GoldenEye 007 has been back in the news lately thanks to the confirmation that it's coming to Nintendo Switch Online and Xbox Game Pass. However, it's been known for a long time that Rare planned to produce an Xbox Live Arcade remake of the acclaimed shooter during the 360 era and, courtesy of Youtuber Graslu00, we got a full look at what that could have looked like. Since then, several people have managed to get their hands on the leaked remaster and play it themselves, either on modded Xbox 360 systems or via emulation.
As you might expect, the emergence of "GoldenEye XBLA" has led many to speculate on why it never happened. The complex rights relating to the game (it was commissioned by Nintendo and developed by Rare, but other companies – such as Activision, Microsoft, MGM and Eon Productions are also involved along the way) would have made it a tricky project to complete, and, since the remaster leaked, something of a blame game has taken place.
Some fans believed that it was Nintendo which caused the remake's cancellation, being the N64 version's original publisher (a fact perhaps not helped by Graslu00's video opening with "Do you expect me to remove this Nintendo logo screen? No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die"). Graslu00 was even accused of misunderstanding this situation, leading them to release a statement in which discusses the rumour that MGM and Eon weren't happy with the level of violence in the game, and imposed restrictions on future Bond titles relating to death and the amount of blood on-screen.
Former Rare staffer Nick Burton seems to back up this stance. He talked about the legal issues preventing a release back in 2008, saying:
That was a tricky one. To be fair, I kind of wished that the differences got sorted out, but obviously there's the licensing issue for Bond, even if it's something that's already come out. It's incredibly hard to solve because there's so many license holders involved. You've got the guys that own the license to the gaming rights now, the guys that have the license to Bond as an IP, and there are umpteen licensees.
It's a situation also not helped by the Bond licence holders, MGM and Eon Productions, who handle the film series based on Ian Fleming's literary super-spy. Speaking with MundoRare over a decade ago, game designer Duncan Botwood confirmed:
Licences are, by nature, highly restrictive agreements, and while GoldenEye 007 slipped past under the radar of the licence holders, the success of our game meant that subsequent games have been less fortunate, and probably less free from that kind of oversight in their development than those teams would have liked.
Furthermore, in 2016 Xbox head Phil Spencer said GoldenEye 007 had "always been a rights issue" rather than anything else. Case closed, right? Wrong.
A more contemporary interview with former Rare artist Ross Bury has given us some extra insight. Speaking with Ars Technica, Bury revealed how the game had been approved by everyone at Nintendo – or so they thought – until one company executive (who remains unknown, but it's not the late Hiroshi Yamauchi, we know that much) apparently brought the project to a halt when it was almost complete:
When it was put to Nintendo, everyone there approved it, except they didn't check with the one guy who mattered... I believe I was told his response went along the lines of, 'There is no way a Nintendo game is coming out on a Microsoft console."
Bury adds how this one guy's "orders trumped everything", which is believed to have included MGM and Eon's handling of the Bond video games at the time, according to Ars Technica.
Bury's comments have gained more weight with a recent interview with the core "GoldenEye XBLA" remaster team by Video Game Chronicle. Speaking to co-project leads Mark Edmonds and Chris Tilston, VGC backs up the sentiment that Nintendo was the main reason the game never saw the light of day.
Tilston explains the origins of the project:
In 2007 [Rare founders] Tim and Chris Stamper had left Rare and without their protective blanket the game we were working on at the time was shuttered. From my perspective, I felt a bit of a responsibility for the guys that followed us. We had a contact at Microsoft who said, ‘there’s this opportunity where Nintendo want to release GoldenEye, and in return you can do whatever you want with GoldenEye on Xbox’.
It seemed like a really good opportunity to give the team something to get stuck in to, because we were only a small team of eight. Nintendo reached out to Microsoft via our contact there [producer Ken Lobb], who we’d done a lot of games with before.
Everybody wanted it. For Activision it was free money, for Microsoft they saw it as a way of having a really large hit on Xbox Live Arcade, when there really hadn’t been a million-seller before. We weren’t privy to the details, we just thought Nintendo got to do what they wanted. Potentially they thought we were going to do a straight port on our side.
It would seem that the team began work before the ink was dry (or, indeed, before there was any ink on the contract at all) and Tilston recalls how the question of the project's feasibility was a running theme throughout development:
We’d send a weekly report to Microsoft to keep them updated and happy, but the issues on our side were always, ‘have we signed the contract?’ And it became a running joke for a while, because things were going so well apart from this one aspect that we didn’t have control of. We’d sync up every month and ask, ‘have they signed yet? Is this a done deal?’
