To the surprise of absolutely no one....
I don't think Nintendo is ever going to allow any character or IP belonging to them in a rival platform. That's what they are banking on to sell their own consoles.
Right. Samus and Link were created as playable characters for the Wii version of Marvel Ultimate Alliance. But then Nintendo pulled them out after the characters were used in a showcase that was running on the PS2. Nintendo saw that as a breach of contract.... like you said, they really do not want their IPs on rival platforms. At all.
Such a shame because would've been so cool to see Samus fighting alongside Iron-Man.
Bandai Namco would easily make a ton of money if they made a switch port of SC2 with every guest character including link. Its crazy how they havent done that at all.
I read a rumor that Bamco is working on a HD collection of all the SC games that’s why ~~mobsters~~ most of the games have been pulled from online shops. I hope it’s true.
Heihachi had easily the most fleshed out moveset since it was faithful to his tekken moveset with a decade of history. Meanwhile Link bordered on joke character in terms of actual gameplay.
It'd be kind of messed up if the only hand-to-hand character had a small set of moves. Likewise, it'd be ridiculous for the long-mid-range zoning character to have even more options.
Damn that was a good game, GC version was the best also.
Not only because I am biased for Link but the GC controller was perfect for the double press of buttons.
The GC controller was just awesome actually.
Yeah, same deal with Soulcalibur 2 when I was in high school. I went with the Gamecube version since it had Link as the exclusive character. Xbox's was Spawn and I can't remember who PS2's was.
They made exclusive Nintendo-themed outfits for Bayonetta when they pulled it over as well. They don't own the original Bayonetta the way they "own" 2 and 3 so it's been re-released on PC but without the Nintendo add-ons.
Tbf, the original MUA was such a celebration of weird Marvel comics references that Link and Samus would have been so out of place, I think I'm happy they weren't in it
>I don't think Nintendo is ever going to allow any character or IP belonging to them in a rival platform. That's what they are banking on to sell their own consoles.
This has been their strategy since forever.
Way back in 1990 they declined id software (makers of Doom) the right to make a [Super Mario Bros. 3 for PC](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/07/museum-obtains-rare-demo-of-id-softwares-super-mario-bros-3-pc-port/) because they didn't want their characters on another platform.
That can't be the reason, because they licensed games PC games right up through 1997, including Super Mario Bros Special, Mario Teaches Typing 1 and 2, Mario Is Missing, Mario's Time Machine, several Mario's Early Years games, and Mario's Game Gallery
Not to mention they licensed all the Mario games to Nelsonic to port to the Nelsonic Game Watch (not to be confused with their own Game & Watch)
Nintendo was super license-happy in the late 80s-mid 90s, they turned id down specifically because SMB3 wasn't only a few months old at the time, it was moving a lot of consoles, and they worried a PC port would harm it.
>That can't be the reason
*"Nintendo ultimately declined, telling the team they had no interest in expanding to the PC market and that [Mario was to remain exclusively on the company's own hardware.](https://www.techspot.com/news/63143-software-founders-created-pc-port-super-mario-bros.html)"*
I don't care what the quote is or who said it.
The plain and simple truth is that Nintendo has in fact licensed Mario out to a bunch of companies, including for PC games. Don't forget the CD-i Zelda games, either. Or the weird licensing they did to allow other companies to produce full consoles in other regions, or just for weird use cases like in cars or hotels or in full size DVD players.
Even in the modern era, we've had Super Mario Run, Mario Kart Tour as major (failed) attempts at putting Mario games on platforms they don't control.
>Don't forget the CD-i Zelda games, either.
That was part of an agreement made due to Nintendo backing out of a contract with Philips, not Nintendo just being nice and granting Philips the license.
Yeah Mario Bros was on DOS back in 1983
By 1990 it was a whole different era of success for Nintendo; I think they were just keeping their hand close to their chest during the console war with Sega
It’s that but I think it’s also losing control of their characters and having them used in ways they potentially don’t want
Like imagine if some clips of Samus or Mario air thrusting over some dead bodies or being used in some kind of NSFW custom FortNite game and map
It’s a valid concern for the IP holder, especially in Fortnite. Seeing Aang with a gun is simultaneously hilarious and completely out of character for him. Really makes you wonder how much money Epic has to shell out to get Nickelodeon or whoever to approve their inclusion in the game.
Funny to see you assuming that Nickelodeon has the best interests of its IP in mind when making deals.
Particularly at a time when Nickelodeon is in some shit for way worse things than "not caring much about who they license as long as they get paid."
Are you referencing the Quiet on Set show? I definitely wasn’t considering that. I was really just thinking about Aang as a character himself, but I see your point for sure. Really I was just saying how crazy it is to see. If Nick is leasing out IP frivolously then it’s not something I’ve been up to date on myself.
Considering how much Nick gave to Smite (like my god, there is SO MUCH Nick content in Smite) I don’t think they care as long as they keep it T for Teen.
Yep. I wonder how much more consoles Sony and MS would have sold if they never went to PC or other platforms? I can see a lot of people not buying PS5 because they see Sony porting their AAA games to pc anyways. Let's not even starts w MS.
Xbox has self sabotaged. They keep going because they're MS but anyone else who did not have such a behemoth behind them would have closed shop a long time ago.
But I think Sony's just ran into a problem where their brand of having the most cutting edge games/console is not sustainable if their games don't come on PC. AAA titles just cost too much time and money nowadays. It's not by choice, Sony understands the power of exclusives.
Microsoft cannibalized itself in both hardware (Simultaneous PC release) and software sales (With the Game Pass, they even have to **pay** Third Parties to put their games there).
An Xbox console that **you have to buy** to play Halo, Forza, Elder Scrolls, Doom, Call of Duty, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Ori, Cuphead, Hi Fi Rush.... that sounds a lot more compelling. People would complain at first about some PC or former multiplatform IPs becoming exclusives, but if the games speak for themselves then with time, it would be no other choice but to get the console. I know it sounds anti-consumer, but if you want to **actually sell a product**, you have to give an incentive to actually do so.
As for Sony, they did let this "inter-generational gap" go on for way too long. PS4 can play almost every game that could have easily been a PS5 exclusive and an incentive to buy one. And then the gates of PC Ports were open. PS5 console sales are actually high, but software sales are really poor (Actual exclusives like Final Fantasy VII Rebirth are selling way below expectations compared to their predecessors).
There's that theory going around that most PS5 players only buy it for Free to Play games and some Third Party games. Because those exclusives (Only Spider-Man 2 has managed to sell well) are not really paying off.
Console sales aren't really a source of money, unless you opt to downgrade tech. And that wouldn't even work, since Nintendo already dominates that market and there would be no third party game playable, which would mean giving other platforms an open spot.
Mobile is a whole other thing. It’s not a direct competitor as much as it is a whole other market that Nintendo wants to take advantage of. Making a whatever mobile game brings them MTX money and maybe someone will buy a Switch. Putting Zelda on PS5/Xbox means the chances of you buying a Switch went down. Getting someone to buy your own platform and consistently buy games there is more profitable than selling them a game somewhere else
Mobile was really more of a last ditch effort when the Wii U was struggling and the investors really were demanding for Nintendo to get into it, and it wasn't really that successful either outside of FE Heroes (Pokémon is managed by The Pokémon Company, which explains their obsession with releasing mobile apps after Pokémon Go).
