Nintendo wants GoldenEye back
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Nov 29th 2006 at 9:25AM }
MTV's Stephen Totilo recently grilled Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aime about all things Wii. When questioned, the NoA president didn't hold back his desire to see GoldenEye returned to Nintendo's platform, revealing to Totilo, "Suffice it to say we would love to see [GoldenEye on Virtual Console], so we're exploring all the rights issues."So how far is Nintendo willing to "explore"? If GoldenEye is to enjoy its homecoming, royalties could certainly be owed to Microsoft, which now owns developer Rare, and Activision, which scooped up the Bond license earlier this year. Judging by Reggie's comments -- "the pain is worth the gain" -- Nintendo may be willing to cut those checks.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ttt @ Nov 29th 2006 9:37AM
supermario on xbox live arcade :)
audioeric @ Nov 29th 2006 9:39AM
That's great that they want to get this game back, and populate Virtual Console with popular titles. However, Golden Eye was good for it's time, but I don't think it would hold up anymore. I don't know anyone that still plays their N64 just to get some GoldenEye on..
But, if they did secure this license to bring this game over, would they just do the 4 player split screen or would they try to do online multiplayer? Since I started on XBLive a few years ago, I'll never go back to split screen. Even with my 61" TV, it sucks only having a small portion of that. So, we'll see what comes of this..
SonicRift @ Nov 29th 2006 9:40AM
As much as I'd love to see it on the VC, I'd love even more to have it on XBLA with Live multiplayer support...
MrJeykel @ Nov 29th 2006 12:33PM
I want Goldeneye too!! Nintendo better start writing cause if M$ puts this on the 360, I will cry first. Then go buy a 360.
> @ Nov 29th 2006 9:40AM
It sounds like hes dancing around the issue and that its not going to happen anytime soon.
They've had forever to try to get the proper rights, if it hasnt happened already, then its not going to happen now and certainly not under any terms Nintendo would go for; they're not going to sell it at cost, they would need to raise the proce to get the same margins
So, this basically means other Rare N64 titles like Conker's, BlastCorps, Banjo, etc wont be coming out anytime soon. And, if you want that retro feeling, just play RedSteel multiplayer.
FAParody @ Nov 29th 2006 9:45AM
@#1:
http://forums.retrothinking.com/showthread.php?t=269 ;]
J.Goodwin @ Nov 29th 2006 9:54AM
I'm hoping that Banjo 1 / 2 will be unlockables in Banjo 3.
Either that, or released onto XBLA as teasers. That would be very sweet.
KaneRobot @ Nov 29th 2006 9:57AM
Because it won't happen, Microsoft should make some ridiculous counter-offer just to rile up news sites and fanboys. "We'll let you have Blast Corps and Goldeneye if we can have Zelda OoT & Majora's Mask."
Of couse you'd never see it, but it would set off a hilarious few months of "I have a source that tells me it should happen by fall '07" rumors.
Unimental @ Nov 29th 2006 10:02AM
Two words: Remote mines.
Oh how fun it was to see an opponents quadrant of the multiplayer screen being engulfed in flames after walking into my trap. I've still got my N64 and Goldeneye cart, but it's tough to convince anyone to play that with the 360 and Wii available.
Heck, it's tough to get anyone to play anything BUT the Wii... so perhaps Goldeneye on VC is the only way I'll re-live those great memories
zakchase @ Nov 29th 2006 9:58AM
I swear that while waiting in three-hour line for a Wii on Sunday, no less than one of those hours was spent reminiscing about the good old days of endlessly playing GoldenEye multiplayer. Probably the most fun I've ever had playing a video game. A case of beer, three friends, and GoldenEye = pure bliss.
botdeluxe @ Nov 29th 2006 9:59AM
my god i played that game so much back in the day... then i picked it up a couple years ago and couldn't find my way around anymore because of the archaic graphics... and Perfect Dark Zero plays alot like it, with slow and gliding player movements. I can't stand that now.
Saneless @ Nov 29th 2006 10:00AM
Screw Goldeneye, which is easily a very average and overrated FPS IMO. Bring on the original Conker, since the Xbox remake sucks balls
JodyAnthony @ Nov 29th 2006 10:02AM
I just want Quest64.
Daniel @ Nov 29th 2006 10:07AM
I felt Perfect Dark was superior to GoldenEye, personally.