The longer it went on, the more you started to think, ‘hmmm, there’s something not quite right here’. We started off with the understanding that Nintendo were perfectly happy, and Microsoft were perfectly happy. Rare were I assume happy that we were doing it and they just let us get on with it.
Instead of having eight people doing nothing all day, we were trying to be proactive and get something positive done for the company. It was only towards the very end that we realised that somebody at Nintendo had not asked or got permission of really whoever needed to be asked.
Edmonds adds that the team was under the impression that approval had been gained:
I’m sure at some point that we were all told as a team that everyone had approved it. I can’t remember when that was, but I remember somebody telling us everyone had approved it and it was good to go. Something must have changed after that.
That "something" is believed to have been Nintendo getting wind that the project – which it still hadn't officially approved, it would seem – was still in active development. When pushed on the definitive reason for the game's cancellation, Tilston replies:
From our side, we just heard that one group didn’t want to do it anymore – or was unhappy that the game that they believed originated on their platform was going over to Xbox. I can understand it. If you look at it from a purely mechanical point of view, Nintendo paid for the game originally for their platform – it wouldn’t have existed without them.
But we thought everybody was fine with it, otherwise we wouldn’t have jumped on board. Well, I think we were pretty quick jumping on board – we started it off pretty quick and lots of people were diving in before they could be dispersed to other teams. We started it before it was approved, but a couple of months in we were convinced that everybody was up for it and we had all their backing.
Tilston adds that, in his understanding, Nintendo was the reason for the game's cancellation rather than Activision, MGM or Eon. Edmonds concurs:
I don’t remember us hearing anything from Eon or MGM. I’m not even sure they were involved at all. I don’t even know if they would’ve had to give approval or not for the project.
It's worth keeping in mind that Tilston and Edmonds wouldn't have been involved with high-level discussions between Nintendo, Rare, Microsoft, Activision or any of the Bond rights holders, but given that they saw no evidence that MGM and Eon had a problem with the content of the game, it would seem that Nintendo is ultimately the company that is most responsible for GoldenEye XBLA not being released.
So, will the GoldenEye remaster ever officially see release? Speaking to Ars Technica, Edmonds says:
I can't see it happening, unless Microsoft buys Nintendo.
With the news that the 2022 re-release of the game is based on the N64 original and not the remaster (the Xbox version doesn't even have online multiplayer, oddly), it now seems that this lost gem will remain lost forever.
This article was originally published by nintendolife.com on Tue 9th February, 2021.
To be honest I wouldn't want this to release, the original Golden eye was fun, and is still in many ways but this kind of "Remaster" would probably just make the game show its age even more. PLUS I thought the Goldeneye remake on Wii was great, not sure on the daniel craig inclusion but the gameplay and shooting was spot on. People seem to forget it exists when they talk about a goldeneye remake haha
Sounds like someone at Nintendo got slapped a little bit too much by Oddjob back in the N64 days
"Unless microsoft buys nintendo"
Yeah we all know how well that turned out last time...
Nintendo don't have a say in this. They only reason Nintendo even deserve a mention here is if the developers of the remaster want Nintendo's blessing. Not well that is a want, but it's not at all needed.
The only blessings they need are from RARE/MS who own the game rights to Goldeneye and the relevant movie studio rights from the owners of the 007 franchise.
The story here is based on guessing what Nintendo wanted, with no one actually knowing. They just guessed Nintendo didn't want to do it and when the talks broke down, they used Nintendo as the scapegoat to blame.
As an aside Ars Technica are not a good source on anything. Their contribution here is worthless.
RARE Replay exists. More Banjo Kazooie games exist. Sakurai needed RARE/MS's blessing to have BK in Smash Bros Ultimate, not Nintendo's. A new Battletoads game exists. All done without any blessing from Nintendo. None needed.
The only RARE games that would need the blessing from Nintendo would be the Donkey Kong games as Nintendo still owns the IP for them.
This story is just bull%$#@ made up by people looking for a scapegoat to blame because the Goldeneye remaster as leaked and never was officially released.
Removed - trolling
If I remember correctly there was a statement from Nintendo back then saying that goldeneye was an n64 exclusive and it should stay that way.
Why should I believe this guy? Does he have any solid proof it's Nintendo's fault? Is there any 3rd party who can verify what he is saying? Why would Phil Spencer say it was a rights issue if Nintendo somehow could put a stop to it?
And frankly, MS doesn't deserve Nintendo, even if they could force a buyout.
@the8thark What are your credentials? Are you seriously positing that you know more about the situation than the people who actually worked on the game?
It's strange to me that people can't understand the difference between what happened with Banjo and what happened with GoldenEye.
