Iron inside their heads.
A little bit of visibility (and royalties) would do great to the character.
A little bit of visibility (and royalties) would do great to the character.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Stephen Totilo] Samus Aran never made it into Fortnite because Nintendo only wanted the skin available for Nintendo Switch users
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
This feels like non-news, this is how Nintendo's always approached this sort of thing. If anything the news is Epic saying "nah forget it", though I'm not entirely surprised by that either (it's consistent with Epic's ego in recent years, and also it's the right choice for the game too).
If anything the Fortnite skin conversation I want to know more about is how they managed to get Marvel and DC characters side-by-side. Wonder if that threw up any issues.
If anything the Fortnite skin conversation I want to know more about is how they managed to get Marvel and DC characters side-by-side. Wonder if that threw up any issues.
So? It's archaic practices.Your latest example is from 2018. It's 2024, six years later. Nintendo needs to keep up with the times. This is 🗑️
Add the Mario, Luigi and Samus cars in Rocket League wich, coincidentially, is an Epic exclusive. However, said cars are unlocked by default.
My guess is that Epic wanted to sell that Skin, and Nintendo's negative to non exclusivity ruffled their feathers.
Don't forget the GCN version of Fight Night Round 2 with "Little Mac"
(good lord lol)
I need to "put it out there" that I feel somewhat embarrassed I didn't know of the sequence of corporate events from RL releasing, becoming the PUBG/Fortnite/whatever of its time, then going through that whole process until Epic's purchase.
But then I shouldn't have to feel this way, either.
Their success doesn't make every isolated decision immune from criticism. And you're not explaining why it isn't outside of "trust them bro, they're rich".
"They are stupid." isn't an explanation or actually criticism, it's a feeling. You feel like its stupid.
I don't say, there immun from criticism, but completely dissmising an decision from a very successful company and labeling as "stupid", doesn't sound like people want to think or learn about the decision at hand. Just express there negative feelings about it. It is just over the top jumping to conclusion.
Nintendo make a lot of bad decisions, but I can't find a way to care about this. If they don't want their characters in Fortnite unless they're exclusive to a Nintendo console, that's okay. Not everything needs to be in Fortnite.
Not everything needs to be in Fortnite. It actually bothers me more seeing Aang running shooting people with a gun
A huge key to their success is the handling of their IP and their characters.
They have a department within their HQ that analysis and approves how their IP and characters are handled and licensed. Through agreements with food companies, toy companies, clothing companies and beyond.
Nintendo are hugely protective of their characters and the public absolutely adore their characters. The Mario movie made over $1.3 billion at the box office in less than a year. It's not a particularly outstanding film, but it's Mario.
Even when Nintendo were not ruling the roost in the video game hardware sales they still this 'no Nintendo characters on other systems' policy. Because that's just how passionate they feel about their characters.
They want Nintendo characters to only be controlled on Nintendo hardware. It's all part of Nintendo's plan to get as many people playing Nintendo games on Nintendo machines. Even their iOS/Android games were made to bring folk over to the Nintendo Switch. However the success of Fire Emblem Heroes was something that even Nintendo didn't expect.
This conversation isn't about that it's about how much I can derive out of this response into calling you a fanboy who only likes playing a ~40 yo franchise by the appropriate rights holder.
Not sure there is a convo about that. Disney did deals cause the game was big. You had a fucking canon Star Wars event in Fortnite. Warner saw that came to the party last.
Most likely yeah, just interesting because it was sooooooo long between that and... I think JLA/Avengers was the last time those brands overlapped? So about 20-ish years? Obviously the smart move for both parties (and Epic ofc).
The thing about Fortnite is that you can literally put any character in there. Like even the alien from Alien is playable alongside Korra, Kratos and Master Chief.
There's a level of comedy to it that you can't find anywhere else if only because of how polished Fortnite is compared to other BR games. So you unironically will get things like a stormtrooper using ODM gear from AoT alongside a lightsaber and somehow that experience is more polished than if you were to actually play an official AoT game.
I'm on Nintendo's side here.
If I was Mr Nintendo and Epic came into my office and asked to give Samus a gun I'd have laughed them out of the room. She has an arm cannon, why would she need a gun?
Now, if they asked for DK instead, who we all know has dealt with firearms, I may have been willing to listen.
If I was Mr Nintendo and Epic came into my office and asked to give Samus a gun I'd have laughed them out of the room. She has an arm cannon, why would she need a gun?
Now, if they asked for DK instead, who we all know has dealt with firearms, I may have been willing to listen.
This, some of these posts come from users that don't even enter any Nintendo related topic unless if its related to some controversial one, like this one.
All this just to say, that's how they've always done things and they're rich.
Like, do I need to be told for the 1000th time the Mario movie made money a lot of money in a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Not a single a thing you just said would be undone by this.
Like I said some people just take criticism toward a company they like more personally.
You don't even know what my thoughts are on this, I've only pushed back on the spotty logic some people used.
Like I said, It's their IP, their decision. People can like or dislike it or call it stupid or spend their time rationalizing it.
To reiterate, Samus wouldve likely been in the game, the problem was her being visible in the game on other systems.
Do we see the difference between "we don't want Samus in Fortnite" and "we don't want Samus in Fortnite viewable on other systems"? The latter is what's being criticized.
Fair enough.
Honestly, I'm just glad she didn't end up in the game one way or another. I absolutely feel that it would have cheapened her character and respective IP to some extent. That's how I feel about anything that gets crammed into the Frankenstein that is Fortnite to me, though.
But I'm also probably in the minority here in that I actually think exclusivity and trying to maintain a consistent, distinctive platform personality is actually a good thing. I wish we had more console exclusives these days like we used to, because at least back then each console felt more distinct from one another as a result. Please don't burn me alive for that.
I don't know why you quoted me specifically, but i checked some users who called out the "stupid and f**k Nintendo" posts and they have no interest about Nintendo whatsoever according to their History here.
I just think games being more accessible to more people by appearing on as many platforms as possible is generally a good thing for consumers. Like why do I care that someone else gets to experience the same cool shit I did even though they own a different platform?
Sony wasn't even allowing crossplay, blocked cross logins, and even after allowing crossplay they are still currently charging a tax to developers just to allow crossplay on their games.
Honestly, I don't know Nintendo's policies that well so news like this is a bit surprising for me.
lmfao
its insane that some people are arguing literally with this argument
And have an integrated emote where she would pull her handcannon out of her suit and strike a pose with it. The handcannon would vanish after the emote and the character would lose nothing iconic in the process.
They don't need Epic's corny asses.
With how much time and attention Fortnite demands I really doubt it sends a lot of mindshare anywhere else.
I think in order to show who's in charge of the industry, Nintendo'd rather host a Fortnite character in Smash than the opposite.
It's really weird how people come into threads like this and either A. Defend said company with their life, or B. State the obvious like they're uncovering some great mystery about how Nintendo operates and they need to make sure we know lol.
To those stating the obvious, what are you contributing to the discussion? Why not actually engage and let people know what you think instead of parroting something everyone already knows? It's ok for people to state disappointment with decisions Nintendo makes.
To those stating the obvious, what are you contributing to the discussion? Why not actually engage and let people know what you think instead of parroting something everyone already knows? It's ok for people to state disappointment with decisions Nintendo makes.
I think there's a decent likelihood that from Nintendo's perspective, this arrangement wouldn't be primarily about advertising Metroid to Fortnite players, it would be about advertising Fortnite to Nintendo fans. Given that context, Nintendo's rationale for their policies are self-evident.
To increase awareness to character and boost popularity? Might had been a good marketing move IF there was a new metroid game coming out.
Ah yes, the fledgling little "Fornight" game. So tiny in the hobby and if only they could gain exposure if they were permitted to use Nintendo's blockbuster breakout hit in 2024... Metroid.
(Which is to say if Nintendo actually believed this, they would be working on a nonsensical premise.)
Because it's not that simple. Samus is in Smash, a series exclusively on Switch that sells tens of millions of units, does that help sales? If it does, it's extremely marginal: Metroidvanias are an extremely niche sector of gaming. Not at all clear that Samus skins in Fortnite does much of anything other than get some temporary publicity for the character. Tens of millions of gamers know who Samus is and most of those would never buy a Metroid game, it simply is what it is.
Nintendo is extremely careful with collaborations for a reason; they can afford to be. Switch is on the verge of becoming the #1 console of all time. They have nearly a dozen franchises that can easily move tens of millions of units, a situation that every other gaming company can only really dream of...
Does anybody else in gaming have a partner like Comcast (NBCUniversal) spending hundreds of millions of dollars on enormous theme park attractions for them across Asia and North America (and potentially the UK)? Those are physical IP attractions that will garner tens of millions of visits per year. Nobody else has anything close to that.
So yes, they can afford to be careful because they already have such a powerful internal ecosystem. Losing a collaboration like this arguably hurts Fortnite more than Nintendo because it directly impacts Fortnite whereas the benefits for Nintendo are considerably more circumstantial.
Last edited:
Again they have 0 problems with Fortnite, their problem is exclusively the other consoles
Losing Samus won't negatively impact the game that has Spider-Man, Darth Vader, Batman and Goku lol. The skin would probably sell less than Chun-Li and Leon Kennedy.
Other than reiterating that Nintendo is rich, what does any of this have to do with the argument you're responding to?
Mind the actual Fortnite themed Switch posted on this page already before going on more about careful collaborations.
I think the point is that Nintendo is wealthy as opposed to being rich; the difference is self-sustaining/self-generating enormous sums of money (wealthy) vs just having a ton of money (rich). Nintendo is already so "everywhere" that they don't need additional exposure.
They're probably the only collaborator that can take their ball and go home because they know the next Switch release will already have everyone's eyeballs given it'll be the successor to the #1 console of all time.
Right, but I'm just saying that MP4 would sell what, a dozen more units next year because of a Samus collaboration? Those games are extremely niche sellers, Nintendo already knows that; nothing can move the needle for those games unless they completely transform into something else like Zelda did with BOTW/TOTK.
You joke but that's probably not too far off from how Nintendo views their IP next to Fortnite. Justified or not.
Again they have 0 problems with Fortnite, their problem is exclusively the other consoles
Losing Samus won't negatively impact the game that has Spider-Man, Darth Vader, Batman and Goku lol. The skin would probably sell less than Chun-Li and Leon Kennedy.
I mean, that was kinda my point? Nintendo has no problem with Fortnite, they just have very strict controls on how their IP is used in cross-promotions and they obviously don't consider Fortnite an important enough platform to bend those controls, even for a relatively more niche character like Samus.
I think we all would love it if Metroid was more popular and this may have helped, but I don't think anyone can really argue much with how Nintendo continues to cultivate their own brand of exclusivity. Expecting them to deviate is just not very realistic.
Nintendo is like Disney in a lot of ways; they already have people coming to them for their character/IP experiences because they control the strongest group (Nintendo in gaming franchises, Disney in film franchises). They can be way more careful about sharing than say any other studio which really needs to work to get exposure.
It's worked for them for several decades, and arguably the Switch is the absolute apex of the strategy. Hard to see why they'd change anything when Switch and its software together form arguably the best selling gaming ecosystem ever.
With the Switch itself being an indicator of how much things can change in 10 years. But people just see that positively and assume it'll always be that way.
When they're working against normal advertising strategies that target adjacent audiences (esp. re: franchises that would benefit from increased exposure), it makes perfect sense to criticize it. "They always do this, which is why they do it, so why would they not do this" is circular reasoning, and might as well be nonsense in the context of actual discussion.
Oh my God, thank you for saying this.
It's like what's throughline? It's like Nintendo does X and then people work backwards to justify it instead of figuring out the path to how they got there.
It's like, Samus could've been put in the game and we'd be having same conversation explaining how Nintendo always did X which is why this is okay with like 75% of the posts being the same.