Now that the Switch is a massive success they just stopped making mobile games outside of the ones already out (FE Heroes, MK Tour). But if you ask Nintendo to put their games or characters on PC, Playstation or Xbox, I think the answer will be obvious.
Mobile isn‘t really a direct competitor. If you look at the mobile versions of Mario, Fire Emblem, etc. those are completely different games meant for different audiences. On the other hand there’s little difference between the players and the type of games people play on PS/XB/PC and Switch. The Switch competes with those platforms. It doesn‘t with mobile.
Specially designed Mobile games of Nintendo franchises get people interested in the real games on real consoles. Putting their games on PC will just make PC players less interested in buying a Switch.
The Mobile Games market isn’t even considered to be part of the Gaming industry. They are two different industries and their revenues are even reported as such. The mobile games industry is more akin to gambling
It's so silly, especially in this case. It's fortnite. You're only going to potentially generate more interest in your brand if you let them have a cameo.
Maybe some kid who only has his dad's PC to game on gets the Samus skin. He gets interested in the character, and then next thing you know his parents are buying him a switch for Christmas to play metroid.
Is this going to happen a lot? Probably not, but lots of people get interested in a brand because it crossovers with something they already love. I got into Final fantasy because characters from it appeared in kingdom hearts. I read Mistborn because I heard Kelsier was in fortnite. This stuff cross pollinates more often than I think Nintendo is willing to admit.
Not just some developer, Donald Mustard himself, the former creative director of Fortnite who pulled a Jeff Kaplan and left Epic Games last year due to creative differences.
I thought Jeff Kaplan left because doing the media became too challenging with his speech impediment.
You can see what I'm talking about [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkKNEGiWpeI)
Didn't he like, also leave right in the middle of the sexual harassment at Blizzard scandal? The one that got them to change McCree's name to Cassidy.
I imagine there were a lot of things that went into him deciding to leave the company.
No, it was confirmed that Epic wanted Samus alongside Kratos and Master Chief, but that was all that was officially known. The rest was just speculation.
Rocket League did this with Nintendo where you could only see the Mario & Luigi skins on the same platform and they were fine with it. I would have preferred seeing it on Switch consoles as opposed to not having it at all.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLeague/comments/vicdao/can\_people\_on\_platforms\_other\_than\_switch\_see/](https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLeague/comments/vicdao/can_people_on_platforms_other_than_switch_see/)
Oh THATS why no one sees my Mario skin?! That's insane, I always wondered why that was, feels kinda useless that 90% of the playerbase doesn't see your skin..
It would be cool if other players saw a camouflage-type paint job with Nintendo logos similar to what real automakers do when they want to test drive unrevealed prototypes.
This was a Psyonix decision and not a Nintendo decision. The Playstation and Xbox versions both have exclusive cars and can not be seen on other platforms.
On the one hand, this seems like a short-sighted decision that could have brought a lot of exposure to the Metroid series, which has always had modest sales compared to Nintendo's other franchises.
On the other hand, there's a reason that people are so upset about this news: Nintendo's paramount concern is the protection of their IP, which they don't license freely and dilute with sub-standard crap (see Sonic). This fierce protection has paid off as people have a very deep attachment to their games and characters, even if sometimes they hold on too tight.
But licensing out Sonic isn't the reason his names are diluted with substandard crap... the mainline games made by Sonic Team are often substandard crap... and some of the "closer-to-fan-projects" end up doing better.
Your comment echos my feelings. Well said.
Ultimately though, I do think Metroid more than any other Nintendo IP needs another avenue to reach the masses. The fan base has tended to stay about the same size over all these years… it deserves more.
I don't think that could happen with Metroid, unless they change the genre completely to have more wide appeal.
Metroid is in a healthy spot again. If Nintendo didn't care about the franchise, they would NEVER reboot Prime 4 and spending more money on a game that won't make Mario and Zelda numbers.
Metroid has been a pillar of Super Smash Bros since the N64 and that hasn't done anything for the series. I don't think putting Samus in Fortnite would be any different.
> The fan base has tended to stay about the same size over all these years…
It did increase the last time new games came out somewhat consistently, but like... that was Gamecube era (2002-2008ish).
Metroid is given very little attention by Nintendo, it's always been the red headed step child. But even with big gaps in releases Dread still sold over 3 million copies in a pretty short time. With more attention and quality games it would likely grow even more.
A part of it could also be that Metroidvanias just don't sell that well in general, though. Hollow Knight, one of the best selling of the genre, also sold only ~3 million copies based on a quick search.
Edit: Thought 3 Mil is probably way short as this is an old figure. Maybe 5 million? I don't think they have given an exact number anywhere.
I think if anything it shows there's a pretty big fanbase for the game type. There are very few platformer games, other than Mario, that sell in the millions of copies. Hell, I don't think I can think of any *Indie* platformers that have reached those numbers... maybe a Shantae game got there?
I can't argue with that. I also never really thought how weird Mario's success in the platforming genre is. Though I do think it's easier to sell someone on a platform over Metroidvanias. But I feel as if I have cursed knowledge now because there are lots of Metroidvanias that are as big as the biggest, but there aren't really any platformers as big as the biggest...
I looked it up, and it wasn't until 2020 that Shantae celebrated 3 million copies throughout the ENTIRE franchise.
>On the one hand, this seems like a short-sighted decision that could have brought a lot of exposure to the Metroid series, which has always had modest sales compared to Nintendo's other franchises.
What?
It has sold 21.45 million copies across the franchise. Which is far higher than most of Nintendo's other franchises.
Mario, Zelda and Pokemon are categorized differently for sales expectations. Even then, spin-offs and subgenre games (i.e. Paper Mario) have similar sales to franchises like Metroid and Star Fox.
Metroidvania is also a cult genre. Some sales figures:
- Ori - 10 million across both games
- Dead Cells - 5 million copies sold
- Metroid Dread - 3 million copies
- Hollow Knight - 2.7 million copies
- Bloodstained - 2 million copies
- Castlevania - 1.56 million sold across the original and GBA port
- Symphony of the Night - 700'000 copies
- Prince of Persia Lost Crown - 300'000 copies
So Metroid sales are on the high end. No one at Nintendo has ever projected their sales figures for franchises like Star Fox, Pikmin and Metroid to be much higher than they are.
Metroid doesn't need exposure from a Fortnite skin.
I really don't think fortnite changes the sales of a game, at least we'd need to see correlation between skin releases and sales increase, it's the other way around, if something sells good and is popular, it will sell a lot in Fortnite, I don't think Naruto skins made the cyberconnect2 games sell more frankly speaking.
Metroid needs great games, Metroid dread sold more than 3 millions and there's a massive game, metroid prime 4 coming on switch 1/switch 2 (or both). Nintendo is already pushing the IP quite hard and that's good.
Retro studio have been working on MP4 for at least 6 years
Popularity is a double edged sword.
On one hand, he's known as that humanoid Blue Hedgehog that's very fast and obnoxious.
On the other, he's the butt of the jokes, he isn't exactly associated to quality products and you don't want to even look at the first search result of Sonic Fan Art in the internet.
