Virtual Console Question
- Thread starter Fire
- Start date
I've got nothing on the magazine itself, but GameSpot forum members are confirming this.
http://www.gamespot.com/snes/action/zombiesatemyneighbors/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-26739585&pid=563219&page=1
http://www.gamespot.com/snes/action/zombiesatemyneighbors/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-26739585&pid=563219&page=1
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
i dont believe that list at all, first off the bond game is tangled in too much legal limbo, second why would they release FFIII when they are just releasing it on the DS. Also it would be PunchOut!! because they lost the rights to use Tyson and I dont think they would want to associate with him anyway.
I have the magazine right here. The title of the article is "15 Retro Games for the Wii you must play".
They mention nothing about any of these titles being CONFIRMED AT ALL. They show little snippets of games.
They list several games, however they list MOST WANTED! next to the following titles.
G.I. Joe
Dracula X
Zombies Ate My Neighbors
ActRaiser
Final Fantasy III
Ninja Gaiden Trilogy
Contra III
Battletoads
The do not confirm that ANY of these or the other mentioned titles will be available for the Wii.
They mention nothing about any of these titles being CONFIRMED AT ALL. They show little snippets of games.
They list several games, however they list MOST WANTED! next to the following titles.
G.I. Joe
Dracula X
Zombies Ate My Neighbors
ActRaiser
Final Fantasy III
Ninja Gaiden Trilogy
Contra III
Battletoads
The do not confirm that ANY of these or the other mentioned titles will be available for the Wii.
sonderiaom
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
So, it's little more than a "Wanted" list then basically. Damn, wish there would be more concrete info on any of that console.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i dont believe that list at all, first off the bond game is tangled in too much legal limbo, second why would they release FFIII when they are just releasing it on the DS. Also it would be PunchOut!! because they lost the rights to use Tyson and I dont think they would want to associate with him anyway.[/QUOTE]
There is a great deal of difference between using an existing code base under emulation and creating a new version of the same game. So long as Rare/Microsoft has no issue with the income from the N64 Goldeneye being sold anew, there isn't any major problem. The license sold to EA for a new property carrying the Goldeneye title does not erase Nintendo and Rare's combined right to contiuing publishing the N64 game. This would not be a derivative work. It would be the actual original work.
FFIII on the DS is a major reworking of the game. The Virtual Console version would likely the original NES and much less expensive. Taking the money of people who need the authentic 'old school' experience suits Square and Nintendo just fine. A lot of those same people will buy the DS version as well.
On the issue of the NES Punch-Out, so long as they're using the old NES code base, they can do whatever they want within the bounds of the original license. Do you think Tyson is going to resent the income at this point in his downward spiral? Tyson's misadventures are long in the past. If anything, they serve to make the game more attractive because of the accumulated history.
There is a great deal of difference between using an existing code base under emulation and creating a new version of the same game. So long as Rare/Microsoft has no issue with the income from the N64 Goldeneye being sold anew, there isn't any major problem. The license sold to EA for a new property carrying the Goldeneye title does not erase Nintendo and Rare's combined right to contiuing publishing the N64 game. This would not be a derivative work. It would be the actual original work.
FFIII on the DS is a major reworking of the game. The Virtual Console version would likely the original NES and much less expensive. Taking the money of people who need the authentic 'old school' experience suits Square and Nintendo just fine. A lot of those same people will buy the DS version as well.
On the issue of the NES Punch-Out, so long as they're using the old NES code base, they can do whatever they want within the bounds of the original license. Do you think Tyson is going to resent the income at this point in his downward spiral? Tyson's misadventures are long in the past. If anything, they serve to make the game more attractive because of the accumulated history.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='epobirs']There is a great deal of difference between using an existing code base under emulation and creating a new version of the same game. So long as Rare/Microsoft has no issue with the income from the N64 Goldeneye being sold anew, there isn't any major problem. The license sold to EA for a new property carrying the Goldeneye title does not erase Nintendo and Rare's combined right to contiuing publishing the N64 game. This would not be a derivative work. It would be the actual original work.