It's my understanding that Nintendo sold their rights to Banjo, but did not sell their rights to GoldenEye. A key difference that 99% completely explains why Banjo is on Xbox and GoldenEye is not. It's honestly that simple. The other 1% would be the other parties involved (who happen to have no motive to shut down the project). Nintendo had a clear motive to want to shut this down.
If I am incorrect in my understanding of what happened to the rights, please provide evidence to the contrary. What I am positing explains the facts we see. What others are positing explains nothing and leads to more questions than answers. Employ Occam's razor, and you will come to the same conclusion I have (unless of course you can provide additional evidence that points in a different direction).
@the8thark Nintendo own the rights to the Goldeneye code, apparently - while MS did indeed purchase the rights to many Rare titles when they bought the studio, they didn't get everything. There's still a bunch of Rare titles which are owned by Nintendo, so yes, they did need Nintendo's blessing in this case, hence it not happening.
I’m surprised that a lot of these articles that talk about the XBLA GoldenEye 007 port don’t also mention the Wii version.
Banjo was a character created/designed by Rare, who was paid by Nintendo to develop it, then published by Nintendo.
James Bond is a character owned by MGM, in a game made by Rare, which was paid for and published by Nintendo.
Two completely different scenarios, as the second involves a licencing agreement with a third party and potential likeness rights for real actors, so "no", it's not the same situation at all.
Its OK to say you don't know. I understand people here thought I was throwing Nintendo under the bus without sufficient information. But here we get some information and now we question its credibility because we want to continue to believe Nintendo is the good guy. Again its OK to say you don't know.
I have chosen to put more blame on Nintendo but I DONT KNOW
Others have chosen to blame EON and MGM but they DONT KNOW
I left a comment in the now updated (removed) story that it would not be surprising if this happened — but that people should not judge a company today by its actions 15 years ago.
I also noted that Microsoft did not always do its due diligence about rights in the early Xbox days — there are stories that it thought it had bought Donkey Kong with Rare that persist to these days.
That all being said, would it surprise anyone if around E3 time, the remake drops on XBLA and NSO with cross-play? Sort of Nintendo returning a favor for some of the MS games that have come to Switch. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend — think about it).
@KillerBOB I agree - they are completely different situations. Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other?
@the8thark It's not quite as simple as you're presenting it.
Nintendo actually owned the rights to both Banjo-Kazooie and Killer Instinct. These rights were transferred Rare during the buyout. Seemingly Nintendo did this to secure rights to Tiny Kong, Lanky Kong, and Chunky Kong which...counterintuitively...Rare seemingly owned somehow.
Rare however DID own the rights to Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, Conker's Bad Fur Day, and all of the characters in Diddy Kong Racing aside from Diddy and Banjo, because these were all self-published by Rare, although Rare still had a strong relationship with Nintendo at the time.
Goldeneye, however, was published by Nintendo, and no rights were transferred to Rare upon the buyout. So at least regarding the N64 version and derivatives like the XBLA re-release, you would still need to go through Nintendo.
(Nintendo had nothing to do with Battletoads though. Unsure what the deal with Blast Corps is...it seemingly was published by Nintendo, but AFAIK wasn't mentioned in the document transferring ownership of Banjo-Kazooie and Killer Instinct to Rare.)
This all over an unreleased 2007 remaster of a 1997 game that leaked in 2021.
What is the "clear motive" for Nintendo to shutdown a game that they have no legal ownership of? Was Nintendo doing anything with it?
Nintendo doesn't own James Bond, and no longer had a licencing agreement for the use of the character (was it EA at that time?), so what control would they have over the game? The game was built and developed by Rare, they had all the development assets in-house, and they were now free of Nintendo's control and owned by Microsoft. Nintendo didn't make the game.
So we are dealing with a situation where Rare, MGM, Microsoft, Nintendo AND whoever held the game licence rights to Bond at that time (if another company had a contract to make Bond games, I'm sure they wouldn't be pleased about competition from another studio), not to mention potential likeness rights issues...but everyone now wants to blame some anonymous guy in Japan who picked up the phone and said "no" for killing the deal??
That just seems like a major oversimplification.
Does anyone else dislike that goldeneye has no reload animations. I thought that was rubbish all those years ago xx
Can’t we all just get along.... and re release this game? Lol.
Bit strange that part where he says hes unsure if the James Bond crowd ie Eon etc were involved or if they had to give their approval or not. They own Bond so presumably definitely so particularly since other articles point out how restrictive and controlling they are with what Bond can or cant do.
@KillerBOB Nintendo owned (still own? I believe so but I'm not sure) the rights to the actual code (to my understanding).
Their motive to shut it down was that their code would be on a platform they didn't own.
The rights issues around Goldeneye are complex. Nintendo probably got an earful from MGM/EON after the original game was released, they probably didn't want to deal with any alterations coming from the movie studio since it was their game, they contracted Rare to develop it.