Mr. Objectional @ Nov 29th 2006 10:31AM
GET IT RIGHT!!! RARE HAS NO RIGHTS TO GOLDENEYE. I know its complicated, but bare with me. NINTENDO bought the rights to develop the game, which it then relegated to Rare for them to develop the game on their behalf. The real problem is that Nintendo only owns the rights to distribute the game for the N64. So while Rare owns the Perfect Dark license and IP, Nintendo owns the Goldeneye license and the IP is the Fleming families.
The REAL problem is that ELECTRONIC ARTS has the distribution rights to any new bond games. If they're getting into hot water, that's who they need to pay.
ksb @ Nov 29th 2006 10:12AM
I still hope for this game to show up on XBLA!
This game and mario kart are still hunting my mind and teasing me into buying a used n64 to relive the experience! ....
epobirs @ Nov 29th 2006 2:45PM
I greatly doubt that Activision would have any piece of the action. They're only concerned with newly generated works based on their license. They don't, for instance, get money from EA if there is another production run of an old Bond game in the PS2 Greatest Hits line. Which is entirely likely thanks to raised interest from the current movie.
Since the Virtual Console would use the existing codebase, the original publishing deal should still apply unless specific expiration dates were written into it. Thus, it would be just Nintendo, Rare (as an arm of Microsoft), and the owners of the Bond IP who would be handling the revenue stream. So long as everything was treated as percentages the original deal should scale down to the VC pricing just fine.
A bigger issue is whether Microsoft/Rare want to produce a new version of the game for XBLA. Depending on the original contracts and the interest of the Bond IP owners, Nintendo could be completely cut out and the game made an XBLA exclusive.
The best thing for all concerned, including consumers, would be for the Rare games to appear on the Wii VC and those not using Nintendo owned characters to get new versions on XBLA. Leaves Sony out of the mix, which is something where Microsoft and Nintendo can find agreement.
Mr. Objectional @ Nov 29th 2006 10:13AM
GET IT RIGHT. RARE DOES NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO GOLDENEYE. Nintendo bought the rights and Rare developed them on Nintendo's behalf. Nintendo has the right to distribute Goldeneye, but only for the N64. Ofcourse neither have the right to the IP. The real problem is that EA currently holds the license to distribute any new bond games. That's who they need to pay.
Perfect Dark on Xbox, definitely. Goldeneye on Xbox? Not gonna happen unless they bu out Nintendo.
KrazyIan @ Nov 29th 2006 10:17AM
I personally find Goldeneye pretty overrated nowadays. In its day Goldeneye was a classic, but over time it hasnt held up as well as other games of its era. FPS games have come a long way (compare Half Life 2 / Halo 2 to Goldeneye.
I spent a ridiculous number of hours playing Goldeneye when I was younger, but I fired it up again this year and it has lost a lot of its luster.
FuzzyPickles @ Nov 29th 2006 10:26AM
You people are crazy. GoldenEye is still the most fun you can have with four controllers and a case of beers. That and Mario Kart 64 are the only games my friends and I ever really play on multi, even to this day.
I'd go as far as to say it revolutionized console FPSes, but that's just my opinion, I suppose.
Yaktastic @ Nov 29th 2006 10:28AM
@#3
"I don't know anyone that still plays their N64 just to get some GoldenEye on.. "
Check Craigslist. I live in boston and was very tempted to go to a little golden eye tournament this weekend... there are still some faithfuls out there who pull out the 64 for some good goldeneye and kart action
diskoboy @ Nov 29th 2006 10:33AM
So who owns the rights to Killer Instinct?
Nintendo? Rare? Midway?
Anticrawl @ Nov 29th 2006 10:45AM
To #3
Well I guess me and my buddies are abnormal. My current setup in my living room just switched from an HD DLP projector to a widescreen HD DLP TV set, it's like 40 some odd inches but in a small living room. The things that surround it are a stereo, dvd/dvr/vcr combo player, an xbox 360, a Wii and an old N64 with Goldeneye plugged in atop a gameshark. My roommate and I went out and bought another 64 and copy of Goldeneye just for the apartment (my 64 and the 4 separate copies I burnt through from play and spills are at the families house with my remaining working copy).
