-
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
dr3upmushroom
Banned
Iwata showing his pimp hand once again. I'm starting to see that Reggie probably feels the same way about the big boys in Japan like Phil felt.
Fuck Goldeneye. I don't care. I played it a couple weeks ago and it's a godaweful mess. Even twin-stick support wouldn't make it anything more than mediocre.
But I could have had more Rare games on the VC?
fuckinggoddamnedsonofabitch.
Nintendo, you fool. I wanted the full version of Diddy Kong Racing on VC.
But I could have had more Rare games on the VC?
fuckinggoddamnedsonofabitch.
Nintendo, you fool. I wanted the full version of Diddy Kong Racing on VC.
I AM JOHN!
Banned
They'd have to take out Conker and Banjo anyway.Slavik81 said:
I AM JOHN!
Banned
But they wouldn't, and Nintendo wouldn't want to do that anyway, since they changed their policy on Conker to pretending that the character never existed once Conker's Bad Fur Day got announced.Slavik81 said:
EDIT: never existed, as in, "never existed in any form previous to Conker's Bad Fur Day," and had Conker's Pocket Tales and DKR yanked off shelves once news about the game came out. Then again, BFD was never mentioned in Nintendo Power or on Nintendo.com, so they pretty much DID pretend that the character didn't exist.
Slavik81 said:
This isn't clean cut like Goldeneye - those characters belong directly to Microsoft now. That's why Diddy Kong Racing DS was created, and added Dixie / Tiny Kong instead of Conker / Banjo.
If they port Banjo Tooie to XBLA, I believe they'd have to remove Tiptup from the game as well.
I AM JOHN!
Banned
Fuck, I forgot about that.Rlan said:
Fuck, Tiptup's in Banjo-Kazooie, too.
Fuck!
Chris Michael
Banned
Wha? I thought it was real and WAS coming out. Did I miss something?
Why would a magazine reveal a cancelled game?
Why would a magazine reveal a cancelled game?
I AM JOHN! said:Fuck, I forgot about that.
Fuck, Tiptup's in Banjo-Kazooie, too.
Fuck!
Rare owns anything that ain't a Kong or Kremling in Diddy Kong Racing. Tiptup's safe (and will probably be in BK3, since he's immortal).
EDIT- Or Tricky. Though I hardly think Nintendo would care.
You people actually believe this?
Seriously?
We'll probably never know exactly how far along this project was after all the PR folks are done spinning and controlling the damage and massaging what Rare is allowed to say publically about it all, but at the end of the day there are a couple of indisputable facts:
1) The license, at the time, was acquired by Nintendo
2) Nintendo contracted Rare to make the game
3) Nintendo published the game
Learn the term "work for hire." The physical game belongs to Nintendo, the code, contractually, probably does as well. The license belongs to Activision and the owner is Sony. Rare's role in this? They're simply best suited to port the game, but it's not within their right to do it without the explicit, unwavering permission of Nintendo and Activision. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Sony wanted to put their two cents in as well.
The only properties Rare left that relationship with are fairly well-documented and all share a common theme: They're mostly Rare-developed, from beginning to end, from characters to code. Oh, and what they did leave with was only with Nintendo's blessing. They could've been complete dicks and left them bone dry in terms of intellectual property.
Seriously?
We'll probably never know exactly how far along this project was after all the PR folks are done spinning and controlling the damage and massaging what Rare is allowed to say publically about it all, but at the end of the day there are a couple of indisputable facts:
1) The license, at the time, was acquired by Nintendo
2) Nintendo contracted Rare to make the game
3) Nintendo published the game
Learn the term "work for hire." The physical game belongs to Nintendo, the code, contractually, probably does as well. The license belongs to Activision and the owner is Sony. Rare's role in this? They're simply best suited to port the game, but it's not within their right to do it without the explicit, unwavering permission of Nintendo and Activision. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Sony wanted to put their two cents in as well.
The only properties Rare left that relationship with are fairly well-documented and all share a common theme: They're mostly Rare-developed, from beginning to end, from characters to code. Oh, and what they did leave with was only with Nintendo's blessing. They could've been complete dicks and left them bone dry in terms of intellectual property.
xsarien said:
The key word there. It seems logical to think Nintendo owns the game code since they published the game, but because it shares a lot of the technology with the Rare owned Perfect Dark, it isn't as simple as it originally appeared.
If Nintendo doesn't have to worry about MS or Rare at all, why don't they just have Activision publish the game on the Virtual Console? There's no reason for Activision to protest, they would make money for no work.