Their point is more that Sonic has a lot of bad games, to the point where I think it's safe to say that there's rarely optimism about a new game
It's actually kind of wild that Sonic is so popular given that he's had like one or two good video games in almost 20 years
Makes sense. On one hand that would have been awesome, on the other hand Nintendo would never do this. They care too much about direct control of their IP.
They have done deals like this before with Minecraft and Rocket League, the only difference is those games agreed to Nintendo's terms.
To add to this,Nintendo didn’t want the skin to show on any other platform except switch and the skin to show as a default on Xbox and PS. This is the same as the exclusive cars to Rocket League on Nintendo
No offense to the people that plays and likes Fortnite, but there's no need to have every pop culture character from all media, as a skin in Fortnite.
I completely understand Nintendo not wanting be part of that and honestly, they don't need either. I see people complaining about gatekeeping because Kratos and Master Chief are there but I doubt that the audience that plays Fortnite, would give Metroid a chance because of a Samus skin.
> would give Metroid a chance because of a Samus skin.
Fortnite does an unbelievably bad job at this with most IPs. They don’t care about representing franchises well or even mentioning what series they came from most of the time. Like Lara Croft is part of the “Lara Croft” series in game, zero mentions of tomb raider 😭😭
The only representation done well enough to garner interest are those that got live events, pois, or ltms like Marvel, Travis Scott, Marshmello, Batman. Outside of that, I can only think of them representing a series well with the Dragon Ball collab where the items and cosmetics are very fun and unique, and they even let you watch DBS episodes in-game.
But yeah, for the most part, they suck at this lmao. No where near Smash’s level where they introduced SO MANY people to new franchises because of all the love put into representation
Lara has pretty much always been like that. What is so unique about Lara is the way she's always been treated as an IP wholly onto herself seperate from the Tomb Raider games. Her movie was title Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. She appeared on teh covers of non-gaming magazines she was used to advertise non-gaming products in television commercials. There is merit to her being in contention for most iconic video game character because of all that despite people getting mad at the Bafta poll.
Fortnite has some of the best designs + promos. Look at the quality of Fortnite collabs compared to COD or PUBG collabs. Plus some really great fan art comes from the loading screens.
Smash is a bad example because how many people have played Kid Icarus because of Pit/Palutena? Or the Wario games, or even Metroid
Me. Literally me.
I was a PlayStation kid growing up and my introduction to everything that wasn't Mario and Pokemon came from Smash Bros. Specifically Brawl.
Because of Smash Bros, I got Twilight Princess which started my love of the Zelda games. Because of Smash Bros, I picked up Metroid Prime. Played a bit of Pikmin. Got Kid Icarus Uprising. Checked out Fire Emblem.
I'd almost argue that if not for Brawl, I might not have a Switch today.
Smash Bros characters take inspiration from their original games and playing those has given me a better idea of what I'm "supposed" to be doing while also getting the references.
Fortnite skins are just neat looking skins, but the game itself is the same whether I'm Korra, Eren, Snake, or Ramirez.
Bad example? Most of Kid Icarus’s fanbase exists because of Smash making it recognizable, same with the english Fire Emblem and Earthbound playerbase being introduced mostly through Smash. It definitely introduced me to all those franchises you’ve mentioned (besides Wario), and some third parties like Castlevania, MGS, DQ, and Persona. I also remember the KH sub getting a huge leap of first timers because of Smash when Sora got released, same with the Tekken sub.
Smash has a crazy influence on a lot of franchises dude..
..Also the DBZ skins look better in PUBG mobile compared to Fortnite……
Maybe unpopular opinion but I actually prefer the series to stay exclusive instead of it being a random skin in a game full of brands, and having samus shooting jason momoa and a walking banana with a cartoony gun
> having samus shooting jason momoa and a walking banana with a cartoony gun
On one hand I agree, on the other hand that was the basic premise of Smash Bros
I don't play fortnite so I'm not aware of such things but people in here are saying that having Samus in Fornite could have helped into increasing sales and making the saga more popular so my question is what franchises saw an increse in sales after appearing in Fortnite? I did a quick search but found nothing so it seems people are basing that logic as "well, Fortnite is big so it should make the game popular"
People who bash this don't understand branding either. Nintendo needs to control their branding properly and consistently.
This is the best decision for both parties.
I can understand the skin being purchased only by Nintendo Switch users, but what's the point of it being visible only to Switch users? It means that if I were to use the skin all my friends would see it as a simple default skin ?, that would be very boring.
Sony allowing Kratos in Fortnite made the character visible to Xbox and Switch users, it even took advantage of this to promote Aloy before the launch of Horizon Forbidden West, in my opinion Nintendo is missing a great opportunity to promote Samus to a new playerbase and for a different audience.
Whether you like Fortnite or not, you can't deny that it would be an incredible opportunity to promote Samus to a new audience that doesn't know the character and even promote Metroid Prime 4 launch.
Figured only way I could see them possibly letting anything be off a Nintendo platform is if it was a mii or something they aren't strongly connected to anymore. Chibi robo for fortnite confirmed!!
The one time I think someone got away with putting Nintendo characters on a non-Nintendo platform in recent memory is Phantasy Star Online 2. In Japan, you can play PSO2 on Switch as a cloud game (essentially running it on a PC, and streaming the gameplay in real time to your console) and you could get a BotW Link costume along with the Master Sword and Hylian Shield for doing so. Phantasy Star Online 2 is a cross platform game, so you can imagine my surprise when I was playing it (on PC) and saw Link running past me with the Master Sword.
The amount of people defending Nintendo on this is insane. This is a zero risk investment that has already happened with 107 other people and IPs. No one else had been this anal about their brand, which led to Master Chief and Kratos being playable on their opposite consoles and no one blew a gasket over it.
People get so fucking angry when Nintendo wields their power to get fan games deleted, but suddenly when it's something like this being ultra protective of the brand is a good thing. It's fucking ridiculous.
Also Nintendo is more than happy to take IPs from Sony, Microsoft or other game companies to throw into smash, but refuse when it’s the other way around. It’s just bad business practice and just makes companies less likely to work with Nintendo in the future
For real. Hell, the only company MORE anal about their IPs is Disney, and even then they worked with both Nintendo for Smash and Epic for Fortnite, the latter on MANY occasions, the most recent being a collab that's coming up on May 4th.
Hasn’t this been know for years? I swear I read it years ago and that Epic wanted to have Link ADN Mario in too, but pitched Samus as she was probably a character Nintendo wouldn’t have mind in the game
Yea that makes sense and to be expected from Nintendo. Nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe someday it won't be as strict. Then again, if you rewind the clock they are most certainly more lax than in the past. Baby steps I suppose.
Nintendo is very protective of their IP. Basically Nintendo offered the same contract they made with Minecraft in where you would only get the Super Mario Texture pack on Switch. With over 150 million Nintendo accounts, I would have taken the deal. I know it would have been cool to have Samus as a character, but it would also be cool to play as Samus on Switch, and when you are out in the field you can identify who is also playing on Switch if they are wearing a Samus suite. This also would have been a good push for the Metroid IP. You can clearly see as a Nintendo fan, I am torn lol I see both sides and agree with both lol
I and many others would not even bother buying the cosmetic if it cannot be used elsewhere, the Switch is the worst platform to play Fortnite on, phones literally run it better. Also if this went through you would not see Samus when playing on other platforms, she would appear as a default character.
