3DS Nintendo

Miyamoto Wants Super Mario Run To Allure Smartphone Users To Nintendo Platforms

By releasing Super Mario Run on mobile devices, Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto is hoping the upcoming game will attract smartphone users to Nintendo platforms. In a recent interview, the Mario creator also applauded how smart devices have been getting more and more people into gaming through the countless accessible experiences offered on them.

“For many years our mission in approaching hardware has been our goal of expanding the number of people playing games,” Miyamoto said. “Now, people are having these interactive experiences through their smart devices and so that’s accomplished this great mission of helping to turn more people into gamers. We’re using this opportunity to bring our characters to this audience and let them experience the fun of our games and hopefully bring them back to our platforms.”



  1. Miyamoto is a fool..
    Casuals will be casuals, but the ones who have left, have left for good…
    Why couldn’t it been him and not Iwata?
    This man continues to make a bad name and image for the Nintendo empire. He is the reason you are not taken serious anymore in the gaming community.

    1. very interesting opinion that only you care about and no, you don’t speak for any of us. btw i get a good chuckle from your comments, not because i agree, i disagree, but because its…well im laughing at you. anyways enjoy the rest of whatever time it is where you are.

    2. advertizing on the most used screen on the planet is FOOLISH TO YOU

      thats like saying mario on tv in the 80s and 90s was foolish to

      oh wait a second nes and snes sold gangbusters DESTOYED

    3. How would you have approached the mobile market? Get clones of SNES games on iOS like some said? Would be bullshit. Not providing that market with any software at all? Would be bullshit.
      Fishing in a pond of hundred of millions of potential customers won’t end up with EVERYONE INSTANTLY buying a Nintendo console. But as you smart man already know, that’s not what advertising is about. And Super Mario Run isn’t much more than that: an ad for console gaming.

      And believe it or not, it’s a very good one. The momentum, the hype and everything alone was obviously worth it. If you don’t wanna see that, then don’t. With Zelda TBotW, Pokemon Go and now Mario, Nintendo’s doing some things so right, they might reach the Wii-height of business-combochaining once again.

    4. That’s quite a bold claim there. How do you know casuals won’t be attracted by this game? If it’s fun they’ll look for more things like it, bringing them to Nintendo consoles Remember Pokemon Go? Nintendo received massive soars in shares after that was released, and Pokemon merchandise were selling like crazy back in the Go craze.. They’ve gotten Mario, one of the most popular fictional characters ever, in a mobile runner, and it’s all theirs. That’s a great recipe for success. I don’t see any wrongdoing on Nintendo’s part.

    5. If it was foolish. Then how do you explain people with very very large sums of money (investors), all of sudden deciding to give nintendo large sums after the release of super mario run?

      you are right in that casuals will be casuals, but why not let them be casual on a nintendo platform? That is what happened with the Wii. I am actually surprised nintendo has not experimented in the smartphone market sooner. Funny how nintendo only went there after iwata’s passing. It will be exciting to see whats next

  2. well im not sure that casuals want to flock to nintendo platforms simply because they are whiners and want every nintendo game on their smart devices because they are too lazy to buy a wii u or a 3ds but i will be impressed if some do flock to nintendo platforms (and possibly stop asking for full nintendo games on their smart devices but i guess that’s wishful thinking).

      1. “Casual,” In my own opinion, is “Pick up and play.”
        1. Short burst playtime.
        2. Not overly invested in the games plot or characters. (there are exceptions)

        “Hardcore” is a vested dedication to unfolding a game’s story and bonding with the characters over lengthy gaming.

        Call of Duty, Campaign is hardcore gaming, and many of you wouldn’t know that because you don’t give the story a chance… Those same people are correct when referring to Cod multiplayer- it is most definitely casual gaming… For most. There are a few rare gamers who treat it like a MMORPG – God help those poor souls.

        I enjoy Casual and Hardcore games, depending on how much time I have to play. I also think there is an argument for Turn-based RPGs to be in a category on their own. And last, the 3DS muddied the line due to its sleep function, as well as the Auto saves built into many games these days.

        That’s the difference. It gets a bit blurry these days, but there are most certainly hardcore and casual gamers. Most Hardcore gamers are also Casual gamers, but not all casual gamers have the patience or desire to be hardcore gamers.

