• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Oct 26, 2017
8,734
This is why I always mention that rereleasing retro games is a massive challenge. Imagine being capcom/square-enix/etc. and releasing some of your works when you now have to factor in stuff like voice acting use, music, etc.

Goldeneye is that on steroids because of the many connecting pieces at work (MGM, Nintendo, Rare/Microsoft, Actors and Actresses). All it takes is just one point of failure to prevent the game from being remade.
 

Prine

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,724
So this does line up with what we heard about 3 years ago. I was always dubious of recent claims about it not being Nintendo.

They're idiots tbh, it's so old now that it wouldn't really impact them.
 

Sacul64

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,762
wat

The studio that made the game is still Rare, the fact that the employees have left means nothing lol

Do you think Nintendo will stop owning Super Mario 64 once everyone who participated in the development has left or died?

The poster was saying its funny how little importance the studio that made the game has on it releasing. All I was doing is saying following that logic is ignoring that the people that made that game are not even at that studio.
 

Nairume

SaGa Sage
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,929
That's the thing, I know there was nothing like it back then. I remember everyone always talking about it too. It's just I don't know how much fun it would be now.

I love old games. I have a "retro" setup with different consoles, but I play games that I feel are still fun to play. Mostly 2D games. I just can't imagine goldeneye has aged very well. That's why I was wondering if people want to play it now and think it'll still be fun to play.
If you switch it to one of the alternative control schemes that plays a little more modern and accept that the game is going to run a little assy, it's still incredibly fun today.
 

alr1ght

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,047
They apparently thought they were going to get it figured out for Rare Replay, yet it never happened. There's a leaked, professionally shot documentary about Goldeneye that was (apparently) set to appear in Rare Replay along with the game. So as of 2015, they still couldn't get everyone in board.
 

Gnorman

Banned
Jan 14, 2018
2,945
It's probably best if the game stays in the past as a classic. It's awful compared to more modern games.

Having said that if anyone has access to it they should leak it as a fuck you. šŸ˜„
 

Mafro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,364
Seems pretty dumb not getting approval before starting the remaster and wasting a ton of people's time and money.
 

litebrite

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,832
They apparently thought they were going to get it figured out for Rare Replay, yet it never happened. There's a leaked, professionally shot documentary about Goldeneye that was (apparently) set to appear in Rare Replay along with the game. So as of 2015, they still couldn't get everyone in board.
Just to add to your post.
 

Arthoneceron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,024
Minas Gerais, Brazil
Not playing the Nintendo apologist role here, but I always had the impression that the main intention of the whole stuff was to put the game on XBLA. The Wii, or even a current Nintendo console on that time, was a technically they couldn't legally prevent to happen.
 

Deleted member 19702

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,722
It's time for Nintendo and Microsoft to release it now as both share a good relationship. I would love a Steam release.
 

OzBoz

Member
May 29, 2019
447
GoldenEye 007 is better in your memories than it is in reality. Best not to spoil them.
 

samred

Amico fun conversationalist
Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,585
Seattle, WA
GoldenEye 007 is better in your memories than it is in reality. Best not to spoil them.

Hi from the author of this cited Ars Technica interview.

You are so, so, SO wrong. Some parts of the game didn't age well, certainly, but a lot of them hold up. Also, its 4p split-screen one-shot pistol deathmatch feels different than pretty much any FPS console classic I can think of, and I still love it.
 

catpurrcat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,789
it was petty and financially stupid when he could've negotiated more out of it.

Next to their fuck up with DMA and GTA letting fps game slip out of their hands was a huge mistake, that I don't think anyone in upper management was taken to task for it either.

Goldeneye sales to Perfect dark and then the next two gens of jokes initiatives 1st or third party while we went to basically halo to cod and then battle royales.

Agreed. We've all known of some colossally bad decisions made over the years but this one is just mind boggling. Not even taking into account the lack of re-release, or a remaster, on any console, this was a cultural phenomenon that is a piece of gaming history that deserved better.

I wonder if a lack of confidence (or should I say lack of interest during the Iwata era) in their own online infrastructure had them concerned about how multiplayer would perform online, especially if released on an Xbox console at the same time.
 

-shadow-

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,110
8OWQ0BA.png
What I find odd of this part is that Nintendo apparently doesn't own the rights to the code or anything regarding the game. But we know it was Nintendo that acquired the IP rights and gave it to Rare in order to develop it and paid for the production of it. They confirmed more than once that Nintendo told them to call it quits and cancelled the development, but the group at Rare continued anyway. Unless they had some weird contract work done, wouldn't this imply that the code would be Nintendo its property?

