WHEN THIS COMMENT GETS PINNED HARDER THAN WE THOUGHT Head to www.squarespace.com/arlo to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code "arlo"
Yeah as a Nintendo fan idgaf about Samus not being in fork-knife. It's a good thing even. Metroid is a largely serious franchise, and is generally light on comedic moments. Fortnite is the clown show of video games. Why would they want Samus breaking it down on Darth Vader's corpse? Also the cross-over with franchises that are waaay above the age ratings Nintendo normally shoots for, and they avoid associations like that
Because having Samus and master chief and kratos all in the same game would be awesome. Granted I'd prefer it to be in an actual fun game like smash bros, but still having all of the big 3's iconic characters in one game is just cool.@@NovaMaster375
Just fyi: it’s believed that when they say samus would be exclusive to switch versions of Fortnite, they didn’t just mean availability, they also meant that if you owned samus and played online, only people who were also playing on switch would see samus. If they played on any other console, samus would appear as a default character.
And tbh, she wouldn't be the first system exclusive skin in Fortnite. If I remember correctly, depending on what you play Fortnite on you could get exclusive skins on PS4, Switch, Galaxy phone, ect.
@@meee_5155he's explaining that skins you could only get on a certain device wouldn't be a new thing. There's been skins that you could only get through the mobile version of the game on specific phones, for example. But then you would have them on your account and could use them as you please. Nintendo could have done something similar, where you can only get Samus on switch but then you have it on your account and can use it anywhere
@@ThisAnimeFOXGirlLovesToDrawno actually, while some skins were only sold on specific platforms once you bought them you could still use them on any version of the game so long as it used the same epic account, ie if you bought Kratos on PS5 you could still use him on the switch version. Nintendo wanted Epic to code an entirely new system to not only prevent Samus from being seen by anyone not on the switch but also not allow anyone who bought her on the switch from using her despite the fact that that all the other exclusive skins could be used/seen on all other consoles. So basically Nintendo wanted special privileges while literally everyone else was fine with it.
Nintendo: We don't want the integrity of our IP's to be compromised. *Samus in Fortnite getting T- bagged by another Samus, while a third Samus dances over her corpse*
Honestly, based on what happens with certain female skins in the game....they're more worried about Zero suit Samus than their character getting T-bagged 😀
@@chibi2239Considering this is the same company that repeatedly made the best item collection results screen for her games be her getting in very skimpy/skin tight outfits, I very much doubt Nintendo cares about what THAT side of the internet does with her.
Samus and Link almost made it into Ultimate Alliance, yes, Marvel's* Ultimate Alliance. But Activision fucked up and showed them footage of Samus running on the PS2 version. The dev team tried to explain that the content was exclusive to Wii, and they just showed them on PS2 for a development convenience. But Nintendo was apparently so offended regardless that they pulled the plug anyway, they're DAT adamant and that petty about their exclusivity.
@@runicex2310 I agree that Activision wasn't professional in their actions but saying that having IP on PS2 vs IP on gamecube would in any way put the IP in jeopardy is insane.
@@runicex2310 No, that's not how that works and you don't seem to understand the difference between trademark and copyright. In this specific case it was literally behind the scenes.
The problem is branding. It's Nintendo's most powerful asset. Their IPs are considered premium, Nintendo is a premium brand in gaming. That scarcity is intentional in keeping its premium reputation. Handing over Samus to Fortnite without any caveats in regards to Nintendo's platforms makes Fortnite appear bigger than Nintendo. Especially as them being the first to accomplish this. This news would be big for Epic... and would start rumors for Nintendo. "Wow, Nintendo actually let Epic have their character? That's new for them. Are they struggling or something? Are they going to go multiplatform?" This strict control of their IP as a premium brand ensures things are always on their terms, and it's part of what makes their brand so coveted in the first place. There's a reason why folks at Epic consider a Nintendo collab to be the biggest deal, despite all of the much larger properties they've collab'd with in the past. It's precisely because of that premium reputation Nintendo has for their brands, and they've built that reputation through their strict control of it. Getting a Nintendo character off the Nintendo console is harder than getting Sora into Smash, and that's very intentional for them.
To add onto this, the branding is also important because people know Nintendo for THOSE characters. Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid, etc and etc. There's such a huge amount of exclusives under their belt and that's REALLY BIG for Nintendo, because they know that people would play their games and systems for the exclusives alone. Folks play your games simply because they've come to expect *those series'* to be represented with your famous seal of quality, and forking over the rights to other publishers to pass around Captain Olimar like he's a hot potato would put a damper on how special that is. And there's no doubt that other publishers like Sony or Microsoft would KILL to have something like that.
This line of logic is entirely absurd. While Nintendo is unique in its age and legacy in gaming and is (or was) known for its top-quality products Sony is also right there. While Sony doesn't have the "luxury" branding of Nintendo it has a long list of exclusives that they refused to let go for a very long time. God of War for example was made multimedia only recently and only for it's 2 latest releases. I don't remember a word being said about how Sony was desperate because they released GoW on PC. If Nintendo let Fortnite have the Samus skin I could only see a future that would have endless hype for the future of Nintendo. Because Nintendo showed it is willing to step out of its comfort zone and experiment. This is on top of Samus not just being on a different game but being on the single largest advertising forum today. Samus being on Fortnite would expose her to millions of kids that would recognize her and want other pieces of media with Samus in it. This is just my anecdotal experience, but I have had a 7-year-old kid point at my Family Guy shirt and say, "I know who that is!" If that kid can point out Peter Griffen on a shirt I'm sure he could point out any other character that's been in Fortnite. Even if they gave Epic the ok to make a skin of Samus or any character, Nintendo would still have final say in how that character is portrayed. Rather famously Nintendo dictated exactly how Bowser would sit and hold a cup in Wreck-it Ralph. The thing with rumors is... there's already a lot of them for Nintendo and none of them have been good rumors for years. You got to any space that mentions the Switch, and you'll eventually hear "At this point Nintendo is purposefully keeping drift so they can milk money from people having to buy new controllers." or how about the rumor a few years ago that suggested one of the Cooking Mama games for the Switch was a trojan horse for bitcoin mining. Again this is all on top of all the times Nintendo has shut down fan projects, attacked RU-vidrs for just having Nintendo stuff in their videos, or very recently where Nintendo forced Gary's Mod to remove all Nintendo related content from the community workshop. Modern Nintendo has the reputation in gaming spaces of being not just being a greedy company with a death grip on it's IP but is also vindictive and malicious actors who hate their fans. Nintendo loosening that grip even a tiny bit would bring waves of good publicity and might even bring more people into the Nintendo ecosystem. Ignoring all of that though, Nintendo needs to look at its future as a company. Its market share is shrinking slowly but surely while heavily relying on its name that is bleeding prestige and relevance. They're not doing anything to actively get into the next generation of gamers and are keeping themselves walled off in their own area. Nintendo as it exists today is threading the rope that will hang it.
