So it's NINTENDO'S fault we don't have GOLDENEYE on 360/Wii.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Dreams-Visions
Dreams-Visions

26578

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Dreams-Visions
Member since 2006 • 26578 Posts

What you are about to read could easily become the epilogue for one of the most thrilling scandals ever surfaced around one single game. Rare's GoldenEye 007 has earned public notoriety more than ten years after its original launch without needing the help of gory graphics, politically incorrect subplots or meaningless parent-teacher association demands regarding its contents. It wasn't even necessary to release the game itself, since its cancellation on Xbox Live Arcade was the cause of all the trouble that came afterwards. It led to an ever increasing range of rumours, different theories, backstage statements and an unexpected media coverage made possible, apparently, by the contributions of one man hidden in the shadows.

Some weeks ago, news website Videogamer revisited the GoldenEye enigma after talking with Rare's senior engineer Nick Burton at the Game Developers Conference. A downloadable title cancelled nearly one year before is hardly a relevant story at any games event, but as it became evident three hundred updates ago, the guys from Videogamer were more than willing to ask about any possible Rare topic while they had the chance to do so. "The ball's not in anybody at Rare's court really," Burton said, "it's squarely in the license holders' courts. It's a shame. It's kind of locked in this no man's land. There's nothing on Live Arcade, there's nothing on Wii." He was referring to the secret agreement between Nintendo and Microsoft that failed back in 2006. Microsoft would agree to let Nintendo launch the game on Wii's Virtual Console if Nintendo agreed to let Microsoft launch it on Xbox Live Arcade. Nintendo didn't like the plan.

During this summer's Xbox Holiday Showcase in New York, product manager Michael Johnson got camera shy when we asked our own questions about GoldenEye. However, other people around the same party were more eager to share their thoughts. "Let me tell you what happened," said a Microsoft representative who chose to remain unidentified. What he was about to describe was pretty much the same story we all know. Rare started working on GoldenEye XBLA before anybody knew if it was legally possible to release the game; they completed it; Activision, the current holders of the James Bond licence, greenlighted it; and then Nintendo, who share the rights of the original game with Microsoft, refused to give their approval for a joint launch on Wii and Xbox 360. "But the game is finished and it could be released if the situation changes in the future," our source added. In other words, Microsoft is still willing to release GoldenEye even if it takes a decade for Nintendo to eat up their ego.

Nick Burton didn't sound so optimistic. "It's incredibly hard to solve because there's so many licence holders involved," he told Videogamer, "it's just what happens legally sometimes. Not necessarily with games, but you see it with music and films. Things get locked in this legal limbo. Even most of the parties involved, probably all the parties involved want to solve it." That wouldn't be the case of GoldenEye, since Nintendo deliberately banned the release even when they got the opportunity to launch the game themselves.

This is a version of the story that even the third party involved backs up. "It's not up to us, we want to see that game out there," another source from Activision told us, "you've seen it, it looks amazing and we would love to play it. It was Nintendo's fault." In fact, the people at Activision should be the first in line fighting for GoldenEye. "You know, they have nothing to lose. It's only good for them to get it released," our Microsoft contact said, "they would make a lot of money they are not making the way things are right now."

In the meanwhile, Nintendo keeps quiet. Ever since the GoldenEye issue heated up back in January, no website or printed magazine on a worldwide basis has been able to get a single statement from them. "It's probably going to go down in the annals of gaming history as one of the big mysteries," Nick Burton concluded.

But who started it all? According to Microsoft, it was only one person, a former Rare employee who decided to break his NDA. "Somebody stole a build of the game and then contacted a UK magazine. It was just one person and we know who he is. I don't know his name, but I guess that right now they are discussing what sort of legal action they are going to take against him." What this person did may have been a mistake in legal terms, but it was rather understandable given the situation. If it wasn't for him, we would have never known what a great game Rare re-imagined and what wonderful experience we are missing due to one company's stubbornness. This was one of those scarce occasions where everybody would have won, starting by the users themselves. It was a rather sad way of ending things that we all deserved to learn about.

