A constant reminder of how shitty Nintendo is

[hoshino 148]

Keep N's name out yo mouf you nongamer bitch

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

2 minutes ago, teh_4th said:

Keep N's name out yo mouf you nongamer bitch

[hoshino 148]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

 

[Goukosan 2,252]

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said:

They didn't own it, they had no rights to it at this point. Activision owned the rights and Iwata said...

 

 "Goldeneye is a Nintendo product and should only be on a Nintendo platform".

 

So, obviously he went behind everyone's back and worked out something with Activision to block it. Good riddance you dead PoS, the guy would have rather of let a project like this be scrapped instead of allowing millions to enjoy it, or hell even asking Microsoft if they could work something out. Fuck Iwata.

 

P.S. A Rare employee should leak this, it needs to be leaked.

 

 Seriously?  Videogames are that serious to you. 

 

Nintendo didn't own the rights to Goldeneye IP as it is a James Bond IP..... . but they do/did own the source code to the N64 game up until recently....Dec 10th 2017 to be exact. 

 

Now why would they let a competitor release it when they the owned the source?  

 

 

Nintendo filed for their copyright before the game’s release on August 25th 1997, however according to this copyrights record, its effective date began on December 10, 1997, which was exactly 20 years ago as of yesterday, meaning Nintendo no longer has a custom copyright on the N64 version or GoldenEye 007.

 

 

lol @ you kids who believed it was some back room black balling of Activision..... teh conspiracies

 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

2 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 Seriously?  Videogames are that serious to you. 

 

Nintendo didn't own the rights to Goldeneye IP as it is a James Bond IP..... . but they do/did own the source code to the N64 game up until recently....Dec 10th 2017 to be exact? 

 

Now why would they let a competitor release it when they the owned the source?  

 

 

Nintendo filed for their copyright before the game’s release on August 25th 1997, however according to this copyrights record, its effective date began on December 10, 1997, which was exactly 20 years ago as of yesterday, meaning Nintendo no longer has a custom copyright on the N64 version or GoldenEye 007.

 

 

 

In your infinite wisdom this slipped your gaze.

 

Title	GOLDENEYE 007 (N64 VERSION)
Product	VIDEO GAME CARTRIDGE

[Goukosan 2,252]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

In your infinite wisdom this slipped your gaze.

 

Title	GOLDENEYE 007 (N64 VERSION)
Product	VIDEO GAME CARTRIDGE

Do you know what's on the cartridge? 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

5 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

Do you know what's on the cartridge? 

Do you realize that uncompiled code is not a compiled version i.e. they owned the compiled code on the cartridge, not the code itself. There's a reason Rare still has all of this code even in the sale to Microsoft, Nintendo never owned the source, they owned the compiled code on cartridge. In terms of code Perfect Dark was no different, which again is why it transferred with Rare and they were able to make the 360 version of Perfect Dark. The only hitch in the GoldenEye equation were the bond rights, had it been a generic named shooter as Perfect Dark was nothing would have impeded its release. 

Edited October 15, 2018 by DynamiteCop!

[Cooke 2,026]

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said:

They blackballed this from release and pandered to Activision to not allow it by threatening their working relationship (one which does not presently exist because Nintendo releases garbage hardware).

 

 

 

Nintendo is trash.

actually they do have a relationship with Activision has they own Blizzard and Diablo 3 is releasing soon for Switch

[102020393023445948594 2,223]

damn, these Xgimps have been so beaten down by Phil and his lack of exclusives they go crazy when they see a game only available on one platform. Not that big of a deal bro, some shitty goldeneye redux came out for wii, ps3, and 360 last gen and no one bought it.

[Goukosan 2,252]

4 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Do you realize that uncompiled code is not a compiled version i.e. they owned the compiled code on the cartridge, not the code itself.

That's not how it works in IP law with code 

 

They owned the Name of the N64 version, the code itself (video game) and the cartridge. 

 

On the very next line under description. 

 

GOLDENEYE 007 (N64 VERSION), VIDEO GAME, CARTRIDGE

 

Bbut teh conspiracy

 

[JonDnD 2,618]

Has they own 

 

Kill yourself 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, Goukosan said:

 

They owned the Name of the N64 version, the code itself (video game) and the cartridge. 

 

On the very next line under description. 

 

GOLDENEYE 007 (N64 VERSION), VIDEO GAME, CARTRIDGE

 

Bbut teh conspiracy

 

They specify the version on purpose, that's the only part of it that applies to the copyright. The Nintendo 64 compiled game on cartridge was their property, anything beyond that was not within their intellectual domain.  During this very brief period Nintendo had the rights to Bond, which is why this game went nowhere else at the time.

 

After that it was relinquished to EA with Tomorrow Never Dies and so on, and then Activision retained the rights etc. No one bothered to mess with the GoldenEye game as its period of relevance had passed, it's a licensed movie property. It's only novelty would have been as this product was intended to be, a remaster of the old game which was the only period in time it was pursued for redevelopment. As soon as Nintendo's rights to 007 went to EA they lost the franchise, Rare always owned the source code which is exactly why it was then and still is in their possession. 

 

The second Nintendo let the bond license slip they lost any say over the fate of GoldenEye. 

[Goukosan 2,252]

7 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Do you realize that uncompiled code is not a compiled version i.e. they owned the compiled code on the cartridge, not the code itself. There's a reason Rare still has all of this code even in the sale to Microsoft, Nintendo never owned the source, they owned the compiled code on cartridge. In terms of code Perfect Dark was no different, which again is why it transferred with Rare and they were able to make the 360 version of Perfect Dark. The only hitch in the GoldenEye equation were the bond rights, had it been a generic named shooter as Perfect Dark was nothing would have impeded its release. 