Regardless, shame that the game was never re-released. I'd love for it to some day see the light of day, but doubt we'll ever get it. It was lightning in a bottle and might be best to keep it at that.
 
What I find odd of this part is that Nintendo apparently doesn't own the rights to the code or anything regarding the game. But we know it was Nintendo that acquired the IP rights and gave it to Rare in order to develop it and paid for the production of it. They confirmed more than once that Nintendo told them to call it quits and cancelled the development, but the group at Rare continued anyway. Unless they had some weird contract work done, wouldn't this imply that the code would be Nintendo its property?

Regardless, shame that the game was never re-released. I'd love for it to some day see the light of day, but doubt we'll ever get it. It was lightning in a bottle and might be best to keep it at that.
Yeah, I wouldn't really read that much into that particular statement in that article clipping. It doesn't gel with how Nintendo has always done business with third-party developers, regardless of how much of a stake they own in them.
 

P-Tux7

Member
Mar 11, 2019
1,344
The studio that made the game in the first place, which is amusingly the least important element in terms of the game releasing since all it really amounts to is a logo.
LMAO this is dumb, literally none of the coders to it have the rights to get money from it later or rerelease it. The entertainment industry ladies and gentlemen.
 

HorseFD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,024
Melbourne
To all the people saying this game is better left in the past, have you actually played it recently? It's different to pretty much everything out there now (with the exception of Perfect Dark 360 port), and in my opinion the only thing holding it back is the lack of modern controls which is fixed in this port.
 

Vilifier

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,839
On one hand; that's one hell of a mess up on Microsoft's part to go full development on a port they didn't have the full rights to. How could you not have everything signed off to prevent this from happening?

On the other hand; we now we have a leaked port because of Microsoft's blunder. If Microsoft knew early on they didn't have approval this port wouldn't exist in any form.

Now that the port is in the wild; I just hope it can restart conversations between Microsoft/Nintendo and maybe they release it on both Xbox/Switch. I'm sure both don't like the idea of missing out on potential revenue.
 
Last edited:

Sax

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,323
GoldenEye 007 is still pretty darn good, especially at 60 FPS and dual analog controls, which is what the XBLA game is/was.

Can confirm this. Just played it all the way through on xenia on 00 Agent and had a great time. Saying the N64 version at 15fps and 320x240 isn't a good experience today is probably true, but there's a better alternative to that!
 

Celine

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,030
Seems as Microsoft was in talk with NoA without understanding that who takes the ultimate decisions in Nintendo is NCL.

It's funny you say that, because the 2010 GoldenEye Wii game got a 360/PS3 remaster one year later with HD graphics, a new game engine, and content not in the Wii release (achievement system, new MI6 Ops Missions, and Hugo Drax as a PS3-exclusive DLC character).

So Nintendo got a port of what would had been the "inferior" original game to Wii VC and its "superior" XBLA remake of it binned, in favor of a completely different adaptation that ended up being the inferior version of the game anyway. (And then all versions of the 2010 game got yanked once Activision dropped the license a couple years later. Bringing us full circle to both versions of the game unavailable for modern platforms.)

Such is the art of the Nintendeal I guess.
GoldenEye 007 (the reimagination from Activision) on Wii outsold the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions combined in US.
The time exclusivity was much more important, in term of sales performance, than anything you cited for the 360/PS3 versions.
 

Bear and bird

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,589
The game never even came to anything like Wii as backwards conpatible did it ?

seems so bizarre of Nintendo 'We will never let a Nintendo game be on Xbox. And we will also not even bother releasing the game at all on any modern platforms'
It would likely have been released on Virtual Console if Nintendo had given the go ahead for the XBLA version. Neither company had the rights required to release the game by themselves.
 

Alvis

Saw the truth behind the copied door
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,228
Spain
It's probably best if the game stays in the past as a classic. It's awful compared to more modern games.

Having said that if anyone has access to it they should leak it as a fuck you. šŸ˜„
It already leaked. You can easily download it, and it works out of the box on Xenia with near perfect emulation.
 

Oozer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,825
The existence of this remaster was revealed back in November 2007 through a post on the Penny Arcade Forums. And the poster who revealed it gave the exact same reason for its cancellation:

It's probably a bit controversial to post this here... but I think it's something that needs to be said.

