Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession • Hacker News Board

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#151

Post by donkeyd » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:05 AM UTC

Sephiroth87 wrote: post #145

chatmasta wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nintendo is not the creator of the Pokemon Go game. Niantic (spelling?) licenses the Pokemon brand from Nintendo. So in this case the comparison is not between selling in-app coins vs games. It's between licensing IP to the company that sells coins, vs selling games.

Technically Nintendo is not even the full owner of Pokemon, that would be The Pokemon Company [1], which is only partially owned by Nintendo [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pokémon_Company

Yet Nintendo market cap gained 7 billion on Pokemon Go alone. I wonder if these investors really have no idea that the tech behind the game is Niantic and that Pokemon isn't even completely owned by Nintendo, or that there's something I'm missing here.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#152

Post by kalleboo » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:09 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #142

kalleboo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that depend on if they can make money on this model? This is a 126-year-old business, not a startup that's starving for "eyeballs" to increase their VC valuation. Selling hardware and $60 games could be a better (and more long-term) business than selling in-app "coins". (Or not!) I guess we'll see now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nintendo is not the creator of the Pokemon Go game. Niantic (spelling?) licenses the Pokemon brand from Nintendo. So in this case the comparison is not between selling in-app coins vs games. It's between licensing IP to the company that sells coins, vs selling games.

That's true. (for those who don't know, Niantic is the Google spinoff also responsible for Ingress).

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#153

Post by avree » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:09 AM UTC

pferde wrote: post #90

avree wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I think of Imgur, I think of 1) first 'decent' image host in a dark time, 2) terrible policies/management.

You mean "decent" as in "can't even show a plain image file without javascript"? Puh-lease.

I mean "decent" as in "It was better than the other options at the time" - Photobucket, etc.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#154

Post by intoverflow2 » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:09 AM UTC

donkeyd wrote: post #151

Sephiroth87 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically Nintendo is not even the full owner of Pokemon, that would be The Pokemon Company [1], which is only partially owned by Nintendo [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pokémon_Company

Yet Nintendo market cap gained 7 billion on Pokemon Go alone. I wonder if these investors really have no idea that the tech behind the game is Niantic and that Pokemon isn't even completely owned by Nintendo, or that there's something I'm missing here.

The tech is the least important part of this whole thing.

It's not successful because it's particularly innovative or a fancy piece of tech, it's a success because it's pokemon.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#155

Post by donkeyd » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:10 AM UTC

merb wrote: post #139

kalleboo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that depend on if they can make money on this model? This is a 126-year-old business, not a startup that's starving for "eyeballs" to increase their VC valuation. Selling hardware and $60 games could be a better (and more long-term) business than selling in-app "coins". (Or not!) I guess we'll see now.

I will never buy any in App Coin, but I have a lot of consoles + games from nintendo. Even the 'New 3DS'.

I used to live by the same principles, viewing in-app-purchases as something that's always bad. I have now, though, decided that I will decide what value a game has to me and will probably spend that amount on in-app-purchases. If the game has purchases that I think are worth it though. In Pokemon Go i haven't found them worth it yet, but that may come later.

Also, I think a game shouldn't impose too many boundaries when not buying anything in-game. So I won't buy off timers that essentially break the game (i.e. Candy Crush, though I never played that, so I might be wrong). I will, however pay for something to get that instant gratification of speeding up a timer that isn't game breaking.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#156

Post by ajkjk » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:10 AM UTC

donkeyd wrote: post #151

Sephiroth87 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically Nintendo is not even the full owner of Pokemon, that would be The Pokemon Company [1], which is only partially owned by Nintendo [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pokémon_Company

Yet Nintendo market cap gained 7 billion on Pokemon Go alone. I wonder if these investors really have no idea that the tech behind the game is Niantic and that Pokemon isn't even completely owned by Nintendo, or that there's something I'm missing here.

Why is that weird? Investors just got proof that there's a lot of new untapped potential in the Pokemon brand.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#157

Post by jomamaxx » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:11 AM UTC

etatoby wrote: post #147

jomamaxx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from some basic benefits, it mostly encourages people to make judgements about important things ('human relationships') based on the most absolutely material, fleeting and trivial physical elements. Especially given the magnitude of 'choice', it commoditizes people. Even worse, it normalizes this behaviour. Far from connecting us, it actually disconnects us. Talking recently to a female friend recently who is o…

> absolutely material, fleeting and trivial physical elements What would those be? Whether they find the potential date attractive in the first place? Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Making a snap decision about a person based on a 1/2 second assertion.

Of course, looks matter. We make such 'snap decisions' all day long. The problem is, absent anything else, that's the entire decision. In the real world, personality goes a much longer way than the 1000 words in a photo.

At least most online dating apps try to develop and communicate a sense of who you are, which in some cases, they do very well.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#158

Post by donkeyd » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:13 AM UTC

intoverflow2 wrote: post #154

donkeyd wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet Nintendo market cap gained 7 billion on Pokemon Go alone. I wonder if these investors really have no idea that the tech behind the game is Niantic and that Pokemon isn't even completely owned by Nintendo, or that there's something I'm missing here.

The tech is the least important part of this whole thing. It's not successful because it's particularly innovative or a fancy piece of tech, it's a success because it's pokemon.

Yet I've seen a lot of comments of people who really enjoy the augmented reality part of it, which was inherited largely from Ingress. Sure, the Pokemon IP is a huge part of the reason it took off. But the reason people actually like it is much bigger than that.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#159

Post by herbst » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:13 AM UTC

tomtoise wrote: post #148

herbst wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was super excited but then pretty fast realized that: a) its the same as ingress. With all but even more of the annoying bugs. b) It eats even more battery than ingress c) Its purely pay to win. I could have lived with free 2 play and buying some special or cosmetic items. But not selling essential items ... Currently i mostly wonder why people don't care about that. I hate playing games where other players can jus…

>I hate playing games where other players can just spend $10 and overtake hours worth of skilling. But you can't. Not really. I guess it's location-dependant but if you live anywhere near a student campus or town there are literally tens of pokestops in a short 10min walk. My SO has got from level 1-11 without spending a penny, just by incorporating more pokestops into her little 'route' she has going. Added to that,…

That says nothing except that its easy to get started. The strategie may is to catch players 3-5 days in who already need more than a day intensive work for a single level.

Dont get me wrong. I was niantic fan from beginning, one of the first Ingress players, probably even the first in my country. I really appreciate what they are doing.

I just simply refuse to touch pay 2 win games as they always get frustrating at some point.

Re: Pokémon GO: The Data Behind America’s Latest Obsession

#160

Post by avree » Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 11:13 AM UTC

donkeyd wrote: post #151

Sephiroth87 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically Nintendo is not even the full owner of Pokemon, that would be The Pokemon Company [1], which is only partially owned by Nintendo [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pokémon_Company

Yet Nintendo market cap gained 7 billion on Pokemon Go alone. I wonder if these investors really have no idea that the tech behind the game is Niantic and that Pokemon isn't even completely owned by Nintendo, or that there's something I'm missing here.

Pokemon Go is magnitudes larger than Ingress, their previous project, even though it's been plagued with more issues than Ingress and is arguably not as fully featured.

The difference?

Pokemon, which Nintendo owns.

If I was an investor, I'd view the potential for licensing the Nintendo IP (something Nintendo has been extremely reluctant to do in the past) as a huge potential growth vector for a struggling market segment (consoles, specifically Nintendo-made ones.)