No.... You are confused. 

 

With the sale if Rare to MS... Rare was allowed to keep their IPs as this was their value and the reason Nintendo was allowed to get a great price for their share of Rare with the purchase by Microsoft. 

 

Nintendo kept all their own IPs and any code related to those IPs. 

 

With the IPs that Rare kept in the sale, they obviously are allowed to release those games because they own that IP. 

 

With Golden Eye N64, Nintendo owned the rights to the video game source up until Dec 2017.....It says it right there... yet you deny the FACTS. 

 

Anyway... who ever currently owns the James Bond IP can now release a remake/remaster of the N64 game. 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

2 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

No.... You are confused. 

 

With the sale if Rare to MS... Rare was allowed to keep their IPs as this was their value and the reason Nintendo was allowed to get a great price for their share of Rare with the purchase by Microsoft. 

 

Nintendo kept all their own IPs and any code related to those IPs. 

 

With the IPs that Rare kept in the sale, they obviously are allowed to release those games because they own that IP. 

 

With Golden Eye N64, Nintendo owned the rights to the video game source up until Dec 2017.....It says it right there... yet you deny the FACTS. 

 

Anyway... who ever currently owns the James Bond IP can now release a remake/remaster of the N64 game. 

Nintendo never owned Rare, they only ever owned a minority share in the company. That source code never left Rare, it never belonged to anyone but them, not it belongs to Microsoft via their acquisition.

 

I'm not confused, you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. Nintendo only owned the Bond license, nothing else.  

[Goukosan 2,252]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

They specify the version on purpose, that's the only part of it that applies to the copyright. The Nintendo 64 compiled game on cartridge was their property, anything beyond that was not within their intellectual domain.  During this very brief period Nintendo had the rights to Bond, which is why this game went nowhere else at the time.

 

After that it was relinquished to EA with Tomorrow Never Dies and so on, and then Activision retained the rights etc. No one bothered to mess with the GoldenEye game as its period of relevance had passed, it's a licensed movie property. It's only novelty would have been as this product was intended to be, a remaster of the old game which was the only period in time it was pursued for redevelopment. As soon as Nintendo's rights to 007 went to EA they lost the franchise, Rare always owned the source code which is exactly why it was then and still is in their possession. 

 

The second Nintendo let the bond license slip they lost any say over the fate of GoldenEye. 

you are confusing rights to the IP, with rights to publish the a remake/remaster of the N64 game (Nintendo owned that rights to the N64 game up until Dec 2017)

 

Rare employees who had copies of it when they were purchased by MS could not legally release it publicly... that's why the remake never happened. 

 

 

It wasn't a conspiracy 

 

[Goukosan 2,252]

4 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Nintendo never owned Rare, they only ever owned a minority share in the company. That source code never left Rare, it never belonged to anyone but them, not it belongs to Microsoft via their acquisition.

 

I'm not confused, you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. Nintendo only owned the Bond license, nothing else.  

Nintendo previously owned a 51% stake in Rare before selling it to MS for a ridiculous sum 

 

 

Anyway... you can deny the facts of the copyrights that I showed you....and believe the conspiracy that Nintendo was able to block a third party game from other platforms that they have no control over without Nintendo actually owning the rights to said version. 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

Just now, Goukosan said:

Nintendo previously owned a 51% stake in Rare before selling it to MS for a ridiculous sum 

 

 

Anyway... you can deny the facts of the copyrights that showed you....and believe the conspiracy that Nintendo was able to block a third party game from other platforms that they have no control over without Nintendo actually owning the rights to said version. 

Nintendo only ever owned a 49% stake in Rare, you've got it backward. 

[Goukosan 2,252]

When MS bought Rare they thought they got the Donkey Kong IP too 

 

According to Chris Seavor, former Rare employee and the director behind Conker's Bad Fur Day, Microsoft executives also thought they'd picked up Donkey Kong as well, since the developer had made classic titles such as Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64.

 

Speaking on Twitter, Seavor said a few of the top-brass at Microsoft came for a tour around the studios and upon seeing Donkey Kong posters proceeded to get excited about owning the franchise - until Rare corrected them

 

 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

Just now, Goukosan said:

When MS bought Rare they thought they got the Donkey Kong IP too 

 

According to Chris Seavor, former Rare employee and the director behind Conker's Bad Fur Day, Microsoft executives also thought they'd picked up Donkey Kong as well, since the developer had made classic titles such as Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64.

 

Speaking on Twitter, Seavor said a few of the top-brass at Microsoft came for a tour around the studios and upon seeing Donkey Kong posters proceeded to get excited about owning the franchise - until Rare corrected them

 

 

This has what to do with your incorrect assertion that Nintendo owned Rare? Which they never did. 

[Goukosan 2,252]

6 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

This has what to do with your incorrect assertion that Nintendo owned Rare? Which they never did. 

It was a funny story tired to all this Rare talk... lol

 

I said they owned a 51% stake in Rare.... I was off by 1%.   They owned half of the company.  Had an option to purchase the other half and declined. 

 

Ed Fries, the architect of Microsoft Game Studios and the broker of the Rare acquisition -  

 

"They were 50 per cent owned by Nintendo and Nintendo had an option to acquire the other half of the company by a certain date. If they didn't exercise that option then Rare had the option to find a buyer for Nintendo's half. Nintendo had already extended the option by one year, but it looked like they weren't going to acquire the other half of Rare, so the Rare guys started looking around to see if anyone else might be interested. We were a logical choice for them to call."

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-who-killed-rare