From my understanding in reading other stories around Bond games, EA and Activision cited some frustration in working with MGM/EON. Cubby Broccoli thought it was a novel idea that Nintendo wanted to publish a game with his movie-version of Bond, so he probably told them to do what they wanted. Cubby died before the game was released, then Barbara took it over. I would imagine they were in huge arguments with Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo Co over the game afterwards. There's a good chance Cubby did business MUCH differently than his daughter, so it was the last game Nintendo ever did with the franchise.
The original article about this story cited specific rights and agreements MGM/EON made post-Goldeneye on the Bond character in relation to video games. I think it lands a lot of credence since he seemed to have knowledge of it, but the other people involved were working on upgrading the visuals and prepping it for the Xbox 360.
Could have one person at Nintendo said, "No"? Probably. It would not have been Iwata, but maybe some of the old stalwarts from the Hiroshi Yamauchi days (or even himself). He told Microsoft to get out of his office, then he had to forcibly removed from the meeting since he was outwardly angry at them (so the legend says). He may have played a role in sabotaging this re-release.
If it was brought to the table now, Shuntaro Furukawa is in charge, it probably would happen. It seems Microsoft is slowly building an alliance of some kind with Nintendo, but who knows? Next to Apple, Nintendo is the MOST secretive company on the planet.
I agree with @jump, this story doesn't seem to want to die for whatever reason. This game will turn 24 years old and it has so much buzz. Must be a slow news cycle for games in general right now.
You guys already have perfect dark! Stop being greedy and be happy what you got! How about trying something ORIGINAL for Once instead of trying to do everything Nintendo does! That's all sony and Microsoft do is try to copy Nintendo!
@progx About Blast Corps - What exactly is the NES original you're referring to? I've never heard of that before, and can't seem to find anything about it even existing. Can you provide a link with more info? Please and thank you.
@everynowandben ahh... I got it mixed up with Wrecking Crew. Apologies.
Removed from my original post.
@progx No worries!
Any chance they can just release it now?
"I can't see it happening, unless Microsoft buys Nintendo."
Okay let me go cry for eternity now
Very Good article tho. clap clap
@Damo what Rare titles other than donkey Kong series do Nintendo own
Does seem like the kind of insular thing late Noughties Nintendo would do. There was a fair amount of ‘we can do this on our own’ arrogance about them.
Maybe with Nintendo and MS a bit closer than they used to be they could find a way to make this happen in the future with Cross Play between the two ecosystems.
Would be a perfect handheld game too, a HD remake of a late 90s Shooter. Doesn’t need 4K and all the rest of it.
If it is based on characters created/owned by Nintendo, Nintendo owns it (Star Fox Adventures for example)
If the characters were the creation of Rare, Microsoft owns the games.
GoldenEye is different because the game was based on a character that neither company owns.
They don't want to see a Nintendo game on a Microsoft console? Nintendo, meet Rare Replay. Now that you've got over yourselves, get on with Goldeneye.
It baffles me how many licensed games never will be re-released or remade. The original games have already been made - why not find a solution so you can keep releasing them for the next twenty years? Instead, people need to buy the original or play it via illegal means.
@PixelTavern Goldeneye Wii was garbage. It's just another COD clone with a Bond skin over it.
I and millions of other gamers want the XBLA remaster released officially. There's no logical reason or justification as to why it shouldn't be.
@SnesSwitch How can one be greedy when one is offering their money for a product? 🤦♂️ Insane logic.
If anything, the ***** who sided with "no, we're not releasing this publicly" are the greedy ones for withholding it. I just hope the development team got paid for their work.
@progx I'm inclined to agree. Remember this game was being worked on in the 7th Gen there was a lot of bad blood between Nintendo and Microsoft (for a few reasons Rare being one of them) to the point that it was an unwritten rule that if a game by Rare was to be released on a Nintendo console it has to be a handheld and not published by Microsoft. Ironically it was Minecraft Wii U that started bridging the gap between the two.
So odds are yeah some guy at Nintendo was probably annoyed with the deal and probably axes it. But it's not like Microsoft was doing any favors at the time and was highly arrogant themselves. With the relationship they have now a release of Goldeneye on Switch and XSX is not impossible provided MGM/EON are onboard.
@JohnnyC The games included on Rare Replay are not or are no longer Nintendo games - an important distinction discussed in the comments above.
Also we're talking about an alleged quote from Nintendo in 2007, eight years before Rare Replay, and 14 years before today.
This still is not the real story. So much of it is conjecture, "I think I was told..." and so on. And then one goes on to say that he didn't think EoN/MGM were involved and that he didn't know if they had to give approval. Well, of course they would. It's their IP.
