No Rare titles on Nintendo's Virtual Console?
by Ross Miller 
{ Mar 27th 2006 at 10:28PM }
This is news that, if true, is
going to break more than a few hearts. While at the GDC, IGN's Matt Casamassina chatted with some people from Rare and
Microsoft and learned that all Rare-owned licenses will be absent from Nintendo's Virtual Console. Among others, that
list includes:
- The Banjo-Kazooie titles
- Conker's Bad Fur Day (not as shocking, as it was rereleased on Microsoft's system)
- Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark
- Blast Corps
- Jet Force Gemini
- Killer Instinct
Take a look at Rare's timeline of released games. Could you imagine Nintendo's history without many of these titles? Do you want to? We are labeling this as a rumor because (a) no official comment has been made and (b) we really hope it to be untrue.
[via Go Nintendo]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
slow news day @ Mar 27th 2006 10:37PM
Not having Goldeneye 007 is a major disappointment. It is by far one of my all time favorite Nintendo games.
The Mole @ Mar 27th 2006 10:49PM
I personally am really looking forward to Blast Corps if rare would be so kind as to put that on the Xbox Live Arcade. Killer Instinct would be another classic that Rare needs to make an Xbox Live Arcade port (or a full fledged sequel?) to. But what about BATTLETOADS?! C'Mon, those games were awesome! Microsoft, if you are reading this, BRING THE RARE CLASSICS TO THE XBOX LIVE ARCADE!!!!
someone @ Mar 27th 2006 10:52PM
It really saddens me that Rare will not be appearing on the Virtual Console.
The VC is suppossed to be made up of all the classics from every era of Nintendo. Rare basically was the N64 back in the day.
Man, this stinks. Rare would gain money, and since they are owned by M$, M$ would gain money too.
Maybe M$ is going to release Rare's classics on Live Arcade?
Iced_Eagle @ Mar 27th 2006 10:52PM
Considering Rare is owned by Microsoft, I'm fairly certain that this is true.
Microsoft doesn't want to give away those amazing games to a competitors console, even though they were made for them.
I'm guessing that Rare owns the IP to those games, and not the publisher, so it's all Rare's choice. Rare is governed by Microsoft.
I'm going to file this under "Highly Likely"
Lectoid @ Mar 27th 2006 10:54PM
Honestly I won't miss KI that much. The arcade was perfect. I didn't mind the N64 version, but it wasn't nearly as sexy as the 'cade version.
I remember KI screaming at me in the arcade that it was "AVAILABLE FOR YOUR HOME IN 1995". The SNES version (while good) wasn't truly what I had in mind.
Just have to say, thank god for .chd
Bob @ Mar 27th 2006 10:58PM
One word...
Unfortunate.
Ramez @ Mar 27th 2006 11:01PM
Wouldn't the Goldeneye IP belong to MGM or whoever has the 007 movie rights?
boots @ Mar 27th 2006 11:05PM
Oh man... how unfortunate. I'm going to miss Blast Corps so much. It's one of the best games I've ever played... Nevermind anyway. I think I finished every level in Platinum or something. Or gold. Whatever, I already enjoyed almost every ounce of it.
Killer Instinct 1 the arcade version was the best, and hopefully they'll bring it to the 360, and a new Killer Instinct also.
Rabish12 @ Mar 27th 2006 11:09PM
Doesn't EA own the Goldeneye license?
Also (and I could very easily be wrong, because I'm no legal expert), doesn't Nintendo own distribution rights to the games that they published? Not the licenses, but the games themselves?
yjs @ Mar 27th 2006 11:09PM
Microsoft/Rare are being bad sports.
SID SPACE @ Mar 27th 2006 11:20PM
Jet Force Jemini! (face_sad)
They probably don't have any choice in the matter, but wouldn't Rare be stupid to bring those games to XBLA, if most of their previous fan base is still with Nintendo? Well, maybe the collective cries/prayers of every Nintendo fanboy (myself included) will have some sway.
If Rare does withhold them from Rev, I will officially disown them and all their future titles.
