84
Samus didn’t appear in Fortnite because Nintendo wanted her to be a Switch exclusive
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
84 points (96.7% liked)
Games
16806 readers
997 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Common Nintendo L, proving to be the most anti-consumer company in gaming.
For this?! Hahaha
Ah, Nintendo fans.
Yes, this. Nintendo needs to stop locking their decent to good software behind awfully underpowered hardware. Its anti-consumer, and this is part of that. They wanted it to be like Rocket League, where some consumers can only access some content because they paid for the plastic box with Nintendos name on it. I dont care what the content is, that's anti-consumer, plain and simple.
You're not entitled to play Samus in Fortnite. Nintendo owns the IP and they get to set the rules on how their characters and trademarks are used.
Is it technically anti-consumer? I guess? However, if you're going to stretch the idea of anti-consumerism that far, then literally any form of exclusivity is anti-consumer. You could argue that remasters are anti-consumer because people have to pay for the game a second time, regardless of how much work was put into said remaster. You could even argue that it's anti-consumerist for an artist to pick and choose who they work for.
Nintendo is not obligated to share or license their IP to anyone.
At the end of the day, it's their loss. They could have made buckets of cash from licensing Samus for Fortnite, but decided not to. That's their choice. They can make that decision. They are not obligated to share or license their IP any more than you're required to share or license the macaroni art you did in kindergarten.
You are not entitled to play Samus in Fortnite.
I'm not much of a fan of Metroid. I have never played Fortnite.
I think this is a dumb thing for Nintendo to do, because it's going to do two things among a fairly young gaming demographic. It's going to send the message that Nintendo properties are absolutely not for having fun with. And it's going to cut off a perfectly free source of advertising.
"Hey cool skin, who is that?" "Samus, from Metroid." "Metroid? What's that?" "A sci-fi series from Nintendo, it's pretty cool."
Now, Nintendo had a girl swatted for drawing Pokemon fan art, so I'm never going to be a customer of theirs ever again. I can never forgive Nintendo for that. So.
I feel like you're both right. It's not anti-consumer in the sense of ethics and actual consumerism (you know, the normal definition); but it is kind of a fuck you to the consumers of Nintendo's stuff. They certainly seem like they actively hate their fans with the choices they make, and this is no exception. Especially since even if they got their way, people would still be pissed.