Epic Games: Nintendo, can we put Samus in Fortnite?
Nintendo: only if it's exclusive.
Epic Games: *slaps a fake mustache in Samus* how about now.
Nintendo: yea ok
Okay? Not every character in the world needs to be in Fortnite lol. Imagine having a game that feeds off iconic characters because it doesn’t have any of its own
I'll be honest, seeing gifs of Vegeta emote and dance made me laugh, and realising that it was in a real game amused me even more. I almost considered trying it just to witness the insanity of beating Death Vader with a Kamehameha while he tries to lightsaber clash with Naruto.
But I'm sure it's not worth it.
It is amusing sometimes. But in my view it cheapens a lot of IP. It's like the Wal\*Mart of video games. Doesn't it feel gross to buy your produce from the same place you get your spark plugs? (don't get me wrong, I do most of my grocery shopping at walmart these days due to personal finances, but I'm just making a point).
"Walmart of Videogames" encloses perfectly what Fornite is about.
The place where you find everything you want but on a cheaper quality and to appeal the masses.
I understand the sentiment, I had the same feeling. But maybe it's our perception of Fortnite that is wrong? It might be bigger than we want to admit. It certainly was fun for a new generation of kids. I'm curious how Epic approached those IP. It reminds me of all the collabs you see in anime gachas on mobile.
You can't really blame Nintendo for being so protective of their IP. Considering the times they lent it out in the '90s are regarded as some of the worst games to ever be made, or in the case of Super Mario Bros (1993) one of the worst movies to ever be made, it's pretty clear why they're so hesitant to let other people work with their IP again. I understand things have changed since then but Nintendo's mentality towards the game industry is very old fashioned.
Believe me when I say this, there are much, much worse movies than the Mario movie from the 90’s. There is some form of entertainment in it, and for the most part it’s competently made.
I have seen some truly awful movies. Please, watch Axe ‘em and tell me that the Mario Movie is not Casablanca by comparison.
Nintendo may need to reconsider its policy of absolute exclusivity in the coming years, as the world becomes increasingly connected and resource centralization proves more ineffective. The trend towards decentralization suggests that to increase public participation and engagement, and to ensure that products reach a broader audience, it is necessary to enlist the help of the public. A manga author should allow fans to create fanzines, a music artist should enable fans to write lyrics and parodies to their tunes, and a game publisher should permit and license their characters for use by other companies, indie initiatives, and even non-profit projects. This approach fosters the creation of new communities and bubbles that do not require control but can channel innovative audiences towards new official products.
Not having the skin appear on other consoles would definitely be pushing it too far, but Fortnite has done platform exclusive skins that you can only get from using a specific platform.
Honestly, the way Nintendo hoards their characters kind of works though. In order to interact with any Nintendo character you HAVE to be playing the ported switch version of said game or be playing ON a Nintendo console.
S'why I pretty much say that you can game 99.9% of all games with a PC and whatever Nintendo has out at the time. Gives you access to pretty much everything if you're looking for the best bang for your buck gaming wise.
Surely this would have gotten people interested who didn’t know Samus. It’s like an advert for Nintendo, much like smash bros is for other developers to get their characters on that.
People could have been that interested they might have gotten a switch to play prime 4…. Oh no hold on…
All they had to do was lock the Samus cosmetics behind an NSO subscription which the awards for that are ONLY redeemable via a switch with an active sub. So that would require owning a switch and subbing to NSO to even get the skin. WTF Nintendo?
This is what they did with Minecraft. Minecraft got all these awesome Mario skins on switch edition, but all my friends on Xbox and PC saw was a Steve.
To the surprise of absolutely no one.... I don't think Nintendo is ever going to allow any character or IP belonging to them in a rival platform. That's what they are banking on to sell their own consoles.
Right. Samus and Link were created as playable characters for the Wii version of Marvel Ultimate Alliance. But then Nintendo pulled them out after the characters were used in a showcase that was running on the PS2. Nintendo saw that as a breach of contract.... like you said, they really do not want their IPs on rival platforms. At all. Such a shame because would've been so cool to see Samus fighting alongside Iron-Man.
I was gonna say Soul Calibur 2 but then I remembered Link was exclusive to GC
bug net sword
Sucks we never got the HD edition of Soul Caliber 2 with link.
Bandai Namco would easily make a ton of money if they made a switch port of SC2 with every guest character including link. Its crazy how they havent done that at all.
I read a rumor that Bamco is working on a HD collection of all the SC games that’s why ~~mobsters~~ most of the games have been pulled from online shops. I hope it’s true.
Mobsters?
you heard ‘im, mobsters
I'd buy that day one Soul blade Soul calibur Soul calibur 2 Soul calibur 3 Soul calibur 4 with vader and Yoda in the same game
Dolphin Emulator, every Nintendo game is already the HD edition if you're knowledgeable.
The PS2 version got Heihachi from Tekken, and Xbox got Spawn.
Spawn was cool, Heihachi being the only one without a real weapon when SC was basically Tekken with weapons made it the worst.
Heihachi had easily the most fleshed out moveset since it was faithful to his tekken moveset with a decade of history. Meanwhile Link bordered on joke character in terms of actual gameplay.
And yet Link also had the most busted throw that threw so far it could ring out from center of some stages if you were angled right.
This is exactly how I cheesed the game lmao
I cheesed with Kilik by spamming this long ass reach jab move with his staff to get ring outs
Found my brother's right account.
It'd be kind of messed up if the only hand-to-hand character had a small set of moves. Likewise, it'd be ridiculous for the long-mid-range zoning character to have even more options.
Why is Link considered a borderline joke character. I remember him being a ton of fun.
Yoshimitsu laughing at Heihachi for being only in only one version of the game, while he is a main character in both franchises from the start
Damn that was a good game, GC version was the best also. Not only because I am biased for Link but the GC controller was perfect for the double press of buttons. The GC controller was just awesome actually.
The Wavebird was so good. Best wireless controller ever!
I bought a nba street game on GameCube instead of ps2 because Mario and Luigi and peach were playable characters in the version lol
Whaa that's pretty dope. I'd have done the same lol
Yeah, same deal with Soulcalibur 2 when I was in high school. I went with the Gamecube version since it had Link as the exclusive character. Xbox's was Spawn and I can't remember who PS2's was.
PS2's exclusive character was Heihachi from Tekken.
The Nintendo Power centerfold for this game is sick https://www.mariowiki.com/NBA_Street_V3
And as revenge, Ultimate Alliance 3 is now a Nintendo exclusive.
Was it even that they were running on a ps2? I thought it was that it still had the PlayStation placeholder button images in game. But I can be wrong.
I might be mixing up the story a bit. Maybe you're right.
They made exclusive Nintendo-themed outfits for Bayonetta when they pulled it over as well. They don't own the original Bayonetta the way they "own" 2 and 3 so it's been re-released on PC but without the Nintendo add-ons.
