DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted October 15, 2018 Author Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Goukosan said: 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 them 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 They're rounding up. It was 49%, they never owned equal or majority stake in Rare. Even your own article cites the 49% stake in the company, that Microsoft architect was just stating half as a generality for a talking point. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/08/rare_co-founder_has_no_idea_why_nintendo_didnt_buy_the_studio_outright You're off 2%, and that 2% is everything. Edited October 15, 2018 by DynamiteCop! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,249 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said: They're rounding up. It was 49%, they never owned equal or majority stake in Rare. Even your own article cites the 49% stake in the company, that Microsoft architect was just stating half as a generality for a talking point. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/08/rare_co-founder_has_no_idea_why_nintendo_didnt_buy_the_studio_outright The article I linked (euro gamer) with direct quotes from Microsoft, says 50%. Im not arguing anymore with you, when I have EXACT DIRECT QUOTES from Ed Fries. Ed Fries, the architect of Microsoft Game Studios and the broker of the Rare acquisition - "They were 50 per cent owned by Nintendo " https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-who-killed-rare Carry on bro. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted October 15, 2018 Author Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Goukosan said: The article linked (euro gamer) with direct quotes from Microsoft, says 50%. Im not arguing any more with you, when I have EXACT DIRECT QUOTES from Ed Fries. Ed Fries, the architect of Microsoft Game Studios and the broker of the Rare acquisition - "They were 50 per cent owned by Nintendo " https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-who-killed-rare Carry on bro. You're a fucking idiot who doesn't listen, who doesn't read. That wasn't their actual stake, it was 49%. Rare was trying to find a buyer for Nintendo's stake because they were leading them on with little investment. "50%" is a facetious statement, he's just stating the 49% as half. Microsoft bought 51% from the Stamper brothers, and the remaining 49% from Nintendo. http://www.nintendolife.com/forums/wii-u/do_you_think_nintendo_regrets_selling_their_49_percent_of_rare_to_microsoft Nintendo bought a 25% stake in the company that gradually increased to 49%, making Rare a second party developer for Nintendo Source: Dow Jones Japan's Nintendo sold its 49 percent ownership in U.K. game developer Rare to an undisclosed buyer. As reported earlier this month, Nintendo had planned to sell its Rare stake to Microsoft. A Nintendo representative wasn't immediately available to confirm if the sale was made to Microsoft or to provide financial terms. Microsoft officials also couldn't immediately confirm the sale. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17389901 Microsoft era 2010 Rare logo. Up from the end of 2000, people from Activision and Microsoft visited Rare. In November 2001, Microsoft trademarked It's Mr. Pants, a game that was released three years later. In September 2002, the Stamper brothers sold their 51% interest in Rare to Microsoft; following this, Nintendo sold their 49% stake in the company as well. Microsoft paid a total of $375 million for the company. In later year's, Nintendo increased their interest in the developer to 49% and gained 38% voting rights on Rare's board. Rare went on the market. Publishers bid on the company. Activision and Microsoft were both interested in acquiring Rare, but it was Microsoft who won out and delivered the asking prices for the developer and Nintendo's 49% stake in it. Nintendo sold all of its shares in Rare, according to insiders, and the studio's second-party status was terminated. Get your head out of your ass moron. You're a sheep and you don't even know what happened with one of Nintendo's biggest second party developers... Edited October 15, 2018 by DynamiteCop! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
McWicked 825 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) Ah yes, I'm sure the core reason Activision didn't release one of the most beloved games of all time is because they were afraid of offending the one platform holder that they weren't releasing games for. 'Cause that makes sense. Or...OR...now bear with me here, 'cause this is where it gets hairy: OR Nintendo really does own some piece of the original product that makes a remaster legally nonviable. ... Naaahhhh. It's totes 'cause they didn't want to hurt Iwata's feewings. Edited October 15, 2018 by McWickedSmawt85 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
James Skywalker 528 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 I guess this game is rare. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dakur 460 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Glad Nintendo didnt let the Xshits enjoy this. More power to Nintendo! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,249 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 8 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said: You're a fucking idiot who doesn't listen, who doesn't read. That wasn't their actual stake, it was 49%. Rare was trying to find a buyer for Nintendo's stake because they were leading them on with little investment. "50%" is a facetious statement, he's just stating the 49% as half. Microsoft bought 51% from the Stamper brothers, and the remaining 49% from Nintendo. http://www.nintendolife.com/forums/wii-u/do_you_think_nintendo_regrets_selling_their_49_percent_of_rare_to_microsoft Nintendo bought a 25% stake in the company that gradually increased to 49%, making Rare a second party developer for Nintendo Source: Dow Jones Japan's Nintendo sold its 49 percent ownership in U.K. game developer Rare to an undisclosed buyer. As reported earlier this month, Nintendo had planned to sell its Rare stake to Microsoft. A Nintendo representative wasn't immediately available to confirm if the sale was made to Microsoft or to provide financial terms. Microsoft officials also couldn't immediately confirm the sale. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17389901 Microsoft era 2010 Rare logo. Up from the end of 2000, people from Activision and Microsoft visited Rare. In November 2001, Microsoft trademarked It's Mr. Pants, a game that was released three years later. In September 2002, the Stamper brothers sold their 51% interest in Rare to Microsoft; following this, Nintendo sold their 49% stake in the company as well. Microsoft paid a total of $375 million for the company. In later year's, Nintendo increased their interest in the developer to 49% and gained 38% voting rights on Rare's board. Rare went on the market. Publishers bid on the company. Activision and Microsoft were both interested in acquiring Rare, but it was Microsoft who won out and delivered the asking prices for the developer and Nintendo's 49% stake in it. Nintendo sold all of its shares in Rare, according to insiders, and the studio's second-party status was terminated. Get your head out of your ass moron. You're a sheep and you don't even know what happened with one of Nintendo's biggest second party developers... Lmfao.... lets see... you're quoting 3rd party sources that had nothing to do with the deal. Im quoting the guy at Microsoft who actually brokered the deal and would know the specifics.... He plainly states what happened and how much percentage Nintendo owned. 