I don't have paid twitter, but if we want to defend palworld, someone has to @grummz and encourage him to ask people to contact nintendo investors.
Nintendo is publicly traded. If dozens of their biggest shareholders start hearing directly from the public that this makes Nintendo look like a villain, and will result in fans swearing off the brand? That's going to get investors involved in telling Nintendo it might be an unwise move to throw such might behind a bruised ego.
"Contact the investors"
"Contact the advertisers"
This is how groups like media matters and SPLC / ADF get things done. We need to wise up. Bitching directly to nintendo isn't going to accomplish anything. Getting the bag-holders riled up will.
Someone with a decent following and twitter blue please @Grummz. Post a link here. I'll like and re-tweet.
The only reason Nintendo is doing this to begin with is because Palworld made them look really bad by beating them at their own game. It will be trivial for them to explain this to their shareholders, if they haven't already.
Especially in the interest of preventing future incidents of people trying to do so, as Nintendo's method in the past is to DMCA big names to scare all the little ones into scattering.
Their shareholders will care more about that then looking bad for a brief time, as they always "look bad" when trying to aggressively protect their IPs every other year. But in doing so they continue to be the only real dog on the field and make billions off lackluster products constantly. Its a proven strategy for them.
I don't want to defend their scummy behavior, but that is how their business strategy has worked for a long time now.
Shareholders will care if people tell them they plan to boycott Nintendo over being a bully, Nintendo has no value if it isn't a parent-to-child transgenerational thing. Reduced current and future customers is very scary to investors.
Reduced current and future customers is very scary to investors.
It is, and its equally capable to happen if Nintendo starts having actual competition with its most guaranteed IPs from ex-employees and a legion of journos writing articles denigrating their value by comparison to this silly little game.
I think shareholders will be much more likely to be afraid of that scenario versus "some internet people said we were being mean :( , they might boycott us if we don't start acting right!"
What they are doing is wrong and probably legally wrong too, but you are talking about convincing the most amoral people in a mega corporation to care.
I don't have paid twitter, but if we want to defend palworld, someone has to @grummz and encourage him to ask people to contact nintendo investors.
Nintendo is publicly traded. If dozens of their biggest shareholders start hearing directly from the public that this makes Nintendo look like a villain, and will result in fans swearing off the brand? That's going to get investors involved in telling Nintendo it might be an unwise move to throw such might behind a bruised ego.
"Contact the investors" "Contact the advertisers"
This is how groups like media matters and SPLC / ADF get things done. We need to wise up. Bitching directly to nintendo isn't going to accomplish anything. Getting the bag-holders riled up will.
Someone with a decent following and twitter blue please @Grummz. Post a link here. I'll like and re-tweet.
The only reason Nintendo is doing this to begin with is because Palworld made them look really bad by beating them at their own game. It will be trivial for them to explain this to their shareholders, if they haven't already.
Especially in the interest of preventing future incidents of people trying to do so, as Nintendo's method in the past is to DMCA big names to scare all the little ones into scattering.
Their shareholders will care more about that then looking bad for a brief time, as they always "look bad" when trying to aggressively protect their IPs every other year. But in doing so they continue to be the only real dog on the field and make billions off lackluster products constantly. Its a proven strategy for them.
I don't want to defend their scummy behavior, but that is how their business strategy has worked for a long time now.
Shareholders will care if people tell them they plan to boycott Nintendo over being a bully, Nintendo has no value if it isn't a parent-to-child transgenerational thing. Reduced current and future customers is very scary to investors.
It is, and its equally capable to happen if Nintendo starts having actual competition with its most guaranteed IPs from ex-employees and a legion of journos writing articles denigrating their value by comparison to this silly little game.
I think shareholders will be much more likely to be afraid of that scenario versus "some internet people said we were being mean :( , they might boycott us if we don't start acting right!"
What they are doing is wrong and probably legally wrong too, but you are talking about convincing the most amoral people in a mega corporation to care.
Explain sony backing off on helldivers then?