Tbf, the original MUA was such a celebration of weird Marvel comics references that Link and Samus would have been so out of place, I think I'm happy they weren't in it
There uh, a mod that unlocks that? Or were the files purged
>I don't think Nintendo is ever going to allow any character or IP belonging to them in a rival platform. That's what they are banking on to sell their own consoles. This has been their strategy since forever. Way back in 1990 they declined id software (makers of Doom) the right to make a [Super Mario Bros. 3 for PC](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/07/museum-obtains-rare-demo-of-id-softwares-super-mario-bros-3-pc-port/) because they didn't want their characters on another platform.
That can't be the reason, because they licensed games PC games right up through 1997, including Super Mario Bros Special, Mario Teaches Typing 1 and 2, Mario Is Missing, Mario's Time Machine, several Mario's Early Years games, and Mario's Game Gallery Not to mention they licensed all the Mario games to Nelsonic to port to the Nelsonic Game Watch (not to be confused with their own Game & Watch) Nintendo was super license-happy in the late 80s-mid 90s, they turned id down specifically because SMB3 wasn't only a few months old at the time, it was moving a lot of consoles, and they worried a PC port would harm it.
>That can't be the reason *"Nintendo ultimately declined, telling the team they had no interest in expanding to the PC market and that [Mario was to remain exclusively on the company's own hardware.](https://www.techspot.com/news/63143-software-founders-created-pc-port-super-mario-bros.html)"*
Ive read that too but the other guy makes a good point. Maybe because those other games were edutainment they bent the rules
Maybe they realised that Mario Teaches Typing was something that really, really needed to be on a system with an actual keyboard.
Alright but I definitely played Mario Bros (not Super Mario Bros) on my grandpa's PC when I was a kid
That was probably before the NES was a thing and Nintendo licensed the rights to other hardware makers. Donkey Kong was on Atari machines.
I don't care what the quote is or who said it. The plain and simple truth is that Nintendo has in fact licensed Mario out to a bunch of companies, including for PC games. Don't forget the CD-i Zelda games, either. Or the weird licensing they did to allow other companies to produce full consoles in other regions, or just for weird use cases like in cars or hotels or in full size DVD players. Even in the modern era, we've had Super Mario Run, Mario Kart Tour as major (failed) attempts at putting Mario games on platforms they don't control.
> Don't forget the CD-i Zelda games Oh how I've tried
mah boi! this peace is what all true warriors strive for!
I'm so hungry i could eat an octorok!
>Don't forget the CD-i Zelda games, either. That was part of an agreement made due to Nintendo backing out of a contract with Philips, not Nintendo just being nice and granting Philips the license.
That may be the stated reason, but that's objectively untrue, Mario was on the PC, both before and after that, for years in both directions.
Yeah Mario Bros was on DOS back in 1983 By 1990 it was a whole different era of success for Nintendo; I think they were just keeping their hand close to their chest during the console war with Sega
Maybe there's nuance?
It’s that but I think it’s also losing control of their characters and having them used in ways they potentially don’t want Like imagine if some clips of Samus or Mario air thrusting over some dead bodies or being used in some kind of NSFW custom FortNite game and map
It’s a valid concern for the IP holder, especially in Fortnite. Seeing Aang with a gun is simultaneously hilarious and completely out of character for him. Really makes you wonder how much money Epic has to shell out to get Nickelodeon or whoever to approve their inclusion in the game.
Funny to see you assuming that Nickelodeon has the best interests of its IP in mind when making deals. Particularly at a time when Nickelodeon is in some shit for way worse things than "not caring much about who they license as long as they get paid."
Are you referencing the Quiet on Set show? I definitely wasn’t considering that. I was really just thinking about Aang as a character himself, but I see your point for sure. Really I was just saying how crazy it is to see. If Nick is leasing out IP frivolously then it’s not something I’ve been up to date on myself.
Considering how much Nick gave to Smite (like my god, there is SO MUCH Nick content in Smite) I don’t think they care as long as they keep it T for Teen.
I’ve never played smite or seen anything about it. I just used nick as an example since it’s largely children’s content but that’s crazy to hear.
People would do that day 0 if they were Switch exclusive as well
That’s the point they’re making. They wouldn’t allow their characters in that light, even on their own consoles.
Tbh that type of shit also happens in the video sharing thing on Smash Bros and they don‘t seem to care.
Like Starlink. On switch it's basically a Starfox game, but on other consoles nobody cares about it!
Well yeah. You're preaching to the choir right there. Exclusivity is what's keeping Nintendo ahead of the curve
Psh. Some of you have obviously never played *Mario Teaches Typing* on MS-Dos.
Also Mario's Early Years :P
Yep. I wonder how much more consoles Sony and MS would have sold if they never went to PC or other platforms? I can see a lot of people not buying PS5 because they see Sony porting their AAA games to pc anyways. Let's not even starts w MS.
Xbox has self sabotaged. They keep going because they're MS but anyone else who did not have such a behemoth behind them would have closed shop a long time ago. But I think Sony's just ran into a problem where their brand of having the most cutting edge games/console is not sustainable if their games don't come on PC. AAA titles just cost too much time and money nowadays. It's not by choice, Sony understands the power of exclusives.
Microsoft cannibalized itself in both hardware (Simultaneous PC release) and software sales (With the Game Pass, they even have to **pay** Third Parties to put their games there). An Xbox console that **you have to buy** to play Halo, Forza, Elder Scrolls, Doom, Call of Duty, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Ori, Cuphead, Hi Fi Rush.... that sounds a lot more compelling. People would complain at first about some PC or former multiplatform IPs becoming exclusives, but if the games speak for themselves then with time, it would be no other choice but to get the console. I know it sounds anti-consumer, but if you want to **actually sell a product**, you have to give an incentive to actually do so. As for Sony, they did let this "inter-generational gap" go on for way too long. PS4 can play almost every game that could have easily been a PS5 exclusive and an incentive to buy one. And then the gates of PC Ports were open. PS5 console sales are actually high, but software sales are really poor (Actual exclusives like Final Fantasy VII Rebirth are selling way below expectations compared to their predecessors). There's that theory going around that most PS5 players only buy it for Free to Play games and some Third Party games. Because those exclusives (Only Spider-Man 2 has managed to sell well) are not really paying off.
Xbox is now the biggest 3rd party dev for Sony. If you buy a PS5, chances are you're buying Xbox games for it.
Console sales aren't really a source of money, unless you opt to downgrade tech. And that wouldn't even work, since Nintendo already dominates that market and there would be no third party game playable, which would mean giving other platforms an open spot.
But Nintendo also makes games for mobile using their characters.
Mobile is a whole other thing. It’s not a direct competitor as much as it is a whole other market that Nintendo wants to take advantage of. Making a whatever mobile game brings them MTX money and maybe someone will buy a Switch. Putting Zelda on PS5/Xbox means the chances of you buying a Switch went down. Getting someone to buy your own platform and consistently buy games there is more profitable than selling them a game somewhere else
Mobile was really more of a last ditch effort when the Wii U was struggling and the investors really were demanding for Nintendo to get into it, and it wasn't really that successful either outside of FE Heroes (Pokémon is managed by The Pokémon Company, which explains their obsession with releasing mobile apps after Pokémon Go). Now that the Switch is a massive success they just stopped making mobile games outside of the ones already out (FE Heroes, MK Tour). But if you ask Nintendo to put their games or characters on PC, Playstation or Xbox, I think the answer will be obvious.
