Pokemon Go causes Nintendo's stock to increase by 45%; hits a 52 week high
The momentum from Pokemon GO seems to be relentless.
Share of Nintendo (NTDOY) skyrocketed this morning as US stock markets had a chance to react to the slew of positive reports regarding the success of Pokemon GO. Forbes has reported that Pokemon GO is on pace to surpass Twitter's daily active users on Android, and the app remains top dog on both the App Store and Google Play. Check out my article from Friday in which I explain why I think Nintendo's stock can go higher. It is hard to advise investors to pile into a stock that is up almost 70% in 10 days, but there are a number of tailwinds that could push the stock higher for the foreseeable future.
Full Disclosure:
At the time of this article, Asif A. Khan, his family members, and his company Virtue LLC had the following positions:
Long Nintendo via NTDOY ADR
-
Shacknews
replyAsif Khan posted a new article, Pokemon Go causes Nintendo's stock to increase by 45%; hits a 52 week high
-
It is cereal time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REpiQnnp6p8 -
[deleted]
-
What kind of revenue is it creating I wonder
-
"If [Pokémon Go] holds on to the top spot for sales, like other top-ranking titles, we would assume that monthly turnover reaches 10 billion yen or higher, but given particular characteristics of apps, at this point, we cannot comment with high certainty on [its] sustainability,"
-
Mia Nagasaka, an equity analyst with Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities
That would be almost $100 million a month if this analyst is right.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/10/nintendo-shares-surge-20-pct-on-hopes-for-pokemon-go-smartphone-game.html-
Nice! Well done Nintendo.
-
[deleted]
-
yeah that's the split I saw as well
-
-
There are also the side effect sales that Nintendo was talking about re: their mobile strategy.
Mainline Pokemon sales have spiked since Go's release. Even the older X/Y games got a bump, and those are older Pokemon games that should already be saturated at 15 million units sold.
Its an example of how selling different games on different platforms and using that to supplement their main titles is a good strategy. Its much better than the one-dimensional idea of making simple ports of existing games or transitioning away from their own platforms entirely.
Nintendo understands exactly how to leverage games on multiple platforms to maximize sales. They'd already been doing this for a long time with their home and portable consoles.-
Nintendo understands exactly how to leverage games on multiple platforms to maximize sales.
this seems highly questionable given their mobile strategy before now. Another data point may be how slow they were to leverage their old catalog (NES/SNES) on modern consoles and mobile.-
"Another data point may be how slow they were to leverage their old catalog (NES/SNES) on modern consoles and mobile."
They were literally the first company to offer their back catalog on their consoles, years before anyone else did.
"this seems highly questionable given their mobile strategy before now"
Yes, and I was talking about how they understood platform synergy before they pushed into mobile. Reading comprehension.
-
years before anyone else did
which other console owner has a back catalog that old/large/valuable? There's no real money to be made making PS1 and Xbox games available on modern consoles. There's tons of money in selling the NES/SNES catalog on a variety of platforms. People were asking for it for ages and Nintendo took forever to deliver it.
I was talking about how they understood platform synergy before they pushed into mobile.
what synergy are you referring to then? Pokemon Go as lead generation for Nintendo hardware is platform synergy, but it could've/should've existed 5+ years ago.-
"took forever to deliver it" was 2006 with the release of the Wii and the Virtual Console that launched with it. For context, Steam barely existed as anything other than a delivery system for Valve games and XBLA had games like Hexic and Bejeweled.
If we're talking about physical release then that's also covered. Nintendo had the first "classics" package way back in 1993 with Super Mario All-Stars. Even as late as the Gamecube they had disc re-releases of Ocarina Of Time and Majora's Mask.
Do you propose that Nintendo should have had a digital delivery system for the Gamecube? You're being ridiculous, they've always been way ahead of the curve there. No amount of revisionism or strawmanning changes that.
"what synergy are you referring to then?"
Handheld and console games acting as cross-promotion for one another. A Pokemon/Zelda/Fire Emblem/Mario game on one platform was motivation for customers to buy it on another. Again, they'd already been doing this for decades. What is happening with Pokemon Go is the same thing with a wider (and even more casual) net.
Its obvious that they could have done this sooner, but there's also no question that they have decades of experience leveraging other platforms and mediums to cross-promote their brands.-
For context, Steam barely existed as anything other than a delivery system for Valve games and XBLA had games like Hexic and Bejeweled.
