Pokemon Go has made more than $440 million in less than two months
Niantic earned a net revenue of $308 million, $100 million more than it had on August 5.
According to analytical platform Sensor Tower, Pokemon Go has grossed more than $440 million from both the App Store and Google Play. Niantic's AR sensation launched less than two months ago on July 6.
"This puts publisher Niantic’s net revenue from the app at more than $308 million so far," Sensor Tower wrote. The firm evaluated Pokemon Go's progress on August 5; since then, Niantic has earned $100 million in net sales.
Sensor Tower illustrated Pokemon Go's success according to an oft-used metric in the games industry: stacking it up against summer blockbusters. As its chart illustrates, Pokemon Go earned more than WarCraft, Independence Day 2, Angry Birds, and other high-grossing films.
Furthermore, Sensor Tower touched on the fact that Pokemon Go is no longer the #1 grossing app in many countries. Although it has shed more than 15 million users, the game still pulls in over $4 million in worldwide net revenue per day. "It’s also worth noting that that the game has yet to release in several large markets, including China and India."
-
Shacknews
replyDavid Craddock posted a new article, Pokemon Go has made more than $440 million in less than two months
-
so net revenue so far is approximately equal to a $40 3DS game that sold 7.5-8m copies. That means as of today it's generated more revenue than all but 8 3DS games if all of those games sold every copy at $40 (which they surely didn't). And I suspect the dev costs for Pokemon Go were far less than something like Super Mario 3D Land so the margins are better too. And as the article notes that's without some major territories like China in the mix yet.
-
YOU'RE RIGHT DERELICT. NINTENDO IS DOOMED. SHUT IT ALL DOWN.
-
contextualizing the success against an equivalent on their own platforms hardly seems irrelevant
-
-
-
Dear derelict515: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F6Tq2nTuMc
-
-
-
-
-
-
So would I but who cares? A lot of people would apparently rather play Pokemon Go on their existing devices. And that's why we're here, because Nintendo finally realized that too and now they're reaping the rewards. This is just illustrating how they've likely left billions on the table by not having had solid mobile games for the past 3-4 years.
-
I just don't see why you keep bringing up this point. Yes, Nintendo left money on the table. Every company does. It happens. Quite a lot, actually. They realized their mistake, corrected it, and are making money hand over fist.
Correction: they're making MORE money hand over fist. They weren't exactly headed to the poor house before Pokemon Go became a phenomenon.
So... what's your end game? To get Nintendo to build a DeLorean replete with a flux capacitor, go back in time, and pounce on the App Store as soon as it launches? What? Do you have nothing better to do than hop into Nintendo threads and say "I told you so?"
Ugh. You drive me fucking NUTS with this shit.-
I'm sorry criticizing Nintendo causes you so much anguish. What do you expect people to talk about when you write articles on financial performance? Just bringing out the pom poms? The entire narrative of Pokemon Go is about the impact of Nintendo finally taking mobile seriously. Contextualizing these results against a first party product on a first party platform is the story. People being happy with watered down Nintendo experiences is the story. Plenty of people did not believe that was the case in the past. Great you would rather play Pokemon Diamond on a 3DS. So would I. But that's not the story.
-
That's not the point at all, and maybe you honestly don't recognize that. The point is you drop into these threads to say, in effect, "I told you so, Nintendo." That seems a waste of time and energy. What do you hope to prove? Yes, Nintendo flagged entering the mobile market. Now they have, and they're doing well.
Does this make you... I dunno. Happy? Smug?
You also seem to lack a fundamental understanding of Nintendo's pillar approach to game development. Unless I miss my guess, you believe Nintendo should pivot to focus purely on mobile games. That would be disastrous; their best games would not play well on a touchscreen. There is NO GAME on mobile that comes close to touching the pedigree of Super Mario World or Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
Nintendo is wise for dividing and conquering, as they always have: first consoles, then handhelds, and now mobile platforms. Why focus on one at the expense of the others?-
I dropped into this thread to do the math on how Pokemon Go results compared to a top performing 3DS game because I was curious how it compared. I don't think my original reply had any opinionated statements in it at all. I just noted that this looks to be essentially as or more successful than any 3DS game. I find that to be pretty interesting/relevant, at least as much as how it compares to other mobile games. If you think that analysis is a waste of time then I don't know what to tell you. It's precisely why we saw their market cap double briefly. Because this opportunity is at least as large or bigger than their existing platform opportunities.
I have never once said Nintendo should become solely a mobile game company. I have questioned their home console strategy of taking on the costs of making a platform but not making it one others want to build on. This hasn't been a problem with their handheld platforms which is part of why it was such a lucrative pillar compared to their recent home console effort. But I have been pretty bullish on the fact that they should expect their handheld revenues to decline a lot in the face of smartphones and the sooner they adjust to that reality the better they'll be (case in point: Pokemon Go).
That would be disastrous; their best games would not play well on a touchscreen. There is NO GAME on mobile that comes close to touching the pedigree of Super Mario World or Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
I am quite sure I could find you making this same statement in reference to why Nintendo shouldn't make mobile games at all 5 years ago. Yes everyone commenting on this website thinks Super Mario World vastly outclasses anything on iOS. That was never in question. What's in question is what's best for their business. Pokemon Go is undoubtedly a worse game than Super Mario World. It's also likely going to end up ahead of it in both total revenue and profit in fairly short order, with their respective platforms trending in opposite directions. They did the most Nintendo thing possible and made a game uniquely suited to the hardware (notably not their own hardware, throwing a wrench into the idea that they have to own the full stack to do unique and differentiated things) and it was a massive success financially and in terms of fun had by millions.
Nintendo is wise for dividing and conquering, as they always have: first consoles, then handhelds, and now mobile platforms. Why focus on one at the expense of the others?
I never said to put all their eggs in one basket. In fact I was specifically advocating for diversifying and getting all their eggs out of their own platform baskets. But resources aren't infinite and investing in one platform vs another offers different opportunities and risks.
-
-
-
-
-
-
hmm, one could hope that at this point Nintendo would step in and let Gamefreak FUCKING FIX THAT BROKEN PIECE OF SHIT.
Also, I have no idea where anybody bothers to spend money on PoGo, I've never felt any inclination to spend money on that game, and I am of the disposition to spend money on F2P games.
-
-
-
Knifey spoony?
-
-