Most of these reports don't even make sense, especially regarding Nintendos input. Nintendo published a slew of Rare games that went with them to Xbox and they had no say in that. But this one game they have absolute control?
There's a real story here, but we don't and won't know it.
But, please continue the conjecture looking for someone to be mad at.
@the8thark Are you serious? NINTENDO FINANCED THAT GAME! Of course, they have a lot, and I mean A LOT to say on that!
@everynowandben Yes, at the time when Banjo Kazooie was just around the corner to appear on Xbox consoles. Banjo Kazooie, Killer Instinct and Jet Force Gemini were once very much Nintendo games, and now they're not. I'd argue that Nintendo has less of a claim on Goldeneye than the above franchises, given Goldeneye wasn't using an original IP. All I'm saying is that they blocked that, but a year later they failed to block an N64 3D platformer (which is a big part of what people associated with the N64) appearing on a rival platform? Sounds like there's more to it.
@JohnnyC There is more to it, you're right. Nintendo sold their rights to BK and KI but they did not sell their rights to GoldenEye.
@Shadowthrone Nintendo sold their rights to the games that went on to Xbox. They did not sell their rights to GoldenEye.
@everynowandben Goldeneye is based on a movie so therefore the only thing Nintendo would own might be the source code. The IP, characters and scenario is all owned by MGM/EON. They can't even use Pierce Brosnan's likeness as Bond without MGM's approval. Nintendo only purchased a licence for the James Bond licence and made a game based on the latest movie entry Goldeneye. Once Nintendo decided to not renew the licence I think in 99 they lost the rights to James Bond. This is why landmines in Smash don't use the same name they did in Goldeneye and why Bond was not in the first Smash.
@Wexter Yes, the source code - that is correct to my understanding, and that alone is more than enough ownership to have a say on when/where that code is released.
@everynowandben Their share at least. If they had sole or even majority control and could have re-released it by now, they would have. It's arguably the biggest game remaining not to have been re-released in these days where it's so common to re-release old games. At least we got the Daniel Craig version, which as was mentioned earlier is not too shabby.
@JohnnyC You may very well be right. Each company involved could be holding the other(s) back.
What I was getting at is that Banjo being on Xbox has nothing to do with GoldenEye not being on Xbox, and cannot be used as a precedence in this case as the premises are not equal.
@everynowandben I think they just co-own the source code with Rare. Otherwise they would have just rereleased Goldeneye on VC when Activision was remaking Goldeneye on the Wii. It would has been perfect cross promotion! But the game is in licencing he'll where Nintendo, Rare/Microsoft and MGM/EON all have to approve before they can do a re-release. I think Diddy Kong Racing was in similar hell because Rare owns the characters who are not Diddy.
@Wexter That could be correct, I agree. All I'm saying is that if Nintendo doesn't want this game to be released, it won't be. It may not be the only factor, and probably isn't, but if it was the only factor, it's very possible for Nintendo alone to stop the game from releasing.
@everynowandben For sure! I think they only co-own the code because otherwise a VC release back in the early 2010s should had been quite possible as I don't think Activision would had been against some cross promotion! I think right now Goldeneye is in a great spot to get a re-release. MS and Nintendo are on very good terms with both being very friendly and co-operative with each other! And I think the only thing that could stand in the way of a Switch/XSX release may just be MGM as the work on an HD remake is already mostly done they just need to port the X360 cancelled port onto Switch and XSX and boom! The seventh gen was a long time ago and Nintendo and Microsoft's bad blood seems to have cooled down since we've seen Xbox games on Nintendo consoles and Nintendo gamers playing cross platform with Xbox owners without issues.
We have to remember Nintendo and Microsoft were not friends 15 years ago and it was a pipedream that this would had ever seen the light of day in the first place. But now... I think it is quite possible thanks to them mending bridges due to Minecraft of all things.
@everynowandben It's the same in that they're both wasted franchises at the moment, though I agree for different reasons.
@Handy_Man Wait there is also Wii version ???
@T0biasCZe kind of, its basically Call of Duty loosely dressed up as Goldeneye with Daniel Craig as Bond. It was ok
@PixelTavern I've been playing this XBLA version and its great, the controls have been tweaked to feel a bit more like the twin stick controls we use today and visually its really nice and clean. It could be a great release even today, perhaps on Switch as well if they'd all get their heads together
@carlos82 is there a rom circulating online of it?
How about they just release the multiplayer maps and guns from goldeneye as dlc for perfect dark xbla.... add in a generic 008 and release it for switch as well with wireless local play please
@everynowandben I don't think even Nintendo have rights to a say over GoldenEye. The license is owned by MGM. Nintendo could say no to their logo being in the game and so it would be removed, which isn't rocket science.