We contacted this elusive developer long ago and got an exclusive screenshot which shows GoldenEye's Dam level as it was and as it could have been, had the game been released. However, both views come from the XBLA remake, since one of its many features allowed users to play the game without HD graphics looking as they did on N64. Take it as the last present from someone who, among other things, made many of our previous GoldenEye special articles possible.


Now that Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie are on its way to the Xbox Live Arcade, Microsoft seems to have moved on and more of Rare's old NES, SNES and N64 games could see the light of day again. At least, if the 2002 buyout agreement between Nintendo, Microsoft and Rare took place the way we all always assumed it did. "I don't know what IPs are shared between Nintendo and Microsoft, but there could be more," our source said. Although it seems highly unlikely, the sole possibility of Nintendo banning future re-releases of Killer Instinct or Blast Corps, both licences currently hold by Microsoft but originally published by the Japanese, sounds scary enough.

Source.

Gee, thanks Nintendo. Way to swing and miss.

Grow up, please.

Avatar image for darkIink
darkIink

2705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 darkIink
Member since 2006 • 2705 Posts
how about it's MS's fault it's not on virtual console.
Avatar image for ONLYDOD
ONLYDOD

6026

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#3 ONLYDOD
Member since 2006 • 6026 Posts
Danm, if Goldeneye did appear on XBL I would make getting a 360 my main priority, that game was and still is near perfect in the multiplayer department, playing it online with friends and voice chat would be a dream come true.
Avatar image for Dreams-Visions
Dreams-Visions

26578

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Dreams-Visions
Member since 2006 • 26578 Posts

how about it's MS's fault it's not on virtual console.darkIink
swing and a miss.

MS wanted it released on XBLA *AND* VC.

try reading the article next time. then posting. save yourself some self-ownage.

Avatar image for darkslider99
darkslider99

11374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 darkslider99
Member since 2004 • 11374 Posts
We've known it was Nintendos fault for months... :?
And depending on why Nintendo did it, it's easily justified. If the problem was Nintendo wasn't going to get enough cut of the profits, than their not being stubborn, there just being a business.

Also, since there seems to be an IP buy out as mentioned in the article, ever think that Nintendo was just waiting to gain some money from their IPs? Since thy most likely knew they could get a crap load for some of the nintendo/rare shared IPs. They'd be idiotic not to do something like that. There a business, they exist to make money, there not just going to give up a perfect chance for money, and you're ignorant if you think sony and MS would do any different.

Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#6 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts

Gee, thanks Nintendo. Way to swing and miss.

Grow up, please.

Dreams-Visions

Yeah, it's Nintendo's fault. :roll:

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#7 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27030 Posts

[QUOTE="darkIink"]how about it's MS's fault it's not on virtual console.Dreams-Visions

swing and a miss.

MS wanted it released on XBLA *AND* VC.

try reading the article next time. then posting. save yourself some self-ownage.


Hmm question; how come nintendo couldn't just release it on VC? They let it go themselves right? That's how this all started or not?
And did nintendo help in developing the original Golden Eye?
Anyway they should not have made the game before contacting nintendo. Even if they are officially allowed to, that's so stupid! I think that's why nintendo people got really pissed off at them.
Avatar image for darkslider99
darkslider99

11374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 darkslider99
Member since 2004 • 11374 Posts

[QUOTE="darkIink"]how about it's MS's fault it's not on virtual console.Dreams-Visions

swing and a miss.

MS wanted it released on XBLA *AND* VC.

try reading the article next time. then posting. save yourself some self-ownage.


Than Nintendo must think they'd make more Money through selling the IP...and they'd be right. After all, as Nintendo has themselves said:
Their online blows ass chunks. No way they could compete with XBLA version of goldeneye.

At least I hope that's their logic, otherwise their just stupid.
Avatar image for AlexSays
AlexSays

6612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 AlexSays
Member since 2008 • 6612 Posts
[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

Gee, thanks Nintendo. Way to swing and miss.

Grow up, please.

mdisen2

Yeah, it's Nintendo's fault. :roll:

Actually, it IS Nintendo's fault. :?

Avatar image for st1ka
st1ka

8179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 st1ka
Member since 2008 • 8179 Posts
[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

Gee, thanks Nintendo. Way to swing and miss.