Every time they get offered some lucrative crossover with another console or such and such "Yeah! That old Ganon's no match for the King!" Echoes thru their office
The Soul Calibur 2 example isn't a good fit. All three console versions had their own unique character. Gamecube had Link, PS2 had Heihachi, and Xbox had Spawn. It's not like Nintendo was screwing the other versions over.
It's a perfect fit. The reason each platform has an exclusive character instead of all platforms having the same character is likely because Nintendo refused to let Link be in the PS2 and Xbox versions.
I think too many IPs get skins in fortnite for it to drive people to Metroid. If it was a more prestigious thing to become a fortnite skin maybe people would think "oh wow this must be a big deal for it to be in fortnite!" But there are so many skins that I think it would just be viewed as a cool looking skin for most people.
Hard agree, I remember so many people picked up fortnite to try the DBZ skins, and then less so for the Family guy one, and now most people I know don't really care at all unless they already play Fortnite actively.
If it was JUST a skin in the shop, yes, I agree. But if there was an event associated with it, paired with other exclusive gear and weapons modeled after the Metroid series? There’s no way it would just be seen as some cool looking stuff to even most people. It would stand out as its own series and at least some people will be curious. That said, would Nintendo let that happen? Nahhh lmao
You also have to consider the time frame she was planned to be released. She was planned to be released immediately after Kratos and Master Chief. This was the start of the huge collaboration effort for Fortnite, so it would have been early enough that it would have been a big deal. But it ALSO would have been Gaming History in the making. A major character from all of Gaming’s Big Three in one game, in the span of one month. Even if you weren’t a fan, that would have been huge.
Nintendo's control over their IP's is what's kept them relevant, they don't sell consoles because of which third parties support them, it's because their IP's are valuable and recognized. If they sacrifice control over how a character is presented--They risk damaging that IP's reputation. It's not just about competing consoles, but I also imagine not wanting Samus to floss next to Rick Sanchez, was a reason why they were afraid to go forward with the deal. Most people who play Fortnite are kids, Metroid is aimed for Teenagers/Adults. Characters are popular in Fortnite _because_ they're recognized, Peter Griffin isn't more popular now than he was before Fortnite, he was already popular and that's why people were excited to see him in Fortnite. Most kids who don't already know Samus, wouldn't see her as anything more than a Master Chief clone. Those that would be excited to play her, most likely already own a Nintendo console, and those that don't know her, wouldn't be able to get an understanding of her character in Fortnite. Many Nintendo fans would LOVE to play Samus in Fornite, I'm sure. But I can't say that it counts as free advertisement, when the character in question looks a bit like a generic Sci-Fi Space suit wearing character in a fast paced battle royale where you may or may not see the skin of your opponent. Then you have the terrible monetization and the horrid environment at Epic--They refused Nintendo's proposal, and so Nintendo saw them as a company that didn't respect them. What reason _would_ they have to work with them? I agree that Nintendo should focus on advertising Metroid better -- But if Smash Brothers, one of the most popular fighting games of all time, that attracts Gamers from across all consoles, a game that already exists on the Switch, so everyone who plays it, _could play Metroid,_ can't bring more people to be interested in Metroid, then I sincerely doubt Fortnite would reach that many more players to look into the series. It's not like Samus isn't well recognized among gamers either, it's simply that Metroidvania's, don't have a large audience to attract, and Nintendo hasn't been doing much to breach out of the box containing the genre. I just don't see a Samus skin in Fortnite as being all that beneficial for Nintendo themselves, they don't need the cut of skin sales, they already make enough money. It wouldn't be popular enough amongst Non-Metroid fans to really bring in new fans, and the only people who might learn about Metroid through Fortnite, are kids who are outside the target audience of Metroid anyway. This deal stands to benefit Epic, more than Nintendo. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see this as a fumble on Nintendo's part, more-so on Epic's side.
@@TravisSheflin yeaaa lol sometimes our favorite content creators just super miss the point about stuff - Although I am floored by how realitively nicely everyone has been dissagreeing with Arlo here - like, everyone is just unanimously dissagreeing and nobody is getting really nasty and mean about it. which is nice to see
Your comment about how your Nephew laments his seemingly "niche" tastes is a sentiment my mother would probably share. She is a teacher, and she to laments the fact that kids only seem to talk about Fortnite, although she has a distaste of it for other reasons.
arlo said it himself, those kids are just talking about fortnite adding crossovers doesn't get them not talking about fortnite I really don't understand the logic leaps
Well, people can enjoy different type of gameplay. I do like soulslikes for their slow methodic combat and I like doomer shooters for their chaotic carnage. I can easily imagine people who enjoy both battle royale and alone metroid gameplay. Especially with scale of how many people are into fortnite
As someone ON the Fortnite side of things, people began playing Metroid after the rumor of her getting in came out. People were hugely excited for her and to experience playing as Samus without the huge Nintendo price tag. Combined with the fact that several other series, creators and even forms of media saw huge jumps in their respective fields after collaborating with Fortnite, and this opinion you have is the real fantasy.
this ^ I am so confused why people are upset that nintendo isn't going to contribute to the predatory monetization targeted at children in fornite what kind of cope is this actual brainrot
@@-lord1754 For one these are two different games. Epic can charge whatever they want for their FREE game. You know what Nintendo game isn't free and still has microtransactions? Smash Brothers Ultimate. On top of a fighter pass and all type of Mii microtransactions. Other Nintendo games with Microtransactions: Pokémon Café Mix, Pokémon Quest, Pokémon Shuffle/Unite. Mario Run, and Mario Kart Tour.
The problem with these arguments is that people always go. "That darn greedy company, all they care about is money!!" Then when company doesn't do something customer wants them to do "Company so stupid, they would make SOO much money if they just did what I want" Nintendo is just doing as they always do, maintaining their brand image and IP, even if it would "make them more money" to sell you a 20 dollar skin in a live service game mind you.
What’s hypocritical about it? We’re not against the concept of Nintendo making money. We’re against the concept of Nintendo making money at the expense of its customers. I want Nintendo to be successful, and when they make bad business decisions for silly reasons, I don’t really like it.
I like the fact that Nintendo guard ther IP so rigourously it shows that they care about their IP where is if you asked me Sony and Microsoft do not care about as much.
A year ago I went to a convention and met the voice over director for Breath of the Wild, James Mortellaro. I mentioned I was studying audio engineering and he said to shoot him an email and that he wouldn't mind passing around my resume to "his peeps." When I got home and stared at my unfinished resume, I was so afraid that it would never be good enough or that I wouldn't hear back, or they would tell me that it was bad, so I just... never sent him my resume. I heavily regret that lol. Great video Arlo!
Bruh you even taken a glance at any of Nintendo’s mobile games? Mario run, Feh, animal crossing, and others I can’t think of. All were or still are extremely monetized, published by Nintendo companies themselves.
