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.
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.
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.