Current Events > GoldenEye 007 Remaster Was Canceled by Nintendo With Only a Few Bugs Left to Fix

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.ign.com/articles/goldeneye-007-remaster-was-canceled-by-nintendo-with-only-a-few-bugs-left-to-fix
---

whatever, the N64 version is good enough

we also need to stop buying the same games over and over, it's getting ridiculous

---

Didn't this game come out for the Wii or was it another remaster of that game?

---

El Mexicano Texano posted...

Didn't this game come out for the Wii or was it another remaster of that game?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game)
---

I wonder if that one guy at Nintendo who stopped it was Iwata?

---

"When it was put to Nintendo, everyone there approved it," Bury said. "Except they didn't check with the one guy who mattered."

"I believe I was told his response went along the lines of, 'There is no way a Nintendo game is coming out on a Microsoft console,'" he added.

Lmao, how do you mess up so badly? Sucks for the team that almost completed it.

---

"I believe I was told his response went along the lines of, 'There is no way a Nintendo game is coming out on a Microsoft console,'" he added.

Then why did every other non-DK Rare game get released on it?

---

Hayame Zero posted...

Then why did every other non-DK Rare game get released on it?

That was almost a decade later. The guy that vetoed it in Nintendo maybe wasn't there anymore. Maybe they didn't have to navigate some of the legal issues this game had as well.

---

Clickbait.

In an earlier interview, they said it was more about the movie and games being licensed by different companies and trying to secure the likeness of all the actors.

By the time they were working on this, EA already made a Goldeneye "spinoff" for PS2 and xbox without issue. Activision's remake also ended up on PS3 and 360.

Nintendo don't own shit.

Activision's remake also ended up on PS3 and 360.

Activision didn't make a remake

ShibaToken posted...

Activision didn't make a remake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game)
Published.

It was as much of a remake as the Perfect Dark remaster was, just different textures and lighting

Im ok with it being cancelled, but Id like to see a remaster like re2

---

Master_Bass posted...

That was almost a decade later. The guy that vetoed it in Nintendo maybe wasn't there anymore. Maybe they didn't have to navigate some of the legal issues this game had as well.

The Banjo Kazooie remake came out on 360 in 2008. And Conker was even before that.

Collat posted...

Clickbait.

In an earlier interview, they said it was more about the movie and games being licensed by different companies and trying to secure the likeness of all the actors.

By the time they were working on this, EA already made a Goldeneye "spinoff" for PS2 and xbox without issue. Activision's remake also ended up on PS3 and 360.

Nintendo don't own shit.

Yeah, I don't get this. Nintendo doesn't own the IP, and would ultimately have no control over this project.

EON put in more strict rights issues after the surprise success of the game. There's references to other movies, likenesses of several real life actors, and different ownerships of the theme remixes. The Activision version had none of those, and was more in line with the current film requirements.

I know it's from some of the developers, but the rights issue with the film production company makes more sense.

---

Collat posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game)
Published.

That wasn't a remake.

Collat posted...

Clickbait.

In an earlier interview, they said it was more about the movie and games being licensed by different companies and trying to secure the likeness of all the actors.

By the time they were working on this, EA already made a Goldeneye "spinoff" for PS2 and xbox without issue. Activision's remake also ended up on PS3 and 360.

Nintendo don't own shit.

Yeah i think the guy that did the interview explicitly mentions that it wasn't nintendo's fault, it was MGM or w/e licensor for the movie and character likeness was super anal about literally everything to the point that if they actually were to release the game it would be censored to hell and back

---

Imagine working on something like this, a remake of a legendary game that absolutely would have sold millions, and then just having all your work tossed in the trash at the last second and not being able to put it on your list of credits

---

ShibaToken posted...

That wasn't a remake.

It was.

Not a very faithful one, but it's literally called Golden Eye. Just done with a new cast and locations that don't really look like the original game.

Maybe you are thinking of EA's attempt to cash in on it by making a game about some guy named "goldeneye"

It was a reboot, not a remake.

a reboot is a resetting of continuity. that had nothing to do with what was going on in the activision goldeneye game


---

The Activision GoldenEye game didn't have Frigate, Silo, or any of the other exclusive plot points the N64 version had.

Therefore it was a reboot, as it was a resetting of continuity per your own words.

ArianaGrandSlam posted...

imagine thinking this unironically

N64 version is nearly unplayable. Its good enough if you run the M+KB mod but this cancelled remaster is actually pretty neat once you look into it.

It's not unplayable on an N64.

ShibaToken posted...

It was a reboot, not a remake.

Getting real nitpicky aren't you?

It is a modern reimagining of the 1995 James Bond film GoldenEye as well as a remake of the 1997 video game of the same name, developed for the earlier Nintendo 64 console.

The fact of the matter is, they were able to put out a Goldeneye game on all consoles and Nintendo couldn't do shit about it. Just like they couldn't when EA used the name.

Now that IO Interactive has the license, they would be free to use it as well, though I'm expecting their game to downplay the shooter style gameplay compared to other Bond games.

ShibaToken posted...