@@lucg4005 Good point. I was thinking along the lines of console games, forgetting about mobile monetization because of how normalized it has become. You are very correct in this statement of yours.
@dmclsl03 I mean, maybe it'll be nothing, but... Fortnite kids are really annoying. I was in middle school when it first got popular, and it was excruciating being around all that. Couple that with the fact that I've seen posts about people who thought that all the characters who have skins in fortnite were just fortnite characters (There's that one famous post about the guy who thought "Stormtrooper" was just a skin from fortnite and DMed a random Star Wars fan because they thought he was talking about a Fortnite skin. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but Samus is also far more obscure than any Star Wars character). So combine the skin confusion with how annoying Fortnite's fanbase can be, and... I mean, idk if it would really be that big of a deal, I might just be paranoid because of middle school PTSD, but if Samus became super known for just being a cool space-marine fortnite skin with the ball and the arm cannon and her players would try to start Fortnite convos with Metroid fans while having no idea what Metroid was... It might boost sales considerably, but idk if it's worth it. That's a lot of shit I'd rather not have the Metroid fanbase deal with. Plus, any new players coming in from Fortnkte, excited to play a shoot-shoot game that lended their character to another more popular shoot-shoot game, then it's not impossible that they would not be so happy to find out that some of Samus' games are 2d or that the 3d games aren't very combat heavy. And, although I don't think this outcome is at all likely, it IS possible that it could lead to new players outside the fanbase pressuring Metroid games to become more traditional shooters. Now, my judgment in this scenario is most likely clouded due to me absolutely hating Fortnite and its fandom. But... man, I just don't want to see my poor Samus tainted by that beast. It might lead to more popularity, but at what cost?
@@calvinbrinenestoris2357 Your judgement is _definitely_ clouded by you hating Fortnite. Fortnite wouldn't ruin Samus. Kids coming in from Fortnite wouldn't be any more disappointed that Metroid isn't Fortnite than they would be disappointed that Spider-Man isn't Fortnite. You're getting paranoid and creating make-believe scenarios because you hate the thing that kids these days are into. Like most of the people in this comment section are.
@@StardustWhip Hey I hated Fortnite when I was a kid, too. It's not like I'm hating on some NEW game that kids freak out over. Although yeah, it probably is stupid of me to think that Fortnite players coming to Metroid would be angry about it not being a traditional shooter. I'm still definitely concerned about some of those other worries with Samus and the Fortnite fandom, though.
I think that not wanting Samus on other consoles is just the beginning of what Nintendo would have wanted. I can't imagine Nintendo being okay with Samus doing certain dance moves or being T-bagged or modded or any number of other things that Fortnite is known for. No amount of publicity is worth the company not directly controlling their character's presentation to Nintendo. It is what it is.
@@bigshrekhornerand Nintendo’s view on the matter is incredibly backwards easily countered. If Nintendo doesn’t like what people do with Samus in Fortnite, all they have to do is say “Samus in Fortnite isn’t canon”. Boom. Done. Any and all “damage” that could be done is immediately fixed.
@@dexchampion2128Does anyone think The Rock in Fortnite is his real life? 😂 Does anyone think in Halo you build forts in combat? Do people think Optimus is about 6 ft tall? 😂
The Worst Case Scenerio is Metroid gets an audience that wants Metroid to become a big dumb shooter and remove all the ambience, atmosphere, and exploration for big dumb shooting time.
Exactly. Metroid isn't about being a shooter. It's about being on an adventure exploring places in a heavily isolated atmospheric experience. Not a mindless shooter with silly dances
I don't think that's happened for any other series that's crossed over with Fortnite. Like, do you really think that the kids who play Fortnite and went to go see Spider-Verse got disappointed because Miguel didn't shoot Miles and start disco dancing? Do you think they watched Avatar and went "man, this sucks, I can't believe Aang didn't use a gun!"? No, they didn't, because kids are smart enough to understand that the franchises which cross over with Fortnite aren't the same thing as Fortnite itself. I mean, by this logic, kids who learned about Fire Emblem or Xenoblade through Smash Bros. would want them to turn into four-player platform fighters.
A small comment on Arlo's burrito analogy: getting Samus as a skin on Fortnite, and played on other consoles wouldn't really be equivalent to a burrito restaurant opening up a pop-up store in a con or making a food truck out of their restaurant. It would still be _themselves_ selling their own product. It would be more equivalent to a burrito restaurant letting their own burrito recipe be sold by a different restaurant as a collaboration. Or maybe, creating a line of frozen burritos to be sold in supermarkets, outside of their control. Someone else is selling their own product.
I mean, if you're naive enough to believe Nintendo would ever let their IP appear on a competitor's console as long as they have their own on the market, I don't know what to tell you. Lol Unlike Microsoft, or Sony to an extent, who consider their brand or subscription services to be the real "platform", Nintendo is still fully invested in HARDWARE as their platform.
Yeah, and it also seems that Xbox and Playstation don't care about their exclusivity for anything since 2020, given their original stuff can be found on other things nowadays.
@@goldenninja9053 Do keep in mind we're in an environment where plenty of people decry exclusive games as always anti-consumer. Sony does care about exclusivity but will go on PC (for better and for worse) because there's demand for it.
For someone who often talks about gaming companies' scummy business practices, I'm surprised you are this upset about this. You mention this, but regardless, it sounds like by you "setting aside" your distaste for Fortnite and Epic, you think the scumminess of the two things should be ignored. You are saying the morals you often preach about can be overlooked if enough publicly is gained. Yeah, exposure is great and it would've been great for Metroid to have more exposure, but I'm happy that Nintendo didn't let one of their characters go to Fortnite/Epic. Nintendo can be frustratingly stubborn and old-fasioned at times, but yeah, I *do* think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I love you Arlo (been subscribed since 2016), but this video was just overblown in my opinion.
Not necessarily people need to take more responsibility for themselves with their money and how they spend it. Not saying those companies should do it but they did it bc of business reasons and Metroid really needs something to justify making any future games tbh
Can guarantee you Samus in Fortnite would not help the series 1 bit. Example: Isaac in Fortnite when they released the Dead Space Remake. Great game, representation in Fortnite. Still flopped. Kids will just see it as another cool Fortnite skin and will never even have ANY passing thought as to where it came from. A perfect meme example of this: "oh look! It's Aang from Fortnite!"
Maybe it wouldn’t help A TON but it’s not like every fortnite player who doesn’t know Metroid doesn’t have the brainpower to understand where the skins come from lol
it's not that nintendo didn't throw IP into fortnite, it's the reason why. I mean I could totally be behind them if they said "We don't want to be associated with loot boxes in any way" for example. Asking it to be switch exclusive is just the wrong stand
That would be hypocritical of them to do in The first place when they're willing to have Pokemon unite on their platform and have gacha mobile games with loot box mechanics themselves
@@pacattack2586its simple. They didn’t think loaning out their IP was worth it. They don’t need to explain why they did it. They don’t need to extend the olive branch. Same as how smash fighters don’t need to accept Nintendo’s invitation.