The reason Goldeneye is regarded so highly is because of how many standards it set and how proficiently it was built. It had a body point damage system that is still more sophisticated than some of the slop they throw into your common FPS game. When you shot them in the crotch, they felt it in the crotch, when you got em in the neck, they gasped and held their neck in futility as they died and died quicker than if you were to shoot them in the hand or foot, hell you could even shoot their damn hats off, how fucking cool is that. You had the ability to dual wield weapons. Any freestanding object + glass was destructible unless indicated otherwise (i.e. bullet proof glass), you could even destroy ammo crates and shoot guns lying on the ground and make them pop-up, fly away, move whatever. It had a plethora of weapons that were all unique in their own way, from laser watches to the golden gun. Each enemy you came across had their own personality and traits. They would jabber on about nothing, bat away flies, some acted stupefied when their hats were shot off, others reacted violently, etc. Enemies could hear and spot you if you weren't careful, they'd sound off alarms, call for help, etc. Levels were massive and extremely detailed for their time, and the draw was amazing even by today's standards.
The reason people feel no FPS can or could ever live up to Goldeneye is due to the fact that a game, based on a movie no less, that was released on the N64 does things games now don't even do, it added features and depth to the genre that none others have been able to match. The only real improvement besides more detailed visuals is the creation of a second analog stick for better control, vehicles and perhaps the ability to see what weapons you are toting by looking on your back.
The reason Perfect Dark was not received better is due to the fact that is simply released later and players were already wowed is much as they could be. Perfect Dark was a fantastic game and built on the same great engine that powered Goldeneye. It looked much better, the gadgets were cooler, was targeted towards a more mature audience, and it made multiplayer more chaotic with the addition of bots.
Honestly I can't believe people can forget things like this, we shouldn't be playing modern FPS's in the manner that we are. We should insist much more from them in this new generation of gaming and the incredibly stale genre deserves it.
To get back on topic I do hope it happens for Nintendo, and I hope they add the ability to play online vs just co-op. Only 4 player, no other updates as the game is good where it is. On that I seriously doubt they would add an online feature (unless Microsoft and Nintendo had a mutual agreement and payed Activision royalties to release an online version on both the 360 and Wii), and I doubt even more that Nintendo can overcome this trifecta of things to overcome.
Anticrawl
Hoffer @ Nov 29th 2006 10:59AM
I don't know why MS would give up Goldeneye. They would be stupid to let Nintendo put it on the VC. MS should strike a deal with Activision and put it on XBLA. Hopefully they up the graphics a bit too.
I have both a Wii and Xbox 360. So my bases are covered either way. :-)
Duo @ Nov 29th 2006 10:49AM
Actually, Mr. Objectionable, Activision now has the rights to distribute new Bond games. And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't M$ own Activision?
Even if they don't own it, EA still doesn't hold the Bond rights anymore.
The Intangible Fact @ Nov 29th 2006 10:49AM
"Screw Goldeneye, which is easily a very average and overrated FPS IMO. Bring on the original Conker, since the Xbox remake sucks balls"
You havn't played shit dude! The xbox remake was the same as the original except for better graphics and the addition of mulitplayer. It was awsome to play conker with better graphics. Get off this site with your dumbass comments. And by btw goldeneye was the best.
corleone @ Nov 29th 2006 11:08AM
straight for the golden gun in the toilets , ahh nostalgia in a tin
saboola @ Nov 29th 2006 11:19AM
Anticrawl,
You are my hero. Represent.
Edge of Blade @ Nov 29th 2006 11:06PM
Remember what happened last tie Nintendo tried to cut a deal like that? CD-i Zelda.
DeezNuts420 @ Nov 29th 2006 11:48AM
A revamped Goldeneye on XBL Arcade would be the cats's ass!!!!
Gamer G @ Nov 29th 2006 2:13PM
How about us 360 owners get Zelda Twighlight Princess as a trade??
J @ Nov 29th 2006 4:13PM
I'd love to see Goldeneye on the Wii and with online play!? *drools*
I think the situation could end up something like this...
Goldeneye on Virtual console:
http://i-am-random-j.blogspot.com/2006/10/goldeneye-on-virtual-console.html
I hope it happens. It'd be a certified hit and with well designed online play, it'd get alot of fans playing online on the Wii.
DJG @ Nov 29th 2006 11:45AM
Hey, if they're getting goldeneye, I want Jet Force Gemini too!