A team at Rare are month or two away from completing Goldeneye - 10th Anniversary Edition for Xbox Live Arcade. I've played it, and it's an absolutely fantastic port of the original game, with features such as -
  • Flawless recreation of the original gameplay. This is the original code - just running on an Xbox 360.
  • Rock solid 60 frames a second. (I saw it drop to 30 once when a ton of mines exploded.)
  • All new high def graphics (with the option to switch back to the original N64 graphics any time).
  • 4-way online splitscreen multiplayer - see what the other 3 players can see, even over Live!
  • New multiplayer maps - play on the single player Dam, Depot or Frigate levels.

Now, there's only one small problem - you can't have it.

Negotiations with Nintendo have completely broken down. Satoru Iwata's final word is, roughly, "Goldeneye is a Nintendo product and should only be on a Nintendo platform". The team working on it have been sent home.

For the Xbox haters in the audience: no, this does not benefit you. If it doesn't come out, then neither Goldeneye, nor any other Rare game, will come out on Wii Virtual console in future. (Microsoft aren't that public spirited.) So Nintendo's decision is truly a benefit to nobody.

At this point, it looks like public opinion is the only hope. If you want Goldeneye to ever be rereleased, on a Nintendo platform or otherwise, speak up. Let Nintendo know they're acting like a bunch of jerks.

Later on, the poster had this to say about why Nintendo was involved at all:

As for why I'm posting at 5:11 in the morning - I'm looking after a baby who won't sleep. And I'm really pissed off about the game.

Yes, Activision are the reason why Nintendo's opinion matters. Legally speaking, Nintendo have no jurisdiction at all here.

So if this was Perfect Dark, Microsoft have all the rights and would just publish the thing, and Nintendo can go stuff themselves. But the Bond license is necessary, so we have a ridiculous situation where a game made by Microsoft (at Rare) gets 'published' by Activision, and released by Microsoft over Live Arcade.

Basically, Activision just get free money out of this. But they won't take it, because depending on who you ask, either they want to stay on good terms with Nintendo, or they're concerned that Nintendo will sue them and the risk isn't worth the expected reward.

And this is why we get into this situation - the game has been developed without Nintendo's blessing, because Nintendo shouldn't have to give their blessing. They have no legal say here.

But Activision decided they wanted to check with them, and now... shit has happened.

And according to this poster, there was talk of Rare games being put on the Virtual Console:

Once Nintendo got involved, that was indeed the plan - get their approval by agreeing to let them release Goldeneye (and some other back-catalogue games) on VC, in return for this Live Arcade version.

Reggie Fils-Aime was up for this idea apparently, which is probably why things went as far as they did; everyone seemed to be on-board. But eventually the decision-making went up and up the chain to Iwata-san, and he said no, not under any circumstances.

As for how this poster knows all this, they work at Rare but apparently not directly on Goldeneye 007 XBLA:

If I was making this up I could probably be more convincing here. But I'm just a developer working at Rare, so you're getting this information second-hand. This is what I've been told.
 
I'm really confused as to why they can say that Nintendo has no legal standing in a remake running on the original code that we've had little indication to the contrary that they don't own it, and if the timeline matches up with where we were at with Activision's Bond license, I have my doubts that a GoldenEye reboot was anything more than a whisper with them being in the thick of Quantum of Solace's development (including Eurocom's bespoke PS2 build). Eurocom would not even have had an engine fully in place for it, since that was developed concurrently with Dead Space Extraction. So, with that in mind, where was Nintendo's leverage to force Activision to kill it for them?

Is there anything in the leaked build that even cites Activision at all?
 

JimD

Member
Aug 17, 2018
3,496
I'm really confused as to why they can say that Nintendo has no legal standing in a remake running on the original code that we've had little indication to the contrary that they don't own it, and if the timeline matches up with where we were at with Activision's Bond license, I have my doubts that a GoldenEye reboot was anything more than a whisper with them being in the thick of Quantum of Solace's development (including Eurocom's bespoke PS2 build). Eurocom would not even have had an engine fully in place for it, since that was developed concurrently with Dead Space Extraction. So, with that in mind, where was Nintendo's leverage to force Activision to kill it for them?

Is there anything in the leaked build that even cites Activision at all?

The rights to everything associated with the game may have reverted back to the Bond rights holders (MGM and the Wilson/Broccoli family). It's not unheard of with prominent licensed content.