XBLA launched 2 years prior. The fact that all they had was Hexic and Bejeweled is a good example of why Nintendo should've been out in front on this stuff and not lagging. They had tons of valuable stuff to sell. I don't know how you can call them ahead of the curve here.
Handheld and console games acting as cross-promotion for one another. A Pokemon/Zelda/Fire Emblem/Mario game on one platform was motivation for customers to buy it on another. Again, they'd already been doing this for decades. What is happening with Pokemon Go is the same thing with a wider (and even more casual) net.
The former is not particularly interesting from a strategy perspective because it's obvious. Sega did the same with the Gamegear. Sony did the same with the PSP. It is of course what you do with complementary platforms. Pokemon Go on mobile is something decidedly different. The handheld version of Nintendo's games were not the B tier. They weren't intended to get you hooked and migrate to the home console version which was better/more profitable (or vice versa). They were great standalone experiences and obviously if you like them and want more of that stuff then the home console offers some of that. Pokemon Go is more like an intentional appetizer. The 'real' Pokemon games are going to remain on Nintendo hardware. This one is meant to make you go buy those ones. That's what I was referring to the other day about Nintendo's 'best stuff.' Are we going to see them fully embrace mobile and put their A tier work on it? (both IP and headcount) Or will they continue to use the multiple billion person market of mobile primarily as a licensee based advertising platform for their own hardware (and its exclusive software)? I suspect the latter, which I think is a mistake.-
The launch of the Virtual Console was limited by the fact that the Wii launched in 2006. The XBox was the only console equipped for that sort of thing because of its on-board storage. The PS2 and Gamecube were not because both lacked that. As it stands, Nintendo did it as soon as they can. How this is a negative makes no sense given the state of console technology in the early-2000s.
And as I said before, before the launch of their digital distribution system they were way ahead in terms of releasing their old content physically on both Gamecube and their handhelds. Their NES and SNES catalogs were both widely available on Gameboy Advance.
You're claiming that they were late giving access to their back catalog when that's clearly untrue.
"Or will they continue to use the multiple billion person market of mobile primarily as a licensee based advertising platform for their own hardware (and its exclusive software)? I suspect the latter, which I think is a mistake."
I disagree, mainly because mobile games by default need to be dumbed-down short-term experiences. You cannot expect someone on an iPhone to play games that demand hours of their time using a touchscreen interface that is inherently crippled.
No. You deliver an experience that plays to the strengths of the hardware. Augmented reality, cellular connectivity, simple gameplay that's best done in short sessions. The platform is as important as the medium that's on it. This is why the idea of Nintendo moving away from their own platforms or moving their main games over to mobile is ludicrous.
Anyone interested enough in diving into something meatier can pick up those games, and based on the sales spike that Pokemon has had I'd say its working. Pokemon X and Y for 3DS sold even more than the DS Pokemon games did, and those still had a spike. That's impressive and a sign that using mobile to advertise is working.-
I don't really want to belabor the VC issue. We can agree to disagree. The details in the execution matter as well, and I don't think they were particularly aggressive with the service (especially compared to something like XBLA). I would not in any way call them way ahead of the curve here.
And as I said before, before the launch of their digital distribution system they were way ahead in terms of releasing their old content physically on both Gamecube and their handhelds. Their NES and SNES catalogs were both widely available on Gameboy Advance.
The physical rereleases are not the same, that's an easy thing to do that's not new or outside their previous core competencies.
I disagree, mainly because mobile games by default need to be dumbed-down short-term experiences. You cannot expect someone on an iPhone to play games that demand hours of their time using a touchscreen interface that is inherently crippled.
That's just not true. Nintendo was able to trot out this line in 2010 but it's demonstrably not true anymore. Blizzard knows this. I can play Hearthstone for hours. 2k knows this, I have a full port of my PC copy of XCOM for a plane flight (no need to take my DS with me anymore). I've got Baldur's Gate, infinite complex board games, etc.
Even if it was true, so what? There are great, short, simpler experiences that can be made which Nintendo could treat as first class.
Anyone interested enough in diving into something meatier can pick up those games, and based on the sales spike that Pokemon has had I'd say its working. Pokemon X and Y for 3DS sold even more than the DS Pokemon games did, and those still had a spike. That's impressive and a sign that using mobile to advertise is working.