Grow up, please.

mdisen2

Yeah, it's Nintendo's fault. :roll:

do you have a different theory?

Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#11 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts
[QUOTE="mdisen2"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

Gee, thanks Nintendo. Way to swing and miss.

Grow up, please.

AlexSays

Yeah, it's Nintendo's fault. :roll:

Actually, it IS Nintendo's fault. :?

It's not Microsoft's fault for not offering enough incentive for releasing the game. That's for damn sure.

Avatar image for VendettaRed07
VendettaRed07

14012

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 VendettaRed07
Member since 2007 • 14012 Posts
holy ****... those updated graphics would have made it the most awesome thing ever.... thank you nintendo, thank you... You didnt care about them putting up banjo, why not goldeneye
Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#13 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts

holy ****... those updated graphics would have made it the most awesome thing ever.... thank you nintendo, thank you... You didnt care about them putting up banjo, why not goldeneyeVendettaRed07

If you don't know the answer to that question, you probably don't deserve to ask it.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

45550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#14 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 45550 Posts
I'd buy Goldeneye in a heartbeat if it came to XBL. Why Nintendo? WHY!?
Avatar image for darkslider99
darkslider99

11374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 darkslider99
Member since 2004 • 11374 Posts
holy ****... those updated graphics would have made it the most awesome thing ever.... thank you nintendo, thank you... You didnt care about them putting up banjo, why not goldeneyeVendettaRed07

Rare owned the rights to Banjo, that's why He was taken out of Diddy Kong Racing.
Avatar image for EvilAshTwin
EvilAshTwin

690

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 EvilAshTwin
Member since 2008 • 690 Posts

I cant help but wonder what game MS offered to be allowed to be published on VC. My thoughts is M$ offered up a crappy game in exchange for Goldeneye. So if you really think about it, its M$'s fault that noone has it right now.

Telling Nintendo to grow up because they refused to allow Goldeneye on XBLA is like telling M$ to grow up because they wont allow Gears of War to be published on the PS3.

Avatar image for fbigent34
fbigent34

2389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 fbigent34
Member since 2007 • 2389 Posts

Ok first off its an ip issue here with nintendo/ms/rare or was it now activis since they own the bond linceses. anywho

If you had one of the classic fps on a system would you want it to go to another system? NO

Avatar image for AvIdGaMeR444
AvIdGaMeR444

7026

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 AvIdGaMeR444
Member since 2004 • 7026 Posts
Lemmings don't care about GoldenEye when they have their Halo.
Avatar image for VendettaRed07
VendettaRed07

14012

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#19 VendettaRed07
Member since 2007 • 14012 Posts

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]holy ****... those updated graphics would have made it the most awesome thing ever.... thank you nintendo, thank you... You didnt care about them putting up banjo, why not goldeneyemdisen2

If you don't know the answer to that question, you probably don't deserve to ask it.

k... im sorry that i dont know? geeze.... It was an n64 game made by rare, so was banjo, i dont know whats the problem, i mean its rares game, not nintendos

Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#20 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts

I'd buy Goldeneye in a heartbeat if it came to XBL. Why Nintendo? WHY!?Stevo_the_gamer

You just answered your own question. :lol:

Avatar image for fbigent34
fbigent34

2389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 fbigent34
Member since 2007 • 2389 Posts
[QUOTE="mdisen2"]

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]holy ****... those updated graphics would have made it the most awesome thing ever.... thank you nintendo, thank you... You didnt care about them putting up banjo, why not goldeneyeVendettaRed07

If you don't know the answer to that question, you probably don't deserve to ask it.

k... im sorry that i dont know? geeze.... It was an n64 game made by rare, so was banjo, i dont know whats the problem, i mean its rares game, not nintendos

there no such thing as nintendos

Also the fact rare dosent own the james bond linecses game. and nintendo has the right to the game well part of it.

