godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
FUCK HIM.besada said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The real Deal behind Goldeneye Cancellation
- Thread starter Prine
- Start date
Beer Monkey
Member
So I could have had 640x480 Blast Corps with a solid framerate on the virtual console, but Nintendo are c**ts.
Fuck them if true.
Fuck them if true.
radioheadrule83
Banned
ggnoobIGN said:
It would be sub-licensing, which they're probably not allowed to do.
Anyone remember Mirrorsoft and Bullet-proof trying to sub-license the Tetris rights?
The-Switcher
Banned
monkeylite said:
This statement blows my mind like no other before it.
radioheadrule83
Banned
monkeylite said:
Like this?
^^ This has been Phife Dawg's avatar for aaaaaaaaaaaages :lol
I suppose its more of a hair and glasses transplant though
Another_visitor
Member
So then Activision publish it on XBLA. End of problem.radioheadrule83 said:
OnWarmerMusic
Member
Now that was a classic case of '80s Nintendo business practices. I saw that documentary on TV recently, and Howard Lincoln still chuckles when he tells the story.radioheadrule83 said:
That's what this story is missing, actually. It needs more Communists.
So what are the facts?
We dont know what Nintendo's role in this is, apart from owning the license back in 98.
Sony/MGM hold all rights to the franchise (did this effect Casino Royal being released on HDDVD?)
We know Rare built the engine
We know Rare partly funded the development (Stampers and Nintendo)
We know Activision now hold the license
We know Rare began development on a port using new assets on 360 (someone at MS said "OK")
Why has it not come out on VC (legal issues says Reggie)
Why no Rare n64 games on XBLA or VC?
Its a complete mess. In some way or form Sony, MS and Nintendo all have some sort of role in this. Christ
We dont know what Nintendo's role in this is, apart from owning the license back in 98.
Sony/MGM hold all rights to the franchise (did this effect Casino Royal being released on HDDVD?)
We know Rare built the engine
We know Rare partly funded the development (Stampers and Nintendo)
We know Activision now hold the license
We know Rare began development on a port using new assets on 360 (someone at MS said "OK")
Why has it not come out on VC (legal issues says Reggie)
Why no Rare n64 games on XBLA or VC?
Its a complete mess. In some way or form Sony, MS and Nintendo all have some sort of role in this. Christ
blame space
Banned
Fuck the people in this thread who are badmouthing Goldeneye. It's still a good game and deathmatches are still fun.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Shiggy said:
You know the difference between those 2 examples
gdt5016 said:
I'm fairly certain Rare has said they own their games' codes. Hence why they could port the games and how Conker got remade. But most of the games are probably in legal limbo with the various joint copyrights
You know with MS deep pockets and the fact that outside of Master Chief they really don't have very many notable characters in their 1st Party arsenal, why don't they just buy the Bond license from Activision?
Seriously it can't be that much money, surely not as much as buying a developer. You think with the money they can make just off the XBLA GE, imagine what they would do if they allowed RARE to make a full blown sequel on 360 as a retail game.
Seriously it can't be that much money, surely not as much as buying a developer. You think with the money they can make just off the XBLA GE, imagine what they would do if they allowed RARE to make a full blown sequel on 360 as a retail game.
That's Goldeneye. The most fucked-up license in gaming.Prine said:
I doubt they can "buy it" from Activision, who is just a licensee. The ultimate copyright holder is some murky combination of Sony Pictures/MGM and the privately-controlled Eon Productions. They probably have the power to block the license from going exclusively to one hardware manufacturer.Shamrock said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Prine said:
Simple, Emulation. The emulators that would have to be built to work on XBLA would require using some of the N64 system code which is owned by Nintendo. Nintendo would obviously not allow that so the game would have to be remade or partly recoded. Which takes time and money
Another_visitor
Member
grandjedi6 said:
I'll say it again, you don't need to emulate if you have the source code.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Another_visitor said:
Isn't emulation easier than using the source code? Or am I wrong?
norinrad21
Banned
Another_visitor said:
which is clearly owned by a certain small but very powerful company in the slums of Kyoto
Princess Skittles
Prince's's 'Skittle's
Whatever the situation is (and it's not what this magazine vomited onto paper), this is correct.Narag said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
FoneBone said:
Maybe they don't know either. The entire Goldeneye problem reeks of legal limbo. If Microsoft and Nintendo really got into a tift about this, it would have to go to court to decide the real ownership
I find hilarious this notion that Nintendo would be getting a good deal by receiving VC games in return for one of their competitors having a fully online enabled, high-res version of a classic game that is synonymous with the Nintendo 64.
Not only is it a horrible trade, but it's a PR victory for MS to boot.
Not only is it a horrible trade, but it's a PR victory for MS to boot.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
i didnt know how it all went down. that sucks.
Nope, all the ones in the mag are new.FightyF said:
We also had this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXWls4S_qu8
Endgegner said:
The fact remains the magazine does claim they played 'something'. Unless they are lying about that, there is merit to the idea that the picture is a pic of a remade Goldeneye. The circumstances behind the game - that's where I'm thinking the rumor and tabloid whoring comes in.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
FoneBone said:
Yeah and Mother 3 will be coming out any day now
Yeah...when Rare made GE they were a contracted 3rd party working on a Nintendo aquired license but when they made MSUSA they were an invested subsidiary working on a Nintendo aquired license.grandjedi6 said:
Actually, this used to happen a lot... it's how WestOne used to make the same exact game with just a different title for Sega and Hudson on competing platforms. I suspect the Rare IP fiasco is also why Nintendo started copyrighting code/scenario/art/music for contracted games from 2001 on.grandjedi6 said:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Why is it that the more ridiculous the rumor the more likely people are to believe it?
1) Nintendo threatening Activision (with what exactly) to make them withhold the bond license and Activision acquiesce?
2) All of Rare's back catalog available for the VC in exchange for (nothing) from Nintendo other than them no longer threatening Activision with ????
3) Microsoft bargaining with Nintendo to let them use the code and license which, according to this rumor, they already have the rights to use?
4) If the rumor is true then Microsoft could just remove the Bond likenesses, rename the game to spy mission and release it anyway. Everyone would know that it is actually Goldeneye and who really cares about the license?
5) Nintendo can barely get third parties to publish second tier games on their system even though it has the highest userbase, the 360 is the place where 3rd parties are flocking and yet, somehow, people buy that Nintendo have that much sway.
1) Nintendo threatening Activision (with what exactly) to make them withhold the bond license and Activision acquiesce?
2) All of Rare's back catalog available for the VC in exchange for (nothing) from Nintendo other than them no longer threatening Activision with ????
3) Microsoft bargaining with Nintendo to let them use the code and license which, according to this rumor, they already have the rights to use?
4) If the rumor is true then Microsoft could just remove the Bond likenesses, rename the game to spy mission and release it anyway. Everyone would know that it is actually Goldeneye and who really cares about the license?
5) Nintendo can barely get third parties to publish second tier games on their system even though it has the highest userbase, the 360 is the place where 3rd parties are flocking and yet, somehow, people buy that Nintendo have that much sway.
norinrad21
Banned
Gigglepoo said:
What exactly did Nintendo do? I doubt i would want to go for a mortgage knowing fully well the 30 year deal am signing for is basically a tight rope around my neck.
Are people still arguing about who owns the game code? Perfect Dark was published by Rare in 2000. They fully own that game. Perfect Dark shares most of the same code as Goldeneye. Further, this article says that Rare owns the code. Where is there any evidence that Nintendo has exclusive rights to that code?
According to this article, they could have made Xbox 360 and Wii owners happy by making this deal. They choose to make neither happy.
norinrad21 said:
According to this article, they could have made Xbox 360 and Wii owners happy by making this deal. They choose to make neither happy.
How is SotN on XBLA then? Did SCEI work with Konami/Backbone on emulation?grandjedi6 said:
Hell, the multiformat Mega Man Collections all use PS1 and SNES emulation too... and the first one even made it to Xbox. You don't need an platform holder's permission or aid to emulate their hardware, so long as you're reverse engineering and said emulation isn't based directly on their documentation.