Of course it works. That was never in question. The question is what is the relative value of using mobile as an advertising platform for Nintendo hardware (and exclusive software) vs treating it as a first class citizen. Much like Microsoft had to ask what the value is of iOS/Android Office as advertising for Windows/Windows Phone vs the value for Office themselves being first class on non-MS platforms. It isn't a simple equation.-
"The details in the execution matter as well, and I don't think they were particularly aggressive with the service (especially compared to something like XBLA). I would not in any way call them way ahead of the curve here."
Way to move those goalposts.
The Wii sold over 100 million units and the VC was incredibly popular. The Virtual Console is still open on Wii as well as Wii U and 3DS. Nintendo sold retro games and reissued N64 games on the Gamecube and Gameboy Advance, despite the fact that the SNES had been around for less a decade before. The gap in time between the SNES and the Wii was the same as the Wii and where we are today.
Nobody else has been as aggressive at selling retro content for as long as Nintendo, so much so that its even a point of criticism. End of discussion.
"Blizzard knows this. I can play Hearthstone for hours."
By your prior arguments we'd say that Blizzard should move their operations over to mobile because that's where all the money is. Overwatch was apparently a waste of time, or maybe they should have made Overwatch for the iPhone instead.
Nice to see you can change your mind on something btw. I still remember months of you knocking Hearthstone because it wasn't MtG.
The best "deep" mobile games are ones like FTL, Papers Please, Monument Valley, and Hearthstone. Darkest Dungeon needs to be on the iPad. There are exceptions but nearly all of these great mobile games are on the iPad, and again they need to be tuned very specifically for the platform. On the iPhone its a different story, there the best games are even simpler experiences like Threes or Blek.
There are great, short, simpler experiences that can be made which Nintendo could treat as first class, but again it limits the genres to things like strategy or mini-game experiences like Wario Ware or Rhythm Heaven (I think those two would be perfect). Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem are good choices. You certainly wouldn't get something like a Mario platformer, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash, etc.
"The question is what is the relative value of using mobile as an advertising platform for Nintendo hardware (and exclusive software) vs treating it as a first class citizen."
Its an easy answer: You make the best software you can for the platform. Its not a simple matter of porting games over. FWIW I think the touch versions of XCom and Baldur's Gate are absolutely terrible as anything other than tech demos. If a game demands physical controls then there's no point trying to shoehorn that into a mobile package.
Nintendo puts such an emphasis on tight control and mechanics that I don't see them shifting their main emphasis to mobile anytime soon, it goes against what the company fundamentally is. Because of that you will have these very thin experiences casting a wide net. After that you get funneled farther and farther down to handheld consoles and then living room consoles as the content gets more and more hardcore with their demands from the player.-
By your prior arguments we'd say that Blizzard should move their operations over to mobile because that's where all the money is. Overwatch was apparently a waste of time, or maybe they should have made Overwatch for the iPhone instead.
This completely misstates or misunderstands the argument. Blizzard doesn't risk cannabalizing anything with their mobile development, and so their mobile games get the A game treatment. How many Blizzard engineers work on Hearthstone? How many Nintendo engineers work on Pokemon Go or other mobile games?
Nice to see you can change your mind on something btw. I still remember months of you knocking Hearthstone because it wasn't MtG.
I can personally like or not like something and still recognize what's good or bad about it. I personally still think Magic is demonstrably better in most ways, both for me and for other CCG fans. If WotC/Hasbro weren't run by morons I think a decent number of HS players could be MTG players if they found the right cost structure. HS itself is a good intro to CCG product, hopefully they up the complexity over time.
There are great, short, simpler experiences that can be made which Nintendo could treat as first class, but again it limits the genres to things like strategy or mini-game experiences like Wario Ware or Rhythm Heaven (I think those two would be perfect). Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem are good choices. You certainly wouldn't get something like a Mario platformer, Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash, etc.
And that would be fine. The question is whether they'll do it. Do you think we'll see for example iOS Animal Crossing that is essentially at feature parity with a 3DS version, developed with Nintendo resources? I am highly skeptical we will anytime soon.
Its an easy answer: You make the best software you can for the platform. Its not a simple matter of porting games over.
It's absolutely not an easy answer. That's why it took until 2016 for Nintendo to even dip their toes into mobile. For reference, I'm not talking about porting anything.
