GAF - News - GoldenEye 360: It was so close...

News - GoldenEye 360: It was so close...

Posted by Brandon Carlson at 02:06:51 AM EST on 2.29.2008.

For months now, rumors have been floating around that Rare and Microsoft were working to bring the Nintendo 64 classic GoldenEye to the Xbox Live Arcade with Next-Gen graphics and Online Multiplayer. Today, we have confirmation that the game was indeed in development.

Unfortunately for us, it's been canceled. Canned. Kaput. Thanks to licensing squabbles from other parties, we'll never get to play GoldenEye on our Xbox 360s. We do, however, get to see how pretty it looked, thanks to Xbox World 360 Magazine.

So who's to blame for this? What could have possibly kept the gamers of the world from playing what would have undoubtedly become the best selling Xbox Live Arcade title ever? Licensing and a man named Satoru Iwata. Maybe you've heard of him.

You see, way back when the project was started, Nintendo was behind the idea all the way. But with the Bond license in the hands of Activision, the game code in the hands of Rare, Microsoft in possession of Rare, and Nintendo having their logo on the game's original opening sequence, things got tricky quickly.

Originally, the agreement between the two parties was simple: Rare would port GoldenEye to the Wii (along with all of it's new bells and whistles) and make the rest of their catalog available on Virtual Console, and Rare would develop GoldenEye for Xbox Live Arcade as well.

Until Mr. Iwata decided GoldenEye should never be allowed to see the light of day on a console not developed by Nintendo. Activision stepped in and sided with Nintendo, deciding that putting their relationship with the company on the rocks was not a good idea.

So there you have it folks. It almost happened, and it would have been grand. Maybe enough poking and prodding can be done within the industry to get these two parties to agree again and get this show back on the road. After all, the game was in development for a year, and we all know we hate seeing developer's work go unfinished...

Source: Xbox World 360 Magazine, filefront.com

digg this story!

Comments

Please log in or register to post comments.

+0 karma

shippoyasha 3.7.2008 at 02:42:34 AM

You're passing it off like it's some sort of fact. I disagree. I play with slowdowns in old games all the time. It doesn't bug me. If it bugs you, fine.

-1 karma

i_like_pizza 3.6.2008 at 07:17:33 PM

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to "convince" you of.....

Slowdown, regardless of whether or not it is normal for other games on the system, is not acceptable. Do you understand what I'm saying? I don't see how there's anything wrong with that statement at all.

+0 karma

lynk571985 3.5.2008 at 10:30:18 PM

I would love to see either GE or PD on the XLA and VC, but wouldn't it be the same situation with PD? The original Perfect Dark was developed on the N64, when Rare was a part of Nintendo, just like Goldeneye. That being said, it would be the same issue with Perfect Dark. Given I want to see both GoldenEye. But both GoldenEye 007 and the original Perfect Dark need to be remade. I don't even really care what console they're on, I'd download them both times. I still have the N64 carts of them. I do think that Nintendo can be persuaded in to agreement again, it'll just take time. lets hope. keep in mind also, those who are wondering, Conker in reality is the same way, however BFD was not held in high regard like GE and PD, which is why live and reloaded was so easily released.

+0 karma

shippoyasha 3.5.2008 at 02:13:45 AM

I don't see why you are even bothering to convince me there pizza. Playing games on N64, slowdowns are a natural thing. It wasn't just with Goldeneye specifically. That and a lot of games in the era featured herky jerky motions that didn't lend itself too well to fast framerates even if it had them. At least with the computers I had at the time.

You can keep going off about it, but you aren't convincing me a bit here, pizza.

+0 karma

jekku 3.4.2008 at 02:17:09 AM

If they try to bring back the original Perfect Dark, I really hope they don't bring the "new" Joanna (PDZ Joanna) into the game. I'm talking... her character design, her personality and her lack of an accent.

+1 karma

eggmanimn 3.3.2008 at 04:27:01 PM

PDZ's a bit slower than PD was. Also, it's missing many of the stages that made PD so good (Villa being a key one here). Yeah PDZ has the downloadable stages from PD and Goldeneye but they aren't enough.

I actually really like PDZ but PD just had a much better story and missions.

PDZ is still extremely fun too though. It even has bots, something I wish more games allowed, if only to allow me to learn weapons and levels.

EDIT BY CARLSON: Congrats, this is the 64th comment! LAWL!