Noah @ Mar 27th 2006 11:21PM
If you look at the list it has a company name next to the console the game was on. I would think all games labeled with Rare or MGS are Microsofts (like Perfect Dark, Jet Force, Conker), but I would think all the games labeled Nintendo would be fair game for Nintendo - eg. Donkey Kongs, Star Fox Adventures, Banjo & Kazooie, and even a couple Killer Instinct games, and look what else has Nintendo by it, GOLDENEYE. - I would think the other games like Battletoads - which has Tradewest beside it are more thrown up into the air. That's just a theory - why else would they put the companies at the end after the consoles, it would make sense
Enigma @ Mar 27th 2006 11:53PM
If you look up the Patents, Nintendo still owns the Patent on Killer Instict. They were the publisher and still own the IP.
The others they do not though, they are listed as owned by MS and Rare.
Dunno what this could mean, but it isnt like KI was all that anyhow.
Enigma @ Mar 27th 2006 11:55PM
#10 ...
They have no choice in the matter. Rare is now owned by Microsoft, when Nintendo gave up the option to buy them and sold off their shares.
SetupWeasel @ Mar 28th 2006 12:13AM
I'm sad about Goldeneye... nothing else.
vince @ Mar 28th 2006 12:29AM
i hate mircoshit for buying rare do they have to buy everything? its almost as worse as EA buying the nfl license. Now nintendo fans wont get there donkey kong how gay.
Christopher @ Mar 28th 2006 12:35AM
Maybe a deal will be worked out. It would be nice. For Microsoft, it might be better for them to relese downloads for those games on their console. To have an edge over Nintendo. I say there's a good chance we'll have theme either way.
leojsoap @ Mar 28th 2006 12:41AM
ahh, no Jet Force Gemini? not a deal breaker, but it makes me a little sad…
I can let goldeneye go though, it was one of the first major console FPS's, thus the fond memories from many, but I can go without considering what's available today.
Momus @ Mar 28th 2006 12:43AM
Who here kept their N64 and GoldenEye?
*raises hand*
That's right, chumps!
Dakara @ Mar 28th 2006 12:44AM
Since the old rare games appeared on Nintendo systems, would Microsoft and Rare have to make them like they did with Conker or it wouldn't be legal, right? Since they would in fact have to make a Nintendo Emulator for them to run those games...I don't think they would let any nintendo emu's on live. Legal jargon and all, right?
rda52 @ Mar 28th 2006 12:57AM
i want golden eye :, i doubt rare holds the license tough i hope they dont :)
Alex @ Mar 28th 2006 12:58AM
Hey, does this mean no R.C. Pro Am? That'd be the most disappointing. Even moreso than, say, Golden Eye since there are a lot of modern games which can more or less replicate that gaming experience.
skyrous @ Mar 28th 2006 1:10AM
Yea this sucks, While nintendo did have the forsight to move all the real talent out of rare before demanding $500 million for what was essentially an empty shell. It's a pity they didn't forsee needing those properties in the future.
As for releasing those games on xbl, we're talking about code written for the N64 an infamously difficult to program console and running it on the 360 which is another difficult to program console. Would you want to create that emulator? Look at all the trouble microsoft has had making old xbox games copatible on the 360? On the other hand the revolution has been designed from ground up to emulate old games.
epobirs @ Mar 28th 2006 1:16AM
There is one possible platform for some of these titles to make another appearance: the DS.
Rare/MS isn't going to put their properties on a console that is viewed as competing with the Xbox 360. It's just not a good trade-off to make some money on the properties if it means promoting the competitor's platform. But since Microsoft has yet to make a foray into portable gaming (and if they do are more likely to target the PSP price and feature level) it isn't a conflict to put Rare properties on the DS just as they've done with the GameBoy Advance.
In any case they'd have to produce new versions of the games. Just as Microsoft isn't going to put their properties on a Nintendo console, Nintendo isn't going to license emulation of a Nintendo platform on the Xbox 360. So whether it's on XBLA or the DS (or the PSP), a newly coded version is needed.