Nintendo puts such an emphasis on tight control and mechanics that I don't see them shifting their main emphasis to mobile anytime soon, it goes against what the company fundamentally is. Because of that you will have these very thin experiences casting a wide net. After that you get funneled farther and farther down to handheld consoles and then living room consoles as the content gets more and more hardcore with their demands from the player.
I agree completely that this is what they will do. It goes against their company culture. That's why in 2016 they're still not taking advantage of mobile to the degree they could be. And I'm questioning this strategy of not fully embracing mobile as a first class platform given Nintendo caliber resources.-
"Blizzard doesn't risk cannabalizing anything with their mobile development, and so their mobile games get the A game treatment."
Nintendo doesn't risk cannibalizing Pokemon RPG sales because that sort of long sit-down experience just doesn't happen on a smartphone. Its a completely different thing that the phone version advertises for. The best mobile games like Clash Royale work because they are super short experiences. A game of Hearthstone takes minutes unless you only play grindy control decks around cards like Elise Starseeker.
In any case, Blizzard made a game within the constraints of mobile. They didn't make World Of Warcraft or Overwatch for the iPhone, they made a card game.
Cannibalization doesn't happen because core and casual are two very discreet markets we're talking about. On the surface, mobile and console seem like the same thing but they just aren't. The casual segment of the market that exclusively plays on mobile doesn't have the skill, time, or patience to play core games from Nintendo or anyone else. They can play phone games though. After that you filter on down to core gamers on handheld and living room consoles.
"Do you think we'll see for example iOS Animal Crossing that is essentially at feature parity with a 3DS version, developed with Nintendo resources? I am highly skeptical we will anytime soon."
Again, time investment is the thing. Animal Crossing on console can be played for long stretches while smartphone games are something you do in between other activities. I'd bet on the mobile version being more session based and waiting for time to pass between those sessions. Again, its why I think Wario Ware or Rhythm Heaven would be perfect on phones since they'd be more or less identical to the GBA/DS/3DS versions.
Its not a matter of crippling the design as bait for the real thing on console, its a matter of optimizing game design to the target platform.-
Nintendo doesn't risk cannibalizing Pokemon RPG sales because that sort of long sit-down experience just doesn't happen on a smartphone. Its a completely different thing that the phone version advertises for.
You may think this is true and there are reasons for and against it. But do you think Nintendo thinks this is true? I don't. Phrased another way, why do you think Nintendo is only just now, halfway through 2016, delivering their first mobile game? (and not even using Nintendo resources).
When we say 'Nintendo was late to mobile' what does that mean to you? To me it's about the fact that they didn't want to risk cannibalization of hardware sales. They didn't want someone to find Pokemon Go on iOS 'good enough' and not bother with a 3DS version (the fact that the 3DS version is massively more complex can be both true and not matter to those people). I don't know what other explanation there is. We rightly describe Nintendo as this innovative software/hardware company that has a decades long reputation for thinking outside the box and using unique input methods to drive new and interesting gameplay. Now someone else provides a unique piece of hardware with unique input methods (multi touch, rotation) and other unique sensors (domains Nintendo has shown interest in with motion controls, the vitality sensor, wii fit, etc). Are we really to believe Nintendo didn't put games on this for 8 years because they couldn't find a way to do proper Nintendo caliber experiences? Even while they had their own mobile hardware platform with a touchscreen, gyroscope and games that didn't require precise input and a D pad (from Brain Age and up)? That doesn't hold up to me. In 2011 I could maybe buy that they felt they still didn't have the necessary technical expertise, but that doesn't fly in 2016 when they're still not putting out games with primarily Nintendo engineer headcount assigned.
Why weren't they doing little teaser type games to upsell to their own hardware? This Pokemon game could've been out years ago. A Mario endless runner could be done. Brain Age could be done. A simplified Animal Crossing could be done. Why weren't they?
Cannibalization doesn't happen because core and casual are two very discreet markets we're talking about. On the surface, mobile and console seem like the same thing but they just aren't. The casual segment of the market that exclusively plays on mobile doesn't have the skill, time, or patience to play core games from Nintendo or anyone else. They can play phone games though. After that you filter on down to core gamers on handheld and living room consoles.