+2 karma

anubis maximus 3.3.2008 at 04:12:54 PM

If your point was to fix the framerate of the original game, with next gen graphics and online multiplayer, wouldnt you assume the framerate would get upgraded as well? So I don't see how you can still say fix the framerate. When the point of a remake is to upgrade it to todays standards or marginally close.

+0 karma

ardus 3.3.2008 at 04:07:27 PM

Except that if people want to play PD they would just have to get PD Zero.

+0 karma

i_like_pizza 3.3.2008 at 03:10:57 PM

Agreed. PD was a vast improvement over GE in technical areas. I still like GE better for nostalgic reasons, but I can see that PD would be a better port than GE.

+1 karma

eggmanimn 3.3.2008 at 02:50:31 PM

The framerate in Goldeneye wasn't that bad normally. It was that the actual movement of your character was slow and felt like it was underwater. Then when the action actually started, the slowdown stacked and the game just totally went to crap.

People really don't realize that Perfect Dark's framerate was much better actually. It wasn't until you had more than 6 characters on screen at once that the game went to 5fps. The entire game was better.

-1 karma

i_like_pizza 3.3.2008 at 12:50:04 PM

Huh? How are slowdowns acceptable in an FPS? FPS is the genre in which I think it is the least acceptable. Fluid motion is absolutely critical in first person experiences.

And I agree that it's standard for N64 games, but that doesn't meant it's good.

What's the point of saying, "It's only as bad as everything else that came out around that time?"

My only point is this: GE, as it was on the N64, is no longer an acceptable FPS simply because of the framerate issue. Fix the framerate, and it would be amazing.

+0 karma

shippoyasha 3.3.2008 at 01:24:15 AM

I actually disagreed with you there pizza. The framerate is pretty much standard fare for N64 games and I can still tolerate the insane slowdowns for games that absolutely can't have slowdowns such as platformers. Compared to those, FPS game slowdowns weren't so bad IMO. But I still knew games like Quake and Unreal Tournament back then were the better FPS experiences.

-2 karma

drizzt 3.2.2008 at 08:07:59 PM

I'm not even bothering to read all those comments cause this an april fools joke!!

HAHAHA

+0 karma

crimemonkey 3.2.2008 at 04:50:46 PM

Wow, there sure are a lot of people intent on bringing Goldeneye down here. I don't doubt it has aged poorly, but so have a lot of N64 and PSX games.

Here's a conspiracy for you...maybe Nintendo realized that the remake was going to wind up way better than the virtual console version purely by virtue of technically enhanced graphics and decided to nix the idea at that point.

I think more likely there's a complicated web of decisions here...the deal probably wasn't as sweet for Nintendo as this article makes it sound.

-1 karma

i_like_pizza 3.2.2008 at 04:46:46 PM

I agree it has great level design and gameplay, so no one is really disagreeing with me. I'm saying its framerate is unacceptable, and no one is disagreeing with that.

I'm curious, what VC games have actually received a framerate bump? I honestly don't know. If it's probable that GE would receive a framerate bump to 30-60 fps, that would be awesome, but what are the real chances of that happening.

Neg karma happy just because you cherish that game.... news flash, I'm the biggest fan of that game who has ever lived. I guarantee that I have played that game more than 2000 hours. I guarantee I have beat each mission on single player over 50 times, and I have played more deathmatches than a third grader could count. It's not that I don't like the game/didn't like the game... it's just that I honestly wouldn't want to play it any more as it is. The framerate drops really are unbearable for someone like me, who has been playing pc fps for the last few years, and has seen the real glory of the genre in over 60 fps.

[karma below threshold; show comment] -6 karma

dscuber9000 3.2.2008 at 03:12:17 PM

+0 karma

watkinzez 3.2.2008 at 02:55:10 PM

Well, if anyone could make sense of the damn thing, it's Rare.

+2 karma

ttfp 3.2.2008 at 11:11:31 AM

To watkinzez:

I'd much rather have a remake at 60fps, and with Wii controls... ;)

+0 karma

pixy misao 3.2.2008 at 04:22:17 AM

I heard a rumor on the internet several years back that Nintendo was going to have their next system feature downloadable games. And then there was the one that said Koji Igarashi wanted to remake Rondo of Blood. My friend even told me that Square wanted to redo Final Fantasy IV with 3D graphics. These rumors were even less credible than this source, yet they all came true. My point was that several sources cite this "rumor" with evidence to back it up, it's fine to be skeptical but if you don't believe it ask Rare themselves! They're pretty good about answering fan mail.