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. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-who-killed-rare lol Dynamiteflop lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,249 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 8 hours ago, McWickedSmawt85 said: Ah yes, I'm sure the core reason Activision didn't release one of the most beloved games of all time is because they were afraid of offending the one platform holder that they weren't releasing games for. 'Cause that makes sense. Or...OR...now bear with me here, 'cause this is where it gets hairy: OR Nintendo really does own some piece of the original product that makes a remaster legally nonviable. ... Naaahhhh. It's totes 'cause they didn't want to hurt Iwata's feewings. BbbbBut Teh conspiracy is more believable than the actual copyright for the videogame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. House 3,371 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 The copyrights could have easily been bypassed or endorsed with Nintendo's approval, idiots. It's a non-issue. They didn't own Rare anymore and wasn't going to do anything with Goldeneye. Which mean they specifically didn't want it to happen. It's in their rights but it's also a shitty move. Activision did release a few Goldeneye games not long after. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Playstation Tablet 1,725 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 I don't get it though. Activision made a fairly fun Goldeneye remake.\ Why does Nintendo own the rights to this shit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. House 3,371 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, Beta Bux Romeo said: I don't get it though. Activision made a fairly fun Goldeneye remake.\ Why does Nintendo own the rights to this shit. Some leftovers/ignored shit from when they sold their shares? As far as I know, Donkey Kong was supposed to be the only IP that Rare/MS couldn't use as the character/IP belong to Nintendo. MS did remake Perfect Dark, so why not Goldeneye? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Playstation Tablet 1,725 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 14 minutes ago, Ramza said: Some leftovers/ignored shit from when they sold their shares? As far as I know, Donkey Kong was supposed to be the only IP that Rare/MS couldn't use as the character/IP belong to Nintendo. MS did remake Perfect Dark, so why not Goldeneye? Cause they own the Perfect Dark IP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,249 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 55 minutes ago, Ramza said: The copyrights could have easily been bypassed or endorsed with Nintendo's approval, idiots. It's a non-issue. They didn't own Rare anymore and wasn't going to do anything with Goldeneye. Which mean they specifically didn't want it to happen. It's in their rights but it's also a shitty move. Activision did release a few Goldeneye games not long after. Yes Activision made Golden eye games..... but they could not remaster the N64 game because Nintendo owned that version of the game. Tell me which platform holder bypasses their own copyright and allow another company to release games on a competitors platform? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,249 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 50 minutes ago, Ramza said: Some leftovers/ignored shit from when they sold their shares? As far as I know, Donkey Kong was supposed to be the only IP that Rare/MS couldn't use as the character/IP belong to Nintendo. MS did remake Perfect Dark, so why not Goldeneye? Rare developed Golden Eye for Nintendo, Rare never owned the N64 version of the game. Perfect Dark was an ip that Rare created and was one of the IPs MS acquired when they bought rare. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Playstation Tablet 1,725 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 To be fair the perfect dark IP is worthless. It would take titan like efforts from a studio like Naughty Dog to even revive it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. House 3,371 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 9 minutes ago, Goukosan said: Tell me which platform holder bypasses their own copyright and allow another company to release games on a competitors platform? Microsoft 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,249 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 22 minutes ago, Ramza said: Microsoft Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted October 15, 2018 Author Share Posted October 15, 2018 4 hours ago, Goukosan said: Lmfao.... lets see... you're quoting 3rd party sources that had nothing to do with the deal. Im quoting the guy at Microsoft who actually brokered the deal and would know the specifics.... He plainly states what happened and how much percentage Nintendo owned. 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. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-who-killed-rare lol Dynamiteflop lol You are beyond delusional. I can't think of a greater example of a no true scotsman fallacy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
McWicked 825 Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 4 hours ago, Goukosan said: Lmfao.... lets see... you're quoting 3rd party sources that had nothing to do with the deal. Im quoting the guy at Microsoft who actually brokered the deal and would know the specifics.... He plainly states what happened and how much percentage Nintendo owned. 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. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-who-killed-rare lol Dynamiteflop lol This is par for the Deeno course. Back when he refused to believe MCC was busted, I quoted a MS spokesperson saying they were working to fix the game. That fix became the re-launch of MCC that hit recently. Deeno ignored it. Deeno's delusional. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted October 15, 2018 Author Share Posted October 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, McWickedSmawt85 said: This is par for the Deeno course. Back when he refused to believe MCC was busted, I quoted a MS spokesperson saying they were working to fix the game. That fix became the re-launch of MCC that hit recently. Deeno ignored it. Deeno's delusional. Yeah because Dow Jones and 20 other sources that can be cited aren't reliable. They only ever owned 49%... Morons Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.