It's true that core and casual are two very discreet markets. The problem is Nintendo's sweet spot is really in an intersection of those markets. This is why I've criticized the Wii U strategy (and the way that the NX appears to be running that same playbook from what we know so far) and described Nintendo as getting squeezed at both ends. The casual market that bought the Wii no longer needs a dedicated gaming device, they have a phone/tablet to kill time with. While they would enjoy NSMB on an NX they're not going to spend $300 for that experience. Meanwhile the people that make gaming one of their big hobbies are increasingly underserved by Nintendo as they refuse to cater to 3rd parties and consumers who care about hardware power. Much as we (core) gamers may like Mario/Zelda/etc it comes at increasingly great cost as you give up access to EA/Ubi/Activision/indies/etc. So now buying a Nintendo console is your 2nd console on top of an XB1/PS4, which increasingly leads to situations where someone already has a big backlog and money invested in that platform, and it's hard to justify a cheap extra console when you've got all these great games to play on the console you already own.
I'd bet on the mobile version being more session based and waiting for time to pass between those sessions.
...
Its not a matter of crippling the design as bait for the real thing on console, its a matter of optimizing game design to the target platform.
Absolutely the mobile version would be more session based. The template is already laid out for them. But I think the second part is absolutely crucial. There's a very nebulous middle ground where someone plays that iOS Animal Crossing and feels 'wow this is great I want more' so strongly that they'll spend $150 and carry around a second device vs someone who says 'wow this is great I don't need a handheld gaming device this thing I already own is awesome for it.' And that's what gets back to my initial point about cannibalization. I think managing those two reactions are why we didn't see any Nintendo IP on mobile for 8 years and why now what we do see are still very watered down experiences compared to what their hardware provides.-
wall of text crits for 1000 lol sorry
-
Fear of cannibalization is certainly why they're late. These things are easy to see in hindsight, but for as daring as they are with their software and hardware they're a very conservative company when it comes to making decisions. Japanese companies are conservative by nature and Kyoto companies are the most conservative of them all. Its definitely something that they carefully considered before moving forward on.
Simple answer to your long question.
All that said, I don't think there's enough overlap between the two experiences to satisfy people who want the real thing. Anyone who wants a real Pokemon RPG will get one (and they are, the 3DS Pokemon are selling even more than they did on DS). Anyone who wants a real Zelda game will get Breath Of The Wild. Anyone who wants a real Mario platformer will get one. No amount of endless runners or flick-to-capture will satisfy or replace that market. I think they realized that expanding mindshare via mobile was the way to go. Its not all that different from how something like Fallout Shelter would work. It doesn't replace Fallout 4, in the end it promotes it.
As for their next console, we'll see. They need to make a case that the system is worth having after they failed at that with the Wii U. Compelling content at launch will help and Zelda: BotW will be one of those things.
"those two reactions are why we didn't see any Nintendo IP on mobile for 8 years"
Even EA, the first mainstream company with mainstream shovelware, was barely in the App Store in 2009. Nintendo was years late but saying they should have been there in 2008 is a bit silly.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
They were also doing cross-game promotions with skins years before it became common. Way back in 2002 you could link a Gamecube running Metroid Prime with a GBA running Metroid Fusion in order to unlock the Fusion Suit. There were content unlocks in other series like Fire Emblem, Harvest Moon, Mario Golf, etc. The Wii and DS did the same wirelessly with games like Pokemon and Animal Crossing.
As I said, they've been leveraging games on multiple platforms to maximize sales for decades, indirectly via brand awareness/marketing and directly via extra content, long before Pokemon Go. Its the same strategy using one more platform.-
Its the same strategy using one more platform.
It's a completely different strategy once you're adding in a platform you don't own. It's the difference between vertical and horizontal integration. What you're describing is roughly the same as noting that Microsoft was always good at leveraging multiple platforms to maximize sales, as evidenced by having Office on Windows Phone and Windows hardware and then calling the addition of full featured Office on iOS a simple extension of what they've always done. It completely changes the strategy. Making a full featured Pokemon game on iOS risks reducing Nintendo hardware sales and sales of $40 carts (it also could increase sales of those things if done a certain way). It's a completely different set of strategic implications than talking about a 3DS version when a Wii version exists.-
"Making a full featured Pokemon game on iOS risks reducing Nintendo hardware sales and sales of $40 carts (it also could increase sales of those things if done a certain way)."