FFIII on the DS is a major reworking of the game. The Virtual Console version would likely the original NES and much less expensive. Taking the money of people who need the authentic 'old school' experience suits Square and Nintendo just fine. A lot of those same people will buy the DS version as well.
On the issue of the NES Punch-Out, so long as they're using the old NES code base, they can do whatever they want within the bounds of the original license. Do you think Tyson is going to resent the income at this point in his downward spiral? Tyson's misadventures are long in the past. If anything, they serve to make the game more attractive because of the accumulated history.[/QUOTE]
Well with Punch Out they have a version without Mike Tyson so it makes no sense why they wouldnt use that to avoid all legal problems from the get go.
Putting 3 doesnt make sense because they are putting all this time into a game that was never released here, why would they want to dilute the amount of people who want it by putting it out around the same time.
Finally no one knows the deal with the bond license. Everyone would want a cut of the pie if Nintendo has to the rights to even sell it. Plus I believe bond was just acquired by activision so thats someone else they would have to deal with. I also doubt Nin would program online multiplayer into it anyway so what would be the point.
FFIII on the DS is a major reworking of the game. The Virtual Console version would likely the original NES and much less expensive. Taking the money of people who need the authentic 'old school' experience suits Square and Nintendo just fine. A lot of those same people will buy the DS version as well.
On the issue of the NES Punch-Out, so long as they're using the old NES code base, they can do whatever they want within the bounds of the original license. Do you think Tyson is going to resent the income at this point in his downward spiral? Tyson's misadventures are long in the past. If anything, they serve to make the game more attractive because of the accumulated history.[/QUOTE]
Well with Punch Out they have a version without Mike Tyson so it makes no sense why they wouldnt use that to avoid all legal problems from the get go.
Putting 3 doesnt make sense because they are putting all this time into a game that was never released here, why would they want to dilute the amount of people who want it by putting it out around the same time.
Finally no one knows the deal with the bond license. Everyone would want a cut of the pie if Nintendo has to the rights to even sell it. Plus I believe bond was just acquired by activision so thats someone else they would have to deal with. I also doubt Nin would program online multiplayer into it anyway so what would be the point.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Well with Punch Out they have a version without Mike Tyson so it makes no sense why they wouldnt use that to avoid all legal problems from the get go.
Putting 3 doesnt make sense because they are putting all this time into a game that was never released here, why would they want to dilute the amount of people who want it by putting it out around the same time.
Finally no one knows the deal with the bond license. Everyone would want a cut of the pie if Nintendo has to the rights to even sell it. Plus I believe bond was just acquired by activision so thats someone else they would have to deal with. I also doubt Nin would program online multiplayer into it anyway so what would be the point.[/QUOTE]
The question about FF3 presupposed that an English version exists or could be produced at low cost. If the DS dialogue is largely the same, then that is true. If the cost is very low then there remains a market for the game among those who demand the authenticity of playing in a simualted 8-bit setting.
It's about accommodating aesthetics. If enough people will pay...
The current holder of the Bond license has no bearing on Nintendo's rights to sell an existing work. It isn't Nintendo trying to produce a Wii Bond game. It's Nintendo sellingthe exact same Goldeye thaey put in stores in the 90s. Unless there was a very specific time limit put on Nintendo and Rare's rights to use their own code base, what has happened since with the Bond franchise simply doesn't matter. The only persons who would be entitled to any resulting royalties are those specified in the original agreement or their direct legal heirs. The amount of money involved isn't enough to make it worth litigating over and it is extremely unlikely that the Bond franchise owners are so adverse to further publication of N64 Goldeneye that htey would turn down the resulting income.
Putting 3 doesnt make sense because they are putting all this time into a game that was never released here, why would they want to dilute the amount of people who want it by putting it out around the same time.