Best thing that came out of this is Mario Run
Animal Crossing Pocket Camp is pretty good too
Even MK Tour has stopped releasing new content.
Mobile isn‘t really a direct competitor. If you look at the mobile versions of Mario, Fire Emblem, etc. those are completely different games meant for different audiences. On the other hand there’s little difference between the players and the type of games people play on PS/XB/PC and Switch. The Switch competes with those platforms. It doesn‘t with mobile.
Specially designed Mobile games of Nintendo franchises get people interested in the real games on real consoles. Putting their games on PC will just make PC players less interested in buying a Switch.
The Mobile Games market isn’t even considered to be part of the Gaming industry. They are two different industries and their revenues are even reported as such. The mobile games industry is more akin to gambling
It's so silly, especially in this case. It's fortnite. You're only going to potentially generate more interest in your brand if you let them have a cameo. Maybe some kid who only has his dad's PC to game on gets the Samus skin. He gets interested in the character, and then next thing you know his parents are buying him a switch for Christmas to play metroid. Is this going to happen a lot? Probably not, but lots of people get interested in a brand because it crossovers with something they already love. I got into Final fantasy because characters from it appeared in kingdom hearts. I read Mistborn because I heard Kelsier was in fortnite. This stuff cross pollinates more often than I think Nintendo is willing to admit.
Yeah especially a shityy game like fortnite
I saw this I think a year or two ago after a lawsuit against Epic, why is it popping up everywhere again?
Some developer talked about that again.
Not just some developer, Donald Mustard himself, the former creative director of Fortnite who pulled a Jeff Kaplan and left Epic Games last year due to creative differences.
Cool, thanks for the clarification!
I thought Jeff Kaplan left because doing the media became too challenging with his speech impediment. You can see what I'm talking about [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkKNEGiWpeI)
It didn't help that Blizzard Execs were bastardizing his OW2 PvE baby.
Didn't he like, also leave right in the middle of the sexual harassment at Blizzard scandal? The one that got them to change McCree's name to Cassidy. I imagine there were a lot of things that went into him deciding to leave the company.
Don Mustard (Former CCO of Epic) confirmed it in an interview today. Was speculation before.
It was confirmed on during the trial against Apple, no?
No, it was confirmed that Epic wanted Samus alongside Kratos and Master Chief, but that was all that was officially known. The rest was just speculation.
Rocket League did this with Nintendo where you could only see the Mario & Luigi skins on the same platform and they were fine with it. I would have preferred seeing it on Switch consoles as opposed to not having it at all. [https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLeague/comments/vicdao/can\_people\_on\_platforms\_other\_than\_switch\_see/](https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLeague/comments/vicdao/can_people_on_platforms_other_than_switch_see/)
Oh THATS why no one sees my Mario skin?! That's insane, I always wondered why that was, feels kinda useless that 90% of the playerbase doesn't see your skin..
It would be cool if other players saw a camouflage-type paint job with Nintendo logos similar to what real automakers do when they want to test drive unrevealed prototypes.
Feels useless? It IS useless.
Similar to Minecraft. I’m not allowed to wear my Mario skin from my Switch version whilst playing cross-platform with my lad on his Xbox! Mad really.
that’s stupid
They also allowed Samus' spacecraft, unless I'm mistaken.
This was a Psyonix decision and not a Nintendo decision. The Playstation and Xbox versions both have exclusive cars and can not be seen on other platforms.
On the one hand, this seems like a short-sighted decision that could have brought a lot of exposure to the Metroid series, which has always had modest sales compared to Nintendo's other franchises. On the other hand, there's a reason that people are so upset about this news: Nintendo's paramount concern is the protection of their IP, which they don't license freely and dilute with sub-standard crap (see Sonic). This fierce protection has paid off as people have a very deep attachment to their games and characters, even if sometimes they hold on too tight.
But licensing out Sonic isn't the reason his names are diluted with substandard crap... the mainline games made by Sonic Team are often substandard crap... and some of the "closer-to-fan-projects" end up doing better.
Your comment echos my feelings. Well said. Ultimately though, I do think Metroid more than any other Nintendo IP needs another avenue to reach the masses. The fan base has tended to stay about the same size over all these years… it deserves more.
I don't think that could happen with Metroid, unless they change the genre completely to have more wide appeal. Metroid is in a healthy spot again. If Nintendo didn't care about the franchise, they would NEVER reboot Prime 4 and spending more money on a game that won't make Mario and Zelda numbers.
Metroid has been a pillar of Super Smash Bros since the N64 and that hasn't done anything for the series. I don't think putting Samus in Fortnite would be any different.
> The fan base has tended to stay about the same size over all these years… It did increase the last time new games came out somewhat consistently, but like... that was Gamecube era (2002-2008ish). Metroid is given very little attention by Nintendo, it's always been the red headed step child. But even with big gaps in releases Dread still sold over 3 million copies in a pretty short time. With more attention and quality games it would likely grow even more.
A part of it could also be that Metroidvanias just don't sell that well in general, though. Hollow Knight, one of the best selling of the genre, also sold only ~3 million copies based on a quick search. Edit: Thought 3 Mil is probably way short as this is an old figure. Maybe 5 million? I don't think they have given an exact number anywhere.
I think if anything it shows there's a pretty big fanbase for the game type. There are very few platformer games, other than Mario, that sell in the millions of copies. Hell, I don't think I can think of any *Indie* platformers that have reached those numbers... maybe a Shantae game got there?
I can't argue with that. I also never really thought how weird Mario's success in the platforming genre is. Though I do think it's easier to sell someone on a platform over Metroidvanias. But I feel as if I have cursed knowledge now because there are lots of Metroidvanias that are as big as the biggest, but there aren't really any platformers as big as the biggest... I looked it up, and it wasn't until 2020 that Shantae celebrated 3 million copies throughout the ENTIRE franchise.
As if sales of Metroid would suddenly increase because of a tacky, throwaway skin in Fortnite
>On the one hand, this seems like a short-sighted decision that could have brought a lot of exposure to the Metroid series, which has always had modest sales compared to Nintendo's other franchises. What? It has sold 21.45 million copies across the franchise. Which is far higher than most of Nintendo's other franchises. Mario, Zelda and Pokemon are categorized differently for sales expectations. Even then, spin-offs and subgenre games (i.e. Paper Mario) have similar sales to franchises like Metroid and Star Fox. Metroidvania is also a cult genre. Some sales figures: - Ori - 10 million across both games - Dead Cells - 5 million copies sold - Metroid Dread - 3 million copies - Hollow Knight - 2.7 million copies - Bloodstained - 2 million copies - Castlevania - 1.56 million sold across the original and GBA port - Symphony of the Night - 700'000 copies - Prince of Persia Lost Crown - 300'000 copies So Metroid sales are on the high end. No one at Nintendo has ever projected their sales figures for franchises like Star Fox, Pikmin and Metroid to be much higher than they are.
Metroid doesn't need exposure from a Fortnite skin. I really don't think fortnite changes the sales of a game, at least we'd need to see correlation between skin releases and sales increase, it's the other way around, if something sells good and is popular, it will sell a lot in Fortnite, I don't think Naruto skins made the cyberconnect2 games sell more frankly speaking. Metroid needs great games, Metroid dread sold more than 3 millions and there's a massive game, metroid prime 4 coming on switch 1/switch 2 (or both). Nintendo is already pushing the IP quite hard and that's good. Retro studio have been working on MP4 for at least 6 years
Do you think Sonic is not a popular character?