        1. So… You are saying that Mario 64, the Mario Galaxies, the Donkey Kong Countries (which are- at least the Wii and Wii U iterations- one of gaming’s hardest video games), many of the Zelda’s, Smash Bros and at least 1/3 of Nintendo IPs casual, because they aren’t deep, story driven games and characters are either silent or not thoroughly developed? You, my friend, should watch movies instead of play games. By saying that you are saying that 2/3 of gaming HISTORY has not been hardcore, since heavily story driven games in the 80’s and the 90’s were far and between. Hardcore GAMING is Nintendo since its inception. Remember that casual is not the same as accessible, as many hardcore games are accessible and provide user friendly experiences. Hardcore gaming is not the same as story driven games (although many story driven games are hardcore), instead hardcore gaming is related to its gameplay and how much time a person is willing to invest in it (that is because a hardcore gamer is that who practice hardcore gaming). For God’s sake, even Mario Kart and Splatoon may be considered hardcore.

          1. I am pretty sure he wasn’t claiming that Nintendo didn’t have hardcore games. Or that only story driven games can be considered hardcore. And btw, accessibility does play a very big role in casual gaming. Games like Mario Kart are “pick up and play”. But you can also play it with the intention of winning and getting all the stars and unlocking characters. A game like Dark Souls however requires you to actually learn the game’s mechanics if you expect to get anywhere at all. And that makes it far less appealing to casuals. Some people may call Nintendo’s games casual, but the fact is most of them appeal to both sides. That’s exactly the way they want them to be like. And, unfortunately, sacrifices are made in order to get them to be more accessible…

        2. i get that but what im saying are those who call themselves gamers but don’t want to invest in a console/handheld/pc, they only want games like bayonetta 2 right at their fingertips. i am aware that there are casuals that to play hardcore mobile games (real games, not that candy crush bull-plop) but are for some reason too afraid to invest in a console/handheld/pc (what are they afraid of? only they know). there is a reason why nintendo will not put full-fledged games on mobile, pc, and on competition platforms, it pulls sales away from their current platforms, sure it makes nintendo money in the short run but what would be the point of getting a wii u and/or a 3ds if smash bros is on ps4/xbone/pc/vita/mobile? if you say none that is correct, at that point nintendo might well as be a 3rd party company. i do get why most mobile users want smash bros on their phones/tablets but its not the solution, making games that tie in nintendo ip’s is the solution. if mario run is somehow a full-fledged game yet brings in the ‘mobile casuals’ to their platforms (some of them) then i will shut up, maybe apologize for some things and admit that i was wrong (in all aspects or partial).

  3. For some reason I even think that SMR DLC that’s locked behind having to buy an NX Mario Game would work… the question will always be… to what extend?

  4. I have a question. If Nintendo made their own smartphones, would any of you buy one? Whether or not I would buy one depends mostly on what the specs are, but I think it would be cool to have them either way.

    1. I would… I don’t think they will go there, but I totally would. Would be really could if I could use my phone as another controller on the home console as well… it is about the size of an nes controller. I like how the Wiimote is used for platformers so I could see that, although most would not like having the buttons on a touch screen, but then just don’t use it…

      Lots of possibilities there. Of course they could just team up with Apple, but that is a big leap

    2. I wouldn’t. Simply because it would lose its focus.

      Take the Sony Xepria Play: it was trying to be a phone AND a dedicated gaming handheld at the same time. And that failed. We can’t say that Sony was new to either gaming systems or phones because they have a long history of dealing with both (in fact, unless I read the dates wrong, I’m pretty sure that Sony dipped into the gaming industry before the phone industry). Anyway, many people said it will succeed and will give the DS a lot of trouble; I thought it would fail flat on its face and people laughed at me. Now that it launched, it’s no longer selling (in fact, I believe it had a very short shelf life). Who’s laughing now?