Another question is whether sequels for these items are in the works. If a big new Banjo-Kazooie game were coming out, a free download of the original from XBLA would make a great pre-order bonus much like the N64 Zelda remakes for GameCube given to those who pre-ordered Wind Waker. Upgrade the resolution and textures a bit but not so much that it turns expensive or lose the flavor of the original presentation.
It isn't that long a list. Rare could likely assemble a team to create an engine that makes it easy to port N64 code while also supporting Xbox 360 features and produce versions of all those games for a very reasonable price.
MosquitoControl @ Mar 28th 2006 1:56AM
GoldenEye would surprise me, as mentioned, because it's MGM.
The others... meh. I'd kill for PD, and it would make sense for MSFT, it's free money and advertising for their own system, but I'd be just as happy with just Bond.
Some great NES and SNES games, but... yeah, Roms > Rev.
epobirs @ Mar 28th 2006 2:01AM
22.
I can't imagine why anyone would think the N64 was 'infamously difficult to program.' Nothing could be farther from the truth. The biggest issue at the time was that the N64 had some sophisticated features that most game developers had little or previous experience using. But the same can be said for every generation. It wasn't long after the N64 was launched that similar features became standard in gaming oriented PC video cards. In most respects the N64 was a pretty conventional design. The real pain came from having to spend a lot of time squeezing stuff in when other systems were using CD-ROM that allowed for streaming of uncompressed audio and large amounts of FMV. It wasn't so much difficult as much added work to achieve the same tasks on the N64 as were done on the Playstation. The N64 could do much the Playstation didn't but that didn't overcome the inconvenience of the cartridge format for too many developers.
Nor is the Xbox 360 'notoriously difficult to program.' No more so than any previous platform when it comes to realizing the full potential of it. The issue is whether the rewards are there for those who expend the effort. The PS2 made it worth developers time to overcome the unfamilar aspects of its design, while the Sega Saturn did not. By the time adequate development tools were offered by Sega the platform was already tottering. The 360 is not a repeat of this. Develoeprs are coming to terms with multiple CPU handling pretty quickly. They don't have a choice since the PS3 presents much the same challenge and more. It won't be long before this is also required to advance the state of the art in PC games as dual core CPUs become the rul in consumer systems with quad cores following not long after. Depending on what is finnaly revealed in the hardware specs, the revolution may be the last single CPU core game console to be a major market entry. Even the DS is a dual processor system.
Even if the multicore CPU of the Xbox 360 were a major showstopper it would have little bearing on Rare producing XBLA remakes of their N64 titles. Producing a N64-ish engine for the purpose would be a trivial demand on the 360's capabilities. About the only thing that would require much thought would be whether they wanted to duplciate the way the N64 produced polygons, which was different from most system but typical SGI. (By no small coincidence, Nvidia, a founded by ex-SGI guys, used the same approach in their first product, the NV-1. It also had audio functions built-in. Nvidia didn't have its first successful product until the later RIVA 128 chip.) Emulating the N64, if there were no licensing issues, would be akin to emulating the Atari VCS on the PS2. Producing a ease of porting environment would be more efficient since there would be no need to emulate the MIPS processor rather than using native PPC code. An N64 port under those circumstances would barely make use of a single core out of the 360's set. Designing the game to allow for other simultaneous tasks, like the oft complained about missing background downloads, would be easy going once Microsoft standardized the firmware support for it.
This would be far easier than the emulation of the original Xbox. The Xbox is far closer in sheer horsepower, so presents a throughput challenge, and has a lot of features in its chipset that are as far ahead of the N64 as the N64 was of the FX chip used on the SNES.
Two nitpicks. Microsoft did not pay $500 million for Rare. That number was widely reported during the rumor phase but later financial records in stockholders reports indicate a number well under $400 million. Big bucks but details matter.
Also, Nintendo never signed the paychecks of anyone at Rare. They were never more than a 49% interest holder and had little say in the comings and goings of its employees. It might be said that Nintendo drove some people away from Rare who no longer cared to deal with Nintendo but that was hardly to Nintendo's benefit.