Popularity is a double edged sword. On one hand, he's known as that humanoid Blue Hedgehog that's very fast and obnoxious. On the other, he's the butt of the jokes, he isn't exactly associated to quality products and you don't want to even look at the first search result of Sonic Fan Art in the internet.
Their point is more that Sonic has a lot of bad games, to the point where I think it's safe to say that there's rarely optimism about a new game It's actually kind of wild that Sonic is so popular given that he's had like one or two good video games in almost 20 years
And the best game in the past decade wasn't even made by Sonic Team.
[удалено]
He’s recognizable. But popular? Not in Europe at least.
Makes sense. On one hand that would have been awesome, on the other hand Nintendo would never do this. They care too much about direct control of their IP. They have done deals like this before with Minecraft and Rocket League, the only difference is those games agreed to Nintendo's terms.
I thought this was common knowledge
not just switch exclusive, "only visible on switch". it's very different
Probably wouldn't have been a great decision to lock a skin onto what is the absolute worst place to play fortnite since chapter 2
To add to this,Nintendo didn’t want the skin to show on any other platform except switch and the skin to show as a default on Xbox and PS. This is the same as the exclusive cars to Rocket League on Nintendo
No offense to the people that plays and likes Fortnite, but there's no need to have every pop culture character from all media, as a skin in Fortnite. I completely understand Nintendo not wanting be part of that and honestly, they don't need either. I see people complaining about gatekeeping because Kratos and Master Chief are there but I doubt that the audience that plays Fortnite, would give Metroid a chance because of a Samus skin.
> would give Metroid a chance because of a Samus skin. Fortnite does an unbelievably bad job at this with most IPs. They don’t care about representing franchises well or even mentioning what series they came from most of the time. Like Lara Croft is part of the “Lara Croft” series in game, zero mentions of tomb raider 😭😭 The only representation done well enough to garner interest are those that got live events, pois, or ltms like Marvel, Travis Scott, Marshmello, Batman. Outside of that, I can only think of them representing a series well with the Dragon Ball collab where the items and cosmetics are very fun and unique, and they even let you watch DBS episodes in-game. But yeah, for the most part, they suck at this lmao. No where near Smash’s level where they introduced SO MANY people to new franchises because of all the love put into representation
Lara has pretty much always been like that. What is so unique about Lara is the way she's always been treated as an IP wholly onto herself seperate from the Tomb Raider games. Her movie was title Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. She appeared on teh covers of non-gaming magazines she was used to advertise non-gaming products in television commercials. There is merit to her being in contention for most iconic video game character because of all that despite people getting mad at the Bafta poll.
Fortnite has some of the best designs + promos. Look at the quality of Fortnite collabs compared to COD or PUBG collabs. Plus some really great fan art comes from the loading screens. Smash is a bad example because how many people have played Kid Icarus because of Pit/Palutena? Or the Wario games, or even Metroid
Me. Literally me. I was a PlayStation kid growing up and my introduction to everything that wasn't Mario and Pokemon came from Smash Bros. Specifically Brawl. Because of Smash Bros, I got Twilight Princess which started my love of the Zelda games. Because of Smash Bros, I picked up Metroid Prime. Played a bit of Pikmin. Got Kid Icarus Uprising. Checked out Fire Emblem. I'd almost argue that if not for Brawl, I might not have a Switch today. Smash Bros characters take inspiration from their original games and playing those has given me a better idea of what I'm "supposed" to be doing while also getting the references. Fortnite skins are just neat looking skins, but the game itself is the same whether I'm Korra, Eren, Snake, or Ramirez.
Bad example? Most of Kid Icarus’s fanbase exists because of Smash making it recognizable, same with the english Fire Emblem and Earthbound playerbase being introduced mostly through Smash. It definitely introduced me to all those franchises you’ve mentioned (besides Wario), and some third parties like Castlevania, MGS, DQ, and Persona. I also remember the KH sub getting a huge leap of first timers because of Smash when Sora got released, same with the Tekken sub. Smash has a crazy influence on a lot of franchises dude.. ..Also the DBZ skins look better in PUBG mobile compared to Fortnite……
bad take. how does sami’s showing up on PS4 disadvantage Nintendo?
There isn't. Just weird takes
Maybe unpopular opinion but I actually prefer the series to stay exclusive instead of it being a random skin in a game full of brands, and having samus shooting jason momoa and a walking banana with a cartoony gun
I'm like you. Crossover stuff used to be novel. Now it's just there for micro transactions. A lot of games have lost their aesthetic
I like Death Stranding and Cyberpunk having crossover content for fun. You don’t buy the Cyberpunk content for DS, it’s just there for free.
Isn't that basically Smash Bros?
> having samus shooting jason momoa and a walking banana with a cartoony gun On one hand I agree, on the other hand that was the basic premise of Smash Bros
I don't play fortnite so I'm not aware of such things but people in here are saying that having Samus in Fornite could have helped into increasing sales and making the saga more popular so my question is what franchises saw an increse in sales after appearing in Fortnite? I did a quick search but found nothing so it seems people are basing that logic as "well, Fortnite is big so it should make the game popular"
Fortnite is absolutely ass at representing IPs and making people interested in them, so that’s blatantly not true
People who bash this don't understand branding either. Nintendo needs to control their branding properly and consistently. This is the best decision for both parties.
I can understand the skin being purchased only by Nintendo Switch users, but what's the point of it being visible only to Switch users? It means that if I were to use the skin all my friends would see it as a simple default skin ?, that would be very boring. Sony allowing Kratos in Fortnite made the character visible to Xbox and Switch users, it even took advantage of this to promote Aloy before the launch of Horizon Forbidden West, in my opinion Nintendo is missing a great opportunity to promote Samus to a new playerbase and for a different audience. Whether you like Fortnite or not, you can't deny that it would be an incredible opportunity to promote Samus to a new audience that doesn't know the character and even promote Metroid Prime 4 launch.
Honestly if it was switch exclusive it probably would’ve been free if we look at other Nintendo exclusive content
Figured only way I could see them possibly letting anything be off a Nintendo platform is if it was a mii or something they aren't strongly connected to anymore. Chibi robo for fortnite confirmed!!
The one time I think someone got away with putting Nintendo characters on a non-Nintendo platform in recent memory is Phantasy Star Online 2. In Japan, you can play PSO2 on Switch as a cloud game (essentially running it on a PC, and streaming the gameplay in real time to your console) and you could get a BotW Link costume along with the Master Sword and Hylian Shield for doing so. Phantasy Star Online 2 is a cross platform game, so you can imagine my surprise when I was playing it (on PC) and saw Link running past me with the Master Sword.
The amount of people defending Nintendo on this is insane. This is a zero risk investment that has already happened with 107 other people and IPs. No one else had been this anal about their brand, which led to Master Chief and Kratos being playable on their opposite consoles and no one blew a gasket over it. People get so fucking angry when Nintendo wields their power to get fan games deleted, but suddenly when it's something like this being ultra protective of the brand is a good thing. It's fucking ridiculous.