+0 karma

shippoyasha 3.2.2008 at 02:53:24 AM

I disagree pizza. Yes, in modern day gaming, it's unacceptable but for N64, it was more than playable. It still has an old charm about it personally. It still has some of the great level designs I've ever played as far as FPS games are concerned.

I agree a remake was in serious need though.

+4 karma

watkinzez 3.2.2008 at 02:10:55 AM

"Who actually disagrees with me and thinks that GE has withstood the test of time?

If you have played that game within the past couple of years, you would know that it really hasn't held up well. In a 4-player firefight, the framerate drops easily below 10 fps at times. That's not acceptable for an FPS."

..Kind of why we wanted a remake with 60fps and dual analogue control.

-2 karma

lynk571985 3.2.2008 at 12:39:20 AM

I feel like screaming!!!!!! WHAT IS IWATA THINKING? They were going to get THE BEST console game and they turned it down? BOTH consoles were going to get the new version of the game. So what if the VC is for "old" games Goldeneye is a classic that deserves be made.

+0 karma

70m 3.1.2008 at 10:22:27 PM

I'm less concerned about getting to play GoldenEye, but I've been under the impression that Rare has ownership (at least partially) of a lot of the games it has developed, and Nintendo's refusal to allow them to bring any of them to Xbox Live will prevent any of them from going to the Virtual Console as well. If Nintendo would just work with Rare and allow them to develop/port classics to the VC or XBLA, everybody wins. As it stands, they gain nothing and we, the gamers, LOSE.

[karma below threshold; show comment] -4 karma

i_like_pizza 3.1.2008 at 09:28:29 PM

+0 karma

watkinzez 3.1.2008 at 07:57:56 PM

Rare did acknowledge the petition to release this, for the record.

+0 karma

i kick tits 3.1.2008 at 07:45:44 PM

I feel like crying.

-1 karma

dswhore 3.1.2008 at 05:53:02 PM

Have you seen Activision's games for the Wii and DS?

They'd make more money out of this alone than all of their titles combined on Nintendo's systems.

It's worth the tie-severing.

+0 karma

shippoyasha 3.1.2008 at 10:32:14 AM

I have to disagree abit here azu, because the political situation does sound pretty accurate to me. Goldeneye was a huge success for Nintendo and I doubt they would sit around and not expect to seize the chance to rein it in if they could.

It's not like some out of the blue announcement like ZOE3 (which still probably could happen in the future).

+2 karma

azu 3.1.2008 at 05:03:06 AM

"Sorry azu this was real, I heard about it several weeks ago from other websites..."

And that makes it real? A rumor circulating the Internet? As long as Rare themselves (or Nintendo or Microsoft) doesn't confirm this, I'm not going to believe it completely. Maybe Rare was, indeed, at one point going to make this but did they even make it as far as to get an OK from Nintendo/Activision in the first place (before, supposedly, Iwata decided to not let them do it)? This preview could just be blowing things out of proportion and straight out lie about stuff, even going as far as to know who supported this idea and who didn't (from Nintendo, that is).

As I said, just because this is a magazine it doesn't mean they can't or won't tell lies, there are plenty of examples of that. Need I remind you of a certain magazines "Zone of the Enders 3 is definitely coming, we heard it from Kojima himself" news? There were rumors about that on several websites, too, and even that one magazine confirming it. Didn't really make it any more real in the end, did it?

Feel free to point me wrong when one of the parties involved in this comes out and confirms it officially. Because as long as that doesn't happen, I have my doubts about this article.

+0 karma

60fps 3.1.2008 at 03:56:11 AM

Wait... Activision has the Bond license?

What have they done with it?

+0 karma

shippoyasha 3.1.2008 at 02:46:42 AM

Stupid politics. Ugh.

+0 karma

watkinzez 3.1.2008 at 02:19:40 AM

I would have played this for two reasons-
1. There are few shooters that have expanded on its spy aspect, nor its multiple objectives.
2. It's next to impossible to find N64 controllers without floppy analogue sticks. Screw you, Mario Party.

Yeah, it's aged, but it's only 800 points.

+0 karma

swordsmanus 3.1.2008 at 01:40:10 AM

"The fact that a barrage of bullets hit a player and only like two or three do damage... while the rest sort of don't do anything... is kinda... blah."

Eh, the invincibility mechanics kinda made things more strategic and less twitch-intensive. When fights have to be more drawn out, your positioning /stage navigation during the fight matters as much if not more than your ability to sneak up, fire first, etc unlike most FPS games (including Perfect Dark, where getting the drop on someone = win unless you *really* screw up).