DUKobE8 @ Mar 28th 2006 2:03AM
It's very doubtful that there will be any former Nintendo titles on XBL..they would have to emulate the N64 and SNES and NES...and no matter how it was done, it would be illegal, unless Nintendo gave them permission...which I don't see happening...ever..anyway they did it, they would have to use at lease SOME of the original Nintendo consoles code...And Rare doesn't own the Goldeneye license, or the Donkey Kong license, or the Star Fox license, and possibly, as someone else pointed out, the Killer instinct license. I think it is more likely that Rare/MS give permission to Nintendo to use the games they don't have access to right now and demand that a portion of every the profit from every download be theirs than nintendo giving MS permission to emulate entire systems of theirs...
Sloopydrew @ Mar 28th 2006 2:57AM
"If Rare does withhold them from Rev, I will officially disown them and all their future titles."
Boy, that'll be tough, with future classics on par with Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo sure to be released for the 360. Already, Rare's developing a Pokemon rip-off with Pinatas! How could you resist?
soco @ Mar 28th 2006 3:29AM
having an emulator isn't illegal and this has been tested 2 times, both with the PSX emulators. it has to be done reverse engineered without any supporting documents, but if that occurs then it's fair game. this has been shown with both Bleem! and the connectix piece of hardware for Macs.
anyway, the bigger issue is probably that of assets and publishing. chances are that there are joint copyrights on the published works. this means that one couldn't rerelease it without the others permission.
furthermore, this means that as far as announcements and licensing are concerned, we're only going to see games from Nintendo, Sega, and Hudsonsoft on the Virtual Console until other companies choose to sign on. the Nintendo games are worth a lot, but the others aren't worth quite so much, but will add options for the users. Sega already lets people download most of their games through Gametap, and it's quite possible you'll be able to do the same on the PS3 and XBL at some point.
Brody Brooks @ Mar 28th 2006 3:30AM
GoldenEye should appear on the Virtual Console. The rights to GoldenEye (the game) are owned by Nintendo and the James Bond license is owned by EA. Other than the fact that Rare originally developed the game (but didn't retain the rights), there's nothing holding back GoldenEye from being released on the Virtual Console as far as I know.
obo @ Mar 28th 2006 5:00AM
Oh man, no GoldenEye! I guess that means there's no FPS for me to play, ever. Big whoop.
I'm more pissed about RC Pro-Am and Rad Racer than I am about GoldenEye. Online multiplayer RC Pro-Am downloaded off the Rev to the DS... oh man. I'm going to cry myself to sleep thinking about what that would've been like.
rico @ Mar 28th 2006 5:47AM
I dont really care i have an 360 and will get a rev Killer Instinct and Jet Force Gemini 2 of my fav games i still play them 2day on my N64. both games would be amazing on the 360.
Twist @ Mar 28th 2006 5:58AM
What about older Rare titles for the NES like R.C. Pro Am and Cobra Triangle? If these games aren't released on the Rev then they need to be made available to the 360.
Isurus @ Mar 28th 2006 7:21AM
Why is everyone talking about emulating the rare games on Xbox Live? They will port games to Xbox Live, not emulate them. Writing an emulator would prove more difficult and time consuming. Also, how can there even be discussion about Rare's IPs relative to the new Nintendo console. They ain't coming to it folks; there is no point to the discussion. And, to the person who claimed Nintendo holds a "patent" to Killer Instinct, post a link because I think we all need shovels after that comment.
DG @ Mar 28th 2006 8:29AM
I'm just happy that I, as a consumer, am being protected by all of these copyrights and IP rights. Heaven forbid I was actually able to play these games on the (virtual) consoles they were designed for.
I'm surprised noone has yet mentioned Rad Racer. What's a virtual NES good for if it can't play Rad Racer?
snarfoogle @ Mar 28th 2006 9:20AM
Oh, come on. I was waiting for the Revolution to come out to try Banjo Kazooie. And I was most definitely looking forward to playing Goldeneye with the Revmote and nunchuck.