Good. Personally really glad I don't have to see Samus dancing over shooting people in the head on top of tons of other fictional characters for whom it is disgustingly out of character.
On the other hand: Perhaps we should in fact applaud a company willing to stick to its laurels, informally telling us that making more money is not their one and only goal. I'm not suggesting that's what's going on, but it's a possibility I suppose.
You’re talking about Nintendo?? The company that sells skyward sword for $60? The company that refuses to fix their online services at absurd prices? The company that refuses to rework their controllers instead of paying millions of dollars to improve the consumer experience? The company that consistently takes people to court for emulating a game they refuse to sell? Open your fanboy eyes. You sound like the CEO from smiling friends “ITS MY IP TO SIT ON NOT THEIRS” shut up man.
idk i feel from what ive heard its basically undeniable that smash boosted fire emblem and earthbound, maybe the later games have done it less with so many characters but really as arlo said the downsides are even more miniscule
Third party characters in Smash aren’t included to give their franchises more exposure. On the contrary, the most requested by fans are the chosen ones. Banjo was obviously not chosen to boost sales, it was only because fans liked him. That’s how Bayonetta got in, she won the Smash ballot. So a lot of people already knew who she was and sales wouldn’t get boosted by them. And for the people who didn’t already know her, it can’t be ignored that Bayonetta killed the competitive scene of Smash 4 and left a sour taste on their mouth. Even though the casual audience is much bigger than the competitive one, Bayo is still the most infamous character in Smash history and what she did negatively is common knowledge by now.
@@JG_Wentworth That you give up control of your IP to a third party without receiving a viable benefit in return? Why would Nintendo want Samus to hit the griddy with Kratos instead of mantaining their own control
gonna be real at this point it reversed to me like... everything is in fortnite by now, nintendo getting a skin there would just be a tiny thing up on a pile. Don't know why I should care for a bigger "advertising opportunity" for them, I care for their games not their buisness strategy
I care cause it'd get more people to care about their games and make it easier for Nintendo to make more games like Metroid Prime 4 for example If demand goes up and things are more well known in the public eye, it makes it easier for Nintendo to take risks and produce stuff
It's not just advertising, I'm sure they get $ for each skin sold and I would've bought it the second it was available...if I could use it on ps5. I ain't playing Fortnite at 480p 30fps with low settings just to see Samus.
@@CheesyLizzy Fortnight does so many colabs that Samus would not actualy end up making a difference. The kids who play fortnight arent gonna be like "oh that character looks cool Im going to google it", because it would just be one of many games they would not know about. And anyone who already knows who Samus is not gonna just decide to buy it because they saw it in fortnight.
@@alanhardy7024 Simply seeing the character is still impactful though Kids might later see a Metroid game at Walmart or somewhere and be like, "Oh! I recognize that character. I wonder what their game is." There's many franchises that I've discovered over the years simply by recognizing characters from Smash
As someone who suffers from both decision and task paralysis, I can understand why Nintendo probably did this. Big N seemed to be following the "give em and inch" mindset, which is not the worst mindset sometimes. A lot of people have a tendency to want to play Nintendo games, but not on Nintendo products, thus why there are so many people with eye-patches "swabbing the Deck on a Steamship". If Nintendo did say yes to this, it would give this non-system side of the argument more firepower to demand Big N to go multi-platform, which for them is a net-negative as a hardware developer. Also, by the way Sony and Microsoft are going, trying to keep to their own ship for now might not be the worst decision.
but the literally have to. they are not the securest company possessing IPs. they do not have the resources, man power or knowhow to stay save against companies that are several times bigger than them. "but they have so much money" money is NOT none of the things i listed.
this whole video is countered by a simple question: "are kids buying sf6 after the sf skins were constantly popular on fortnite? or are they just making chun li twerk?" pretty easy to see why nintendo wouldn't care to pass this up.
@@dorian6021 I don't think it's odd. Arlo branded himself primarily as a Nintendo Tuber. It's not all he does, but it's so much of what he does that it is a little jarring to see him cover something that's in the zeitgeist of pop culture outside of Nintendo, like Fortnite.
Well, I get it, I get what you are saying... but... Nintendo has the business high ground. They have such weight that they don't need this move. I mean, the Switch is such a success that by itself, Metroid Prime 4 will be a franchise best seller.
It’s an unfortunate reality, I know for rocket league Nintendo made Mario, Luigi, and Samus cars, but they’re exclusive to Switch versions of the game.
I think this is one of the first times that I've seen the comments collectively disagree with the take in the video is bad. Sure, Nintendo is a bit stingy with their IP, but nearly nobody is going to play the Metroid games because Samus is in Fortnite.
7:17 - Strong Disagree. Being in Fornite is extremely overrated. Street Fighter sales were barely affected by Ryu and Chun-Li in Fortnite. I doubt Samus being added would’ve improved Metroid sales. The pros do not justify the cons.
Here's a question: What cons? Like Arlo said, the worst case scenario, even if we assume that absolutely 0% of the Fortnite-playing kids even consider playing Metroid after seeing Samus... is that Nintendo makes money off of kids buying a cool skin of a bounty hunter with a cool mech suit.
@@StardustWhip the downside to Nintendo would be that they would have no control over how Samus would have been portrayed in fortnite. Every emote works for all skins so that would mean Samus would be able to do all those emotes including emotes released in the future. Nintendo doesn’t know what Fortnite will add into their game in the future either, what sort of guns will they add, or gameplay elements. All things Nintendo would have no control over. So in this way Samus could be portrayed in Fortnite in a way that Nintendo wouldn’t want it to. So ultimately Nintendo chose to not do it in order to keep complete control of their characters. This is something Arlo conveniently ignores in his argument.
I saw GameXplain complain about this too. I don’t quite get it. Indiana Jones in Fortnite didn’t translate to massive ticket sales or popularize the IP for kids. If it’s true that Fortnite is the only game the kids play, why would this change that behavior? In terms of “what do you have to lose?”, I agree. But because of the reasons I listed earlier, I don’t really think of it as a major missed opportunity.
well i mean indy is already pretty popular? I think it obviously wouldnt translate to game sales directly but just getting the franchise known is always beneficial
Indiana Jones was put into Fortnite when no major Indiana Jones movie/game/media was released. He's a Battle Pass exclusive skin that can never be obtained ever again. They couldn't re-release him for Dial of Destiny because the only way to get him was to be there for that 3 month period when he was available. This isn't the best example.
Counterpoint: Fortnite is lowest common denominator sludge and it's a good thing that Samus hasn't been crudely plastered into it along with 8 million other licensed characters.
Genuine Question: If Fortnite is low brow sludge, why has it succeeded as one of the most popular games of all time for 6 (almost 7) years straight, and other companies that would, in theory, do the job better, flipping and dying basically on arrival? You don’t have to enjoy Fortnite, but to imply the game itself is bad simply because you don’t like it is a slippery slope. How many people don’t enjoy Metroid? Does that mean Metroid is absolute gutter trash and no one should play it? Hell no! The “popular = bad” mentality really goes out the window when you’re trying to defend Nintendo of all people.
@@dexchampion2128 my opinion, but simply put, there is a large portion of people who look for something mindless and exciting for entertainment as mainly a way to check out from real life for a while. Strictly speaking, this isn’t a bad thing, nor is it terribly different from how (in my experience) people enjoy a series like Metroid that requires a bit more problem/puzzle solving and a certain type of attention. Problem is, and I won’t go into detail as to societal reasons why, the group of people into the lowest common denominator junk food games is larger than those wanting creative games with complex and rewarding gameplay, or stories, or what have you. The issue comes that many companies see “X is huge” and think “we should copy X” or “Let’s make our stuff more like X”. So I personally I don’t point at Fortnite as some worthless trash, I do consider it a plague on the gaming space threatening to cannibalize what I consider more intelligently designed and more satisfying games. Rather than existing as a separate genre of game. That tends to be where the vitriol seeps out.
@@dexchampion2128 "if it's low brow sludge, why is it so popular" is not the gotcha you think it is. It is popular precisely *because* it appeals to the lowest common denominator. Metroid necessarily appeals to a smaller audience because it has an actual identity.
Honestly, this video just ends up being a PSA for putting Nintendo games on other platforms. Once you open that door, it’s hard to close, Arlo. It’s not like Metroid is going to die because they didn’t do something as small as put Samus in Fortnite. Chances are, they took notes from Dread and are working on something that’ll do even better in sales, so Nintendo is not concerned! Part of Nintendo’s success is their IPs. Imagine if they put Mario on the PS5. It’s more powerful and more graphically impressive, so what would be the point of ever putting Mario on a weaker and less graphically impressive Nintendo system?? And honestly Arlo, after what’s been going on with Sony and Xbox recently, do you really want that to happen???
You know from the thumbnail I thought you were going to say the fumble was *including* samus in fortnite. You had me scared for a second there. Thank god they backed out of the deal. Good on them.
Why are people acting like Metroid would gain massive popularity if they put it in Fortnite. What franchise clearly benefited from collaborating with Fortnite? Can anyone confirm?
@@Pioxys smash is different, it’s a “king maker”, it makes the franchises that it collaborate with more popular. Fortnite is kind of the opposite it siphons popularity from the franchise it collaborates with, I have never seen a franchise get more popular because their characters were in Fortnite.
@@steveqi9309Also I get the feeling that the majority of people who buy skins of characters in Fortnite were already fans of the franchises they came from.
I don't think Arlo realizes that the Fortnits & Nintendo audiences are so different that it actually makes sense why they didn't let Samus go. I've seen a similar type of argument with PS not doing smaller scale games more often but then you see that even their experimental AAA stuff sell worse than Nintendo's AA & A output that's still 60$-50$.
I have to disagree. Metroid in Fortnite would be a drop in the bucket. I don't think it would've been special beyond the "Nintendo is letting us do this", and everyone would forget about it in a minute. What Nintendo would lose is intangible, the "wow" factor. Take the SC2 Link collab for example, Link was the absolute highlight of the 3 systems.
I think that's a good point In a game where Peter Griffin and Darth Vader can shoot guns at Goku and Iron Man, how special really is Samus? People remember Link in Soul Calibur because it was unexpected and it just worked. Soul Calibur provides us with a great counterexample too: Look at how people received Link in 2 vs Darth Vader/Yoda in 4. One just worked way better and is remembered fondly for it. Samus would be a cool addition, but yeah, it'd be a flash in the pan. Heck, it's not even Nintendo sending their biggest icon in where so many other franchises have their main characters as skins.
@@sgtdrfunk Speaking on that point, the reason why crossovers in Smash are so exciting is because Sakurai and his team go above and beyond with them. It's not just a character, it's a faithful move set (usually), a stage, trophies/spirits, music, and easter eggs. Fortnite just looks like a hodge-podge of everything under the sun, plus whatever companies want to advertise for that month. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fortnite just skins most of the time? Do kids really try out other games, movies, etc., because they appeared in Fortnite?
I agree that Metroid in Fortnite would be a drop in the bucket, but Nintendo would lose nothing. In my experience(I work at a Daycare), when a character gets into Fortnite, kids become super interested. I've seen kids who know nothing of Street Fighter buy SF6 because of Fortnite, and I've had kids ask to watch Avatar after those characters got into Fortnite. It does more than you think.
Im honestly fine with Samus not being in fortnite. Like, i get it. The cultural significance of Fortnite is there, and it's a good sales pitch to get eyes on a franchise. For me personally, though, im just so exhausted with the all-encompassing nature of Fortnite. Like it just wants to BE everything, HAVE everything. Concerts, movie teasers, a rhythm game, racing, a pseudo crafting survival game in Lego Fortnite, and every character from every franchise ever, even characters from books like Mistborn are in the game. On paper, thats cool as hell. In practice, it feels so shallow and corporate and more like a play to get everything associated with the game rather than the other way around. It just feels like epic wants to monopolize everyones time and that sucks Now if Nintendo actually DID ANYTHING WITH SAMUS
Yeah for real. Fortnite just REEKS of corporate greed. It's Nintendo's fault for not using the Metroid IP THEMSELVES. Why are we blaming Epic for not promoting Metroid? That's NINTENDO'S JOB! If they actually cared about Samus, they would make more games for her! Simple as.
I'd be less anti-Nintendo if some Nintendo fans were more consistent. The stuff that they excuse Nintendo for would have them boycotting other companies over.
@@Seoul_Soldier i mean, the problem with boycotting games is the company won't see it as the action, but as the game, so if the game was good that would hurt it, or even if just an installment in the series was bad but they want the series in a different way, they'll say it's with the whole series i think if we boycott them for things like their copyright state, well, you boycott pokemon, they won't say it's with the current games and their philosophy being bad, or that it's because they closed fangames people have been working on for over a decade, they're gonna say pokemon games aren't profitable or aren't worth making ofc pokemon is so big it wouldn't matter and they wouldn't stop it, but for smaller series that would be the case
I honestly don't even see how nintendo Would get a benefit from Samus being in fortnite besides "HEY my Fav Charecter is in a game i play" People also forgot that unlike Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft have multiple IP brands Nintendo only has their games without them Nintendo is finshed. Which were definitely explained why Nintendo is much more strict with their Ip
Which is another reason why nintendo was reaching out to other types of brands such as Movies with their new studio Nintendo Picture's and Amusement Parks like Nintendo World
I'm going to hard disagree on Samus having an exposure problem, the problem is more that metroidvanias are a fairly niche game genre and Nintendo gives Samus good exposure when the games come out. Exposure can only do so much for niche gametypes. Open world Samus like Metroid Prime is going to do better, but it isn't an actual open world, Doom itself might be the best analog to Metroid Prime, and it only sold a couple million, which is nothing to sneeze at, but Metroid: Dread sold 3.07 million, and Prime remastered sold over a million, these genres just aren't everyone genres, they are niche
3:23 As a native East Asian, I'm actually getting a vibe that Nintendo actually didn't mean that. I think Nintendo was practically saying "No" in a different way, knowing Fortnite would not accept the offer.
