Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No GoldenEye For Xbox Live

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the i-expect-you-to-die dept.

73

Joystiq reports that, as revealed on a recent VGM podcast, GoldenEye is not likely coming to Xbox Live anytime soon. From the article: "I would say is that as far as I know we don't have plans to bring those types of games on Xbox Live Arcade ... Some of the games that were ... on the N64, those games were pretty large and are still gonna be pretty hard to distribute digitally depending on the title."

cancel ×

73 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I guess it's fair (1)

gameboyhippo (827141) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125284)

I guess it's fair. After all, Golden Eye won't be coming to the Revolution either.

Re:I guess it's fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15125689)

It's not meant to be "fair". It's business, plain and simple.

Forget digital distribution then. (1)

BaronSprite (651436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125291)

Bundle goldeneye with a disk of other classics and sell it. Goldeneye would overtake halo for users, imo.

The licenses are owned by other people... (4, Informative)

Kevin143 (672873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125303)

EA owns the current Goldeneye/Bond license, not Microsoft or Rare. So, to publish Goldeneye on Xbox Live, Microsoft would have to deal with EA which they clearly do not want to do. It's too bad; I'm sure Goldeneye on Xbox live would be a monster seller. I don't think space limitations are the issue, the biggest N64 games were 65 megabytes.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Jozer99 (693146) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125665)

Not quite. Most N64 games were 64MB or under, but there were several 128MB games.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

bleaknik (780571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125949)

There were no 128 MB n64 games. In fact, I don't believe there were any 64MB n64 games.

Mario 64 was 64 Megabits... or 8 Megabytes, and the Zelda titles weighed in at something like 4x that... or about 32 MB... Resident Evil 2... that was a large game, too. That may have actually been 64MB.

Bits. Bytes. Meh.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126043)

the largest N64 cart was Resident Evil 2, it was on a 512Mb/64MB cart.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

SECProto (790283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126253)

or pokemon stadium 2, it was also 512Mb aka 64 megabyte.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126549)

oh yea, I forgot about pokesta 2

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15129956)

Also Conker's Bad Fur Day.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126044)

So, to publish Goldeneye on Xbox Live, Microsoft would have to deal with EA which they clearly do not want to do.

Why not? Namco had EA distribute We <3 Katamari in Europe and NZ/Australia.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127951)

Well, Namco and Microsoft are different companies, they may have different views of working with EA. Plus a publishing deal is different to a deal to sublicence some IP, the transaction is going opposite ways, Namco is giving EA a product to distribute, whilst EA would have to give Microsoft the right to distribute Goldeneye.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15126118)

Have you played Goldeneye recently? It's not as good as it used to be. The controls are kinda wacky compared to modern FPSes.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126188)

### Have you played Goldeneye recently? It's not as good as it used to be. The controls are kinda wacky compared to modern FPSes.

Havn't played Goldeneye, but I did play PerfectDark(N64) recently and that controlled just as good as Halo and turned out to be actually more fun. Not sure how much you can configure the controls in Goldeneye, but PerfectDark had a setup which used two N64 controller, so you get two analogsticks just like on todays pads.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Corbu Mulak (931063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126774)

Holding one N64 controller was ackward, holding two would be retardadly hard (this coming from a big Nintendo fan)

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127318)

There is really nothing akward with holding two, the only problem might be the weigth, but that isn't really much an issue. The N64 controller has after all the analogstick in the center, so balancing is a non-issue.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15127513)

Goldeneye had the 2 controller setup too. The analog stick had much finer touch than the yellow d-pad so it was far better if you were good. Goldeneye's default controls (1,1 Honey) were crap, but if you used the second choice (1,2 Solitare) (look on the analog stick, move on the d-pad) you could pwn. Yes I spent way too much time playing Goldeneye.