Finally no one knows the deal with the bond license. Everyone would want a cut of the pie if Nintendo has to the rights to even sell it. Plus I believe bond was just acquired by activision so thats someone else they would have to deal with. I also doubt Nin would program online multiplayer into it anyway so what would be the point.[/QUOTE]
The question about FF3 presupposed that an English version exists or could be produced at low cost. If the DS dialogue is largely the same, then that is true. If the cost is very low then there remains a market for the game among those who demand the authenticity of playing in a simualted 8-bit setting.
It's about accommodating aesthetics. If enough people will pay...
The current holder of the Bond license has no bearing on Nintendo's rights to sell an existing work. It isn't Nintendo trying to produce a Wii Bond game. It's Nintendo sellingthe exact same Goldeye thaey put in stores in the 90s. Unless there was a very specific time limit put on Nintendo and Rare's rights to use their own code base, what has happened since with the Bond franchise simply doesn't matter. The only persons who would be entitled to any resulting royalties are those specified in the original agreement or their direct legal heirs. The amount of money involved isn't enough to make it worth litigating over and it is extremely unlikely that the Bond franchise owners are so adverse to further publication of N64 Goldeneye that htey would turn down the resulting income.
[quote name='pop311']This may be stupid question, but just wondering
Do the N64 Rare games (Banjo, Conker, etc) have a chance of being on the Virtual Console, seeing how Microsoft bought Rare.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the chances are pretty good unless remakes are planned for the 360, possibly as XBLA games. Rare has produced a number of games for Nintendo handhelds since the acquisition with more on the way. And several other Microsoft game franchises have been ported to the DS. (Zoo Tycoon, Age of Empires)
Even if that happened, getting new revenue from the existing code base of those games is purely a win. Defraying the purchase cost of Rare would be something I'm sure would please MS. So long as it isn't seen as direct competition to a Microsoft product I think they have no problem with it.
Do the N64 Rare games (Banjo, Conker, etc) have a chance of being on the Virtual Console, seeing how Microsoft bought Rare.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the chances are pretty good unless remakes are planned for the 360, possibly as XBLA games. Rare has produced a number of games for Nintendo handhelds since the acquisition with more on the way. And several other Microsoft game franchises have been ported to the DS. (Zoo Tycoon, Age of Empires)
Even if that happened, getting new revenue from the existing code base of those games is purely a win. Defraying the purchase cost of Rare would be something I'm sure would please MS. So long as it isn't seen as direct competition to a Microsoft product I think they have no problem with it.
So long as they had a clearly written contract regarding ongoing use of the code base, there should be no problem with making Goldeneye available on the Virtual Console. The legal issues are entirely concerned with who has the right to create further Bond products in the form of films, books, and video games. Existing products aren't affected and the entities (or their heirs) that collected royalties from previous licenses would continue to do so. challenge are only likely if new versions of those products are produced. This would include new editions of DVDs with added content or a version of Goldeneye using a new code base to make it native to a different platform.
If the Virtual Console is able to run the N64 game in real time satisfactorily, then it won't be subject to legal challenge. No new product is involved since the code remains exactly the same. Whether it is embodied on a mask ROM chip in a cartridge or on a SD card is beside the point.
If the emulator requires some preliminary translation to produce native code for acceptable performance, than that new code, entirely machine produced though it may be, rpresents a new work and would be subject to challenge regarding the right to publish it.
Compared to wrangling over film rights, a decade old game is completely off the radar.
If the Virtual Console is able to run the N64 game in real time satisfactorily, then it won't be subject to legal challenge. No new product is involved since the code remains exactly the same. Whether it is embodied on a mask ROM chip in a cartridge or on a SD card is beside the point.
If the emulator requires some preliminary translation to produce native code for acceptable performance, than that new code, entirely machine produced though it may be, rpresents a new work and would be subject to challenge regarding the right to publish it.
Compared to wrangling over film rights, a decade old game is completely off the radar.
bread's done