Oh my god this. This is part of the game is if your going to say "No", don't say "No." Make an absurd demand where you win extra hard and see if they take it.
@@FenexTheFox Yes, that is the point, they demanded console exclusive because they knew this would not be accepted. Better than outright saying: No your game is cancer and we will not touch that pile of garbage.
I dunno, it just doesn’t seem like it would matter more than a few weeks. It would be a $20 skin and it just wouldn’t really make a huge dent in anyone’s awareness of Metroid. The downside is to make Nintendo’s IP seem cheap, just another thing in Fortnite’s discount DVD bin of IP junk in a bad art style.
To be fair Nintendo doesn't really need more notoriety to their ip's. Sony and Microsoft would kill for their games to sell as much as Nintendo's do and like 90% of those sales are at full price.
Here's a spicy take: Nintendo's iron-clad protectiveness of their IP's is actually a GOOD thing. It shows how much their value their own brand. If Nintendo were to start just licensing their IP's out and let 3rd parties make all sort of spin-offs or whatnot, the value of the brand would go down because I can promise you, while our dreamy optimistic viewpoint is focused on the possibilities, the realities is that most of the content produced would just be low-effort mediocrity. Seriously, I'm okay with waiting a long time over letting the floodgates open and letting a bunch of trash flood the market.
Selling each version of the game with a different cool character that represents the system it's on was such a nice thing to do. Kind of reminds me of MK9, which had Kratos on the PS3 version
Am I the only one who feels that Nintendo's reluctance to have their IPs on other systems with other devs is tied to the horrors of the CDi and the PC games from that era? The one time they let their IPs out of their total control it ended with games that are despised and mocked even 30+ years later. Not that that excuses them being so hard about it, but it's all I can think of when a story like this comes out.
I'd still argue Arlo's point that it'd be awesome free promotion for Nintendo in the no-publicity-is-bad-publicity sense, but there would probably be some inevitable memes clowning on Fortnite skins of Link or Samus dropping it low or Link using a sniper rifle to shoot people, but those memes are usually made endearingly and they spread like wildfire. Want to make sure people know Nintendo did a promotion with Epic (If they do in the future), let people make a thousand Tiktok's and Twitter videos of Link spraying people with guns and driving sports cars with "LOL LINK DOESN'T DO THAT. SILLY EPIC." captions everywhere.
That's definitely not the case. It's very clear that Nintendo wants to hold onto their console exclusivity for as long as possible. While Microsoft fully embraces console and PC ports side-by-side and Sony releases their games on PC eventually, it's a pipe dream for PC gamers to hope for Mario or Zelda on the PC (without stuff like emulators) for DECADES to come. Nintendo is all-in on their consoles and will do anything to force anyone who likes their IPs to have to buy and play their console.
I think the rational reason Nintendo would not want to do this is because firstly, putting Samus in Fortnight isn't a necessity by any means and although might benefit them, Nintendo is doing well enough to the point where they don't need to do this type of outside sponsoring. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe this could be a slippery slope. Sure, it's only Fortnight, but then they might make the exception with other third parties on Xbox and Play Station, to a point eventually where Nintendo can be seen all over these other consoles. I feel like Nintendo still really wants to stand out among its competitors by maintaining exclusive rights to their own franchises and I honestly understand that. I think what makes Nintendo games different on iPhone is that the phone audience is its own sort of market completely outside the traditional gaming sphere and I think that Nintendo understood that their home consoles or handhelds had no way of competing with that, so they gave in and decided to make games for it that better suited that audience.
I don't think this would've effected anything really... There are SO many skins that it doesn't matter, and they're all just skins so they all play the same, no abilities. I don't think they should've even offered to allow it _with_ Switch exclusivity. The people who'd buy the skin would already be Metroid fans, and very few other players would really even see it. Samus wouldn't be using her arm cannon. She'd be using the same guns as everyone else in the game. No morph ball... Nothing at all that would actually advertise her in any way to convince these kids to try her games.
@@jasonmitchell7550 you’re still playing a shooter that has you pay for multiple cosmetics while also having a battle pass, it’s not the best but so many other live services have shady monetization methods, even Nintendo isn’t safe from this.
Honestly, I'm not sure that 'Fear and Discomfort' are behind this. My suspicion is that the thought process was something like this: "Having Samus on all systems in Fortnite wouldn't really help us because A. Most people don't play Fortnite on the Switch, and her not being exclusive to Switch wouldn't change that. And B. Samus is already known by most gamers, so it wouldn't really help from an 'advertising' perspective. It may not be great reasoning, but If I'm a big-wig at Nintendo, and am a little disconnected from whatever else goes on, I feel like that's my thought process.
Wait ‘till Arlo hears about all of the player-made content of Nintendo IPs getting removed from Gmod’s workshop on Steam. Tens of thousands of player models, maps, custom weapons and items, you name it. Gone.
Im more than happy for Nintendo characters to feel special tbh. Star wars has completely lost all of its value because of how they sell it out to literally anything and now its just annoying to see them.
Fortnite skins are limited time, so the impact would be pretty limited outside a few days. To me it seems like a strange thing to completely shift their IP strategy for.
@@festimcocaj1269 when you turn on the game, there’s an in-game store. You go there and you can spend money directly on cosmetics. When you buy them, you have them forever. HOWEVEEEER, you can only get them for a limited time, and Fortnite never brings skins back unless it’s a special occasion. If you didn’t buy the skin you want in time, it’s gone FOR GOOD. It’s not only absolutely abysmal for preservation but Nintendo would get nothing out of putting Samus in Fortnite because she will just go away for all the players who didn’t buy her, and blend in with the thousands of other skins in your inventory if you did, and then new shit releases that makes more news headlines so she’ll only be relevant for like a week And all that would happen is everybody forgets about her, and Nintendo’s reputation goes down the gutter because they worked with Fortnite which is one of the most scummy games of all time.
@@festimcocaj1269I think he's referring to how the Battle Pass cosmetics never come to the item store, and how certain other cosmetics are way rarer in there.
@@festimcocaj1269 in the way that you often only have a limited amount of time to buy the skin before it goes out of rotation, and then you don’t know when, if ever it come back to the shop again.