Avatar image for VendettaRed07
VendettaRed07

14012

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#22 VendettaRed07
Member since 2007 • 14012 Posts
[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"][QUOTE="mdisen2"]

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]holy ****... those updated graphics would have made it the most awesome thing ever.... thank you nintendo, thank you... You didnt care about them putting up banjo, why not goldeneyefbigent34

If you don't know the answer to that question, you probably don't deserve to ask it.

k... im sorry that i dont know? geeze.... It was an n64 game made by rare, so was banjo, i dont know whats the problem, i mean its rares game, not nintendos

there no such thing as nintendos

Also the fact rare dosent own the james bond linecses game. and nintendo has the right to the game well part of it.

ok... nintendo'S

Avatar image for darkslider99
darkslider99

11374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 darkslider99
Member since 2004 • 11374 Posts
I'd buy Goldeneye in a heartbeat if it came to XBL. Why Nintendo? WHY!?Stevo_the_gamer

Because they want Money...?
Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#24 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts
[QUOTE="mdisen2"]

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]holy ****... those updated graphics would have made it the most awesome thing ever.... thank you nintendo, thank you... You didnt care about them putting up banjo, why not goldeneyeVendettaRed07

If you don't know the answer to that question, you probably don't deserve to ask it.

k... im sorry that i dont know? geeze.... It was an n64 game made by rare, so was banjo, i dont know whats the problem, i mean its rares game, not nintendos

Answer this, if you could define the N64 using games, what games would you use to define it?

Avatar image for CreepyBacon
CreepyBacon

3183

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 CreepyBacon
Member since 2005 • 3183 Posts

I cant help but wonder what game MS offered to be allowed to be published on VC. My thoughts is M$ offered up a crappy game in exchange for Goldeneye. So if you really think about it, its M$'s fault that noone has it right now.

Telling Nintendo to grow up because they refused to allow Goldeneye on XBLA is like telling M$ to grow up because they wont allow Gears of War to be published on the PS3.

EvilAshTwin

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#26 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts
[QUOTE="EvilAshTwin"]

I cant help but wonder what game MS offered to be allowed to be published on VC. My thoughts is M$ offered up a crappy game in exchange for Goldeneye. So if you really think about it, its M$'s fault that noone has it right now.

Telling Nintendo to grow up because they refused to allow Goldeneye on XBLA is like telling M$ to grow up because they wont allow Gears of War to be published on the PS3.

CreepyBacon

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

Likewise, only a fanboy would come to the conclusion that it's win/win.

Avatar image for Jigsaw9798
Jigsaw9798

984

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Jigsaw9798
Member since 2006 • 984 Posts

Wow, Nintendo has really sold out.

Avatar image for Fawlcon_Pawnch
Fawlcon_Pawnch

1651

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Fawlcon_Pawnch
Member since 2008 • 1651 Posts
Banjo Kazzoie should have never been on XBL in the first place.
Avatar image for darkslider99
darkslider99

11374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 darkslider99
Member since 2004 • 11374 Posts
[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"][QUOTE="EvilAshTwin"]

I cant help but wonder what game MS offered to be allowed to be published on VC. My thoughts is M$ offered up a crappy game in exchange for Goldeneye. So if you really think about it, its M$'s fault that noone has it right now.

Telling Nintendo to grow up because they refused to allow Goldeneye on XBLA is like telling M$ to grow up because they wont allow Gears of War to be published on the PS3.

mdisen2

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

Likewise, only a fanboy would come to the conclusion that it's win/win.


Agreed. You'd need to be an idiot to think Nintendo would make even a fraction of the profits that MS would make since XBL is leaps and bounds above Nintendo's Online...as they themselves have stated.
Avatar image for fbigent34
fbigent34

2389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 fbigent34
Member since 2007 • 2389 Posts

I wish people would understand the business better here.

Too much to ask isnt it? oh well if know can have goldeneye is better of that way.

Avatar image for omgimba
omgimba

2645

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 omgimba
Member since 2007 • 2645 Posts

The obviously weren't happy with the fact that the XBLA was a improved version.

If both systems would have released the original reason they would most likely have agreed since their version wouldn't have been blown out of the water by a HD one.

Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#32 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts

Wow, Nintendo has really sold out.

Jigsaw9798

What?! :lol: How has Nintendo sold out? They are deliberatly passing up an opportunity to make money. That's the complete opposite of selling out.