      Let’s compare Sony’s experience with Nintendo: they have little to no experience with phone hardware, but VAST amounts of experience with gaming (and nominate when it comes to dedicated mobile gaming). It might be an okay smart device, but the support for non-gaming things such as taking phone calls or using apps will more than likely not work. On top of that, if they did make a phone, they would more than likely do something like what Sony did: create a platform on top of… Android (… I’m guessing; I can’t see Nintendo wasting their time maintaining another OS for this) and “maybe” allow the 3DS and/or the NX to play them as well (this would make sense, since they would probably want to differentiate themselves from the other phone makers, so they would for sure have exclusive Nintendo-made and third party-made games into their phones). But looking at how Sony’s way didn’t go so well, Nintendo’s chances of success are probably not very good. It would lose its focus and it would be a mess.

      … I think I rambled off your question. I apologize; let me finish answering your question:

      I wouldn’t buy a phone made by Nintendo since they have little experience in making phone software and NO experience in making phone hardware. It’s not as simple as making a handheld device; there are a lot of variables to deal with just the antennas alone.

      (Also, only Apple and Samsung actually make money with their hardware; everyone else either breaks even or loses tremendous amount of money. This means Nintendo will need to resort into putting crapware into their phones in order to make more money, which I wouldn’t want (even though Samsung does it too. Hmm… I guess we can never win with that.)

      … I rambled again, didn’t I? -_-)

      1. Sony’s phones nowadays are pretty good, but they really don’t do that well because of two main things: Nobody knows they exist and they are expensive. Sony usually charges as much as, if not more, than Samsung and Apple. I get what you are trying to say, but the thing is, if Nintendo never actually makes one, we will never get the perfect smartphone from them. Everybody started at some point after all. Samsung and Apple’s current success is because of many past successful phones. Putting crapware into the phones to make more is not necessarily true because there’s amazing devices like the OnePlus 3 and HTC 10 despite those companies not really making phones fly off shelves. Same thing with Sony, they are not taking in a ton of cash from their phones, but they still manage to put out high end flagships every year. Although, knowing Nintendo and how they are with *coughspecscough* yeah… I dunno. I would like to see it though even if I won’t buy it. Lol

        1. A few things:

          – I never said that Sony doesn’t make good phones. I just said that the Xperia Play failed to sell well. The launch price of the device also wasn’t really a factor, since Apple and Samsung was able to get away with the same price.
          – For Nintendo, I honestly think the device would be pretty okay with their specs. I don’t think they would more or less gimp on that (they would probably be on the level of the 3DS, most likely, maybe a tiny bit more). My issue is with the things like the antennas. Those things are complex to develop and than means Nintendo will need to do massive restructuring with their company and their R&D practices before they can even think about making a phone. Like I said to some extent, dedicated gaming devices are a walk in the park compared to a phone (or so I’ve seen/told…).
          – Samsung was successful because they had a huge amount of money to burn; they’ve been in the phone business before most of the companies that we’re talking about and they dip their hands on pretty much everything from TVs, to washing machines, to even construction (case in point: the tallest building in the world in Dubai? Samsung was one of its main contractors). As for Apple, they usually are able to succeed in most things due to their incredible advertising (much to my chagrin, but I’m not going to go there). Nintendo, while longer lasting then every company that we’ve both mentioned, doesn’t have a huge history of success. They’ve been in the playing card market, then went through way too many failed things, then settled with the toy/video game market. Who knows how they’ll succeed with health and some of the other things that they’ve mentioned, but the point is, I don’t think they want to handle the smartphone market.
          – The crapware element was used because Nintendo makes their hardware with making profit first hand (the Wii U might just be an exception, though, due to the fact that it didn’t meet expectations). I’ve seen said phone maker’s phones and I’ve seen crapware in many of them (whether it’s from them, the carrier, or both). The thing is that most phone makers know full well that they’re either not making money, they’re breaking even, or they’re losing money fast (regardless of how great their phones are), so they compete in market share instead. It’s exactly the same thing as the PC market (now that I think of it, I can see why Samsung is leaving the PC market).
          – … why does every hardware company NEED to be in the phone market? It’s not a glamorous market. Like I said, Samsung and Apple are the only two that actually make money in it and, looking at the way things are heading, that’s not going to change anytime soon (yes, anything can happen, but it clearly looks like right now, Apple and Samsung are absolutely safe, especially seeing how much money both companies put into marketing alone). How exactly is Nintendo going to make money? If crapware isn’t going to work, is exclusive Nintendo/third party-made games alà PlayStation Mobile actually going to work? Because again, looking at Sony (and even Amazon), it’s not working. Not by a long shot. I understand that shareholders think everyone should get into smartphones, but that usually ends up crashing and failing. Case in point: the “Facebook phone”. Remember that? If you didn’t, I wouldn’t be surprised, because that failed miserably. But moving on…

          I don’t think I’d like to see one. At all. As a matter of fact, I DON’T want it to even be entertained. Honestly, I’d let the idea die a quick, painful death. I’m not hating on you for thinking about it however (and if any of my statements came across that way, I apologize).

