Nintendo Coming to Universal Parks

[DoubleJ]

^ Too, when I was afforded views of "certain things" months ago, I was perplexed so I looked up super mario on youtube. The listings go on and on and on and on! And the number of views per video! Hoy! It was only then that I realized how super popular the IP is. It's overwhelming.

I, myself, have probably added about 10,000 total views to "Mario" vids on YT.

 

[DoubleJ]

Take Mickey Mouse. He's perhaps the biggest cultural icon in America (Heck, foreigners use Mickey Mouse to protest American imperialism). Yet, if Disney opened a quality-land based solely around Mickey, I couldn't see it doing very well.

 

[Yabbadabba Doh]

Take Mickey Mouse. He's perhaps the biggest cultural icon in America (Heck, foreigners use Mickey Mouse to protest American imperialism). Yet, if Disney opened a quality-land based solely around Mickey, I couldn't see it doing very well.

I guess we will see how popular he is as an "attraction" if they end up carrying out the plan to convert GMR in DHS to a mickey themed dark ride.

 

[ArchieAndrews]

Take Mickey Mouse. He's perhaps the biggest cultural icon in America (Heck, foreigners use Mickey Mouse to protest American imperialism). Yet, if Disney opened a quality-land based solely around Mickey, I couldn't see it doing very well.

I think that more lends itself to the Universe not being the focal point of Mickey, it's more him as a character that attracts people.

That's why earlier I was expressing that I feel that Zelda would lend itself to the best land, because the world is super atmospheric, massive and filled with lore.

 

[amityboattours]

I just hope that we don't lose sight of one thing... That it was all started with a mushroom.

 

[DoubleJ]

I guess we will see how popular he is as an "attraction" if they end up carrying out the plan to convert GMR in DHS to a mickey themed dark ride.

My hope is that Disney is doing that to increase guest satisfaction (and better utilization of their resources), not attendance. Because that ride isn't going to bring an ounce of new guests to the park. APers, maybe, but that's it.

 

[quinnmac000]

There are three things that all Universal newly successful lands have: the characters, the location, and the food. Simpsons is huge because they have what (FOOD, Ride, characters)....Potter has (food, ride characters).

Anything Nintendo related wil have to have those three things...which almost every single nintendo IP has. So I think while we sit here saying hey this will be better than that. Its the full spectrum of what an IP has will be why its chosen instead of what the IP itself is. I mean isn't that part of the reason why Universal passed on Avatar and just wanted it as a ride and not a land?

 

[Tobias]

The problem I can potentially see with Nintendo is a desire to go to a theme park based upon it. Disney's Avatar expansion and Nintendo, IMO, have countless similarities. Both, IMO, will be a success or failure based upon how well they are executed, not on the back of the IP.

In my personal experiences, the potential problem you're thinking of really isn't there. I've been talking with a good amount of friends and family who're not really in the loop about theme parks (They can be considered General Public about it.), and when I mentioned that Universal is getting a Nintendo Land, their general reaction is "When does it open?!". I didn't even say what the land has, I just mentioned Nintendo Land and they're excited. (In comparison, whenever I mentioned Avatar at Disney the reactions ranged from "That's nice" to "Why?")

When you have one of the most iconic video game companies getting a land, people are going to get excited.

I think all you need to see is the reaction Miyamoto and Super Mario RUN got at the Apple conference the other week or the reaction to Pokémon GO to know that people are definitely fond of the Nintendo properties

Another thing to add is the reaction from Tokyo's presentation at the Rio's closing ceremonies, everybody went nuts when the Prime Minister warp piped there.

 

[DoubleJ]

In my personal experiences, the potential problem you're thinking of really isn't there. I've been talking with a good amount of friends and family who're not really in the loop about theme parks (They can be considered General Public about it.), and when I mentioned that Universal is getting a Nintendo Land, their general reaction is "When does it open?!". I didn't even say what the land has, I just mentioned Nintendo Land and they're excited. (In comparison, whenever I mentioned Avatar at Disney the reactions ranged from "That's nice" to "Why?")

When you have one of the most iconic video game companies getting a land, people are going to get excited.

Weird...I always get the EXACT oppsite reaction. I'm glad you've been getting this.

 

[Mike S]

Well kids love Mickey Mouse too. I'd honestly say Mario is more loved as a character than the systems his games are on now a days. Not to discredit the Mario games, but I think a large portion of those games is loved because of the character attached to them. I think he fits that kind of role better than anybody in Avatar (and arguably Harry Potter) could.

Also if we're talking about in general with Nintendo, Pikachu fits the role of what you're talking about perfectly. People love Pikachu, a lot do even if they aren't even Pokemon fans or aware of the series really. He's pretty recognizable.

Minor edit. The problem rests in Nintendo's hardware mistakes more than anything. The Wii U more than the 3DS as well since that still sold pretty great as a dedicated portable considering the rise of smart devices. Hopefully the NX is able to capture a lot more attention than the Wii U did.

I just hope that we don't lose sight of one thing... That it was all started by a Gorilla.

There are three things that all Universal newly successful lands have: the characters, the location, and the food. Simpsons is huge because they have what (FOOD, Ride, characters)....Potter has (food, ride characters).

Anything Nintendo related wil have to have those three things...which almost every single nintendo IP has. So I think while we sit here saying hey this will be better than that. Its the full spectrum of what an IP has will be why its chosen instead of what the IP itself is. I mean isn't that part of the reason why Universal passed on Avatar and just wanted it as a ride and not a land?

They can get pretty creative with some food items for Nintendo. Power-Up pastries with different flavors depending on what it is, Zelda potions, DK banana stuff, various other fruit based concoctions for Yoshi, etc.

 

[Blue]

Take Mickey Mouse. He's perhaps the biggest cultural icon in America (Heck, foreigners use Mickey Mouse to protest American imperialism). Yet, if Disney opened a quality-land based solely around Mickey, I couldn't see it doing very well.

A bit different because Mickey has been in the parks for as long as they've been open. There's no pent up hype or excitement for Mickey because him and his friends have been there forever. Mario on the other hand has never been in theme parks before and has been around for more than 30 years now.

With over 500 million video games sold, it's pretty obvious that Mario is huge. Arguably just as big as Harry Potter and Star Wars imo.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Potter has still outsold Mario overall. Mario series sales are estimated at 400 million units, while Potter is around 450 million. Also, gaming is far more niche than reading, and it can be said that Harry Potter is the face of a generation of readers.



I don't see that, but this is a lot of speculation happening.

Mario is estimated at 528 million sales. That's more than Potter

 

[Brer Oswald]

I, myself, have probably added about 10,000 total views to "Mario" vids on YT.

Same here

 

[DoubleJ]

A bit different because Mickey has been in the parks for as long as they've been open. There's no pent up hype or excitement for Mickey because him and his friends have been there forever. Mario on the other hand has never been in theme parks before and has been around for more than 30 years now.

With over 500 million video games sold, it's pretty obvious that Mario is huge. Arguably just as big as Harry Potter and Star Wars imo.

The vast majority of people bought the Mario games because they have fun gaming dynamics. Not a beloved relationship with the characters, fascinating places, etc. We must also keep in mind that the total games sold is biased because a great deal of Nintendo console sales came bundled with Mario titles, thus making Mario appear to have greater demand than reality. There is a number of factors that make Mario games enjoyable, but I wonder how many people actually care to go to a land. My brother has practically invested half his life (bit of exaggeration, but you get the idea) playing video games with a good chunk playing Mario. When I asked him whether he would want to go to "Nintendo land", he said "Why? I'll get far more enjoyment from playing the games, than experiencing them." He didn't say this about the HP or SW lands. No matter how familiar the characters or number of sales, I remain unconvinced the IP is well-suited for a theme park presence.

Also, many seem to be confusing recognizability with popularity. Mario isn't the most popular video game character anymore and hasn't been for a long time. He remains, easily, the most recognizable (and in the same league as characters such as Pac-Man).

 

[Mike S]

The vast majority of people bought the Mario games because they have fun gaming dynamics. Not a beloved relationship with the characters, fascinating places, etc. We must also keep in mind that the total games sold is biased because a great deal of Nintendo console sales came bundled with Mario titles, thus making Mario appear to have greater demand than reality. There is a number of factors that make Mario games enjoyable, but I wonder how many people actually care to go to a land. My brother has practically invested half his life (bit of exaggeration, but you get the idea) playing video games with a good chunk playing Mario. When I asked him whether he would want to go to "Nintendo land", he said "Why? I'll get far more enjoyment from playing the games, than experiencing them." He didn't say this about the HP or SW lands. No matter how familiar the characters or number of sales, I remain unconvinced the IP is well-suited for a theme park presence.

FYI, it was a huge deal when this was announced. Yes there are people that won't care but the same can be said for anything else in life. Even Star Wars and Harry Potter.

People will come for this. Maybe not as many, but they will come nonetheless.

 

[fryoj]

Mario is estimated at 528 million sales. That's more than Potter

If you want to ignore the $7 billion + in movie tickets sold.... sure.

 

[DoubleJ]

If you want to ignore the $7 billion + in movie tickets sold.... sure.

To be fair, $7 billion is the number of tickets sold multiplied by the price of each ticket. 528 million is the number of Mario games sold, not counting price, though it obviously includes the games that came bundled with the Nintendo consoles which gives it an unfair advantage in some ways (virtually every NES sold came bundled with Super Mario Bros., thus why that game is still the best "selling" Mario title with 40 million or so units "sold"). When you consider that even the cheapest Mario games sell for at least $20 (I think I'm being generous to Potter here too), Mario makes Potter look like the boy who died. But, for a 100% fair comparison, one should compare the total franchise value (books, movies, games, merchandise, etc.), in that case Potter is leaps and bounds ahead of the famed Italian plumber (by roughly $10 billion in franchise value).

 

[Teebin]

:blank:

 

[JungleSkip]

The vast majority of people bought the Mario games because they have fun gaming dynamics. Not a beloved relationship with the characters, fascinating places, etc. We must also keep in mind that the total games sold is biased because a great deal of Nintendo console sales came bundled with Mario titles, thus making Mario appear to have greater demand than reality. There is a number of factors that make Mario games enjoyable, but I wonder how many people actually care to go to a land. My brother has practically invested half his life (bit of exaggeration, but you get the idea) playing video games with a good chunk playing Mario. When I asked him whether he would want to go to "Nintendo land", he said "Why? I'll get far more enjoyment from playing the games, than experiencing them." He didn't say this about the HP or SW lands. No matter how familiar the characters or number of sales, I remain unconvinced the IP is well-suited for a theme park presence.

Also, many seem to be confusing recognizability with popularity. Mario isn't the most popular video game character anymore and hasn't been for a long time. He remains, easily, the most recognizable (and in the same league as characters such as Pac-Man).

:shh:

 

[Brer Oswald]

If you want to ignore the $7 billion + in movie tickets sold.... sure.

True, but so far, Mario has only been prominent in 1 medium, games, compared to Potter's three. This will soon change with the Nintendo theme park and movie deals. Most people have the misconception that Mario CAN'T tell a good story. The developers just choose not to for the main games so they can focus on the gameplay. If you guys are in doubt, look at the RPGs. I think the days of genetic Mario is over. Besides, they can literally take Mario anywhere from here, while Potter is confined to a 7 part series.