Avatar image for Mitazaki
Mitazaki

1501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 Mitazaki
Member since 2005 • 1501 Posts
[QUOTE="EvilAshTwin"]

I cant help but wonder what game MS offered to be allowed to be published on VC. My thoughts is M$ offered up a crappy game in exchange for Goldeneye. So if you really think about it, its M$'s fault that noone has it right now.

Telling Nintendo to grow up because they refused to allow Goldeneye on XBLA is like telling M$ to grow up because they wont allow Gears of War to be published on the PS3.

CreepyBacon

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

No theres still somethings to take into a count here. Ok for a starters does anyone know how well VC games are selling for Nintendo? I dont know but if they are doing good then yeah it could gain Nintendo more money if its not as good then its not going to get them much. What version of the game would Nintendo see, would they also get an upgraded version like XBLA or would they just get the N64 game? If its just the same N64 game then it would be stupid of Nintendo to go with it as basicly they would be handing Microsoft a better game and money when they are in competition with each other and you dont help out the opposing side.

Avatar image for omgimba
omgimba

2645

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 omgimba
Member since 2007 • 2645 Posts
[QUOTE="EvilAshTwin"]

I cant help but wonder what game MS offered to be allowed to be published on VC. My thoughts is M$ offered up a crappy game in exchange for Goldeneye. So if you really think about it, its M$'s fault that noone has it right now.

Telling Nintendo to grow up because they refused to allow Goldeneye on XBLA is like telling M$ to grow up because they wont allow Gears of War to be published on the PS3.

CreepyBacon

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

They where happy with having superior Golden Eye on XBL and old Golden eye on VC. Its not a winwin situation.. Considering that the benefits for MS would be way bigger.

Avatar image for Jigsaw9798
Jigsaw9798

984

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 Jigsaw9798
Member since 2006 • 984 Posts
[QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"]

Wow, Nintendo has really sold out.

mdisen2

What?! :lol: How has Nintendo sold out? They are deliberatly passing up an opportunity to make money. That's the complete opposite of selling out.

No, they're doing this so MS won't earn money. And they've been selling out in other ways too. Example: They took out all the NES games in Animal Crossing because you can purchase them at the wii store,

Avatar image for Fawlcon_Pawnch
Fawlcon_Pawnch

1651

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 Fawlcon_Pawnch
Member since 2008 • 1651 Posts

No, they're doing this so MS won't earn money. And they've been selling out in other ways too. Example: They took out all the NES games in Animal Crossing because you can purchase them at the wii store,

Jigsaw9798

OMG, they dont want MS to make money? They are evil!!!

Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#37 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts
[QUOTE="mdisen2"][QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"]

Wow, Nintendo has really sold out.

Jigsaw9798

What?! :lol: How has Nintendo sold out? They are deliberatly passing up an opportunity to make money. That's the complete opposite of selling out.

No, they're doing this so MS won't earn money. And they've been selling out in other ways too. Example: They took out all the NES games in Animal Crossing because you can purchase them at the wii store,

Let's not forget that all of these companies, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, are seeking to maximize profit, first and foremost. The idea that Nintendo is somehow selling out is ludicrous. They're just trying to make Nintendo the best business it can be. So far, it's working pretty damn well for them.

Avatar image for sonicmj1
sonicmj1

9130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#38 sonicmj1
Member since 2003 • 9130 Posts
[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

mdisen2

Likewise, only a fanboy would come to the conclusion that it's win/win.

In what way does Nintendo lose? They get money from VC sales. Even if the sales on Virtual Console aren't massive, they still get money from it. In this scenario, they get nothing.

You act as if this is some zero-sum game, when it isn't. Money Microsoft makes isn't subtracted from Nintendo's expansive coffers.

Avatar image for Jigsaw9798
Jigsaw9798

984

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 Jigsaw9798
Member since 2006 • 984 Posts
[QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"]

No, they're doing this so MS won't earn money. And they've been selling out in other ways too. Example: They took out all the NES games in Animal Crossing because you can purchase them at the wii store,

Fawlcon_Pawnch

OMG, they dont want MS to make money? They are evil!!!