Brand awareness and marketing are the key objectives here, that's the difference. Mobile apps aren't there to cannibalize sales, they're there as an additional revenue stream that promotes core Nintendo prodcuts.
This isn't the only time Nintendo didn't control the whole stack. If we're looking at mobile as a branding initiative then its not that much different from when they collaborate on shoes with Vans or any of their other licensees.
Mobile apps have acted as brand marketing for years now. Nintendo was late to mobile, but as I said before, they know exactly what they're doing when using their own platforms and other licensees to cross-promote their products. They've been doing it for decades.-
Nintendo's market cap has exploded because this is highly unlike anything Nintendo has done in the past. Likewise there's a reason they were so late to do this. It's because this is completely unlike what they've done in the past with what platforms get to run their IP. Whether as lead generation or as a first class platform this is an enormous difference from their previous strategies. Nintendo could've been doing the same kind of lead generation with PC games or Xbox games, but they never did (and for fine reasons). Now the question is how much they actually embrace mobile.
-
With Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem coming up I'd say they'll be embracing it just fine. They're going to limit their mobile games to what works well with touch and short play sessions. Wario Ware and Rhythm Heaven would be perfect since they're both very simple, require very limited input (literally one button in most cases), and they could easily be free-to-play. If Nintendo wanted to revive Brain Training and Nintendogs they could do that too, although that might be pointless since there are so many clones in those genres now.
They won't be putting mainline games that require physical controls though. Its just not happening due to much heavier demands of the player in every way. Mainstream mobile games are decidedly undemanding, and that's why in the end these ideally function as marketing to the more demanding games.
Again, its worked given the sales bump the 3DS Pokemon games have gotten, even after exhausting the core player base.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nintendo only owns 33% of The Pokemon Company. TBC can do whatever the fuck they want with Pokemon. Nintendo doesn't deserve credit here.
-
-
-
-
-
me too. I've been wrong twice. Wonder if I'm wrong now.
-
Probably.
-
-
Hasn't even launched in Asia or Europe yet... i wonder if it will continue to climb when other markets get into Pokemon Go.
-
Depends on how fast they fix their server issues and whether the game proves to have legs or not.
-
-
-
-
-
It is playing catch up to the move in the US.
-
Still a jump, NTDOY closed at 27.7
-
Yeah. I mean the tracking error is the best part of playing this stock. NTDOY did trade around 28 for most of the day. I saw huge blocks trading hands. 20,000 shares, 60,000 shares, definitely some institutional money getting in. The stock is so illiquid that when it happens the share price is prone to going parabolic. We may have seen that in the US on Monday. It will be interesting to see how the stock trades for the rest of the week.
9.77 million shares of NTDOY traded Monday.
Average daily volume over the last 3 months:
232,000 shares
[LOL]
There is a such thing as buyer's capitulation. I am not saying that we saw it in Nintendo, but I would not be chasing this move from a trader's perspective.-
Totally. I wouldn't be trading it either. Still a long hold for me even though I'm worried about the NX.
-
-
7 shares of the ADR
-
-
LOL whoops
-
-
Nah, I am good :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
pokemon go apparently has a huge potential revenue stream that no one's had success with yet:
pizzeria owner spent $10 buying "lures modules" for his restaurant, had 30% spike in sales over the weekend:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-11/pok-mon-go-brings-real-money-to-random-bars-and-pizzerias
has the potential to deliver where beacons failed. It's easy to imagine a developer selling ads within the game world to local merchants, or even auctioning off the promise to turn specific shops and restaurants into destinations for players.
stock might still have plenty of gas left.-
I don't doubt it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How the fuck is this app so popular? I've tried to "play" it twice now and the app has crashed at least 6 times, logged me out 3-4 times and failed to register a caught pokeman at least 3 other times. Battery saving mode doesn't work at all, every time I've tried to use it the app becomes completely unresponsive when it "wakes" back up. Just a streaming pile of fail from a technology perspective.
Not to mention the game mechanics were barely explained and I had to Google a ton of shit to even figure out what to do. That people are actually continuing to play despite all that is really amazing. -
INSANE! Man too bad I don't have any Nintendo stock :(
Good for them they deserve it, pretty awesome. I still can't believe the numbers that is just incredible.
Man if the NX is what I think it will be things could go through the roof with the stock, then you have Zelda and who knows what else next year.
I can't wait to see what happens next year.
-