But if there was a guy at Nintendo had a say I'd say he is one of the old school Yamuchi mafia 6 foot under by now. Scumbag.
@T0biasCZe loosely based on the story. It's not GoldenEye.
Nintendo owns the source code.
That’s why Nintendo is just as important in this as MGM, EON, and Rare/Microsoft. They all own a piece of this Brosnan pie.
@liveswired I believe you are incorrect - while I have obviously not seen the documentation with my own eyes, I believe that Nintendo owns the source code to the game. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Nintendo is too huge even for MS to buy. Disney spent US$71.3 billion to buy 21st century fox. Nintendo would cost 100-200 billion. Thats too much even for them
It plays great on a modded 360 console, I was finding audio lags when playing on the Xenia emulator. This game is so much fun
@PixelTavern It actually plays really well, and is quite fun. And yeah a rom is out. Supposedly a better rom is on its way too.
@PixelTavern yes, look for 007 XBLA
What's funny is how people forgot about it was remade. Lol it was on wii,os3 and the 360.umm
Golden eye 007 reloaded???? Wow cant believe the world forgot about it lol wow just wow
I find it believable that Nintendo would block Goldeneye being remade for competing platforms. I've long held a suspicion about the fate of another title, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. The rights situation for that game can't be anywhere near as complicated, so why has it never seen a rerelease? I have a suspicion that Nintendo doesn't want it seeing the light of day on other consoles, so it will never be seen again anywhere. Counting against Nintendo being to blame is the similar fate of MGS4, which has also never resurfaced.
Let's just blame Nintendo and Konami equally.
@the8thark well said man.
It seems that everyone relied on Nintendo to get the re-release done for GoldenEye back in 2006-2007. It seems that Nintendo Life, alongside with every single videogame news media in the world, have forgotten to include an excerpt from an interview done to Reggie during those days, where he explained why the game was not going to get a VC release and an Xbox release: too many hands for one plate. The developers of the "remaster" seemed to think that everyone was supposed to be happy, but getting everyone to agree on a project like that, it just plain hard, and it seems that Nintendo was left alone to negotiate with Eon/MGM, and after realising I wouldn't be possible to re-release the game on its original form, they decided to contact Activision to do a remake with the new alignments MGM/Eon have given Activision to do new Bond games. And the remake is great, first came on Wii, and then it was porter to the 360 and PS3. And everyone seemed to just have forgotten about it.
@Edu23XWiiU why didnt you include the excerpt instead of paraphrasing what Reggie said.
Also is Reggie above telling half truths...?
@edwardnintendo64 "What other Rare IPs does Nintendo own?"
At the moment, basically none.
Nintendo has DKC, which was always theirs anyway.
Diddy Kong Racing could be in a weird state. Rare owned all of the characters aside from Diddy and Banjo, and published the game. (Though, Nintendo published the DS version.) I'm sure if Nintendo wanted to release a Diddy Kong Racing 2, they could probably do that (they would have to have basically an entirely new cast of characters though). But if they wanted to re-release a version of the original game like they did for the DS, that might have to go through Rare depending on how the exact rights are situated.
Nintendo did own Banjo-Kazooie and Killer Instinct, but gave them to Rare during the buyout.
Goldeneye, as discussed, is in a weird state.
Jet Force Gemini, Conker, and Perfect Dark were all self-published by Rare.
Blast Corps was seemingly published by Nintendo, but now Rare owns it anyway, so not sure how that happened.
The only other game I could think of that could have a weird rights issue is Mickey's Speedway USA, which is a Nintendo-published game, developed by Rare, with characters licensed from Disney.
And I guess Ken Griffey Jr.'s Winning Run, which I assume Nintendo owns because it was published by them, and the previous Ken Griffey game was not developed by Rare.
@Darkyoshi98 That is a completely different game
@Darkyoshi98 People didn't forget about that version, it's just a terrible version.
It's a total re-imagining and not a remaster as seen above. Hell, it's not even a remake. Reloaded has none of the level or gameplay or level design that made the original what it was.
@sixrings you can look it up online, it's even on Wikipedia hahaha. What if the others are telling half truths...?🤔🤔
@Edu23XWiiU that very well could be true. But unless I know for certain I’m not giving Nintendo the benefit of the doubt.
What is it with Nintendo fans believing Nintendo own everything they publish 🤷♂️ they had a single game, time limited, license agreement with MGM nothing more. Nintendo do not own the sourcecode, just like they don't to Diddy Kong Racing or Banjo Kazooie or Bayonetta etc. They only secured the Bond license and published the game.