To the parent, Microsoft bought Rare so they do own the copyright to Goldeneye. They just aren't releasing it because apparently they are morans.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Zediker (885207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15128302)

Yes, they own the rights to Goldeneye, but they dont own the rights to distribute a for-profit James Bond game (EA holds those rights). While they could release it for free and get around that, I dont think they want to.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

one4nine4two (683126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134166)

Or you could just be a weiner and use the vertical auto-aim, kind of like Doom. I think it was on by default and the N64 controller was not completely ideal for FPS's, so you weren't much of a lamer. Using the radar, however, is out of the question. Just being able to see the other players' screens was bad enough. My friends and I went so far as to split the signal to four different TVs and cover up the other player's windows on their respective TVs with poster board. It did make the config menu a bitch.

Since I'm already rambling about GE multiplayer, we invented a couple totally sweet game types for it. First was timed mine suicide, where each player had 10 minutes to get the lowest score possible. The other players would thwart them by trying to die in the explosion, giving them a kill. Using the delayed timer mines made each death a nail-biter, and covering the screens changed the dynamic quite a bit. The other was Crossfire, like the boardgame. Turn on infinite ammo and invincibility, shoot an ammo box into the middle of a room. Then begin shooting it to other player's side, while he does the same.

And yes, we also played way too much GE.

As far as the trouble of dealing with EA, is it really worth it to MS to get it re-released if EA's gonna give them headaches?

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

cabra771 (197990) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135610)

Dude! Me and my friends totally did the same thing with the cardboard over half the screen for multiplayer Goldeneye. We were so dorky, but like you said, the only way to play fair was to no be able to see the other players' screens and to turn off that damn radar that was a total cheat-monkey tool.

I'm still amazed that I graduated college with Goldeneye in a house with 3 other gamers.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

MrFlannel (762587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127632)

Yep. Kissy and Goodnight (those are control styles) both were dual controller setups.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126309)

Well, they couldn't emulate the 64, so they'd have to port the game, so they could improve the controls.

IANAL, but if I were to guess, this is how it is: Microsoft, EA, and Nintendo all have a stake in this game (from largest stake to smallest stake, IMO). MS has the game, EA has the license, and Nintendo has the console.

Here's the tricky part; without Nintendo in on the deal, they would have to port the game as opposed to emulate it. If they could emulate it, it's possible that they could circumvent the license (they're just selling an old game, but this would be a trick one, IANAL), but if they port it, EA probably has a case.

Assuming my hunches are right, the most beneficial solution for MS, Nintendo, and gamers would be for Nintendo to allow N64 emulation for that one game in exchange for Nintendo's right to also distribute the game. Then, both consoles get the game, owners of either can play it, and EA doesn't get squat.

But that would never happen because I'm damn sure Nintendo would refuse to give MS N64 emulation rights, even just for the one game.

The only other alternative is for MS to port it themselves, which is expensive, and also pay EA to use the license from EA. It's possible the port wouldn't have to be licensed, but don't count on it.

If you ask me, the only way you're playing Goldeneye this generation is on a N64 or on a PC. Sort of... maybe [goldeneyesource.com] .

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Anamanaman (97418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126350)

Emulating it would be REALLY hard since they would have to include xbox live support (or everyone would complain violently).

My guess is we wont see it for a combination of legal/technical issues.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (1)

Kevin143 (672873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126411)

I've played it in emulation on my Xbox. You're right, the controls are extremely wacky, and I tried modifying the controls so that it would play Halo-style and the response just isn't right.

However, the Goldeneye level design is damn good and definitely holds up. I still say that "The Dam" is the best level in all of first-person-shooterdom.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15127099)

Yes, the stages do more than make up for the controls.

God the memories playing 4 players in the library?(i can't believe I cannot remember the stage name, I guess I should go shoot myself now) was just fucking brilliant. With 4 rpc 90s, proximity mines, or rocket launchers. Those damn explosions would slow the game down though, especially 3 rockets goin at one person.

Re:The licenses are owned by other people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15130875)

Yeah, Microsoft would hate to deal with EA. I guess that must be why EA's made some of the best games out for the XBox 360 currently, because they hate each other so much.

Retard.

Xbox 360 Hard Drive too small for that... (1, Informative)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125313)

The 360 hard drive is only 20 gigs, with only a 13 gig user partition (the other partition is swap space, cache, console settings, etc.).

13 gigs is not big enough to keep a bunch of games stored. Space Invaders, Gauntlet, yes... Full on first person shooters, no!

It Isn't That Large (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15125483)

The size issue is pretty lame. When you have a service like Live delivering HD trailers at hundreds of MB in size, I would think a rom cartridge from the N64 would be a piece of cake. Case in point is Goldeneye. 96Mbits. That's only 12MB of disk space. If you make multiple copies of that on the 13GB partition, you would have over 1000 copies. To be fair, though, games like Smash TV are about 6Mbit in size so it would be larger than that.

Re:Xbox 360 Hard Drive too small for that... (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125560)

Well, you're correct on the size of the hard drive...

But I don't think you realize how small N64 games were. I don't believe I ever saw one that was over 60mb... And I bet Goldeneye was below 40mb.

Re:Xbox 360 Hard Drive too small for that... (1)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127917)

I think Xbox Live Arcade games have to fit on a memory card though, and that's only 16MB (IIRC), which doesn't leave much room to work with.

Re:Xbox 360 Hard Drive too small for that... (1)

Jearil (154455) | more than 8 years ago | (#15129273)

Actually they're 64MB [ebgames.com] , which is the max size of an N64 game anyway.

Re:Xbox 360 Hard Drive too small for that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15125840)

N64 games are up to 64 MB, probably 32MB on average. You should be able to store 400-500 games on Xbox 360 HDD. Or almost one whole game on my first HDD. Boy, am I getting old.

Misinformation (4, Interesting)

Cutriss (262920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125331)

I think even if you look at what Nintendo's planning on doing in this space ... it's 8- and 16-bit games, it's not 32- and 64-bit games.

Actually, Nintendo has already stated that N64 games will be part of this, so bzzt - wrong answer.

And anyway, the ROMs themselves aren't that big. 16 MB tops if I remember correctly. I'm sure Nintendo could set this up in such a way that, assuming the entire game image isn't downloaded before execution, the critical components are downloaded first and then the remainder streamed as the user plays the game. Of course, Nintendo does pride itself on presentation quality, so my best guess is that they'd force a complete download before execution, so that a network service interruption doesn't cause the game to crash or pause because the download stalled.

I find it pretty funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15125425)

I find it pretty funny that Microsoft is balking at the size of a a 32 MB download where Nintendo is jumping at the chance to do the exact same thing-- considering that the XBox 360 has gigabytes and gigabytes of hard drive space, and the Nintendo Revolution will have 500 MB.

It almost makes one wonder if the real problem isn't N64 cart size, the problem is that they can't get the licensing but don't want to say so out loud.

How big are XBox Live games normally, like Geometry Wars 2 and such?

Re:I find it pretty funny (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125471)

Under 50Mb for nearly all I've seen. Some of the demos has weighed in at 600-700 Mb as have some of the videos.

Re:Misinformation (1)

Giant Ape Skeleton (638834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125451)

It would be brilliant if Nintendo were to include a compressed archive of (for example) all the textures from all their first-party games, located on some read-only memory in the Revolution. That would reduce the download size of games (particularly post-SNES) considerably, and allow first or third-party expansions/mods of those games to be more easily developed and run.

Re:Misinformation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15125791)

Heck, why not just preload all the games right onto the console so they're available out of the box? (Oh, right, they want to charge for 'em, but there'll be free offerings too, I'm guessing. Still would be awesome.)

Re:Misinformation (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126574)

They could also decide to stop gouging customers for every penny they're worth, and stick 50-100 titles on a retail disc that sells for $60, and not bother with the downloading aspect at all.

Re:Misinformation (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125522)

The N64 allowed for up to 256 MB, but Goldeneye and most other titles only used 64 MB.

Re:Misinformation (3, Informative)

psocccer (105399) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125619)

I'm pretty sure most cart roms were measured in megabits, not megabytes, putting goldeneye in around 8-12MB instead. According to the specs at the bottom of the Nintendo 64 wikipedia [wikipedia.org] page they measured the roms in megabits, between 32Mb and 512Mb, making roms top out at 32MB which is not much data to move around on a broadband connection.

Re:Misinformation (1)

topham (32406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125783)


Size really isn't an issue anyway.

Sure, there is limited space available on the HD for games like this, but lets be honest, I have multiple 300+ Meg demos I've downloaded to it from Microsoft.

It wasn't a big deal and didn't take very long.
(would be nice if you could download them in the background though...)

Speedy Downloads (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127823)

Of course you know what this means.. did anyone think of this just now?

Even for a big game, on a modest cable modem connection, it'll be downloaded
in 10 seconds flat.

Isn't that service!?

Re:Misinformation (3, Informative)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126182)

Rom sizes (from what I have):
GoldenEye 007 - 12mb
Perfect Dark - 32mb
Turok 2 - 32mb
LoZ:Ocarina Of Time - 32mb
LoZ:Majora's Mask - 32mb

And there's a hell lot of content for that compact size.

Re:Misinformation (1)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127535)

Keep in mind textures were extremely small and blocky back then. If I recall correctly the N64 had something like only 4MB of RAM (additional 4 with the underused expansion pack). It causes me great pain to see the same textures resurface in games like Super Mario 64 for the DS.

Also, "hell of a lot of content"? GoldenEye, Perfect Dark and OoT of time I can see. Turok 2 and Majora's Mask were godawful.

Re:Misinformation (1)

carninja (792514) | more than 8 years ago | (#15130171)

If I recall correctly, that was 4MB of Video RAM, not regular RAM, which was later upgradeable to 8mb (and i think through third party expansion packs after the system's demise, possibly even 16 and 32, but don't hold me to that, those were rumors from back in the day). Either way, the N64's horrible Anti-Aliasing problems were rather disgusting, but modern emulation makes those games look a HELL of a lot better, I'd imagine that the revolution will employ similar methods.
And yeah, Turok 2 sucked, but the multiplayer wasn't bad. The n64 had some real gems, and I'm actually thinking of buying a used one when I get my tax refund :P

Re:Misinformation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15130268)

Millibits? Let's just say you're wrong, and leave it at that.

Re:Misinformation (1)

Gogo0 (877020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126307)

The carts were officially measured in MegaBits, but even the biggest ones werent too big.

I believe Resident Evil 2 was the largest cart on the N64, and it was 64MB.

Goldeneye on the Revolution? (1)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125347)

Wasn't Nintendo planning on having all of its older titles availible on the revolution? If so, Goldeneye could be a major hit for the system. If they have some way to play it online against other opponenets, that would be even better.

Re:Goldeneye on the Revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15125445)

Goldeneye wasn't a first-party title.

Could HAVE been. (1)

Sir Unimaginative (967464) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125849)

Nintendo doesn't have much access to Goldeneye anymore; the Rare bits are in Microsoft's hands and the EA licencing is... well, EA.

Dreamcast (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125465)

So does this dismiss the rumor that dreamcast games will be ported over to xbox live?

Yah, the HD is only 13 gigs, but some of the demos on arcade are over 1 gig, and you can redownload anything you purchase. So putting about 5 dreamcast games on the harddrive is entirly reasonable.

I have about 4 game demos (each nearly 1 gig), 6 games from xbox live, and 8 gigs free. I'm definately not hurting for space.

Re:Dreamcast (0, Troll)

Synic (14430) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126248)

Is there anything on DC that wasn't on another platform or is worth porting?

Re:Dreamcast (1)

Corbu Mulak (931063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126787)

Power Stone 2

Re:Dreamcast (1)

EvilSporkMan (648878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127144)

Smash Brothers was on the N64 and Gamecube, silly. =P

Re:Dreamcast (1)

2008 (900939) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127685)

It's coming out for PSP.

The troll is actually sort-of right, most DC games got ported to other systems (because they were so damn good).

I think Toy Commander is probably the best one that doesn't have a port or a very similar sequel elsewhere. And some of the ports were to the GBA and not so hot (though Chu Chu Rocket and Silent Scope were surprisingly good), so could stand to be redone.

Re:Dreamcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15131024)

PSP port can be nothing but trash. You'll have to use either the unmercifully crap Sony d-pad or the unmercifully crap PSP sliding analog nub.

That's not Powerstone to me. That's bullshit.

High-def N64 games? (3, Insightful)

Mr. Samuel (950418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125478)

Sprite based games are one thing, but how impressed will everybody be when they see blurry N64-era textures blown up into high-def? I'd think a game like Goldeneye would have to be significantly reworked to make it presentable in high resolution, IP rights issues aside.

Re:High-def N64 games? (1)

PhotoBoy (684898) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133905)

Having played plenty of N64 games on emulators in 1600x1200 I can say that the games do look quite nice in that resolution, despite the low res textures. Of course, if you want high res textures in N64 games the place to visit is here [emutalk.net] . :)

Rare games will be "Rare" (1)

The_Real_Quaid (892126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125485)

Any game that was developed by Rare + Published by Nintendo will almost certainly not be available in ANY back catalog at all. This includes Goldeneye, Killer Instinct, Blast Corps... perhaps Banjo(?) as well.

And anyone who mentions "Starfox" or "Donkry Kong" being a Rare property deserves a cockpunch.

Re:Rare games will be "Rare" (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125588)

Microsoft owns Rare. Why would their games be "rare?" And I'm pretty sure Nintendo wouldn't be able to stop Microsoft from releasing Rare games.

I would guess the biggest reason you won't be playing GoldenEye on an Xbox360 anytime soon is because Microsoft would have to create an emulation layer of some sort to run it. The chances of Nintendo ignoring that kind of action are slim to none considering their stance on emulation.

Re:Rare games will be "Rare" (1)

Kuukai (865890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125685)

I would guess the biggest reason you won't be playing GoldenEye on an Xbox360 anytime soon is because Microsoft would have to create an emulation layer of some sort to run it. The chances of Nintendo ignoring that kind of action are slim to none considering their stance on emulation.

No they wouldn't. Like you said, "Microsoft owns Rare". You know, the company with the source code? The main problem here is how little of its property Rare actually owns 100% of. Depending on the terms of the GoldenEye license (you know, from that movie), Microsoft might have to pay a lot of money to republish that game. That goes double for Donkey Kong, etc., since Nintendo is an actually competitor.

Re:Rare games will be "Rare" (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126675)

Yes, Rare has the source code, but how willing would they be to actually port it to the 360? Microsoft owns Bungie as well, but you didn't see Bungie rewriting code for Halo or Halo 2 to run on the Xbox 360 natively.

As far as Nintendo's publishing rights go, it is possible that there is a certain time limit. Of course, that's a moot point because what's the point in worrying about publishers when there isn't a product?

Re:Rare games will be "Rare" (4, Insightful)

The_Real_Quaid (892126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125701)

It doesn't matter who owns Rare. The games that were published by Nintendo are (partly) retained by Nintendo. That includes the games I listed above - which for the most part are Rare's most popular games.

Some games, such as Conker and Jet Force Gemini, were published by Rare. This is why M$ gets full rights to these games.

The flip side is that Nintendo can't release those Rare games either. They will only exist "as-is" unless more negotiations take place. I doubt any of the parties will bend on this.

Re:Rare games will be "Rare" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15126453)

That's not quite accurate. Nintendo owned 49% of Rare since the SNES days. At the end of N64 and early Gamecube era Rare really stopped being able to deliver. So they decided to sell its 49% share to Microsoft. A lot of the sale negotiations were about which properties would go with Rare and which would stay with Nintendo.

It turns out Nintendo settled for the properties that were the most "Nintendo" Star Fox and Donkey Kong. Obviously, Donkey Kong because Nintendo needed to protect its existing Donkey Kong license. Star Fox probably because at the very moment Nintendo was selling Rare they were about to release a new Star Fox game for Gamecube.

Therefore Rare keeps its back stock of intellectual property and Nintendo gets the most money it can out of Microsoft. A very good strategy considering Rare hasn't turned any of its properies into financial gains since the sale. Also many of the properties would not have been attractive to Nintendo's first and second party developers to want to work on.

Re:Rare games will be "Rare" (0, Flamebait)

Deadguy2322 (761832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126905)

I wonder why so many people don't seem to realize that MGM owns James bond, and they'd have a lot to say about the game being re-released.

Define large (1)

tktk (540564) | more than 8 years ago | (#15125775)

Some of the games that were ... on the N64, those games were pretty large and are still gonna be pretty hard to distribute digitally depending on the title."

Sounds like an excuse. Distribution shouldn't be a problem. I got Half-Life 2 and Day of Defeat over Steam. Those seemed pretty large.

Now on the other hand, if he had mention problems with storing the games...

Just remake it (3, Interesting)

Phantasmo (586700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126384)

EA has the Bond license.

EA is the publisher for Free Radical, which employs most of the original Goldeneye team and produces games with a greatly enhanced version of the Goldeneye engine (or at least a Goldeneye playalike).

Call me crazy, but:
Bond license + next-gen engine = killer, multiplatform, online Goldeneye remake

Re:Just remake it (2, Informative)

Davey McDave (926282) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126750)

Equals pipe dream.

Look at the previous Bond titles by EA. Do they look bothered about making a GOOD game any time soon?

Re:Just remake it (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 8 years ago | (#15126839)

Equals pipe dream.

More like equals Project Goldeneye [downclan.com] . Even better, no need to put up or support EA's douche-mongery.

Re:Just remake it (2, Informative)

ronfar (52216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15128612)

Didn't the try to do that with Goldeneye: Rogue Agent? That was one of the more disappointing titles to come out...

IF n64 games were had to distribute then Nintendo (1)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 8 years ago | (#15127209)

I guess by thoise statements that he made he doesnt know about Nintendos plans. Wich Nintendo will be distributing n64 games for the revolution. I would laugh so hard if the list of games for the virtual console comes out and goldeneye is on it . Looks likeEverybody is counting nintendo out again prematurly just like people did with the ds.

bloody hell.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15129319)

Just download the bloody ROM for an N64 emulator, or buy the real thing - you can pick up an N64 and Goldeneye for price of 1 or 2 month's broadband rental, or you could get one of the mods for unreal and halflife, or you can realise how over-rated it really was to begin with.. :P I loved Goldeneye when it came out, but back then you only had a handful of console FPS games and most of them were Doom...

Really, why not? (2, Interesting)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15131461)

It won't happen for these reasons:
1. The James Bond license, in a complete switch from the usual state of things, actually makes the game much cooler.
2. Emulating an N64 is still not trivial, would rely on using information that would have to be gained in a clean-room reverse engineering, and even then may be subject to a lawsuit from Nintendo. Of course they could always look at public emulators, but I'm unsure that wouldn't carry its own liability.
3. The ROM has Nintendo's logo all over it, all that would have to be scrubbed. Further, I'm reasonably sure Nintendo actually owns the copyright on the game. They were the original publisher in any case.

However, the game's size is likely NOT a determining factor. The Wikipedia page for Goldeneye 007 [wikipedia.org] states that the game's ROM is 16 megabytes. The size limit for Xbox Live Arcade games is 50 megabytes [lockergnome.com] . Even counting in twice the game's ROM size to hold an emulator, it would still probably fit.

However, consider this: Rare still probably has the source code and art assets for the game. They could probably recompile the game to make use of the X-Box 360's hyperflash sparklemagic technical pixie thingies. In fact, they would have to do this, otherwise people would laugh at how the 360 now has a FIRST-GEN N64 GAME WITHOUT ANY GRAPHIC ENHANCEMENT, gasp! So that means, at the very least, better textures.

The N64 game's ROM was only that small because it used heavy texture compression and because people weren't accustomed to 360-level texture sharpness. Look at it now: the game is still cool, but it's blurry as hell. Unfortunatly, to improve the textures would probably greatly increase the game's size, and that 50 megabyte Live Arcade limit looks like a hard (if arbitrary) one.

That's speculation of course, but it sounds about right to me. Anyone care to subject it to the iron knifeblade of reason?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>