But regardless of who owned the rights at the time, sometimes just the possibility that a party would file suit about this, justified or not, makes it not worth the effort. Phil Spencer said they've tried more than once to work this out and the rights are always a mess.
 

thepenguin55

Member
Oct 28, 2017
11,797
Hi from the author of this cited Ars Technica interview.

You are so, so, SO wrong. Some parts of the game didn't age well, certainly, but a lot of them hold up. Also, its 4p split-screen one-shot pistol deathmatch feels different than pretty much any FPS console classic I can think of, and I still love it.

That said, the Perfect Dark remaster essentially offers a better version of the Goldeneye multiplayer even including some of the better maps from Goldeneye. This isn't me saying "And this is why I'm fine with Goldeneye not being available on modern platforms" cause that sucks but my point being that if you want to play some Goldeneye multiplayer on a modern console you can have that Goldeneye multiplayer experience right now. Is it 1:1 identical? No, but like I said before it basically takes the best stuff from Goldeneye and expands on them. Also the bots in Perfect Dark are so fun. Oh and the Perfect Dark remaster is 8 player which gets wild.
 
The rights to everything associated with the game may have reverted back to the Bond rights holders (MGM and the Wilson/Broccoli family). It's not unheard of with prominent licensed content.

But regardless of who owned the rights at the time, sometimes just the possibility that a party would file suit about this, justified or not, makes it not worth the effort. Phil Spencer said they've tried more than once to work this out and the rights are always a mess.
I know that the license reversion makes a ton of games impossible to re-release, but I can't imagine for one second that MGM/Eon managed to get their hands on the code for the original game to do with what they pleased after Nintendo's license lapsed.
 
Oct 27, 2017
42,700
Hi from the author of this cited Ars Technica interview.

You are so, so, SO wrong. Some parts of the game didn't age well, certainly, but a lot of them hold up. Also, its 4p split-screen one-shot pistol deathmatch feels different than pretty much any FPS console classic I can think of, and I still love it.
Yeah, it feels like I can't hit anything. Years of M&K, Wii pointer, gyro, and dual analog aiming have rendered us completely unable to go back to that control scheme. Me and friend tried replaying it and quit when we were getting frustrated over not being able to hit each other. I wish I could adapt to it again. Oh well
 

samred

Amico fun conversationalist
Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,585
Seattle, WA
the Perfect Dark remaster essentially offers a better version of the Goldeneye multiplayer even including some of the better maps from Goldeneye

This is the endless debate. I'm with you and prefer PD. But many of my old multiplayer buddies want nothing to do with dual-functionality weapons, and they want the specific maps that are NOT in PD. And there's a certain speed and feel to GE that I'm fond of. (Why Rare didn't just remake more GE maps with texture swaps for the PD remaster is beyond me.)
 
This is the endless debate. I'm with you and prefer PD. But many of my old multiplayer buddies want nothing to do with dual-functionality weapons, and they want the specific maps that are NOT in PD. And there's a certain speed and feel to GE that I'm fond of. (Why Rare didn't just remake more GE maps with texture swaps for the PD remaster is beyond me.)
PD is not hurting for maps as it is! I'm honestly amazed that most of the GE arsenal made it over in the first place, even with all of them having to be renamed.
 

Conrad Link

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,644
New Zealand
I know this has probably already been discussed, but if Activision were blocking it back then but they don't have the license now... couldn't Microsoft get the license and release it?
 

litebrite

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,832
I know this has probably already been discussed, but if Activision were blocking it back then but they don't have the license now... couldn't Microsoft get the license and release it?
IOI has the license now and the Bond IP co-owners (EON) apparently have much stricter rules in the depiction of Bond in video games than they did when Goldeneye was released.
 

onpoint

Neon Deity Games
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
14,930
716
Really wish they'd just get this up and running on Switch and Xbox hardware and release it so we can put it to bed already. It's basically free money for all parties involved.
 

dlauv

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,513
They could do a fun revival project and put it both on Switch and Xbox. I mean they're chummy now anyway. Crossplay too please.
 

samred

Amico fun conversationalist
Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,585
Seattle, WA
FYI, the easiest source of downloads for this leak was taken offline yesterday. Archive.org hasn't yet replied to my query about what happened.
 

Dancrane212

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,962
IOI has the license now and the Bond IP co-owners (EON) apparently have much stricter rules in the depiction of Bond in video games than they did when Goldeneye was released.

Yeah I would imagine, if the existing stories are accurate, that Nintendo/Activision killed the remake in 2007 and then EON killed the chance of it being in Rare Replay in 2015.

The former isn't an issue now but the latter certainly is.