+0 karma

pixy misao 3.1.2008 at 01:27:53 AM

Goldeneye to me was a lot more fun than Halo 1, so it's interesting Sean that you refer to it as a "campaign". However as ya'll say, it probably doesn't hold up... but it does for those who don't normally play FPS... which seems to be everyone who doesn't own a 360.

+0 karma

bluelander 3.1.2008 at 01:03:47 AM

It's probably better this way. GoldenEye really hasn't withstood the test of time. You'd have more fun playing just about any mediocre FPS from last gen.

+1 karma

marik 2.29.2008 at 11:00:41 PM

Personally on the matter, I think Rare should just lick their wounds on it and remake Perfect Dark and the Banjo games for 360. I always thought Perfect Dark just used the GoldenEye engine, but used it in a better degree. GoldenEye feels pretty dated nowadays anyway.

Or better yet, Rare made the Battletoads games and if they struck a deal with Midway(who's a part of the old producer, Tradewest). Let's see Battletoads on XBLA!

-2 karma

kokichi 2.29.2008 at 09:37:05 PM

They should have struck a deal where Rare would put their old games (re: Banjo Kazooie series) on the Wii in order to get 007 on the 360. Or 007 on both.

+0 karma

sean 2.29.2008 at 07:56:59 PM

I played the single player campaign on N64 the other night, and I honestly don't think we're really missing out.

Great game at the time and I got years of love out of it, but I can't see this being a hit for gamers nowadays. It might be a financial success to port it to XBLA just because we'd all buy, but I don't think we'd really play it that much at all.

-2 karma

jekku 2.29.2008 at 04:52:06 PM

The fact that a barrage of bullets hit a player and only like two or three do damage... while the rest sort of don't do anything... is kinda... blah. But, the whole thing would be very nostalgic. I would totally download the 360 version, but not the VC version since I still own the cartridge.

+2 karma

ununbiundave 2.29.2008 at 03:36:01 PM

To express personal opinion, I always thought Goldeneye was terrible. Going from Quake LAN parties to that... I'm sure its understandable.
Still, for all the people who enjoyed it, this sucks. I met a couple of guys a few months ago who were playing it on their 64; right next to their 360. There are people who would really enjoy this.

[karma below threshold; show comment] -4 karma

i_like_pizza 2.29.2008 at 02:34:24 PM

+2 karma

unforgivingedges 2.29.2008 at 02:16:57 PM

"If the game Had been produced for DS too, for sure Iwata would accept the deal."

You his secretary?

+0 karma

duque501 2.29.2008 at 01:47:09 PM

If the game Had been produced for DS too, for sure Iwata would accept the deal.

+4 karma

marsplays 2.29.2008 at 01:45:32 PM

I'm with rpguy_ad. There has to be something more to this story than "Iwata said no." I mean, this is a console-specific mag after all, and fanboyism is likely to be rampant.

If the spoils of this deal were to be thrown in Nintendo's direction (being all previous Rare titles receiving a welcome home on VC) then there absolutely has to be something more to this story. I don't believe Iwata would just pull the plug based entirely on publisher pride.

+2 karma

ununbiundave 2.29.2008 at 01:02:59 PM

I wonder if this could be in any way related to Microsoft's cancellation of Halo DS. Regardless, there is more to this than Iwata saying "Ooh! I changed my mind!"

+1 karma

jekku 2.29.2008 at 12:54:23 PM

Actually, Donkey Kong 64 will probably come out on the VC.

+2 karma

nambit 2.29.2008 at 12:53:09 PM

ttfp, I understand what you're saying, but there's a difference there. The Rare games on the DS are already games that were established on Nintendo platforms of the past, so they are already associated to a certain degree to Nintendo. Goldeneye, on the other hand, was a staple for the N64, just like how Final Fantasy (normal series) is kinda a staple for the playstation (in recent years)... the game rings the platform/company. It's understandable that if a company still has some rights to such a game, they would do everything in their power to hold onto it.

Besides, we're talking consoles here... not handhelds. Your comments about the DS ports really aren't the same scenario as a console game is being ported to a handheld. Heck, Microsoft doesn't have a handheld either, so it doesn't matter to them. Remember too, there was the whole halo DS thing that fell through (Halo is obviously associated to microsoft, so that idea went sour). I'd bet there would be issues for rare games to be on the DS if microsoft had a handheld.