The Activision GoldenEye game didn't have Frigate, Silo, or any of the other exclusive plot points the N64 version had.

Therefore it was a reboot, as it was a resetting of continuity per your own words.

that makes absolutely zero sense. remakes remove and add stuff all the time to varying degrees of success

reboots are a plot reset to make it so that writers no longer have to worry about years of baggage with past stories and characters. activision didnt remove the weird flashback levels from the rare game because they thought that it would somehow interfere with future stories they wanted to tell lmao. they were just adapting the same movie rare was

---

ArianaGrandSlam posted...

I have the cartridge and the N64 hooked up right now and its a fucking nightmare to play dude. 10fps dips are unacceptable

Its almost a 30 year old console might be the issue
---

goldeneye is a very good game that is best experienced on an emulator that can bypass the fps problems (and let you play with another controller). age has nothing to do with it, the game just runs like shit on its original hardware. perfect dark did too, the 360 version is like night and day compared to it

---

People just weren't this anal about performance back then, i tried playing banjo tooie and DK64 some time ago and they were fucking awful, but back when i was younger that was the best you could find around so it wasn't noticeable.

---

ArianaGrandSlam posted...

Older games than it are more playable. Other N64 games are more playable.

GoldenEye is a mess and only the delusional recommend playing it as-is in current year.

Console fps games from that gen don't really hold up in general. Twin stick control schemes were rarely used until the next gen and even then, the early PS2 games were a bit rough.

Umm, is this source playable anywhere to the public? Yes or no answer suffices >________>

---

Jagr_68 posted...

Umm, is this source playable anywhere to the public? Yes or no answer suffices >________>

yes

---

Jagr_68 posted...

Umm, is this source playable anywhere to the public? Yes or no answer suffices >________>

yes

---

Reminder that Shigeru Miyamoto wanted an ending scene in which Bond visited his opponents in the hospital -- implying that none of them actually died.

Collat posted...

Getting real nitpicky aren't you?

The fact of the matter is, they were able to put out a Goldeneye game on all consoles and Nintendo couldn't do shit about it. Just like they couldn't when EA used the name.

Now that IO Interactive has the license, they would be free to use it as well, though I'm expecting their game to downplay the shooter style gameplay compared to other Bond games.

I think this one would be a bit different since it was the exact same game Nintendo published in the 90s with prettier visuals. So while Nintendo don't have any rights over the Goldeneye name or any new adaptations of the movie I could see them having some sort of ownership over the game they published so that would stop publishers and developers from simply releasing the same game again.

These sort of IP games pretty much always have issues over the rights which is why we rarely see them get remastered or re-released again unless it's with the same company who published the original. I doubt IO Interactive can suddenly just release remasters of the old Bond games from Activision and EA just because they have the licence for example. Even WB Games haven't re-released any old Batman games for easy money and they'd only need to deal with one other company.

---

Cookie Bag posted...

yes

HBKick18 posted...

yes

Hell yeah

---

I loved the game when it came out and it was groundbreaking for console shooters, but I have 0 interest in ever buying/playing a remaster of it instead of a modern day shooter.

---

Darmik posted...

So while Nintendo don't have any rights over the Goldeneye name or any new adaptations of the movie I could see them having some sort of ownership over the game they published so that would stop publishers and developers from simply releasing the same game again.

Again, this isn't what happened, the interview with the employee talking about the Xbox goldeneye mentions that it wasn't an issue with nintendo, it was the movie and character license holders, and they practically demanded so much stuff that it would take too much time and money to change the game, like bond has to look like the current bond, the good characters can't fight each other in multiplayer, shit like that.

---

Cookie Bag posted...

Again, this isn't what happened, the interview with the employee talking about the Xbox goldeneye mentions that it wasn't an issue with nintendo, it was the movie and character license holders, and they practically demanded so much stuff that it would take too much time and money to change the game, like bond has to look like the current bond, the good characters can't fight each other in multiplayer, shit like that.

What interview?

The one Ars Technica has says this.

[Update, February 9: A follow-up interview by Video Games Chronicle's Andy Robinson includes an additional morsel from ex-Rare dev Chris Tilston, who was co-lead on the remaster. He claims that the project began life when Nintendo representatives made a phone call offer to Microsoft and Rare. The handshake was contingent on Nintendo releasing a version of the original Goldeneye 007 on Wii, and Rare releasing their own on Xbox 360. Exactly what happened with that Nintendo version remains unclear, nor whether any negotiating followed up between Nintendo and Activision to pave the way to a wholly different Goldeneye game on Wii in 2010.]

As the project went on, Edmonds and Bury point to a momentexactly when, they can't recallwhen their bosses gave the GE360 team a green light. "We were told everyone had approved it," Edmonds says. The rights were all cleared, with no condition that anybody had to work on a version for a Nintendo console or any other requirements. That was all the team needed to hear to continue work on the Xbox 360 version.
Later, the eight devs on the project learned the truth about negotiations... when GE360 was unceremoniously canceled.
"When it was put to Nintendo, everyone there approved it," Bury says. "Except they didn't check with the one guy who mattered." Bury then clarifies who that person was: former Nintendo Chairman Hiroshi Yamauchi, who had vacated the post by 2007 but was still Nintendo's largest Japanese shareholder.
[Update, 11:15 a.m.: Since this article's publication, Bury and Edmonds have chimed in to correct a huge point: The Nintendo executive who spiked the project was not Yamauchi, due to his no longer officially working at Nintendo, but rather some other Nintendo executive, whose name was left a mystery to the Rare development team. "Mark corrected me on that as it wasnt actually him since he had left, but someone else high up," Bury writes via email.]