I think another reason why Nintendo doesn’t want Samus in Fortnite is that while Samus does use guns, they don’t exactly look like the conventional guns in Fortnite. Nintendo might think that seeing Samus run around with an AK47 might damage their family friendly brand. Not the best excuse but another reason other than ‘we don’t feel like it’
I honestly think this is for the best. Nintendo values the brand integrity of their IPs. Fortnite’s aesthetics are so generic And boring it robs all the character out of whoever crosses over into it, it’s like the opposite of Smash Bros where they try really hard to keep the “vibe” of the characters involved in tact from their home series.
This is so real. My jawdropped at how bad Gojo looks then i looked up the others and its just embarassing. Fortnite is where a series identity goes to die
@@CappnRob sure they profit from it but like... how is that bad? like i'm definitely no supporter of capitalism by any means but seriously i fail to see how this is a 'cheap profit' it's just a cool thing that many fans want. if you don't want it, sure, but many people do and if they want to pay for it then why not? it seems so silly to be hung up on this
@@eliserss It's about artistic integrity, I guess. Laugh all one wants over the value of that with regards to Nintendo games, but Fortnite really is devoid of any artistic merit with its crossovers. It features everyone, everything, everywhere, it's so vapid and silly. It's when a kid takes every toy out of their toybox and bashes them against each other, except mind you that's a child playing with their imagination and this is a multimillion dollar company selling skins to kids. It is vapid, and for lack of a better term if you'll forgive the buzz word, "soul less".
If you’ll allow me to play devil’s advocate, let me ask a question: why would people want to see Samus in Fortnite? Sure, some of them are people who enjoy playing Fortnite who would like to see Samus in the game, but from what I’ve seen, most Nintendo fans don’t care about actually playing Fortnite. From what I can tell, most people want to see Samus in Fortnite because they just want Metroid to get more attention, they believe it deserves as much attention as Zelda or Mario, and putting the main character in a game played by practically everyone on Earth has a possibility of achieving that. So my question is: do you REALLY want Samus in Fortnite because you want to see or play as her in the game, like a guest character in a fighting game, or do you want it because you’re a Metroid fan who really badly wants Metroid to get as big as Nintendo’s most successful franchises? (speaking as a Metroid fan here) Sorry for this long-ass comment/rant, I’ve been feeling this for a while now and kinda wanted to this off my chest.
I want to see Samus in Fortnite. She's literally a perfect fit she has a gun she has to zero suit why wouldn't you want to see that? It's become so trendy and cool to not like Fortnite. People literally start hating when things become mega successful. Also you cannot say Nintendo gamers don't care about Fortnite because I'm sure it's been downloaded millions of times on the switch. It's not even like Metroid is a huge series, if anything Fortnite will be doing them the favor especially with MP4 coming out. This will bring a lot of attention to the Metroid brand... But you know Nintendo going to Nintendo
As someone who doesn't really care THAT much about metroid. (I think the designs and world is really cool but haven't really played the games) I would still buy a samus skin just to let nintendo and epic know "YES i want more of this" and maybe they would add even more nintendo related items into the game. Anything Nintendo in fortnite would be HUGE. I don't even care if they only ever do this with Fortnite. Even if nintendo had an exclusivity deal to let everyone know "this is only happening in fortnite and we will be protective about our IP in any other situation" That would still be gigantic
@@korneel2816 And that would probably be a bit of an issue. You want more skins in Fortnite, but Nintendo wants you to play Metroid (and Fortnite) on the Switch. If that does not happen if they would have added Samus to Fortnite, then they won't be putting any more character skins in a game like Fortnite.
@@arjanzweers6542 i don't understand what you are saying? Theres not a nintendo skin in the game rn either? how would adding samus make it so nintendo wouldn't possibly add more
Hey, Arlo. Thank for putting something of a theme into this video. I just graduated college and hearing someone I respect talk about the benefits of taking risks and not always playing it safe was really nice right now. “Just try” and just taking shots was something I guess I kinda needed to hear. I’d love to see more stuff like this!
To be honest, I don't think any fortnite kids would go out of their way to get a nintendo system and play metroid of all things. Fortnite kids are used to hyperactive and bloodpumping action, they seek the easy reward. And metroid is far away from that type of game. Im 100% with nintendo on this one, having samus one of their most serious characters do the griddy and dancing with ariana grande would be just weird. All this to say it would never translate with a significant increase of box copies like the example of "chun-li from fortnite" I can bet that no kid knows what street fighter actually is and if they played it they would get bored and go back to fortnite.
Everyone was mad at Nintendo for not following the graphical race the other companies were running. But now those companies are finding that making these graphically overproduced games are far too expensive and rarely pays off. Rules are made to fend off problems. We can't predict what problem this would produce.
I disagree. It's more like that costs aside from development, like marketing, are overbloated. Also, what's the point of owninng modern hardware if games don't look the part?
I can't find myself to give a single hoot about this. Honestly I'd probably be more mad if Samus did get in. Though the reasons are kinda awful, 1 less addition to that microtransaction ridden pop culture sludge for the sole purpose of turning art into a product is a win for me.
Ehh tbh I think it's better they didn't have Samus in Fortnight. Given Metroid has no real full blown identity to the general public as others in Nintendo do (Mostly cause it lacks the constant game trickle of most Nintendo IPS) it could have damaged Samus due to causing her to be scene as just another meme character or making her serious persona something less easy to see. Also the dances..good god the dances.
@@festimcocaj1269 the ip is in another console, is not something big but is a start of something worse. THey do nto even want to give others the impresion they are willing to do that. A skin of samus in fortnite on ps or xbox sends a huge message to others.
@@StardustWhip The reason Microsoft allows Master Chief on other versions is because they also benefit from PC as-well as the Xbox one. So there they didn't need to be strict, not the case with Nintendo.
There's little upside for Nintendo to put Samus in Fortnite or any of their characters in a non-Nintendo game. They have some of the most recognized IPs in gaming. What you seem to be missing is that keeping things on their platform drives demand for their stuff. No company gets it right all the time, but Nintendo's successfully run a video game business for almost 50 years and the company itself is 134 years old. Now look at their competitors...
I beg to differ. Nintendo doesn't feel the need to lend an IP because they simply don't care and don't need it. they're fine sitting in a pile of money taking conservative risks at a time, they don't need to rush to get publicity on an IP if they can do it on their own eventually 5 or 10 years from now with a new game or movie or something. Meanwhile they're ok keeping in control of their IP, something that other companies don't have, there is no reason to buy a PS5 anymore, all their exclusives are released in steam eventually, there is no reason to buy an XBOX, you get all that in game pass. But there are tons of reasons to have a switch. So i think nintendo is right on keeping doing their thing. To many people it might be a wasted opportunity tp reach a wider audience and hopefully sell more, but if Nintendo is not desperate for money, they don't need to care.