Gigglepoo said:
Hang around more lawyers. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that Nintendo can own the chunk of code marked "Goldeneye 007" and not anything in the chunk of code marked "Perfect Dark." That distinction, in fact, was probably necessary to allow Rare to leave Nintendo with Perfect Dark.
Gigglepoo said:
Given how Activision's proven themselves to be the biggest collection of douchebags this side of a Ralph Nader campaign rally (see also: Guitar Hero 3 controller on the PS3 build of Rock Band), I wouldn't doubt that they just want an inordinate slice of the profits. (Or: see my response below.)
I AM JOHN!
Banned
Dodging questions is awesome!!!xsarien said:
Anyone who is remotely familiar with Nintendo OR MS knows this deal would never have been reached in the first place.
The story just sounds made up.
We've yet to see proof. Just lots of smoke and lots of mirrors.
There may be a grain of truth, but its not what we know. That all sounds like bull.
Now everyone repeat this:
Oh yeah, and anyone who thinks this game is still worth paying for should be beat with a bowling pin.
I like older games, but GE doesn't hold up.
The story just sounds made up.
We've yet to see proof. Just lots of smoke and lots of mirrors.
There may be a grain of truth, but its not what we know. That all sounds like bull.
Now everyone repeat this:
Oh yeah, and anyone who thinks this game is still worth paying for should be beat with a bowling pin.
I like older games, but GE doesn't hold up.
Gigglepoo said:
I'd throw Activision in for good measure. Nintendo's simply keeping a landmark N64 game that they helped develop and pubished off of any system that doesn't bear their name.
Activision has proven themselves to just be greedy.
And let's go even further out. Say for a moment that Nintendo simply owns the complete package known as Goldeneye 007, but Rare owns the code. One can't make a move without the other agreeing, and then they'd still need Activision's blessing and agreement on profit sharing.
This game will never come out again. If development started at Rare, nevermind got to the "almost finished" state, a big decision maker was incredibly naive somewhere along the way.
Why does MS or Rare not share any blame?Gigglepoo said:
This theory seems to contend that they are trying to feed nintendo a fishy deal and make waves to their own advantage... Oh wait, I forgot, these people care about gamers... and Nintendo apparently.
I just don't understand where you people have been hiding. Nintendo doesnt fucking... nevermind. This thread is just going in circles. This is fanboy junk.
I'd almost say lock it.
Staccat0 said:
In one scenario, Rare remakes Goldeneye for the Wii and XBLA and lets Nintendo release their back catalog on the VC.
In the other scenario, Rare doesn't have any claim to Goldeneye. Nintendo has full rights (save the license) and has decided not to release it for some reason.
Sure, Activision is in the middle of all this, but I highly doubt they are the ones holding the release back.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I don't remember if GoldenEye was a 12 MB or 16 MB game, but either way there's plenty of leeway for going crazy relative to the original.Mojo said:
That wasn't too far from when Nintendo had given out Ocarina of Time/Master Quest as a preorder bonus for Wind Waker, so I thought EA would try something similar with GoldenEye.Gigglepoo said:
Banjo Kazooie was work for hire for Nintendo. Perfect Dark was work for hire through a dummy corporation. The only reason it's obvious that Rare owns the IP and code to those titles is because... it's obvious that Rare owns the IP and code to those titles. Goldeneye might not have been obvious... yet... because of the hoops involved with getting their hands on the Bond license again.xsarien said:
As you say, Nintendo could've been dicks and screwed Rare during the split, but they didn't. Nintendo may have given Rare the rights to the Goldeneye code whenever/however they gave up PD's game code. But now Iwata regrets it, and is being a dick (I always knew that Iwata was two-faced, but I never expected that Reggie was two-faced in an awesome way, and is an Xbox fan).
The license for Goldeneye is currently owned by Activision. It really doesn't matter who may have owned the license in the past. Sony Pictures does sit higher up the Bond licensing food chain, but if they never specified in the contracts that Activision can't make Bond games for non-Sony consoles, then they're not involved.
Tyrannical
Banned
MS could have been a dick and not bought out Nintendo's 49% stake in Rare. They had 51%, they didn't need Nintendo.
StevieP said:
From the OP:
They offered to port it to the VC. Now, is that a Rare port/upgrade like Jet Pac Refueled? Or a Nintendo port that changes nothing? It's not specified, but the addition of Rare's back catalog for the VC certainly seems like a sweet deal for Nintendo.
