Co-founder @ Makeshift | xMrBeast, MPhil Cambridge | Posts about UGC games, creators, and content
A Metroid x Fortnite collab fell through over Switch-exclusivity. That says a lot about how Epic Games & Nintendo differ... and also why both are dominating the gaming industry. A few thoughts: But first, the details... 📅 2020: Metroid x Fortnite Samus skin was discussed 👨⚖️ These plans surfaced during Apple vs. Epic Games 💬 Ex-Fortnite CCO claims exclusivity was the stopper "[Nintendo] got really hung up on their characters showing up on platforms that weren’t their platforms. They would be thrilled to have Nintendo characters in Fortnite, but just only if it’s on their platform.” — Donald Mustard 𝐊𝐞𝐲-𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬: 👾 It's not just about Metroid 🍄 Nintendo has spent the last several decades developing some of the most iconic IPs — Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, etc — and Fortnite players have always wanted them. Sure, other partnerships like with The Walt Disney Company bring an array of classic characters... the lack of Nintendo is still keenly felt. 📖 Open vs Closed IPs 🚪 Beyond being known for developing IP, Nintendo is famous for defending it. Their characters exist in their own universes, on their own consoles — and we'll pay handsomely to gain access. By contrast, Fortnite has found success not by closing the door, but opening it. Seemingly every IP has collaborated with the game so far — and that creates an incredible space, accesible everywhere in fragment, but together only in one spot. That, you'll have to Find in Fortnite. 🏆 Both are winners 🏆 As much as I want to see a deal go through, game respects game. Objectively, you have two companies playing different strategies to perfection: it's hard to get mad at that. Say in the future every IP were available in Fortnite, all except Nintendo — doesn't that make their closed ecosystem all the more valuable? And, say Epic Games compromised, adding Metroid skins & other Nintendo IP, both only for Switch users to enjoy — is that still the same Fortnite? Unstoppable Object. Immovable Force. I'll hold out hope still for future collabs, but it's nice to know at least (of course) they've tried.
Bill Young
3mo
Great post, Ben Sarraille!
Felix Westphal
3mo
Well, iirc there already are exlusive console skins (mainly PS) for fortnite. So i wouldn't say Fortnite is always the polar opposite of Nintendo. Nintendo had a case and Epic Games didnt see that one going through, even though they did it already. Personally, i think it is interesting that Nintendo would even consider a collaboration with Epic Games - besides Fortnite being a shooter.
Rafael Brown
3mo
It must be a slow news day if this is news. None of this is surprising. Remember Soul Calibur 2? The exclusive character on PlayStation was a Tekken character (Heihachi). The exclusive character on Xbox was Spawn. The exclusive character on game GameCube was Link. Link was never going to appear on PlayStation or Xbox, ever. Samus is never going to be a character on PlayStation or Xbox, ever. None of this is surprising. Samus in Fortnite would’ve been a non-starter for Nintendo. I can’t see the Nintendo ever allowing their characters to be rendered on competing hardware. Not even purchasable, but rendered. A leopard doesn’t change its spots. It will be a cold day in hell before Nintendo has any of their characters rendered on competing hardware while their executives have life to breathe.
Zachary Kosma
3mo
Both sides seem in the wrong here. Consumers clearly want this to happen. Yet, Nintendo isn't willing to budge on monetizing their IP across multiple platforms (for some strange abstract reason based in 'control' of their market). Epic Games isn't willing to play to Nintendo's desires. They could slow release these characters, making them only available for Switch players for the first 6-12 months. Then, after that period Epic could pay Nintendo based upon player usage. If there's demand for Nintendo in Fortnite they can both find a way to collaborate and create a win-win-win situation.
Bartek Jelonek
3mo
Enjoyed the post Ben and completely agree with your take.
Jacob Taylor
2mo
Great post indeed. Not fishing through the comments but I'm anticipating a few battles on closed ecosystems. Let's not forget the giant finger pointed at Apple who has similarly dominated closed ecosystems. Sure it's a different game (apple isn’t exactly a character driven IP power house) but the crux of the argument is the same: You can thrive open, you can thrive closed. This is a phenomenonal juxtaposition of both coming in conflict. I think metronidazole as a switch exclusive could have worked. Minecraft did it with Mario. Nintendo has lasted as long as they have by playing cards close to the chest.
Gonzalo Girault
3mo
So, Nintendo would be thrilled to have Nintendo characters on Fortnite, But only for Nintendo players? Only accesible if you play Fortnite in a Switch?... Nintendo has allways been like that, I read in Doom Guy that Romero and his team aproached Nintendo early on to have a versión of Mario 3 for PCs, they were turned down for the same reasons...
Andre Miller
3mo
Interesting post Ben, thanks for sharing!
Matt Thompson
3mo
Lame but not surprising.
Co-founder @ Makeshift | xMrBeast, MPhil Cambridge | Posts about UGC games, creators, and content
3mohttps://www.polygon.com/24138083/samus-fortnite-skin-nintendo-refused