"I believe I was told his response went along the lines of, 'There is no way a Nintendo game is coming out on a Microsoft console,'" Bury adds. (If you're wondering how some of Rare's N64 games eventually wound up on Xbox consoles, remember: Rare took many of its older games' rights with it to Microsoft, but not all of them. 2005's Conker: Live and Reloaded was the first example.)

In fact it specifically says the stuff you're talking about isn't confirmed.

Neither Edmonds nor Bury has particular insights on the evolution of Nintendo, Rare, and Microsoft's combined rights relationship, having both left Rare years ago. When pressed about a leaked mini-documentary from 2014, which hinted to Goldeneye 007 almost landing on Xbox One via the Rare Replay anthology, Bury shrugs his shoulders. "I am assuming that all the information and quotes around rights negotiations on the 'Net are from this time period, as previous to that, [the Nintendo boss]'s orders trumped everything," he says. (This includes loud rumors that MGM and OEM's handling of Bond video games evolved over the years to place serious restrictions on the license in games, many of which have never been confirmed.)

So what source are you referring to?


---

https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=6578

Guess i should say not just nintendo, but people seem adamant on just blaming them for this shitshow

---

That interview didn't really say anything about MGM just that the rights were complicated. Which we knew. It's possible it's in that full interview but the link to that no longer seems to work.

But two of the eight people who worked on the game have just explicitly said someone high up at Nintendo shut it down. So why wouldn't Nintendo get the blame? Yes we know the rights are complicated and several people can potentially shut it down which is why it will never happen but for specifically the XBLA port 10 years ago it was Nintendo. It was always assumed but we've basically just got confirmation that this is the case. That doesn't mean they're the hurdle that stopped the game in other cases but it does for this specific one.

---

FortuneCookie posted...

Reminder that Shigeru Miyamoto wanted an ending scene in which Bond visited his opponents in the hospital -- implying that none of them actually died.

hahaha yes

i think he was already too old when that happened

---

Tbh I would love some serious shooter that suddenly ended with the protagonist visiting his victims in hospital.

---

Darmik posted...

Tbh I would love some serious shooter that suddenly ended with the protagonist visiting his victims in hospital.

that'd be perfect as a secret ending for a game like doom

---

ShibaToken posted...

It was a reboot, not a remake.

The one that got cancelled was a Remaster. Basically, a touched up version of the original game.
The one Activision published is a Remake. It's taking a lot of liberties by changing/adding/removing stuff here and there, but ultimately, it's trying to hit a lot of the same beats as the original game.

A reboot is more like Mirrors's Edge Catalyst. A complete restart that have nothing to do with the original game outside of a few elements.

---

It was not a remake. A remake is something like REmake or RE2 or FF7-R. This was not a remake

Play the game on emulator. Boom. There's your remaster.

---

Darmik posted...

I think this one would be a bit different since it was the exact same game Nintendo published in the 90s with prettier visuals. So while Nintendo don't have any rights over the Goldeneye name or any new adaptations of the movie I could see them having some sort of ownership over the game they published so that would stop publishers and developers from simply releasing the same game again.

Not the case with any other Rare game though aside from one's dealing with Nintendo properties for obvious reasons.

There just seems to be this long standing urban legend where Nintendo is sitting on the rights to one specific Bond movie forever even though they haven't touched it in 25 years and other game companies have used it without issue.

Well at least it finally came out

---

Collat posted...

Not the case with any other Rare game though aside from one's dealing with Nintendo properties for obvious reasons.

Because Microsoft got the complete rights to those games. Nintendo gave them up to Rare.

They wouldn't have been able to with Goldeneye because they'd also have to reach an agreement with MGM.

Collat posted...

There just seems to be this long standing urban legend where Nintendo is sitting on the rights to one specific Bond movie forever even though they haven't touched it in 25 years and other game companies have used it without issue.

It's not an urban legend. The developers literally said this is the case.

Nintendo don't own the rights to Bond or even Goldeneye. They hold some sort of ownership over the specific Goldeneye game they published. Nintendo also cannot do anything with it on their own. It requires approval from Nintendo, Microsoft and MGM due to all three of them having a stake of ownership of the N64 original.

We even have another example of this fairly recently. Disney was able to re-release the Virgin Interactive version of Aladdin no problem. But they haven't re-released the Capcom version. If what you were saying was correct it wouldn't matter because Capcom don't own the rights to Aladdin but clearly that isn't the case. Capcom have some sort of ownership over the SNES game so Disney need to reach and agreement with them if they ever want to re-release it. Likewise Capcom cannot do anything without Disney's approval. This is why movie rights games are often stuck in limbo.

---