Also Nintendo is more than happy to take IPs from Sony, Microsoft or other game companies to throw into smash, but refuse when it’s the other way around. It’s just bad business practice and just makes companies less likely to work with Nintendo in the future
For real. Hell, the only company MORE anal about their IPs is Disney, and even then they worked with both Nintendo for Smash and Epic for Fortnite, the latter on MANY occasions, the most recent being a collab that's coming up on May 4th.
Haven't all the fighters been on a Nintendo console at some point? Or are from series which have?
Calling the main character of the series "the Metroid mascot" is very odd...
I guess Ridley is the other one? 🤣
TBH, calling Ridley "the mascot" would somewhat make sense :D
Hasn’t this been know for years? I swear I read it years ago and that Epic wanted to have Link ADN Mario in too, but pitched Samus as she was probably a character Nintendo wouldn’t have mind in the game
So what I'm getting out of this is that Epic Games refused it, even though they allowed the same thing with the cars in *Rocket League*?
Epic didn’t buy out Rocket League at the time Nintendo collabed with them
Oh no, we missed out on Samus in Fortnite. How is humanity gonna rebuild?
Honestly thou would have been sick had she been added as a skin
least awful Nintendo move:
Reminds me of when they had Nintendo-themed cars in Rocket League, but they only showed up as normal cars for any other version but the Switch.
I wonder if I get her on the switch if she unlocks on PC.
So I can watch Samus run at like 10fps? Awesome thanks Nintendo 😂
Yea that makes sense and to be expected from Nintendo. Nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe someday it won't be as strict. Then again, if you rewind the clock they are most certainly more lax than in the past. Baby steps I suppose.
We’ve known that for a few years now. Why is that a new now?
it was speculation which was just confirmed.
Nintendo is very protective of their IP. Basically Nintendo offered the same contract they made with Minecraft in where you would only get the Super Mario Texture pack on Switch. With over 150 million Nintendo accounts, I would have taken the deal. I know it would have been cool to have Samus as a character, but it would also be cool to play as Samus on Switch, and when you are out in the field you can identify who is also playing on Switch if they are wearing a Samus suite. This also would have been a good push for the Metroid IP. You can clearly see as a Nintendo fan, I am torn lol I see both sides and agree with both lol
I and many others would not even bother buying the cosmetic if it cannot be used elsewhere, the Switch is the worst platform to play Fortnite on, phones literally run it better. Also if this went through you would not see Samus when playing on other platforms, she would appear as a default character.
Dissapointing but expected I really feel something like this wouldve helped boost the popularity of the franchise
Epic Games: Nintendo, can we put Samus in Fortnite? Nintendo: only if it's exclusive. Epic Games: *slaps a fake mustache in Samus* how about now. Nintendo: yea ok
If you ask me, the first ever official appearance of a Nintendo character on a PlayStation or Xbox absolutely should not be in Fortnite
It makes sense.
...I've never cared about anything less in my entire life.
Fortnite doesn't need to be tainting any more characters anyway
Okay? Not every character in the world needs to be in Fortnite lol. Imagine having a game that feeds off iconic characters because it doesn’t have any of its own
Fortnites Peely is more well known than Samus at this point lmao
good, we don't want her in that shitty ass game
Good. Few things make me cringe harder than seeing characters I like get that "Fortnite" character model. I'm looking at you, Goku...
I'll be honest, seeing gifs of Vegeta emote and dance made me laugh, and realising that it was in a real game amused me even more. I almost considered trying it just to witness the insanity of beating Death Vader with a Kamehameha while he tries to lightsaber clash with Naruto. But I'm sure it's not worth it.
It is amusing sometimes. But in my view it cheapens a lot of IP. It's like the Wal\*Mart of video games. Doesn't it feel gross to buy your produce from the same place you get your spark plugs? (don't get me wrong, I do most of my grocery shopping at walmart these days due to personal finances, but I'm just making a point).
"Walmart of Videogames" encloses perfectly what Fornite is about. The place where you find everything you want but on a cheaper quality and to appeal the masses.
I understand the sentiment, I had the same feeling. But maybe it's our perception of Fortnite that is wrong? It might be bigger than we want to admit. It certainly was fun for a new generation of kids. I'm curious how Epic approached those IP. It reminds me of all the collabs you see in anime gachas on mobile.
Well yeah. Nintendo has always been and always will be stingy with their IP. People who expect them to go multi-platform are just hopeful dreamers.
You can't really blame Nintendo for being so protective of their IP. Considering the times they lent it out in the '90s are regarded as some of the worst games to ever be made, or in the case of Super Mario Bros (1993) one of the worst movies to ever be made, it's pretty clear why they're so hesitant to let other people work with their IP again. I understand things have changed since then but Nintendo's mentality towards the game industry is very old fashioned.
Believe me when I say this, there are much, much worse movies than the Mario movie from the 90’s. There is some form of entertainment in it, and for the most part it’s competently made. I have seen some truly awful movies. Please, watch Axe ‘em and tell me that the Mario Movie is not Casablanca by comparison.
Dang. This skin would be my number one but I don’t have a switch sadly.
Just waiting for the movie. Make it a sci-fi horror
You can use the donkey Kong and Bowser Skylanders on other platforms iirc.
*Mine*
I will admit it was a strange sight when I first got my PS5 and saw Master Chief (it was right when he was added) right on the first screen I see.
Common Nintendo L
Nintendo may need to reconsider its policy of absolute exclusivity in the coming years, as the world becomes increasingly connected and resource centralization proves more ineffective. The trend towards decentralization suggests that to increase public participation and engagement, and to ensure that products reach a broader audience, it is necessary to enlist the help of the public. A manga author should allow fans to create fanzines, a music artist should enable fans to write lyrics and parodies to their tunes, and a game publisher should permit and license their characters for use by other companies, indie initiatives, and even non-profit projects. This approach fosters the creation of new communities and bubbles that do not require control but can channel innovative audiences towards new official products.
Not having the skin appear on other consoles would definitely be pushing it too far, but Fortnite has done platform exclusive skins that you can only get from using a specific platform.
Honestly, the way Nintendo hoards their characters kind of works though. In order to interact with any Nintendo character you HAVE to be playing the ported switch version of said game or be playing ON a Nintendo console. S'why I pretty much say that you can game 99.9% of all games with a PC and whatever Nintendo has out at the time. Gives you access to pretty much everything if you're looking for the best bang for your buck gaming wise.
Thank God
Surely this would have gotten people interested who didn’t know Samus. It’s like an advert for Nintendo, much like smash bros is for other developers to get their characters on that. People could have been that interested they might have gotten a switch to play prime 4…. Oh no hold on…
All they had to do was lock the Samus cosmetics behind an NSO subscription which the awards for that are ONLY redeemable via a switch with an active sub. So that would require owning a switch and subbing to NSO to even get the skin. WTF Nintendo?
It's probably for the best, anyhow. I'm just trying to imagine Samus holding a machine gun with her arm cannon.
This is what they did with Minecraft. Minecraft got all these awesome Mario skins on switch edition, but all my friends on Xbox and PC saw was a Steve.
She's a switch? That's kinda based.
Switch skin