            1. Well, then you get something like the HTC First: http://www.htc.com/us/smartphones/htc-first/

              This was the phone that was considered as the “Facebook Phone”, something that the shareholders were clambering Facebook to make for years in order to achieve maximum dominance (and I know that I’ve mentioned it before, but I seriously think it’s important here). And after a lot of resisting, they finally gave in and partnered with HTC on making the phone.

              That thing flopped like a fish. Even though it was designed for Facebook and they worked close together to make the thing work, people didn’t buy it. It couldn’t compete against Apple and Samsung’s offerings, it couldn’t compete against the low-end market, and it couldn’t even compete against whatever HTC had at the time. There was nothing going for it. Besides, Facebook did need that in order to nominate: it already does (1.7 Billion monthly users. Yeah: that service dominates.)

              How about the Motorola ROKR as another example: https://www.engadget.com/2005/09/07/the-motorola-rokr-e1-apple-itunes-phone/

              That one was supposed to be the “iPod phone”. I’m sure you don’t remember it because it was one of the worst “iPods” that Motorola and Apple had ever made (and if you do,… actually,… I’d be very impressed). It was… actually, I don’t really know where to begin with that one.

              See, these two examples prove that partnerships don’t work. So how the hell would Nintendo partnering up with another hardware maker that has familiarity with making phones succeed? No, really: how? The makers WILL gimp on the specs and Nintendo WILL get the short end of the stick in terms of profit (if it generates profit at all, or even if this actually were to go through),… I just don’t see a win for Nintendo. Why waste their time on this? I mean, you said it yourself: while you’d be curious in seeing what it is, you’re probably not going to buy it. And I whole-heartedly hate the idea. Those two alone is proof enough that it’s not going to work and that Nintendo may as well throw that money in a furnace. I would much rather see that money go into making better games.

              Yes, I know that we’ll never know until they try it and there may be some extremely tiny chance that Nintendo could pull it off,… but I seriously doubt that to a huge extent.

              And I’ll ask again: why does Nintendo NEED to be in that business? That thing is a toxic hellstew of a business and most companies are there knowing that it’s rare to make money until you’re Samsung or Apple with a >$10 Billion yearly marketing budget. What could Nintendo possibly be able to do in order to gain market share in that (especially if it runs on Android and not on an OS that they’ve developed)?

              So I’ll say it again, let’s just leave this idea alone and let it die a slow, playful death (to remind it that it should never pop in our minds again.) It’s nice that we have this thought and discussion about it, but really: we need to get rid of it. And again, I’m not hating on you for bringing up the idea, or for triggering the discussion (I actually enjoyed it to be honest). But if you felt that I did, I apologize.

  5. This is obvious. Pokemon go has been doing this with 3DS.
    Super Mario Run is a little idiot addictive game to attract the old players who are on PS4/XONE (After all they had a nintendo in the decade of 80 and 90).

    1. It is a good part of the strategy, just not the only part. Releasing smart phone games also puts Nintendo in the news. Interestingly as well, it must be noted that these are big deals in terms of people taking notice of what nintendo is doing, so the interest from fans of all types is certainly noteworthy

  6. As long as they flock to consoles expecting full fledged games & not more casual shit that they can just pick up, play for an hour or a couple of minutes, then run off because they can’t be bothered anymore to put any more effort into the games they are playing that day, then I’ll be happy if these mobile Nintendo games bring in more people. But if these people are going to corrupt Nintendo further into further making their games on console & handhelds casual friendly, a difficulty setting for casual gamers is fine as long as there are other difficulty settings like what Fire Emblem Awakening had, fuck no. Stay far, far away from consoles & handhelds, casuals! We don’t need any more viruses on Nintendo systems!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: