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.
Nothing new, no? Here's a very small list of multi-platform games that had Nintendo exclusive content on the Nintendo platform release.
Soul Calibur II, 2002. (Link)
NBA Street V3, 2005. (Mario & crew)
SSX On Tour, 2005. (Mario & crew)
Scribblenaughts Unlimited, 2012. (Mario & Link)
Rayman Legends, 2013. (Mario clothes)
Tekken Tag Tournament 2, 2013. (Mario Clothes)
Starlink, 2018. (Starfox)
Minecraft, 2017. (Mario & crew)
Nothing new, no? Here's a very small list of multi-platform games that had Nintendo exclusive content on the Nintendo platform release.
Soul Calibur II, 2002. (Link)
NBA Street V3, 2005. (Mario & crew)
SSX On Tour, 2005. (Mario & crew)
Scribblenaughts Unlimited, 2012. (Mario & Link)
Rayman Legends, 2013. (Mario clothes)
Tekken Tag Tournament 2, 2013. (Mario Clothes)
Starlink, 2018. (Starfox)
Minecraft, 2017. (Mario & crew)
Nothing new, no? Here's a very small list of multi-platform games that had Nintendo exclusive content on the Nintendo platform release.
Soul Calibur II, 2002. (Link)
NBA Street V3, 2005. (Mario & crew)
SSX On Tour, 2005. (Mario & crew)
Scribblenaughts Unlimited, 2012. (Mario & Link)
Rayman Legends, 2013. (Mario clothes)
Tekken Tag Tournament 2, 2013. (Mario Clothes)
Starlink, 2018. (Starfox)
Minecraft, 2017. (Mario & crew)
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.
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".Because people's reason for "thinking it is stupid" is stupid? Nintendo is a extreme successful company with one of well known library of IPs. But for some reasons people here do not think, it because of all the way Nintendo handles and restricts there IP. They are not perfect, but they seen to most of the time know, what they are doing. So just calling it "stupid" sounds very narrow minded.
"They are stupid." isn't an explanation or actually criticism, it's a feeling. You feel like its stupid.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".
A huge key to their success is the handling of their IP and their characters.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".
Not everything needs to be in Fortnite. It actually bothers me more seeing Aang running shooting people with a gun
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.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.
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.
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.Even more a reason to not put that IP in Fortnite.
Again..I am not against Fortnite!
But Samus, as a skin, does not fit in Fortnite for me. Also, not everything hast to be everywhere all the time.
Seeing Kratos with guns running around, was cringe for me.
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.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, 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.
"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.
To reiterate, Samus wouldve likely been in the game, the problem was her being visible in the game on other systems.I mean... good? I actually like that Nintendo has some fucking pride in their work and valuable IP's like this.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.Shitty reason. Microsoft and Sony played ball no problem as well as many other franchises from different studios.
lmfaoGood.
Imagine brand exposure to a younger generation that doesn't know Metroid and could convert as potential players? That would be soooo dumb.
Easy. Samus would have both her hands available.I'm less concerned with what Nintendo would gain from being in Fortnite and more concerned with how Samus would even hold the guns.
And no, I don't think anyone wants Zero Suit as the only skin.
With how much time and attention Fortnite demands I really doubt it sends a lot of mindshare anywhere else.Good.
Imagine brand exposure to a younger generation that doesn't know Metroid and could convert as potential players? That would be soooo dumb.
To increase awareness to character and boost popularity? Might had been a good marketing move IF there was a new metroid game coming out.This is obvious and makes sense. Why would Nintendo ever want you playing with even a skin of their character on a competitors system is what epic should have asked themselves immediately.
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.
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.lmfao
its insane that some people are arguing literally with this argument
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.
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.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.
Other than reiterating that Nintendo is rich, what does any of this have to do with the argument you're responding to?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)?
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.
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.Other than reiterating that Nintendo is rich, what does any of this have to do with the argument you're responding to?
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.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.
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.)
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Oh my God, thank you for saying this.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.