Robotic House Plant @ Nov 29th 2006 11:56AM
Actually, I believe the rights are more complicated than just the Rare/Microsoft mention above. There's also MGM, which is now owned by Sony. Remember GoldenEye was an original James Bond movie, not based on a book. Okay, so you have to deal with your competitors to make this happen. Plus there's the production company which owns the James Bond brand.
I'm thinking this is NOT going to happen unless you have major cooperation and deep pockets.
I'm sure both Nintendo or Microsoft would love to have it available as part of their online marketplace.
Anticrawl @ Nov 29th 2006 12:08PM
Dude, nice thinking Robotic House Plant but Activision owns the "video game" rights to James Bond. Sony/MGM's rights to publish/produce games under the James Bond name were sold long ago and have been tossed around like a whore. It is complicated, but the movie industry has nothing to do with it.
Anticrawl
spartanfan @ Nov 29th 2006 12:23PM
shoot, i still play goldeneye in the dorm every few days with some friends. definitly the 64's best game, and one of the best games of all time.
The Adept @ Nov 29th 2006 12:15PM
Nintendo only needs permission from Activision in order to make GoldenEye available. They'll probably arrange this as part of a deal for lower licensing fees.
Robotic House Plant @ Nov 29th 2006 12:39PM
Actually, I'm not talking about game rights, I'm talking about the name "GoldenEye" is a property of MGM, which has rights to the James Bond movie franchise. The game is based on a movie, or at least the name was used to sell the game.
Using the name, based on a movie published by MGM should require some sort of clearance from MGM, which ultimately means Sony.
In addition to the movie rights, the name and character James Bond is owned by some production company which strictly controls how the character is used or portrayed. That's the company which sells the rights to various companies for licensing deals.
CLShortFuse @ Nov 29th 2006 1:53PM
I think this is getting a bit overcomplicated. Just put it on both XBOX Live and VC. If it's split ownership, just allow both parties to put it.
monal @ Nov 29th 2006 2:44PM
EON is the production company for everything Bond related
pezking6983 @ Nov 29th 2006 11:44PM
PERFECT DARK! FTW!
Miniboss @ Nov 29th 2006 1:09PM
So, Reggie is awesome? I think so...
ThorzHamer @ Nov 29th 2006 1:19PM
ok all you people that are thinking this will end up on Xbox Live need to remember that Microsoft has set a size limit of 50mb for arcade titles..... so untill they raize that size restriction No Goldeneye.
Uh_Oh @ Nov 29th 2006 1:31PM
Sure we'll hook you up with goldeneye rights, just give us partial ownership of your company and you got a deal, muhahahahaha!!!!
Tachion @ Nov 29th 2006 2:50PM
#36
You obviously don't know what you're talking about since Goldeneye took up a whopping 12 megs. Hell, even the largest N64 game is, what, 32 megs?
Not to mention compression technology has greatly improved...
chenry @ Nov 29th 2006 2:12PM
if GoldenEye came to the Virtual Console, I would buy it in an instant. I would buy it twice! GoldenEye 4 Evah!
Boomaga @ Nov 30th 2006 1:31AM
Well, Rare was the developer, but Nintendo was the publisher. Therefore, doesn't Nintendo have the rights to make this game?
Now, I'm sure with Activision owning the Bond license, things might get a little hairy on that end, but I really don't think Microsoft or Rare have anything to do with this, considering it was released by Nintendo.
Leshrac @ Nov 29th 2006 1:50PM
Nintendo won't update any VC game. XBLA is a far better place for Goldeneye to land, because you know they'll update it with online play. No thanks to split screen 12 FPS play... if I happen to have 3 friends over itching to play it, I'll break out my N64.
Allan Drake @ Nov 29th 2006 7:46PM
You guys gotta play Timesplitters 2 & 3!!! Best FPS Series EVER!!! Its the only direct descendant of Goldeneye/Perfect dark. Multiplayer on Timesplitters 3 Future perfect was pretty awesome too. You could even make you own levels and play them online. I just wished that these games had become more popular.
The Original G @ Nov 29th 2006 2:52PM
36. "ok all you people that are thinking this will end up on Xbox Live need to remember that Microsoft has set a size limit of 50mb for arcade titles..... so untill they raize that size restriction No Goldeneye."
I don't even think the size of Goldeneye hits anywhere near that limit.