+2 karma

ttfp 2.29.2008 at 12:17:09 PM

So they (Nintendo) allow Microsoft-owned Rare games on the DS, but won't allow GoldenEye on the 360. I guess it only goes one way...

+2 karma

thehawk 2.29.2008 at 11:53:25 AM

I also think something's fishy about it and we're not getting more details. But as disappointed as I want to be, I know that I probably wouldn't want to go back to Goldeneye. I played it to its fullest back on N64, and it would seem shallow now compared to today's games. There would be a bit of a nostalgia factor, but we'll never have that "my first console FPS" feeling again.

+1 karma

hypersonicexe 2.29.2008 at 11:29:48 AM

mrgains - True. Why bother with a lot of games on the VC if there's no online play? FPS' in particular.

But what really kills me? Perfect Dark, Donkey Kong 64, Goldeneye, Jet Force Gemini; there's 4 obvious Rare moneymakers that Iwata passed up on. Something's fishy.

[karma below threshold; show comment] -4 karma

mrgains 2.29.2008 at 11:22:10 AM

+1 karma

unforgivingedges 2.29.2008 at 11:02:33 AM

Still not so sure I believe every detail in this story (mostly because the mag's source was a poster on the Penny Arcade forums).

But it's very clear that the game was in development at some point.

+1 karma

shin gallon 2.29.2008 at 10:59:44 AM

A shame, I might have finally played the game if this had come out. 10 to 1 they killed it because they want the original version on Virtual Console.

+8 karma

proppat 2.29.2008 at 10:27:58 AM

Umm, the original Goldeneye was in 3D...

Why couldn't the Wii handle a remake of a game that was originally on the N64?

[karma below threshold; show comment] -12 karma

oystergod 2.29.2008 at 09:59:57 AM

+4 karma

rpguy_ad 2.29.2008 at 09:57:36 AM

I'm still not buying the whole story. Most of it makes sense, but why would Iwata, at the very last minute no less, demand that Goldeneye not be placed on XBLA? There has to be a factor that these people glossed over - something that would influence that reason (since sound businessmen normally don't pull crap like this on a whim) why obtaining the most requested N64 titles wouldn't make financial sense.

Of course, Nintendo has remained silent, as always. Without their input it's just going to stay one-sided. And since it's definitely slanted in one direction, it becomes the perfect fanboy fodder.

[karma below threshold; show comment] -4 karma

hypersonicexe 2.29.2008 at 09:34:30 AM

+1 karma

metalgearsalad 2.29.2008 at 09:28:18 AM

That is so monumentally evil.

+2 karma

soul4ger 2.29.2008 at 08:13:37 AM

The sad part about this situation is, Reggie was totally behind the port, and he convinced Iwata to let it go. Iwata suddenly changed his mind, and it got canned. I'm so hateful right now.

+5 karma

drk 2.29.2008 at 07:19:07 AM

All right Rare... get your asses started on porting Perfect Dark.

+1 karma

watkinzez 2.29.2008 at 06:48:57 AM

Xbox World 360 is a British magazine, hence the easy exclusive for them.

+1 karma

pixy misao 2.29.2008 at 06:14:47 AM

Sorry azu this was real, I heard about it several weeks ago from other websites... and now everybody loses. But as the article says, it's best to write Nintendo a friendly message showing your disappointment.

-2 karma

azu 2.29.2008 at 06:03:25 AM

I still think this is fake. Suddenly some Xbox World 360 Magazine no one had ever heard of before this spills the beans about that one Rare remake everyone's been dreaming of. The whole article sounds like a fanboys wet dream and they then try to blame Iwata & Nintendo for it not happening. Yeah, BS, I say, BS. Magazines have been known to lie before, what would make this any different?

+1 karma

eutrai 2.29.2008 at 05:34:08 AM

Nintendo would likely have lost little more than pride in allowing this to transpire -- and gained a hell of a lot more to throw at the Virtual Console. What a shame.

+1 karma

mduo13 2.29.2008 at 05:02:17 AM

I have a Wii, not a 360, but I'm severely disappointed in this. Do better, Iwata.

-1 karma

cainkid 2.29.2008 at 05:00:57 AM

Oh lols!

Good to know nintendo can still be a **** when they feel like it. Defend the standard!

+2 karma

dj tempora 2.29.2008 at 03:16:34 AM

Iwata pulling a Yamauchi? Hmm, that's not his normal style.

+1 karma

eggmanimn 2.29.2008 at 02:57:19 AM

Honestly, as good as the game was then, shooters now are much better. It's sad that it's dead but oh well.