I think you are over-estimating Nintendo's love for Rare's non-DKC back catalogue. I also think your assuming Nin tendo isnt swamped with submissions for the VC already. I doubt theyd care about Killer Instincts or whatever. Nintendo, traditionally, doesnt do anything gamers might wish they wouldGigglepoo said:
Staccat0 said:
Then why is Nintendo so adamant about having Goldeneye? Nintendo did own a large chunk of Rare for a reason. Nintendo loyalists may have turned their back on Rare after the sale, but they made a ton of great games for Nintendo consoles through the years.
Staccat0 said:Nintendo, traditionally, doesnt do anything gamers might wish they would
Which is why it seems reasonable to assume - one way or the other - that Nintendo is somehow responsible for the holdup.
Rare bought their 49% back from Nintendo (along with whatever rights they sorted out), and then MS purchased 100% of the company from Rare. MS and Nintendo didn't actually meet.Tyrannical said:
Anyone could've dicked anyone in that sale, but they all apparently went out of their way to play nice. Nintendo could've dicked Rare/MS on the IP's. MS could've dicked Rare/Nintendo by not following through on the purchase, or by not taking the entire package. Rare could've dicked MS/Nintendo through mass-resignations and talking trash about people.
frankie_baby
Member
ruby_onix said:
i doubt very much rare had a spare £100million pounds to buy the 49% off nintendo, i dont believe for a second that nintendo and MS didn't talk and arrange the deal between each other
You know what? Maybe Nintendo wanted an online-enable Wiimake out of the deal on Wiiware instead of the simple obligatory VC rom dump (like how XBLA was 'going to get a remake') and Microsoft insisted that they only get the rom and cockblocked Nintendo. And that's how we're here. Oh evil Bill Gates & Micro$oft!
Did I do it right?
Conrad Link
Member
I honestly don't believe any of this crap.
Its like the initial lets blame Nintendo story didn't make sense (the whole Rare wasted all that development effort only to find out they didn't have rights to the bloody game and Nintendo said fuck off!) so they just come out with a new one saying oh Activison didn't want to make Nintendo angry so they pulled the plug. :lol
Rare and MS have no rights to the game at all, if it was that easy MS would have done it long ago.
Nintendo knows Goldeneye is an iconic game, and they'd just rather no one get it than it make an appearance on a competitors system I'd say.
Its like the initial lets blame Nintendo story didn't make sense (the whole Rare wasted all that development effort only to find out they didn't have rights to the bloody game and Nintendo said fuck off!) so they just come out with a new one saying oh Activison didn't want to make Nintendo angry so they pulled the plug. :lol
Rare and MS have no rights to the game at all, if it was that easy MS would have done it long ago.
Nintendo knows Goldeneye is an iconic game, and they'd just rather no one get it than it make an appearance on a competitors system I'd say.
Well damn if it was going to be so much trouble then as good as the game was for it's time and for now for those who still dig it. Just well forget it then. You know I guess if this isn't going to fly anytime soon or ever then I'd rather have a Turok 1/2 get transfered to VC or is that another legal disputer?
MrTroubleMaker
Gold Member
yepvoltron said:
Why do people still think Sony has some sort of huge say in the Bond license when they only own 20% of MGM (which only co-owns the film properties with Danjaq LLC)?
Hell, MGM's even cutting Sony out of the loop completely and distributing the Bond films themselves after "Quantum of Solace".
Hell, MGM's even cutting Sony out of the loop completely and distributing the Bond films themselves after "Quantum of Solace".
StickyFingers
Member
It was a shitty game. I never liked it. I'd rather watch the movie.KevinCow said:
And I don't understand that half of the internet wants this game. You should have kept your N64 if it was that awesome. Amazing how this generates more hype then, let's say, GTA4.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
Sigh
Some N64 titles were dev'd by Rare and pub/distro'd by Nintendo.
Others were dev/published by Rare and distributed by Nintendo.
Guess which ones went with Rare in the sale? Guess which category Goldeneye was in?
This is getting goofy, here.
Some N64 titles were dev'd by Rare and pub/distro'd by Nintendo.
Others were dev/published by Rare and distributed by Nintendo.
Guess which ones went with Rare in the sale? Guess which category Goldeneye was in?
This is getting goofy, here.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/09/20/news/deals/rare/index.htmfrankie_baby said:
The Stampers to Nintendo: "Here's a check. Do us a favor and don't cash it this week."