• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion [Stephen Totilo] Samus Aran never made it into Fortnite because Nintendo only wanted the skin available for Nintendo Switch users

SNP said:
Is this some kind of dejavu? I'm pretty sure I read about this a few years ago already, but somehow, it makes the news again.
Click to expand...
It was a rumour like 3yrs ago & now it’s been confirmed so we get to talk about it again.
I’m not really seeing an issue here with a company who has been pretty consistent with their IP enforcement. The reasons given for why this is a missed opportunity aren’t really that great nor do I think they necessarily move the needle for Nintendo in why they should include it in Fortnite, especially if not on their terms.
 
SNP said:
Is this some kind of dejavu? I'm pretty sure I read about this a few years ago already, but somehow, it makes the news again.
Click to expand...

It leaked as part of the Epic Games v. Apple suit, in an internal Epic presentation provided to the court. It never surfaced (while many characters and features included in the same presentation have) so it was reasonably assumed it fell apart for one reason or another. Now that the former creative lead of Fortnite has directly commented on it and concretely provided the reason in an interview, it's in the news cycle again.
 
ILikeFeet said:
the metroid car appears as a generic Rocket League car on other systems

Epic should have done a "legally distinct space bounty hunter" for other systems like Rocket League
Click to expand...
Exactly, but I might suspect the real issue is elsewhere. IIRC (it's a long time since I played Rocket League), the Mario cars were free in Rocket League.
Epic doesn't want to deevaluate the Fortnite eShop system with free skins, since spending V-Bucks is their source of revenue. I mean, the cost of most skins is around the cost of a typical indie game.

The exclusive PlayStation skins (like Lina Scorch) seem to costs a lot.
 
AFAIK they never did, they even got graphical upgrades when NGS came out so you could continue cosplaying Link on PS5. I know I was still using it up until around last year-ish?

At most, that stuff hasn't came to Global. Probably because the Switch version didn't either.
 
I would also argue, cool as do more for fortnite than they do for other games.

Metal gear, resident evil, Witcher, street fighter, Keaton, master chief all target gamers who are far removed from Fortnite’s target audience. By doing these collabs they can get hardcore audiences and also go viral is a crazy one happens like Peter griffin or goku.
 
0
I don’t even get why this topic has blown up so much on here and other places. Actual issues within the industry gain so much less traction. Gamer™ issues, I guess.
 
Brofield said:
Yeah, this seems like a massive misstep on Nintendo's part. I take it neither Microsoft nor Sony imposed similar restrictions for MC/Kratos to only be visible on their respective platforms?
Click to expand...
Nope. Nintendo IPs stay on Nintendo consoles*.

*Does not apply to smartphones.
 
Really not too surprised by this one. Between Nintendo and Epic, the one who gains far more from such a deal is Epic.

People forget too easily just by how much Nintendo dwarfs other game makers. They could stop making games for 50 years, don't fire a single person, and still be in the black. When you're at that scale, a deal like Epic (which as a company is famously a money sink) isn't cross-brand promotion, it's risking letting go of the very IPs that put you in that position to begin with.

Especially with a franchise like Metroid where people already regularly confuse the main character with the name of her franchise ("why can't Metroid crawl"), Nintendo probably has a very low interest in mixing her up with Fortnite. She's one of the more precarious Nintendo characters in terms of brand strength (casual audiences don't generally know about Metroid, the franchise has always been niche), and is usually the main example alongside Captain Falcon for characters people think are Smash originals. Adding her to Fortnite would result in that problem but hundredfold.
 
Magic-Man said:
Once again, can we not belittle members for criticizing Nintendo policies? Nintendo isn't your friend.
Click to expand...
It seems to me you’re doing a role reversal here. You have the right to disagree with a user or to think that an argument is bad without being called a fanboy.

Nintendo has an integrated hardware software ecosystem. That’s its specificity. To remind people of this absolute evidence is not to defend Nintendo, it is to question the peremptory speeches that give lessons while lacking relevance. Or it would mean that to say that the sky is blue is to be a fanboy of the sky.

Moreover, it is very good that the example of mobile games is mentioned since Nintendo was forced to invest the market by incompetents who also swore by small Timmy and marketing.

But, as usual with Metroid or any license appreciated in the West, Nintendo is much too Japanese and anyone is legitimate to give lessons...
 
Hermii said:
Samus needs all the publicity she can get. Dumb move imo, but not surprising.
Click to expand...
How many of Fortnite's users do you think will pay Epic the $8-13 for the skin? Do you think those players will be seen through the noise of all the other skins, so it will even counts as publicity?
 
My personal feeling on this is "Nintendo won't devalue their brands by inserting them into the content slop game with Petah Family Guy, twerking Thanos, and the gang? Good."