Lets just look at Perfect Dark, released on XBLA It is built on a modified GE engine as is Timesplitters series. If somehow Nintendo owned the og GE source code, Rare could simply port the levels to the upgraded PD engine, problem solved
On Perfect Darks og release Rare had to change levels such as Facility to Felicity simply due to them being copyright of MGM.
@liveswired Nintendo sold their rights to Banjo, etc, they did not sell their rights to GoldenEye. It's that simple.
I don't see how the point you've made about the Perfect Dark source code gives any indication one way or another regarding the status of Nintendo's ownership rights of the source code for GoldenEye. Its an interesting point that PD uses maps originally found in GoldenEye, however I do not believe this fact negates/cancels the possibility that Nintendo kept their rights to the specific GoldenEye code itself, regardless of bits and pieces of that code being used (or more likely entirely rewritten) into a different version of a game on a different platform that specifically needed the code to be rewritten in order to run. Selling the rights to a modified engine for PD certainly does not mean Nintendo could not have kept the rights to the original source code for GoldenEye.
Nintendo is the only company involved that would not want this game to be released, and it has not been released. Literally people who worked on this project said that Nintendo said no, and it was canceled. Perhaps they aren't the ONLY party involved who said no, but even if they were, they could have said no, and it would have been canceled - and the evidence points in the direction that they did say no, and it was canceled.
I gathered the evidence, I read between the lines, and I did the math. I'm using Occam's razor. My explanation answers the question "why was this project canceled?" Your explanation brings up more questions than answers.
Please provide a better explanation for why the game was canceled if you would like to continue the debate, otherwise I'm forced to conclude that my assertion is correct.
It's all so messy and confusing, Nintendo maybe said yes, Nintendo definitely said no, now all these other companies hold this right or that right.
They should have approached Nintendo first to get it out on a Nintendo system, just imagine if this was finally playable on Switch. Now that Microsoft games are on Switch maybe it could have ended up on Switch too so it could have gone either way.
But all this complication has meant none of those methods will allow most of us to easily play a modern update of a classic game. Probably the easiest way to play it now is still to get an N64 and cartridge, after all these years who would have thought?
"There is no way a Nintendo game is coming out on a Microsoft console."
Such a wasted opportunity 👎 #facepalm
@urbanman2004 it's not wasted opportunity. It's very complicated when other companies aside Rare and Nintendo got involved. This reminds me of Tetris in terms of licensing issues during 80's and early 90's.
@chardrich Not sure if you're following the context behind what I originally meant in my comment. Is English your native language?
@everynowandben Well Nintendo don't own the source code. As I said, if they did, sure all Rare would have to do is shift the game assets to the PD engine (which was essentially the GE engine with tonnes of bolt ons), remove any mention of Nintendo including their logo, et voila problem solved. But even so Nintendo can't touch decompilation projects so no one needs access to the original code.
All Nintendo had was a copyright they put on GoldenEye in 1997 - which ended in 2017. Perhaps the copyright was the reason which allowed Nintendo to stop the game. It would make sense since Nintendo had to change Star Fox to Starwing and Lylat Wars in the UK until a certain Star copyright ended.
Nothing Nintendo can do now though.
@urbanman2004 To be honest this was Nintendo before Minecraft. Miyamoto was also dead against Minecraft coming to Nintendo but alas with the great winds of change, new management structure, people like Miyamoto and the remnants of Yamuchi's reign of terror and destruction were lowered down the food chain to more PR and advisory based roles for a more modern business approach.
@liveswired I'm well aware of Ninty's bullish ways then and now, no need to explain it to me.
@sixrings hahahaha, and, so what if that was the case? Want to play GoldenEye? You can still buy a copy for the N64, is not that they have gone extinct hehehe. And there's emulation as well.
As chummy as Microsoft and Nintendo have been the last few years, I hope they can work this out. Crossplay of that remake would instantly garnish millions of fans. SANTAAAA!!!!
I don’t see how $100-200 billion is that much to a big company. Sure it’s an enormous amount of money but Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, one single person alone is worth that much and can afford that price tag. Don’t see how a big company can’t come up with the amount.
Should have released it for free on XBLA and label it fan-made. Would at least get people's backing that way.
The only way to get people to shut up is if this was released on both Microsoft and Nintendo platforms
I hope we get more 007 games including classic 007 games remastered. The Bond games fatigue gamers experienced by the late 2000s and early 2010s has passed given we haven’t had a new game for 10 years.
But just play the Goldeneye remake on the Wii. Personally think that is the definitive edition. A remake exists already, doesn't it?
