About Goldeneye. Maybe it´s really coming to VC

[rest44]

I was googling about the virtual console, searching for info on new future releases when I dumped into something... http://wii.ign.com/articles/680/680846p1.html

It´s an article from IGN; the Wii was still called revolution and was about the virtual console. They had played it and wrote about it.

Now guess what was the name of one of the games on the list for releses??? You guess it! GOLDENEYE!

Check the link and the games list..

Does this meant something? maybe it does.. why would they put it on the list it they weren´t going to release it? Interesting.. at least...

 

[Link_of_Hyrule]

look ea owns bond copyright thus goldeneye is on vc there ya go stop posting about it

 

[3mpathy]

ea dont own bond, activision does....

 

[csiguy4u]

First off that article is from January 2006 (not 2007) and so is not completly accurate. Notice they use "Revolution" and not Wii and the screen shots don't even look like the Wii's VC.

Since that artically was published EA had to had over Bond rights to Activision in May 2006 (I believe that date is accurate).

 

[rest44]

I know that´s a 2006 article.. the thing is Nintendo gave that list as the list of some games that were going to be released and goldeneye was on it.. so that must be something! They wouldn´t put the name on the list just because.. they must have some rights about it. Even if that´s an early list.. that an oficial list! And if Nintendo said there´s gonna be goldeneye on VC I belive them.

Maybe Nintendo owns the game. just because rare is on microsoft.. that doesn´t say a thing, cause donkey kong country is also from rare and it´s on VC; and the bond rights mean nothing here because if Nintendo owns the game they can release it cause they´re not selling the game!! They´re selling your right to play the old Nintendo 64 game on the Wii.

 

[Maximo]

dkc being on vc has nothing to do with rare. i wish noobs would understand this Donkey Kong is a NINTENDO FRANCHISE at the time when the DKC were being developed RARE was a SECOND PARTY DEVELOPER. Rare didn't own the rights to dkc they just developed it. Its the same as Hudson making the Mario Party games, Namco making the latest Star Fox game, Capcom making Zelda Minish Cap....does this suddenly make them own rights to those characters? NO NINTENDO JUST OUT SOURCED FOR A DEVELOPER TO MAKE THE GAME.

In the sense of goldeneye i think the most rights problems you are gonna have is between Nintendo ,and Activision as well as even maybe the company who owns the actual franchise. Because RARE was just the company who developed the game. I'm sure microsoft would have to go through the same channels to get Goldeneye on Live Arcade if it was going to.

 

[StwrX03]

I kinda like they way that was set up. But if those games will be released, party on. illusion of gia

 

[Redan499]

If Goldeneye is released for the VC, im hoping that the kind people at nintendo will incorporate online play into it. I loved the 007 version on the source engine.

 

[rest44]

lol.. who the **** are you to call me noob? look.. I said the problem with the fact rare made the game isn´t a problem because DKC was also made by rare. What I was saying is that rare probably don´t own the rights of the game (like it was said in some posts on other topics).

And EA or activision don´t have nothing to do with THIS bond game! it´s not a new release Nintendo are just selling the right of playing the old game (the old release of the game that they own!!!!!) on the wii. And that have nothing to do with activision! And they can´t chance a thing in the game cause that would make it a new release.

And don´t give me crap about laws cause probably you don´t know about it as much as I do.. so don´t call others noobs or criticise people taht you don´t know. Think before you talk!

 

[cannon]

what maximo said is spot on.

 

[Maximo]

How wouldn't Activision have anything to do with that Bond game... they own the rights to the bond game license. They'd have to approve the usage of the license.

About the comment i made about DKC is because you said DKC was on the VC ,and it was made by rare. It being on the VC has nothing to do with Rare it would of been on the VC if even Namco made it because its a Nintendo franchise. Nintendo doesn't own that bond game yeah it was on the a Nintendo system ,but thats because at the time circa 97' Nintendo ,and second party developer had a lisencing agreement. As with many contracts they expire after awhile which is what happened to that agreement then EA took over the lisence thats why you seen another bond game on 64 ,but it wasn't done by rare.

BTW thanks Cannon

 

[rest44]

ACtivision own bond rights for NEW releses! Goldeneye is an old one witch Nintendo owns the rights! If Nintendo want they can keep selling goldeneyes for Nintendo64...

And the VC Games aren´t new releses.. are the same old games. Nintendo is just selling the right to play the same old games for the same old consoles on the wii. They aren´t relesing goldeneye for wii or for virtual console, they are allowing you to play goldeneye for Nintendo64 on the wii. That´s something completly diferent.

Activision could say something if Nintendo start selling goldeneye for the wii, but VC games aren´t VC games.. they are games for their old systems playing on the wii throw VC. Any game for NES, SNES or N64, made by any company can be played on any console if Nintendo allows! Nintendo owns the playabily rights of the games.

That´s why you aren´t buying the games, but the right to play the games on the wii (this aplys for any game on VC). Nintendo owns that right and they are selling it to you.. not the game, the right to play it on the wii.

And that´s why if you buyed SNES games or N64 games you have to pay for it again (if you want to play them on the wii), cause when you buyed the game, you buyed it and the right to play it on that perticular system (wii not included).

If you have any doubts read the VC license contract or the manual of your old games.. That´s all in there!

 

[Maximo]

im done trying to talk sense into this idiot he obviously doesn't get it. If it was as simple as nintendo being able to do what they like reggie wouldn't had said they were looking into aquiring the rights.

it has nothing to do with whether the game is old ,or new. The lisence agreement has to be made with whoever the current lisence holder is.

 

[Deathmetalmaster]

maximo for the win.