I know half of everything is already in Fortnite, but not everything has to be in it. Nintendo is the one making the biggest loss on this, and I doubt anyone is going to lose sleep over it.
I’m actually surprised to see how many people want Samus in Fortnite. I just don’t understand, what does it matter? If you want to see your favorite character in something, you can go consume their media. What about shooting a gun and doing a dance makes it special?
People can use skins to show that they’re fans of a particular work. The Metroid fans want to socially signal their Metroid fandom in Fortnite, which is a social game home to many non Metroid fans they can posture to.
I can’t kill you and teabag you as Samus in Metroid or as Kratos in God of War. Master Chief is the one that doesn’t make sense. You can kill and teabag each other as Master Chief in Halo.
Yes, this. Nintendo needs to stop locking their decent to good software behind awfully underpowered hardware. Its anti-consumer, and this is part of that. They wanted it to be like Rocket League, where some consumers can only access some content because they paid for the plastic box with Nintendos name on it. I dont care what the content is, that’s anti-consumer, plain and simple.
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 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.
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.
And trademark is way better imo than copyright. Trademark is all about protecting against fraud, copyright is about protecting against access to content.
I’m totally happy with the trademark law we have, but I’d like to see copyright and patent law severely modified and their durations dramatically shortened (like 15 years for copyright, 5-7 for patents).
Also no patents for covid vaccines. There are third world countries that have the local industry to make vaccines, but they have to pay Astrazeneca for shots instead of making their own because Bill Gates wanted to protect the value of his government funded pharmaceutical investments.
I’m honestly okay with patents for vaccines, but if they take government money, they should be obligated to license those patents very openly. The more money they accept, the less restrictive the patents ought to be.
Patents should be able protecting first mover advantage and nothing more. Once they’ve established themselves, third parties should be empowered to compete on price and availability.
Keep in mind the fact that the slow vaccine rollout gave the virus the chance to multiply in poor countries and develop vaccine resistance, which then fucked everyone else too. If everyone in the world had been vaccinated quickly, we could have wiped out covid and we wouldn’t be dealing with long covid brain damage and immune system compromise now. These patents have killed millions of people and will continue to ruin millions of lives. There is blood on the hands of these people on a scale greater than any terrorist attack, and they knew full well the consequences.
I don’t think we ever could’ve wiped out COVID once it left Wuhan, that’s just not the way these vaccines work. In most cases you’ll still get the disease and be a carrier (and thus spread it), but you’ll spread it more slowly because your symptoms are much less severe. It’s a harm reduction strategy, not an eradication strategy.
That said, they absolutely should’ve been made widely available because of the harm reduction nature of the vaccines.
Here’s an article about how COVID will likely never be eradicated from 2020. The issue isn’t our response (which was woefully insufficient), but the actual way the virus family works. It’s not like smallpox or polio, it’s more like the various viruses that make up the “common cold.” The more likely scenario is for it to mutate into something like the common cold that’s less deadly but quite infectious.
The reason that covid would benefit from evolving to be less deadly is that people don’t want a deadly disease and take steps to prevent it. But people don’t care about long covid, and that means there isn’t an evolutionary pressure for long covid to get less severe. I think covid is going to be our generation’s equivalent to lead poisoning until we take it seriously.
You can think what you like, but the scientific literature says otherwise.
Diseases get less severe over time because, it turns out, the more deadly ones have a lower chance of spreading vs less deadly ones. Virus strains that inhibit the host less have a longer time in contact with potential new hosts spread faster than the ones that have severe, early-onset symptoms. So without human intervention, viruses trend toward being less severe.
Long COVID is a separate thing, any I’m honestly not that knowledgeable on it. I personally think we need a better understanding of what’s going on because I’m not convinced COVID actually caused all of those cases, and maybe not even a majority. I think doctors have just been throwing the label at it when there’s not a ready explanation and the patient had COVID recently. Vaccines do seem effective at reducing the chances of that diagnosis though, which makes sense since they’re designed to reduce the severity of the disease.
Add comment