Zechs Merquise Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Nintendo did closed marketing survey during this year's march where they asked questions like "what price range you would prefer", "would you be interested in renting games" etc. One question was "What games you would like to see in VC", and it had large list of different Nintendo games. Goldeneye was on that list, but none of the more recent Rare games wasn't. Interestingly enough Donkey Kong Country 3 wasn't on that list either, but most logical explanation is that Nintendo wants to wait releasing games that recently got GBA port. wow, now this is the kind of news I want to here! thanks for this, it's the ray of light we need, I hope it comes to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teppo Holmqvist Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 wow, now this is the kind of news I want to here! thanks for this, it's the ray of light we need, I hope it comes to something. BTW, here is the article: http://wii.ign.com/articles/680/680846p1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendork Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Don't give the fanbys false hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 BTW, here is the article: http://wii.ign.com/articles/680/680846p1.html Thanks mate, oh oh oh, Sin and Punishment too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.dakota Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Basically, as far as i'm aware Nintendo retained only the Donkey Kong license (including any associated characters) and sold Rare lock stock and barrell, including all other franchises created by Rare. Rare & Microsoft can do what they want with all these other characters. I don;t think the fact that Nintendo publishing any titles give them automatic control over any games - for example Conker was published by Nintendo in the US, but by THQ in Europe. A remake then appeared on Xbox. However, to see any Rare's Nintendo backcatalogue on Xbox Live is unlikely to happen. Reason, Nintendo would not allow Microsoft to have a SNES or N64 emulator - meaning each game would need to be reprogrammed for Live, which would take time and resources. I think...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendork Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Time and resources that would lead to the increased sales of the Banjo game which will cost £50 in stores and will sell like a bomb. I think it would work well, $10 for an old N64 game remastered for the arcade.. people give it a shot and then go, hey this is a laugh i'll get the 360 version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teppo Holmqvist Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Reason, Nintendo would not allow Microsoft to have a SNES or N64 emulator - meaning each game would need to be reprogrammed for Live, which would take time and resources. I think...? You don't need any permission from anyone to emulate device such as processor or console. Only legally grey area is using company's original bios in your emulator, and even that can be bypassed by reverse-engineering the bios. For example, Bleem was emulator whose programmers had successfully reverse-engineered PSX's bios and that's why program didn't require official PSX bios to run. But as reverse-enginnering bios is quite hard, most emulators require console's original bios file to work. N64, howewer, doesn't have bios or require any external files to work, so theoretically Microsoft could program N64 emulator without any legal problems. Of course, main question is how practical it would be? It would be probably faster to port old N64 games than program full-fledged N64 emulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YenRug Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Basically, as far as i'm aware Nintendo retained only the Donkey Kong license (including any associated characters) and sold Rare lock stock and barrell, including all other franchises created by Rare. Rare & Microsoft can do what they want with all these other characters. It seems some people still are confused over this: Nintendo held a large chunk of shares in Rare, I think it was around 40%. Rare wanted to develop elsewhere and Nintendo let Rare buy back their shares at market rates, at no time did Nintendo deal directly with Microsoft. Once Rare had all of their shares under their control, once more, the deal was made with Microsoft to take over the company. You don't need any permission from anyone to emulate device such as processor or console. Only legally grey area is using company's original bios in your emulator, and even that can be bypassed by reverse-engineering the bios. For example, Bleem was emulator whose programmers had successfully reverse-engineered PSX's bios and that's why program didn't require official PSX bios to run. But as reverse-enginnering bios is quite hard, most emulators require console's original bios file to work. N64, howewer, doesn't have bios or require any external files to work, so theoretically Microsoft could program N64 emulator without any legal problems. Of course, main question is how practical it would be? It would be probably faster to port old N64 games than program full-fledged N64 emulator. Except Nintendo have taken out a patent against emulation of their systems and/or games written for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts