Chris Kohler over at Wired did an interview with Shigeru Miyamoto about Super Mario Run [Free] and all things Nintendo. It's a great interview, but Miyamoto's discussion on why classics like the original Super Mario Bros. won't come to iPhone is interesting. Granted, there's the obvious reason (virtual directional pads) but there's a more unexpected rationale:

He’s got one more thing to say about that. “If we did put Super Mario Bros. on the iPhone, (people) would say, ‘Wow, this is well-done, but are you actually going to expect me to pay money for it? Why isn’t this free?’,” he says. “We try to create products that have value that people are willing to pay for.”

I mean, he's not wrong. Just look at the folks who got the first Mario game on a non-Nintendo platform ever, and they're complaining. The interview reveals that this is the first Mario game that Miyamoto had a heavy influence on since Super Mario Galaxy, and it could certainly be the last one he ever works on. And people are griping about it. People would complain about having to pay for Super Mario Bros. Enough wouldn't to buy it, but really, do we need the drama of people complaining about paying for a gaming classic that they can take anywhere? No. Do check out the interview on Wired.

  • sugimulm

    It's sad, but so true. People wanting premium and when given the option to "buy" the rest of the game, bitch and moan about paying for it. SMH, that's the issue with today, very sad.

  • WhoaManWtF

    I would pay 10 dollars for a real Mario game way before this runner they released. Hell 20 if it were a modern new one.

    • nonen

      Nintendo just did release a "real Mario game", today in fact, and it's wonderful.

      • Leonick

        I suspect "real Mario game" means one where Mario doesn't automatically run and jump over enemies.

      • WhoaManWtF

        If you feel that is a real Mario game then you must not have ever played mario before, single button control with 9 levels for 10 dollars? No ... just no. People are wearing there rose tinted glasses, hit me back in a week and tell me you are still playing it as much as you would other games that are that price on iOS.

  • bossjaja

    The worst part of mobile gaming is the unfortunately high number of buyers who think anything above $5 is "way too expensive".
    There are so many people on twitter bitching about Super Mario Run and deleting the app because it's not free. It blows my mind.

    • Leonick

      Well, the amount people willing to pay certainly won't be changing if no one release games you have to pay for...

    • RunningWild

      Value for money is applied on a case by case basis. After paying $14, I can honestly say this title is not good value for money.

      • http://twitter.com/JaredTA Jared Nelson

        How unfortunate for you.

      • RunningWild

        I happily put money down and didn't get what I expected. Does this exclude me from providing an opinion? It's not my first bum drop and certainly won't be my last. C'mon Mr Nelson - it's not a personal attack. No real reason for sardonic remarks.

  • Intendro

    “If we did put Super Mario Bros. on the iPhone, (people) would say, ‘Wow, this is well-done, but are you actually going to expect me to pay money for it? Why isn’t this free?’,” he says. “We try to create products that have value that people are willing to pay for.”
    Super Mario Run counts as a product people are willing to buy, and classic games that have already been considered good don't count?
    This logic doesn't hold up.

    • http://toucharcade.com Eli Hodapp

      Have you seen the amount of whining people are doing because Super Mario Run costs money?

      • Intendro

        Haven't they already seen people whine about having to buy other iOS games?
        Why did they release Super Mario Run as such then?
        Thus, why not release classic games, by this logic?

      • sticktron

        $14 CAD for an online-only one-button auto-runner with 24 levels, Mario or not, is not that appealing. $5 sure.

        SMB 1/2/3 for that price I would buy however. I could see World selling well at $20+

      • sticktron

        By World I meant All-Stars.

      • SeanTheHuman

        THIS. I'm not complaining about the paywall in general, I'm complaining that I don't want to spend $14 on a game that I'll probably be done with in less than a couple hours. I spent like $2 on the Rayman runners and those have MUCH more level content than SMR. If there were twice the amount of levels there are in the game, I'd actually be fine with the price!

      • Derek Schinke

        Have you even tried to get all the coins? it's very challenging.

      • Leonick

        But why is a new game different from a classic?
        Why are they bothered by people potentially complaining about price of classic game but not about people complaining about new game?

    • bossjaja

      Have you seen how many people are whining about Super Mario Run not being completely free? Now imagine the level of salt if Nintendo -dared- to release a full fledged Mario platformer on iOS at $40.

      • Intendro

        I hope most of that whining is because it's a paid game that requires Internet for single player, so then that's reasonable "whining."
        (...it's not, is it?)

      • bigrand1

        Yes! To me, that is way more of an issue. While I see lots of whining around here when it comes to how much games/IAP costs, I personally have no problem with paying reasonable amounts for something I want whether it's a game, a good cigar, or whatever. Hey, I'm a grown man. I'm an old man!
        Now when you have a paid game, hell, even a free game to me, and you gotta be connected to the internet to play it, that pisses me off! Ridiculous! 😡

      • Earthjolly

        I mean Sqaure Enix release fully NEW fledged good Jrpgs on on android and IOS for $20 that many would buy for $40 on 3DS

  • rezn

    I'm so happy to see Super Mario Run went premium. Honestly I didn't believe it would. Even yesterday when people were saying it was. I had to see it to believe it. And yes I'm more than happy to pay for premium. It's too bad it's the complaining cheap gamers that are the most heard.

    • RunningWild

      $14 for an online only auto runner is a steal to you? Steer clear of Japanese research vessels mate!

  • lezrock

    Wrong! Mobile Gamer are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for a premium experience. If you look at old ports that aspyr or squenix ported for example or original developed games like oceanhorn. They sell those games most of the time for a premium price and are probably making a fortune and they are not as huge as Nintendo. I hope one day they overthink their decision.

    • Intendro

      Indeed, there are people who buy games.
      ...I sound so unintentionally sarcastic right now. 😅
      Not sure what to say beyond that.

  • Daxmort

    It's true. On Facebook there were already posts in the iOS announcements decrying it for being $15. It's actually about £8, which is sort of a bargain. Granted, I think they milked it way too hard and I'm not a fan of the connection-needed aspect, but whatever, I bought it anyway. Bring on bigger and better things, Nintendo.

  • NicoPWD

    I would have paid for it and I don't think 10.00 is not that big of deal. I mean I paid 10.00 for the Super Mario Run to me that was cheap. I see Square Enix marked some of their games up to 14.99 on some games. I don't think paying 10.00 is not that big of deal. I think some people believes that they should not have to pay for anything, and everything should be free for them. The true Mario fans and Nintendo fans would pay for Super Mario Bros on mobile at any cost.

  • Bliquid

    I bought Implosion, KOTOR, and many with SMR price tag.
    If the game is good 10 bucks is a steal.
    With SMR i got annoyed after 10 minutes.
    The gameplay doesn't compel me, the connection takes 2-4 seconds more than i would expect from a "one more try" game, Mario's voice comes from underwater.
    Honestly, I wouldn't play this even if it was completely free.
    For people who DO like it, i don't think 10 bucks is a preposterous price.
    I do wonder if this hadn't Mario in it how many people would buy it, though.

    Also, remember when Nintendo used to say they would never develop on smart phones?
    So, Miya, never say never...

  • Nat_K

    Which is why they keep releasing old games on the Virtual Console...because no one would pay for it.

    Over and over and over.

    Yep makes sense coming from Nintendo, but so does friend codes in2016.

    • korossyl

      Not comparable -- different markets, different audiences. People who play VC are, by definition, console gamers, who do not exist in a market where free-to-play is a thing. They have entirely different expectations than mobile gamers. Even when one person is both a mobile AND console gamers, s/he has different expectations of the two.

      • Nat_K

        I had thought about this and I don't think I agree, but I would in any other situation. Why?

        The Nintendo/Mario fanboys are going to drive this much like Pokémon and the Final Fantasy fans.

        I believe people would buy a proper Mario game on mobile just like they do Sonic and Cloud--probably more so.

  • Fastbridge

    I think after they see the money they make off this, we will deff see Mario bros one day on the iPhone

  • Tom Bortels

    > Just look at the folks who got the first Mario game on a non-Nintendo platform ever, and they're complaining.

    It's ten freaking dollars and doesn't work offline, and it is still going to make record breaking amounts of money. I have zero sympathy for "but people would complain" as a reason. We're complaining because online-only is for *nintendo's benefit* - not ours; it actually makes the game less useful to the person who actually pays for it.

    I'd spend 5 bucks on SMB on ios in a freaking heartbeat, assuming it isn't likewise crippled to "online only". The alternative is to get an android device, and emulator, and play it for free, which is what people will do if they don't give us a legit way to play it.

  • MARl0

    He makes a very good point. It's sad, but it's true.