Oh well, there's always NEW FPSs.
Paul @ Mar 28th 2006 9:25AM
This is a big problem with the virtual console. Not having Rare games isn't the problem, but unrealistic expectations from gamers is. A lot of people here seem surprised that Rare games won't be on the console, when I thought it was pretty obvious that they wouldn't be. I mean, they are after all owned by another company now.
I've seen a lot of people chattering about how awesome it would be if the virtual console let you play old games online against people. That's almost positively not going to happen, and I wonder where anybody got the idea that that was even on the horizon. And now in a couple of months when someone in an interview says that it doesn't do that, you'll have fan outrage because it is something they "expected" the system would be capable of.
What we know so far: Nintendo, Sega, and Hudson games from NES, SNES, Genesis, Turbo Grafx 16, and N64. That's a hell of a line up. But so far, that's all. If you expect anything more before it's announced, or extra functionality that hasn't even been hinted at, you're setting yourself up for dissapointment. If you take a look at what is already on the table, however, you should be overjoyed.
I just hope when the thing comes out there won't be people shouting "OH NO! Obscure game from 1994 that me and 14 other people played isn't on the list! Nintendo is screwing us again!"
funkonaut @ Mar 28th 2006 9:56AM
All I want is Sin and Punishment.
neunen @ Mar 28th 2006 11:24AM
no jet force gemini!
fuck you microsoft! a curse on your greedy houses!!!!
Draco @ Mar 28th 2006 11:41AM
@soco
Bleem was taken to court for playing (upconverted)Playstation 1 games on the Dreamcast, and had to be taken off the shelves.
so your Bleemcast "proof" is nul, which sucked because I didnt have a Ps1 and wanted to play their games on my DC :(
dsub @ Mar 28th 2006 11:53AM
#3...exactly. MS would be retarded not release rare's classics on live! arcade. I've been saying this all along that goldeneye and other Rare classics would be a no-show on Revo. The only downside to this is...had Nintendo still owned Rare, we'd be seeing Goldeneye on the Revo at launch...with MS owning Rare, who knows when we could see it.
"fuck you microsoft! a curse on your greedy houses!!!!"
why in the HELL would microsoft let Nintendo use these liscences? Because it's Microsoft, they are the "evil greedy corporation" But when Nintendo doesn't release Mario and Zelda on other consoles it's called a "smart move". Hypocrisy and Double Standards at there finest.
Nintendo is kicking themselves in the ass right now for not obtaining these rights from Rare when they still owned them.
SuicideNinja @ Mar 28th 2006 11:54AM
Actually, I'm sure this will severely effect some gamers decision to purchase the console. One of my room mates was looking forward to the Revolution just so he could play Goldeneye and Killer Instinct. Everyone was all about Goldeneye apparently; it didn't do it for me.
For me, I'd rather have those provided via Xbox Live Arcade anyway, even when I get a Revolution. Then I wouldn't have to use a non-standard controller for a standardly controlled game.
I wonder if things like this will turn more people to emulation on PC?
"...we're talking about code written for the N64 an infamously difficult to program console and running it on the 360..."
N64 emulation and Xbox emulation cannot be compared. The N64 was inherently a much weaker console, so emulation performance on today's hardware isn't an issue. The Xbox is probably the MOST difficult console to emulate at full speed, just because of its specs. The 360 could probably run PS2 and Gamecube emulation just fine.
Try running a Windows game in a Virtual PC on your computer and see how your PC performs.
Personally, I think it's great that Microsoft was able to get the performance out of BC that they did. Emulation is very tricky.
bladestar @ Mar 28th 2006 12:03PM
Divide and conquer my children.
Why on earth would Microsoft allow Rare games be available in Nintendo's XBOX Live-like network? Would Nintendo do the same? Must of you are underestimating the power of almost unlimited budget and resources. Must of you will be taken by surprise at E3 2006 this may by Microsoft. Games like street fighter will be available at XBOX Live plus many more. Don't be surprise if you see some of these games in XBOX Live. Did you actually thought that (ALL) Nintendo games were going to be available in Nintendo's network?. Expect only Exclusives games like Mario Bros and Zelda. Also, will Nintendo’s network allow you to play multiplayer games over IP? Or it will be just like downloading an emulator off the internet to play Nintendo games in your computer or PSP?