Did you even read the other reason I said I don't like them. Anyways, Rare(which is owned by MS) will get most of the money even if it sells on the VC, so Nintendo thinks if they can't have most of the profits, no one can have any..

Avatar image for Blackbond
Blackbond

24516

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 Blackbond
Member since 2005 • 24516 Posts

Nintendo obviously doesn't wan the legacy of this game to be on anything other then Nintendo. Given that Goldeneye is a huge name that this game would obviously push 360 more then Wii its easy to see why they don't want it to happen from a business standpoint.

Really though. I could care less. There should be more concern for the superior sequel of Goldeneye on XBLA instead of this game afterall.

Avatar image for edeasknight
edeasknight

1222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 edeasknight
Member since 2004 • 1222 Posts
[QUOTE="mdisen2"][QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

sonicmj1

Likewise, only a fanboy would come to the conclusion that it's win/win.

In what way does Nintendo lose? They get money from VC sales. Even if the sales on Virtual Console aren't massive, they still get money from it. In this scenario, they get nothing.

You act as if this is some zero-sum game, when it isn't. Money Microsoft makes isn't subtracted from Nintendo's expansive coffers.

they lose because they have the inferior version. whichever way you look at it, people who have both an xbox360 and a wii sure as hell arent gonna buy the inferior version. this means nintendo loses money on the deal. its penny pinching, but its business. they all do it.

Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#42 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts
[QUOTE="mdisen2"][QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

sonicmj1

Likewise, only a fanboy would come to the conclusion that it's win/win.

In what way does Nintendo lose? They get money from VC sales. Even if the sales on Virtual Console aren't massive, they still get money from it. In this scenario, they get nothing.

You act as if this is some zero-sum game, when it isn't. Money Microsoft makes isn't subtracted from Nintendo's expansive coffers.

If Microsoft publishes an "enchanced" version, obviously that's going to be a bigger draw than Nintendo releasing the original version. But more than that, it's the principle. Goldeneye was THE N64 title, the one game people identify the console with more than any other. To allow it to appear on another console would be blasphemy.

Avatar image for Jigsaw9798
Jigsaw9798

984

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 Jigsaw9798
Member since 2006 • 984 Posts
[QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"][QUOTE="mdisen2"][QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"]

Wow, Nintendo has really sold out.

mdisen2

What?! :lol: How has Nintendo sold out? They are deliberatly passing up an opportunity to make money. That's the complete opposite of selling out.

No, they're doing this so MS won't earn money. And they've been selling out in other ways too. Example: They took out all the NES games in Animal Crossing because you can purchase them at the wii store,

Let's not forget that all of these companies, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, are seeking to maximize profit, first and foremost. The idea that Nintendo is somehow selling out is ludicrous. They're just trying to make Nintendo the best business it can be. So far, it's working pretty damn well for them.

Yeah but Nintendo doesn't even try to hide that they've sold out in some way or another. Sure, they are trying to maximize the profits(and beating out the other 2 console makers simultaneously), but in the meantime, they are also pissing off many dedicated Wii owners.

Avatar image for -General_Ram-
-General_Ram-

998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 -General_Ram-
Member since 2008 • 998 Posts

1. The liscense holder of James Bond is okay with it.

2. The game was made by Rare, owned by MS.

3. This port is revamped with HD and LIVE multiplayer. Its no longer the EXACT same game on N64.

Id say MS should hold a press conference and say:

" **** you Nintendo....were doing it anyway. If you sue us, well get it so backed up in court ull never see a penny until 10 years"

that would own

Avatar image for darkslider99
darkslider99

11374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 darkslider99
Member since 2004 • 11374 Posts

In what way does Nintendo lose? They get money from VC sales. Even if the sales on Virtual Console aren't massive, they still get money from it. In this scenario, they get nothing.