  • TheGodless

    I'm not sure why anyone would care if people complained or why Nintendo would be so short sighted as to throw away the model when they can find other ways like with Pokémon Go to make a ton of money. If the only way people could play SMB was to shell out a drastically cheaper price when compared to the cost of console games throughout history, they would almost certainly still do so regardless of whether they were complaining about it or not when buying the game. SMB might be a big enough game changer that it would wake people up and make them realize that if they want great games that have stood the test of time and proven themselves to be classics, they will have to start paying for games again. Maybe the cat didn't just get out of the bag though and it destroyed the bag to the point of it being too late for the game to ever be changed, but it's certainly not too late for Nintendo to stop throwing away all of the money it could make if it would take the dreaded F2P plunge. As long as they included a way for people to purchase the full game, they would make both premium and F2P gamers happy campers. Sadly, they would probably quickly realize that they can make way more money by going the micro-transaction route.

  • Edmilan

    No "real" console like Mario game for mobiles "...because people would complain about having to pay". But you have to pay $9.99 to unlock this full mobile game. What?

  • rewind

    I don't think it's sad or unfortunate that people aren't willing to pay upfront for games. Freemium is the way to go. I can play the game, for free, and if I really like it, I can choose to spend money. It's non-committal. Staring at the piles of Xbox games I wasted $60 on just reminds me of why freemium is best.

    • abodi

      Maybe you should just be more discerning in your purchases

  • Precious Tritium

    If I want a Mario game on IOS that is a well made enjoyable game I am going to pay money for, Le Parker: Sous Chef is right there. So is Super Cat Tales. If I need an auto-runner, well, I don't need an auto-runner. If I did, Run Roo Run is fine.

  • Scottlarsen

    Basic economics. There is too much supply right now and that drives down the price these apps can command. Even Nintendo will have to compete against many close substitutes that are typically much cheaper. Nintendo has decided for many years now that they don't think the return is worth it. From an economics perspective, both the supplier and the consumer have been behaving very rationally.

  • Akesycu

    Not true. Paying is not the problem. Always online is the problem. Plus I would me more happier if it was upfront cost. My purchase will be lost if I get a new phone.

    • Leonick

      No, you can restore in app purchases on other/new devices so nothing would be lost.

      • Developmentr

        However, when Nintendo retire the server in a few years...

      • Leonick

        Yup, that's a potential problem and absolutely a fair complaint.

        Of course, they could patch out the server requirement before taking it offline.

  • Chance Johnson

    Well yeah, I mean if you're going to charge me $10 for a game and then do that online-only bullshit, I'm going to complain. It sucks that I can't buy this for my niece and nephew as a gift because they don't have iPhones. They have iPads, but they're not always connected to Internet This game has been sucking up phone data left and right, and kids don't have data plans. Freaking ridiculous.

  • Dawn Stung atoms

    Let's see on how well the upcoming Rockman ports will do on iOS, then we'll really know how justified Miyamoto's concerns are.

  • Fyz

    Oh forget the Always Online bit. Those people would still complain if it was offline and only for 5 bucks, I think that was the point here.

  • Hoot3000

    Is the 9.99. One time purchase or are they expecting us to pay for new level packs? Also lose the rush tickets.

  • RunningWild

    This response is BS. They are happy to ask money for the same retro title each time it comes out in a different e-shop iteration. The reason they won't release these ancient titles that represented their glory days is due to market control. They won't get 100% of the cut and owning their hardware will become irrelevant. Before long we would find Nintendo joining the likes of Sega in that scenario. At least be honest about it FFS..

  • Sicarius Amator

    The problem isn't that it's pay to play. It's the fact that it is and was marketed as free. Don't give us three levels and then SURPRISE. Okay give us ten dollars or just redo everything. You don't even get ONE WHOLE world... You get everything except the castle... That's a little ridiculous in my opinion... And as for the whole "if we released classics people wouldn't want to pay" thing. We wouldn't mind paying at all. Or I wouldn't. Just don't put it in the store as FREE and then after three levels tell us pay or move along. That's the sad part, if you would have just put in the stores for $10 to start with, no one would be complaining... Okay not as much, there would still be complaining people. It's just sad that we expect free because that's how it was marketed.

    On another note. You can almost play this game blindfolded... Goomba's and turtles need to be able to kill Mario if he walks into them. Not vault over them like there not there... I'm sorry but try playing any other Mario game and walk into a goomba see what happens.

  • Luzsec

    Nintendo totally wrong about this, i would pay for 'Super Mario Bros' even for $19.99 but the main fuc*ing problem is... game must be online to play!!!!! for premium game u must be online? kinda like free games and forcing u to buy something Inside the game ( iAP ).