Putting that aside, Nintendo operates an integrated hardware-software business and therefore they simply aren't going to just hand out bits of the lifeblood of their business elsewhere, especially when you combine this with how they're more aligned to a company like Ghibli than e.g. Warner Bros when it comes to protectiveness of their characters.
 
Y’all need to stop with the Nintendo should be doing this and stupid for doing that.
It don’t matter what decisions they make cuz in the end it’s not your decision and that’s that.
So much wasted energy over a skin??
 
AxkilAvenger said:
Y’all need to stop with the Nintendo should be doing this and stupid for doing that.
It don’t matter what decisions they make cuz in the end it’s not your decision and that’s that.
So much wasted energy over a skin??
Click to expand...
Well, that happens if you spending more time thinking about Nintendo and their strategy than their own CEO.
 
At the risk of drawing the Fortnite player base with a bit of a broad stroke, it would be funny and quite wholesome if your average super-casual gamer kid who has played Fortnite for ungodly amount of hours would investigate Metroid further, and fall in love with the franchise after buying Dread and Prime Remastered on the Switch and has it become a gateway into a hardcore interest in gaming as a hobby and art.

Imagine that same kid coming to their friends like, “Hey all, that orange robot from Fortnite’s games are, like, super cool!! They have totally intricate labyrinths that you have to navigate with a balanced progression system!! The integrity of the design philosophies RULE!” and have their friends wondering what the hell they’re on about.
 
If I'm not wrong, can't the Switch really only play with Mobile devices due to its lower hardware capabilities? So Nintendo not wanting people on Xbox and Playstation playing Fortnite and using Samus might make more sense why it sits wrong with Nintendo.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, the real amusing thing is the idea that the 3M seller Metroid Dread is "niche" and is desperate for sales.
 
Aurc said:
My headcanon is that she can dematerialize the Arm Cannon at will, and use her right hand normally if necessary. She just never needs to do so, because it's tactically smarter to keep it primed and ready at all times, and it doesn't impair her ability to do things like climb.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the arm canon is such an iconic part of her design, they have to include it !

Come to think of it, it probably have just been her "pick axe" lol. This way she can have her iconic design as long as you equip the pick axe and not any weapon.
 
Irene said:
At the risk of drawing the Fortnite player base with a bit of a broad stroke, it would be funny and quite wholesome if your average super-casual gamer kid who has played Fortnite for ungodly amount of hours would investigate Metroid further, and fall in love with the franchise after buying Dread and Prime Remastered on the Switch and has it become a gateway into a hardcore interest in gaming as a hobby and art.

Imagine that same kid coming to their friends like, “Hey all, that orange robot from Fortnite’s games are, like, super cool!! They have totally intricate labyrinths that you have to navigate with a balanced progression system!! The integrity of the design philosophies RULE!” and have their friends wondering what the hell they’re on about.
Click to expand...
smash bros been doing that for Metroid for decades now.
 
Smash Kirby said:
If I'm not wrong, can't the Switch really only play with Mobile devices due to its lower hardware capabilities? So Nintendo not wanting people on Xbox and Playstation playing Fortnite and using Samus might make more sense why it sits wrong with Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Nintendo been doing collaborations and lending out their IPs for a time now.
This is not the answer
 
AxkilAvenger said:
Nintendo been doing collaborations and lending out their IPs for a time now.
This is not the answer
Click to expand...
Then you should buy some stock in Nintendo and ask Nintendo why they didn't want to collaborate with Epic Games when Microsoft and Sony continually do so.

I understand where Nintendo is coming from, I wouldn't mind Samus being on the Switch playground, and Samus being purchasable on Xbox and PlayStation may have been too far for Nintendo.
 
I wonder what the discourse would be like if a similar story came out about Nintendo refusing to let Samus be made into a Funko Pop because it's outside of their figurine ecosystem. Would anyone care? Is it really any different? Did I ask about this just to take a pot shot at Fortnite's art direction? The world may never know.
 
Smash Kirby said:
Then you should buy some stock in Nintendo and ask Nintendo why they didn't want to collaborate with Epic Games when Microsoft and Sony continually do so.

I understand where Nintendo is coming from, I wouldn't mind Samus being on the Switch playground, and Samus being purchasable on Xbox and PlayStation may have been too far for Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Even if I could ask the question I wouldn’t because I don’t really care why.
 
0
This was an assumption at the time of the epic documents leak from the court because of how the Mario, Luigi, and Samus skins work in Rocket League. I guess this basically officially confirmed it.
 
Last edited:
Dardan Sandiego said:
People have strong opinions when Nintendo doesn’t play along with the rest of the industry.
Click to expand...
It is all the more ridiculous as an attitude on the part of Nintendo that as Phil Spencer says so well, who has the good taste of being friendly according to American standards, everyone is anyway a member of the Xbox family. Everybody. Everybody, everybody.
 