Also, who every said that programming in the XBOX360 is hard is an Idiot! Any Programmer with experience with OOP, DirectX, and now .NET Framework can easily program any game on the 360. Is even easier than OpenGL programming. 360 will be supporting manage code; for those that are not aware of this, go do some research!
Ejab @ Mar 28th 2006 12:04PM
Ive been reading these posts and I see that most of you have no clue about your talking about. So let me explain things for you guys:
1. Nintendo gave up rare, they could have bought them out, but they decided to sell their share to MS.
2. Ms can put any old nintendo games they want on xbla, as long as rare holds the license, and the dev rights.
3. EA owns the 007 license, but they cant put it on any system without Rare's consent, since Rare developed it.
4. Nintendo is using a emulation service to let their users download games, instead of letting them play old games they already own, so most likely, the majority of games not owned by nintendo will cost money.
5. Donkey Kong is fully owned by Nintendo, even the dev rights, so we will see donkey kong on Revolution.
DjHyjak @ Mar 28th 2006 12:22PM
Rare can port these games to XBL because they are the oringal developers they just need to code it for the 360 not emulate the 64. Many companys do this when they release those classic game packs. And I ask this question back when Nentindo announced the Virtual Console, will the games be from the libray of games made for the old system or just first party games developed by nintendo themselves. because alot of games i loved my nes form where not made by Nintendo.
LaughingTarget @ Mar 28th 2006 12:41PM
The question is wether we actually would want to play these things again, and if we do, will they spur the same fuzzy feeling as then?
Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are the best of the bunch above, but would we really want to deal with them today?
Take Goldeneye for instance. Back when it was first released, the game was a truly revolutionary experience. It was the first time a console gamer could truly enjoy the FPS experience on their television set and without a $1,000+ computer.
It was great back in the day, a totally new experience. The problem is, the game was designed with a single analog stick in mind. These days, when two analog sticks come standard, which is a far superior method of controlling a FPS on a console, we begin to see many design limitations in Goldeneye.
Because of the clumsy method of strafing and vertical aiming (using those C buttons), the game was designed mainly on a very flat level. Sure, it looked 3D, but when playing it, everything happened on the same plane as you were standing on. I know, there are stairs and things in the game, but it was a rare instance when you were attacked by an enemy that came at you from above or below your crosshair's home position. As someone who played PC shooters at the time, I failed to see what was so "great" about Goldeneye.
Another shooter released in 1997 was a title called Jedi Knight 2. JK2 was leagues better than Goldeneye ever could be. It included advanced features such as jumping and full use of the 3rd dimension as well as a much smoother control scheme, not to mention superior story development, something fairly absent in Goldeneye.
Goldeneye was little more than the original Doom drawn out in 3D because it was so limited. It is likely that, especially after playing games like Halo, people won't warm up to Goldeneye, even if they have fond memories of it. Sure, you could update the control scheme to allow you to utilize the full scope of Halo-like console shooter controls, but that won't make up for the fact the game was built around the N64 limitation. It would be little more than a pale example of a shooter nowadays.
The problem with Rare's IPs is that most of them fail to be considered timeless. Banjo-Kazooie is little more than an irritating item hunt, a concept that Rare pretty much created and has thankfully died. Killer Instinct is a clunky Mortal Kombat era inspired fighter.
Conker is the same thing as Banjo, but with vulgarities. I tried out the Xbox remake and was not at all impressed. Sure, it was trussed up, but it still felt like a very basic premise of a concept that failed to take off.
The only two truly timeless Rare IPs from the N64 era are Blast Coprs and Jet Force Gemini. You could also drop the original Battletoads, Marble Madness in there as well to boost Rare's entire history of games still worth playing today to 4. Those four games are not rip-offs of existing games nor were they technical/gameplay stepping stones to what we are at today. A timeless game can be enjoyed well beyond their release date and cannot be overshadowed by a title that creates a stronger gameplay element for the same idea.