"It's worth keeping in mind that Tilston and Edmonds wouldn't have been involved with high-level discussions between Nintendo, Rare, Microsoft, Activision or any of the Bond rights holders, but given that they saw no evidence that MGM and Eon had a problem with the content of the game, it would seem that Nintendo is ultimately the company that is most responsible for GoldenEye XBLA not being released"
Having read that part as well as their own words on the matter, it seems to me that they were actually quite out of the loop about any negotiations, contracts or basically, everything else.
So we're right back at assuming that Nintendo is to blame based primarily on hearsay. Or more likely, because its the version that everyone feels more comfortable with. Since it "makes sense".
But I dunno... Nintendo of today is not the one that would object at working closely with Microsoft. So why is the GoldenEye game still under lock and key? Who is keeping said game in a vault?
Stop talking and make the damn remake already!!!!!!!
@LEGEND_MARIOID why do people keep saying that?? The Wii version is terrible, period.
@the8thark When it comes to rights and who owns what, Rareware only made Goldeneye because Nintendo had the Bond license. So essentially at that time, James Bond was a Nintendo IP much in the same way as Donkey Kong and Starfox. Now by the time Rareware was purchased in 2001, the Bond license had moved over to EA and then Activision.
Goldeneye was made because Nintendo bought the rights and it was on their system, why shouldn't they have a say on whether or not it appears on another platform. But to have someone step in when all the boxes were assumed to be crossed is still a dick move.
What I'm getting from this is that these guys wanted to remake this game and they wanted to get Nintendo on board so it would give them legitimacy to do it, but Nintendo didn't want to get on board because they have nothing to do with the IP and throwing their name behind such a thing would open them up to a legal mess.
So these guys are obviously all salty about all this and are pinning this on Nintendo for not backing them up in their little project.
Even though with or without Nintendo, it wouldn't of happened but that doesn't stop these kids from getting all emotional at the fact that their project wasn't given any support.
@MarcusIsCool That is your opinion. You have been introduced to mine.
Removed - unconstructive; user is banned
@Xiovanni it has nothing to do with Nintendo, Nintendo doesn't have a say in this at all, they don’t have anything to do with the IP. These guys are being really childish about their approach to getting this made.
In fact these guys need to talk to MGM and Microsoft, which im guessing isn't really possible.
They wanted to pin the fault on someone, they tried to get Nintendo to throw their weight behind this project to give it legitimacy but Nintendo are not stupid, they know doing that would open a legal can of worms for them.
These kids trying to remake this game have a very very rudimentary understanding of law and ownership rights. They thought with Nintendo's backing, the game would definitely get made, but that's just childishly silly.
@PixelTavern The game was released for free on PC this year and recieved critical acclaim from FPS gamers all around. A stunning remaster considering the age.
Perhaps gaming isn't for you.
The game I'm wondering about is Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. Why did that never get a rerelease, in direct contrast to pretty much every other entry in the series, except for MGS4? Let's blame Nintendo.
Here's the real story:
Nintendo failed to acquire a majority stake in Rareware before Microsoft did and ultimately paid the price of losing one of their most talented partners for decades.
I’ll never understand how ”the one guy who mattered” who was allegedly someone from Nintendo, somehow they were able to trump Activision, EON and MGM, in to stopping a release of a game they no longer had legal rights to?
I mean, why didn’t they stop Banjo Kazooie and Conker from being put on Xbox? They were as much “Nintendo games coming out on a Microsoft console” as Goldeneye, right?
@Ravenmaster Wrong, Rare’s quality was waning and it was showing, so when Rare put themselves up for sale, Nintendo who had first dibs on them, decided to let them go instead.
And it’s taken the studio, now in name only, over decade to come out with a half decent game, since the MS purchase.
Rare only starting waning after Microsoft purchased them. Before they were making hit after hit on the N64. Conker's Bad Fur Day, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, DK Country 64, Banjo Kazooie. Not a single bad game there. Rare's first few games on Xbox 360 (Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo) weren't particularly bad. Then Microsoft relagated Rare's studio to being a direct Wii competitor, only allowing them to make PG rated games. Viva Pinata, Kinect Sports etc. This was never Rare's forte. Rare were always about action and adult humour. Forcing them to make kiddie games and stifling their creativity caused a lot of devs to leave at that point. And many of the UK-based talent refused to relocate to the US and instead, left the company.
So it was Nintendo being Nintendo as usually. If we won't bring back our classic games, no one will.
This is a very strange account of events. If Nintendo didn't want this to get released on a competing system why is there an xbox version coming out with the switch one tomorrow? Unless of course the remaster would only come to Xbox....that i can understand.
Commenting super late... it's not a lost gem I got ahold of it before it was taken down and play it on my pc from time to time... Its pretty cool, the buttons are mapped smartly and being able to swap between original and updated graphics is pretty cool... Didn't realize at the time that I would have something so rare on my pc
Tap here to load 108 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...