8! Have fun with candy crush :D

  • Boobi

    Wow saw 116 comments and wanted to write something but all I can say is I enjoyed the article and was stunned how much money Candy Crush generates. Thanks for the info.

  • David Curry

    Some of these comments read like extreme political comments on Youtube or cable news websites. You may not like freemium games and lack of buttons, and the "mob" of comments make it appear to be popular opinion, but the outside world (and financials) tells a different story, especially in Asia where mobile gaming is massive. It doesn't exactly hit me like a ton of bricks that games like Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Puzzle and Dragons are becoming more influential than an established video game company.

    I didn't grow up with Nintendo, but I know that the company's waning relevance, and the explosion of mobile gaming, really shows how much video games are changing (for better or for worse is up to you to decide) in a relatively short amount of time.

  • Adrian Werner

    I would rather see Nintendo continue to make great games, even while earning less than to see them "ride the mobile gaming tidal wave" and produce one crappy soulesss extortion scam game after another, like KING is doing. But that might be just me.

    Why would you even want Nintendo to do it though? There's thousands of devs on mobile making one clone like this after another. What would be the point of Nintendo becoming developer nr. 1001?

    • Chungston

      I think what a lot of people are wondering then is why Nintendo does not port their games to mobile... Stubbornness.

      • Adrian Werner

        No, more like business sense. Paid games (especially premium priced ones) sell like crap on mobile. And this would severly damage their hardware business. The potential gains are so small it just doesn't make much sense to risk it.

  • twinspectre

    this proves the degeneration of humanity

  • Design by Adrian

    A little too many Super Marios and Mario Karts, and too few cool consoles. Nintendo DS feels old, the Wii U is just a weak upgrade to the Wii.

    The original Wii had so much potential!


    I'm not surprised at all... Nintendo keep milking their old titles. also Wii U is a fail, they should make new titles, I don't think they can compete against the home consoles, for my opinion they just need to create mobile consoles like the Nintendo DS (it was a hit it in Japan) and more new good titles, then they will be back to the right path.

  • Benjamin S.

    What a waste, in an ideal world these two would be switched when Nintendo was ontop they actually made new games. King is absolutely shameless, clones like Farm Hero Saga and Pet Rescue Saga are produced from Candy Saga's Successs to ride the exact same match 3 wave that they didn't even create themselves.

    Contrast that to even a fraction of the results of Nintendo's success: Donkey Kong(Arcade) success --> Mario Bros(Arcade) --> Super Mario Bros(NES) --> Legend of Zelda (NES) --> Metroid (NES) --> Kid Icarus (NES) --> Donkey Kong Jr(NES) --> Mother (NES) --> Super Mario World (SNES)--> Star Fox(SNES) --> F-Zero(SNES) --> etc.

    If we had a company like King in Nintendo's place Mario Bros would be a Donkey Kong Clone.

    • David Curry

      Funny that Nintendo's DS helped create the casual market that makes up today's mobile gaming market.

  • Michael Graham Jr

    All because of people who will pay to win. That's the only reason

  • Ashflow


    I love me some iOS (Wayward Souls, Battleheart Legacy, and Bug Heroes 2), but Nintendo will always be my favorite.

  • vic_viper_001

    Anybody watch the latest Honest Game Trailer? It's a VERY accurate trailer for Candy Crush!

  • Kyle Trail

    I have an 8 year old boy and Mario is the best in his opinion. He plays the crap outta some Minecraft on the iPad too, but when he just scored the New Super Mario Bros. 2 used at a local store, it was like Christmas again at our house.

    I think kids know that Nintendo games are still the bomb. I can't say what will be going on in a decade though.

  • Coil_Whine

    Candy Crush is just a slot machine with a thin game layer. Its users are gambling for lives and hearts. It's designed to milk he most money from its users

  • lockecole7

    The illegal narcotics industry is a $400 billion dollar industry, should Nintendo hope for a piece of that pie also? Like was said before, CC and King are merely shooting for the lowest common denominator, and skimming profits via quantity over quality. Pay to win is the perfect pay model to get your product out, because it incorporates every potential player base, and allows all of them to enjoy the game "equally."

    Whether it be the 8 year old with no money but all day to play and master the game, the college student who plays it during class and throws a couple bucks at the game when he can, or the businessman who makes $100,000 a year and can afford to throw money at a game that distracts him from his busy life, and can still feel competitive because of the money he can put into it.

    Is it fair? No. Is it a good game model? Absolutely not, but it IS a profitable business model, and nothing will ever change that. There's no wrong way to play a pay-to-win game, because in the end that's what they're intended to be. This is coming from someone who's gotten sucked into the Evonys of this world, and lived to regret it. It's a drug, for sure, and one that CAN be dangerous if not taken care of and taken seriously. Not everyone CAN afford the money they put into a pay to win game, and I think it's on the government to dictate just how aggressive pay to win games can get. Things like $50 and $99+ packages in a simple game should be addressed.

  • Glaurung-Quena

    Comparing Nintendo to King Digital Entertainment (makers of Candy Crush) is like comparing Major League Baseball to the casino industry.

    Nintendo makes games, things you play to have fun. Nintendo is a game company. King Digital makes slot machines, things designed to dispense tiny doses of dopamine in exchange for your money. No matter what they say, King Digital, along with all the other developers of FTP games like Candy Crush, is in the *gaming* industry, like casinos and racetracks, not the games industry.

    Comparing the two is, IMO, invalid.

  • Impe83

    Uhm, it true but if we look more into detail we are comparing this 2 giants like Apples and Bananas: Nintendo its not competing with Candy Crush on mobile ecosystem (1 billion smartphones out there?), its still tied to mostly consoles which have a way smaller user base.. Im pretty sure if Nintendo would finally switch to mobile one, its would catch up pretty quick! :D