Rare is best known for developing intermediary steps to the gameplay experience we have today, and less for making actual quality games that can stand the test of time. Sure, they were great at the time because we never experienced it before, but (especially in non-Nintendo owned IPs, which don't have the same level of quality control as the Nintendo owend ones had) they have since been overcome with a better way to do things. Because Rare didn't set the standard, but paved the way for someone else to do it, their titles will not hold the same luster as they once did.
Rare's old IPs won't be the huge asset to Xbox Live as many think they will. Most of them are crap (Time Lord anyone), and those that were good at the time have not aged well. When those rose-colored glasses called nostalgia are ripped from our faces, we will see that Rare's games aren't as great as we once thought.
MosquitoControl @ Mar 28th 2006 12:48PM
"Why on earth would Microsoft allow Rare games be available in Nintendo's XBOX Live-like network?"
Three reasons:
1) Free money. These games, from what I understand, don't even need to be ported. Essentially a long dormant back catalog will begin bringing money in without any real investment.
2) Free advertising. Not a single person will buy the 360 to play Goldeneye. But people may play Perfect Dark on their Revolution, decide they really like it, and go out and buy a 360 to play PD0.
3) As you said, divide and conquer. Nintendo is not a big threat to Microsoft, but Sony is. Make some peace with Nintendo, give people more incentive to buy their product and hope it steals sales from Sony, ultimately weakening the beast.
Microsoft has been known to play nice with competitors for their own reasons. Remember that huge bailout check they cut Apple a ways back? Apple would have gone out of business if it hadn't accepted $150 million from Microsoft, but it was in Microsoft's best interests to have a competitor like Apple around. Likewise, it might be in their best interests to have a close relationship with Nintendo. Not only does it hurt Sony, but it builds relations just in case the Rev fails and Nintendo bows out of hardware.
Harlingtox AD @ Mar 28th 2006 1:20PM
Update: Gamestop/EB have changed the price of used copies Rare's N64 games to $30.
Seriously now, how are retailers going to react to the Virtual Console hurting their most profitable products?
They might get pissed to the point of shoving Nintendo stuff into a very small area!
Rootbeer @ Mar 28th 2006 1:25PM
"Rare can port these games to XBL because they are the oringal developers they just need to code it for the 360 not emulate the 64. Many companys do this when they release those classic game packs."
Um... those classic game packs are almost always just a collection of original game code, bundled with an emulator.
Up until about 10 years ago, most console games were written 100% in assembly language for the hardware they were written for. Porting ASM from one platform to another is extremely difficult and time-consuming work; it just doesn't happen.
"Ms can put any old nintendo games they want on xbla, as long as rare holds the license, and the dev rights."
Possibly; we don't really know the contractual terms under which those games were licensed originally: who retains IP rights to the code, whether the game was produced as a work-for-hire, etc. Without that information we can only speculate.
"I'd rather have those provided via Xbox Live Arcade anyway, even when I get a Revolution. Then I wouldn't have to use a non-standard controller for a standardly controlled game."
Are Gamecube controllers "standard" enough for you? I'm about 90% certain that Nintendo will let you use those for retro gaming on the Revo. It's not like you'll be flicking the remove to move Super Mario around, Power Glove-stylie.
"how awesome it would be if the virtual console let you play old games online against people. That's almost positively not going to happen"
Why not? The only data you need to exchange between 2 copies of an NES emulator playing the same game are the program counter register (to keep the emus in sync) and the controller status registers. There's no reason you couldn't get performance at least as good as any other networked game from such a setup. Heck, you'd even have plenty of bandwidth left for live voice chat.
It's not impossible that that's the big surprise announcement they're still teasing for the Revolution...
Masaki @ Mar 28th 2006 2:06PM
Everyone seems to forget all the nintendo references that are in Rare n64 games
Mark my words, those games would appear in the virtual console before live arcade