You act as if this is some zero-sum game, when it isn't. Money Microsoft makes isn't subtracted from Nintendo's expansive coffers.

sonicmj1

Their losing money by not taking the most proftiable root....which woudl be selling the IP rather than putting it on the VC against XBL where no one will buy it.
Chris, the people on this board need to learn some common sense.
Avatar image for mdisen2
mdisen2

1133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#46 mdisen2
Member since 2005 • 1133 Posts

1. The liscense holder of James Bond is okay with it.

2. The game was made by Rare, owned by MS.

3. This port is revamped with HD and LIVE multiplayer. Its no longer the EXACT same game on N64.

Id say MS should hold a press conference and say:

" **** you Nintendo....were doing it anyway. If you sue us, well get it so backed up in court ull never see a penny until 10 years"

that would own

-General_Ram-

That's quite possibly the worst idea i've ever heard.

Avatar image for sonicmj1
sonicmj1

9130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#47 sonicmj1
Member since 2003 • 9130 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

In what way does Nintendo lose? They get money from VC sales. Even if the sales on Virtual Console aren't massive, they still get money from it. In this scenario, they get nothing.

You act as if this is some zero-sum game, when it isn't. Money Microsoft makes isn't subtracted from Nintendo's expansive coffers.

edeasknight

they lose because they have the inferior version. whichever way you look at it, people who have both an xbox360 and a wii sure as hell arent gonna buy the inferior version. this means nintendo loses money on the deal. its penny pinching, but its business. they all do it.

Okay, let me get this straight.

Nintendo has two alternatives here, in a simplified scenario.

  1. They do nothing. Goldeneye doesn't come to the Virtual Console. They make no money from Goldeneye.
  2. They agree to Microsoft and Activision's proposal. Goldeneye comes to Virtual Console and XBLA. The port to Virtual Console costs almost nothing. People who own a Wii, but not a 360, get the game on that platform, while 360 owners get it on XBLA. Nintendo makes money from the VC sales.

How do they lose money on the deal?

Even this analysis rules out the possibility of renegotiation to give Nintendo a stake in XBLA sales, which didn't seem to be an option on the table, judging by the comments in the article.

Avatar image for omgimba
omgimba

2645

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 omgimba
Member since 2007 • 2645 Posts
[QUOTE="mdisen2"][QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

Good GRIEF the amount of blind fanboyisem in this thread.

What are people not understanding? Microsoft wanted golden eye on the VC AND XBL. They was happy to have it on *both*.

Nintendo reaks the profits from the VC sales, microsoft from XBLA. It's WIN/WIN. Gamers win, Nintendo wins, Microsoft wins.

How can anybody argue differently? XD Are you really that in love with Nintendo? They simply put there foot down, ruined it for YOU, me, everyone. Sticking up for them over this is silly.

sonicmj1

Likewise, only a fanboy would come to the conclusion that it's win/win.

In what way does Nintendo lose? They get money from VC sales. Even if the sales on Virtual Console aren't massive, they still get money from it. In this scenario, they get nothing.

You act as if this is some zero-sum game, when it isn't. Money Microsoft makes isn't subtracted from Nintendo's expansive coffers.

Consumers dont have infinite money, meaning they are fighting for limited resources.

A huge market share is what these companies are striving after, since this gives you a greater potential for big net incomes. Giving away market shares too the "enemy" is nothing but dumb.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

45550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#49 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 45550 Posts
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]I'd buy Goldeneye in a heartbeat if it came to XBL. Why Nintendo? WHY!?darkslider99

Because they want Money...?

Considering how much they make off each Wii sold -- and considering how much software they sell, money should hardly be an issue over a single game.
Avatar image for darkslider99
darkslider99

11374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 darkslider99
Member since 2004 • 11374 Posts

1. The liscense holder of James Bond is okay with it.

2. The game was made by Rare, owned by MS.

3. This port is revamped with HD and LIVE multiplayer. Its no longer the EXACT same game on N64.

Id say MS should hold a press conference and say:

" **** you Nintendo....were doing it anyway. If you sue us, well get it so backed up in court ull never see a penny until 10 years"

that would own

-General_Ram-

Wow. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Ok, I'm going to take the original mario, ut change the colors around and add an extra level or two, and than sell it. Nintendo won't be able to do anything, after all, it's no longer the EXACT same game.

Seriously, did you bang your head against a wall before posting that? Because it was the stupidest thing I've ever read.