Is there any definitive metric of whether or not series have seen sales bumps by characters getting added in Fortnite? Street Fighter, Resident Evil, etc.?

I understand Fortnite is huge but for Metroid, exposure really isn't the problem...Smash has sold 30+ million and all promotional material includes Samus and others. Nintendo uses Samus all the time in their marketing.

I would go so far as to say putting Samus in Fortnite would not help Metroid's sales in any significant margin.
 
Christo750 said:
Is there any definitive metric of whether or not series have seen sales bumps by characters getting added in Fortnite? Street Fighter, Resident Evil, etc.?

I understand Fortnite is huge but for Metroid, exposure really isn't the problem...Smash has sold 30+ million and all promotional material includes Samus and others. Nintendo uses Samus all the time in their marketing.

I would go so far as to say putting Samus in Fortnite would not help Metroid's sales in any significant margin.
Click to expand...
I asked the same question earlier and nobody provided any solid evidence. I think the latest Street Fighter and Resident Evil had bumps but I think it's hard to credit those bumps to Fortnite when both games were remarkable in their own ways (SF6 an excellent return to form after SF5 and RE4make being a remake of one of the best and most popular games of all time).
 
ngpdrew said:
Are we talking about the same Nintendo that is aggressively licensing its properties to make theme parks and movies?
Click to expand...

I would say agressively licensing is quite the hyperbole considering that in all those decades they just now managed to set up a theme park and a Mario movie. Agressive licensing is something the Pokémon company has been doing in very stark contrast to Nintendo.

As a matter of fact I would argue that Nintendo has been incredibly conservative with regards to handling their IP. And they have done a great job at it too, keeping almost all of them relevant (many even more relevant than ever) throughout the decades.
 
ngpdrew said:
Are we talking about the same Nintendo that is aggressively licensing its properties to make theme parks and movies?
Click to expand...
I would say they are the opposite of aggressive, if anything. Their approach to licensing has largely been proven right when you for example compare how Mario and Sonic emerged from the 90s, with one brand falling into disarray because there were 5+ wildly different interpretations of the character running concurrently because Sega simply took the licensing money, and paid no attention to what the likes of Archie were doing with their characters until it was too late.
 
So, to reiterate my comments from when this story broke originally, some time ago: "Company that we can rely on acting a predictable way about their IP, proceeded to act in that utterly predictable way."

What's next? Are we going to get mad about the Mario Archie comics we didn't get, again, too? Or how about that Zelda Netflix adaptation that fell through, after Netflix tried to "bully" Nintendo into letting it happen?
 
TreIII said:
What's next? Are we going to get mad about the Mario Archie comics we didn't get, again, too? Or how about that Zelda Netflix adaptation that fell through, after Netflix tried to "bully" Nintendo into letting it happen?
Click to expand...
I still see people get on Nintendo's case about this one, tbh.
 
Who disputes this decision simply don't understand how Nintendo operates and why Nintendo is by leaps and bounds the most profitable console maker in history.
 
TanookiTom said:
I would say agressively licensing is quite the hyperbole considering that in all those decades they just now managed to set up a theme park and a Mario movie. Agressive licensing is something the Pokémon company has been doing in very stark contrast to Nintendo.

As a matter of fact I would argue that Nintendo has been incredibly conservative with regards to handling their IP. And they have done a great job at it too, keeping almost all of them relevant (many even more relevant than ever) throughout the decades.
Click to expand...
Is. Present tense. They are much more aggressive in pursuing avenues beyond gaming now than they have been in a long time.
KarlRemarx said:
I would say they are the opposite of aggressive, if anything. Their approach to licensing has largely been proven right when you for example compare how Mario and Sonic emerged from the 90s, with one brand falling into disarray because there were 5+ wildly different interpretations of the character running concurrently because Sega simply took the licensing money, and paid no attention to what the likes of Archie were doing with their characters until it was too late.
Click to expand...
I will take issue with the word "right" because I don't like deeming worth based solely on profitability. Sonic's scattershot approach has also given us some pretty spectacular results. That alone is worth wading through all of the other unfortunate residue the blue blur has produced over the years.
 
came into this thread wondering why a pretty banal scenario like nintendo controlling their IP, per usual, caused a thread to get over 200 replies.

same old same old.
 
ngpdrew said:
Are we talking about the same Nintendo that is aggressively licensing its properties to make theme parks and movies?
Click to expand...
It’s great that you’re asking that question. The fact that they have just, after years of dithering, embarked on diversification is precisely related to the fact that the failure of their core business with the Wii U has made them fear to disappear altogether.

That’s the best possible explanation for their specificity in terms of competition, so that’s an excellent question
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom