news


Niantic’s Harry Potter launches but remains in Pokémon Go’s shadow

Harry Potter: Wizards Unite is up-and-running, but its dash from the starting line is no-where near as fast as Niantic’s gold standard, Pokémon Go.

Few would have predicted the roaring success of Pokémon Go. Most would have assumed it would have done well, but the sustained acceleration of downloads and revenues came as a surprise to most. Even now, almost three years after the launch of the game, Niantic is still hoovering up the cash; the first quarter of 2019 brought in an estimated $205 million; it left a lot for Harry Potter to live up to.

But if you are expecting new records to be broken, you might feel a little bit underwhelmed.

This is not to say Harry Potter: Wizards Unite is not doing well. Most app developers would sell their left leg for the numbers being reported over this weekend. According to estimates from Sensor Tower, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite was downloaded three million times over the opening weekend, bringing in $1.1 million in player spending. Projections for the first month stand at roughly $10 million.

For a single title, most developers would be thrilled by this, but Niantic will always have the Pokémon Go comparisons to deal with.

During the first four days of Pokémon Go, Niantic boasted 24 million downloads and player spending of $28 million. In the first month, player spending reached $206 million and downloads were almost 173 million. Realistically, Harry was always going to struggle to meet these expectations. But that is not to say it won’t be a success.

Your correspondent downloaded the game over the weekend and has been playing around with it over the last few days, and it is pretty good. The experience is better than Pokemon Go, the AR is closer to what many would expect and there is more of a story involved.

There are a few issues, though many of these would have been expected. Heavy data consumption should be expected, your correspondent used 636 MB in the first two days and wasn’t using it as much as most would. Battery life also takes a notable kick, five hours was knocked off what was to be expected on the device in question. Both of these factors might have a notable impact on how much users are using the game in the long-run.

But why has Harry Potter: Wizards Unite fallen short on the lofty goals? We suspect the nostalgia factor is the biggest contributor.

Firstly, lets have a look at the audience. Pokémon came into existence in 1996 primarily targeted at children, however even in the early days there was popularity with those in their 20s. Those who played the original games are 23 years older, though the TV series also proved to be incredibly popular across the world, running from 1997 through to today. There will be millions who are in their 20s, 30s and 40s who would have watched the show and felt the nostalgia bug when the game was launched almost three years ago.

The first Harry Potter title was released in 1997, though perhaps did not reach the peak of its fandom for a decade. During the 00s, the final books were being released and the films were taking the franchise to new audiences. Harry Potter remains popular today, but the core audiences are younger due to the longer period of time it took the spark to grow into a flame.

In short, the nostalgia bug bit for more people in control of credit cards for Pokémon Go than with Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. Many of those downloading the Harry Potter title today will have to ask permission from parents to make purchases, whereas we suspect a much higher proportion of those with Pokémon Go can make their own financial decisions.

Looking at statistics revealed by Survey Monkey a few months after Pokémon Go was released, 71% of players were aged between 18 and 50. The comparative numbers have not been revealed for Harry Potter: Wizards Unite just yet, but we suspect they will be a lot younger. For the final two films of the Harry Potter series, 56% and 55% were over the age of 25, but the books are designed for teenagers.

Secondly, we are going to have a look at the global appeal of both titles.

Although both are incredibly popular throughout the world, one originated in the UK and the other in Japan. Due to the fact the Pokémon TV series was animated, dubbing into new languages would have been much simpler, increasing the accessibility of the content. The TV series is available in 169 countries around the world, while the Harry Potter book series has been translated into 80 different languages.

Harry Potter is very popular in the likes of Japan, South Korea and China, though we suspect it does not exceed the popularity of Pokemon at its prime. This will have a translation into the nostalgia effect which drove the initial adoption of Pokémon Go and the continued success today. Let’s not forget, the US and Asia are the two biggest regions for gaming revenues and perhaps these markets favour the Pokemon brand over Harry Potter.

We confident the Harry Potter game will be a success, but it isn’t able to tap into the nostalgia effect of the right audiences. With the brand continuing to be more relevant than Pokemon is today, see the theme parks and sustained popularity of the movies, it will bring in revenues but perhaps not on the same scale in the short- to mid-term as Pokémon Go.

What we are less confident about is the impact this will have on the normalisation of AR in the entertainment world as a direct result. Yes, it will have an incremental impact and open the eyes of some, but we doubt this will be a watershed moment for the technology.

That said, we do not believe there will ever be a watershed moment for AR. This is likely to be a technology which gathers momentum slowly, gradually being introduced as additional features in every day life. Before we know it, AR will be everywhere, and we’ll wonder where it came from.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Events

There are no upcoming events.

Polls

Should privacy be treated as a right to protect stringently, or a commodity for users to trade for benefits?

Loading ... Loading ...