I’m pretty sure if I were Nintendo, I woulda declined outright. Sure, it’s popular, but I’m not watching Samus do a cringy Fortnite dance just for the, ‘Wow, Nintendo let someone else use a character.’
It's a big etiquette thing in Japan that saying, "No, and you can't change my mind," is seen as very rude. So instead, you say, "Okay, but with these insane conditions." The other party obviously declines, and then you can both frame it as, "We tried, but we couldn't agree on terms."
It has nothing to do with publicity and everything to do with opening Pandora’s box. Would their IPs do better if they had Fortnite sell Samus skins? Sure but once you do that, it becomes an expectation for all your IPs. Nintendo does not want to create that expectation so they would rather let their IP die from low numbers then have it appear on someone else’s console. They do not view phones the same way they view consoles.
On the one hand, Nintendo's over-protectiveness is dumb and demanding console exclusivity for their crossovers is even dumber. ...On the other hand the fewer IPs that bow to Fortnite the better, I wish Nintendo had just told them no outright. The game is garbage and doesn't do one single bit of useful advertising for anything inside it. It's just a black hole of Cultural Slop, consuming everything it touches. So... Win's a win!
Realistically, what incentive would Nintendo have to add their characters into Fortnite? They don't need the money, they don't need the advertising, jumping into a trend just to be a skin next to El Chapulin Colorado makes no sense. There are better crossover opportunities than this.
1. There are console-exclusive skins in Fortnite, but players on other consoles can *see* them. This is what Nintendo had a problem with. There are Nintendo-exclusive skins in the game that Epic have made themselves. Master Chief is an Xbox thing, Kratos is a PlayStation thing. 2. There were datamined Splatoon assets in Fortnite as well sometime around Chapter 3 I believe? I know you don’t play but that was quite a while ago, we’re on Chapter 5. 3. Rocket League and Fortnite assets now transfer actively between games. When you get a car in Rocket League there’s a heavy chance you’ll get it in Fortnite and vice versa. It’s a huge missed opportunity to not transfer those Mario and Metroid cars from RL. Overall, while I’m kinda mixed on the game I wish my friends on the other side could appreciate Nintendo IPs more and this is a huge missed opportunity for them
Arlo, this is not a first time that Nintendo requested that their characters or models be used exclusively on their console. Rocket League has Mario and Samus vehicles only for Switch, so I'm not surprised that Nintendo wants the same treatment for Samus character in Fortnite.
Yes King! 🎉🎊👑 WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY GATE KEPT 🔒🗝️🚪OUR FRANCHISE! Just think, 🤔💭 IF IT WAS POPULAR OTHERS MIGHT LIKE IT 👍 IN THE WRONG WAY 👎 - 🗣️📈💥🔥 - NO FANS 🫀 NO CRINGE ! 😬 WE WIN! 🏆
@@Barquevious_JacksonStill baffles me that people dont understand the value of gatekeeping even given the circunstances for stuff like star wars and magic lol
@@willcooper8028 If Samus were to be in Fortnite, she would not use her traditional weapons but instead a typical gun. The charm of Metroid is the power ups you find by exploring. The marketing of Prime 1, and Dread already to a decent job conveying what Metroid is about.
The Soul Calibur II Link example doesn't fit here. Every console had their own exclusive character, it was console exclusive content. Which is actually how I believe 3rd party games should be rather than just being entirely exclusive
@@supershot9729 You see Yoshio Sakamoto makes more than just Metroid. Kousoku Card Battle: Card Hero, WarioWare, Rhythm Heaven, Miitomo, Famicom Detective Club and Tomodachi. The same thing can not be said for Zelda designer Eiji Aonuma.
I kept watching to see what the issue was. But no, it really was just the Samus skin in Fortnite thing. I’m stunned that anyone would be upset about this for more than a couple seconds.
How is this any different to what Nintendo always does? Of course they’re going to be protective of their IPs. They’ve been doing it since Philips released a shitty version of their games. And come on, it’s Fortnite.
So Arlo's conclusion is: Allow Samus to dab and floss to rap music in a game most people don't respect and look at as a meme - so it will magically increase sales of the 2 Metroid games we get every decade? Another brilliant take from Arlo.
You say "the game most people don't respect" you mean the loud minority on the internet that never shuts up? I remember that long period of Minecraft being disrespected for years, now suddenly it's the best game ever made to that same minority that was crapping on it for so long
Arlo, remember "When everybody's super, then no one will be" Samus joining Fortinite is nothing but beneficial for Fortnite. Nobody will look at Samus in this game and go "wow, they look cool, wonder where they are from." No, they may or may not buy the skin, have fun with it and ditch it for the next new skin. For the time being, 0 franchise has benefited from being in Fortnite. There may not be any risks, the there are no rewards either.
@@JETEP3 TopicArlo is for posting without worrying about the algorithm. It's not necessarily a matter of if he thinks it's a popular take, it's more to do with the subject matter and how it fares in the algorithm. Fortnite does really good in the algorithm, therefore using it as a branching off point to discuss Nintendo's unwillingness to branch out its IPs in more cooperative manners can go on the main channel, even if you don't necessarily agree with what Arlo has to say.
@@BeyondTrash-xe1vs didn't think it had to do with if it's a popular take. Just that it seems like most people in his Nintendo community don't care about fortnite because it's not the most Nintendo related. But now that you mention how popular fortnite is, that makes sense.
I feel like i understand where Arlo is coming from with this video. He loves Metroid as an IP and wants it to be much bigger than it is and believes that adding her to Fortnite would be the solution to the problem, however i think his desire might be clouding his judgement here. Adding Samus to Fortnite under the notion that it will increase sales for Metroid games is a very faulty premise. Metroid sales are the way that they are because metroidvania's are pretty niche as a genre, with Ori being the best selling one at 10 million (but that is a big outlier, other metroidvanias sale nowhere near that). This is because something like Fortnite is like McDonald's. You can do much better but it is such a safe option, where as Metroid is a lot more intimidating to a wider audience. Also to note Smash Ultimate has sold over 30 million (the best selling fighting game ever) and Samus is of course in that game. I also want to address the idea that they lose nothing by letting Metroid branch out to Fortnite and the the executives at Nintendo are just out of touch (I kind of wish we'd stop treating these people like they are stupid, but i digress). I would argue they would be at risk of losing something and that would be their control on how their IP are portrayed. To Nintendo their brand is everything and the security of that is worth much more than any amount of theoretical money to be gained. I feel nothing but apathy for Fortnite. Its a hollow corporate game that takes well known IPs and produces watered down, manufactured versions of characters people love with no care to the IP whatsoever. Having Kratos do the Pokimane dance, while The Weekend chases him down in a car, while Aang (THE PASCAFIST) shoots at them with an AK-47. Fortnite is where art goes to die. TLDR: I'm glad Samus isn't in Fortnite.
