Topic: Nintendo 64 games

I don't know if Microsoft would go that far considering they themselves are releasing older Rare games on Xbox Live Arcade.

They released both Banjo titles and Perfect Dark years ago (And tried and failed to get permission from Activision to get a sub-license for the James Bond franchise in order to rerelease Goldeneye). There's no sign of anything else being released.

Since they're not currently doing anything there that we're aware of, it shouldn't be worded as if they're actively engaged in remastering past classics for XBLA.

Would be neat to see a few Rare games that weren't deemed worthy of being ported to Xbox platforms or with modern entries on Microsoft systems, appearing here instead (Like Blast Corps, Jet Force Gemini, and the R.C. Pro-Am franchise).

Have you seen the article about the XBox boss (whatever his name is, lol) saying that they worked with Nintendo on Rare IPs before with no problems? lol
So yeah that has just made me think is Banjo and Gemini could be possible still.

Don't forget Conker. I would love some Conker's Bad Fur Day VC. But that's not likely to happen considering project spark will have conker in it.

Edit: Also Blast Corps, that game was great!

@Bass_X0 @Grumblevolcano @GoneFishin

If the DS version of Diddy Kong Racing was released then there would be no multiplayer obviously, Nintendo would want to avoid this obviously as the multiplayer was easily the best part of this game. Never owned the N64 version but played it with friends on a few occasions and loved it.
On the other hand though, they did release Mario Kart DS with zero multiplayer options and unless you enjoy the single player then it's a no go.

@Yellowtails

Mario Party 1 won't happen, Nintendo had a lawsuit with the rotating stick minigames and had to issue Gamer gloves on request. Mario Party 2 is very likely and Mario Party 3 could happen if Hudson games are still able to be released now, haven't seen a classic Bomberman game on Wii U yet though.

@StaticWind

Got the 3DS version of Mario Golf recently and I'm enjoying that, I'm a bit skeptical about picking the older titles up though. I keep seeing them on the Wii/Wii U shops and talk myself out of buying them. Would you recommend them as a good single player experience?
Mario Golf 64 is on the Wii shop and so is Mario Tennis 64.

Paper Mario, Yoshi's Story and Kirby 64 come to mind

A scenario that might work for Microsoft is to allow Nintendo to release their Rare games on VC to coincide with/precede a new entry in the series to encourage media/gamer attention on the series as a way to advertise the new entry on XBone, promoting game and console sales for MS (a new Banjo is a far out rumour for E3 and there's that Conker/Project Spark thing). V. unlikely, but we can dream right?

I'll add Mischief Makers, Killer Instinct Gold and Goemons Great Adventure.

That's it. From now on, I'm calling him Xboss.
@Flopsy86 I can't recommend any older Mario Golfs since I haven't played them. However, I can definitely recommend Mario Tennis as a fun single player experience. I still come back to it sometimes myself. The tournament mode can get pretty challenging, the music is neat, and just about all of the modes provide something interesting. Looking up some snippets of the game-play would give you a taste of what they're like. With that said, you'd have even more fun if you play with others.

If Nintendo could get Banjo Kazooie, Tooie and Conker's Bad Fur Day on Wii U Virtual Console, that would be the best thing ever bar none.

Other than that... well, it'd be neat to see Diddy Kong Racing, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, the second and third Mario Party games (with multiplayer if possible), etc. I'd also love to see a Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 rerelease, but given the lack of transfer pack compatibility with the VC, not sure it'd be possible.

Not gonna happen

But you have to admit, it would be great if it did, right?

Goldeneye specially. I haven't played this game in years.
Hope Nintendo work something out with Microsoft to get it released.

I don't get why people can't understand that Goldeneye will not get re-released.

It's not even an issue just between MS and Nintendo; there are many more parties involved who would never deem it worthwhile. There would have to be deals with the former Bond franchise rights-holder and the current Bond franchise rights-holder, as well as having to negotiate deals for the likenesses of Pierce Brosnan, Famke Janssen and the other actors involved.

Long story short - never going to happen.

While I don't know about any actor likenesses and suspect they'd be easily addressed with minor modifications to the game itself if they didn't want to reacquire a license, the only issue that held it up the last time from appearing on Xbox Live Arcade was securing the James Bond licensing. Without that, they'd of had to strip the heart and soul of the game out by excising that IP from it, leaving it just a hollow shell of its former shelf. A Rare bigwig talked about that publicly about how Activision, MGM, and other necessary license holders (The actor's licenses you referenced, presumably) were the roadblock.

So the gist of it was that Microsoft/Rareware needed the rights holder of the James Bond videogaming license, which was Activision at that time, to play ball in order to make this happen. Activision was willing, but with one condition. They wanted Nintendo to unofficially write off on this in order to protect their good relationship with them, since they didn't want to ruffle any feathers at Nintendo by cooperating in getting such an iconic game that was closely associated with Nintendo onto a competing platform.

Sadly, the word came down from Nintendo that they'd prefer if it didn't happen. Reportedly, Rare was even willing to allow the N64 original to make a Virtual Console appearance, but Nintendo wasn't able to be persuaded and backed out from the deal. So Activision sadly turned down that request and the rest is history.

There's no evidence that Nintendo has any ownership there and that this game is in a different situation than something like Perfect Dark is (And why would they prototype something and almost finish it if a competing console manufacturer held the keys to it being allowed to be released). And there definitely isn't a former and a current rights holder for the James Bond videogame rights. When an agreement ends and another company bids and wins the rights to exploit this franchise in this medium, the previous licensee doesn't hold on to any sort of residual rights afterwards.

They'd be out of the picture.

All the internet "experts" claimed that with Earthbound, largely due to a single site popularizing some rather far fetched claims as they stretched to support their theory that it was now un-releasable (Ignoring facts like how it had been rated by the ESRB in the 2000's, had already been rereleased in Japan, or the very fact that it was released in the first place with no resulting litigation). Yet look what happened.

It appeared and other than Nintendo's usual Virtual Console habit of excising screen flashes from their classic games, it was left untouched. Nothing was edited, no signs of copyright notices acknowledging that anyone else's IP is being used with their permission, etc.

Earthbound and GoldenEye are vastly different situations. Licensing issues for GoldenEye (particularly those related to the Screen Actors Guild) are very real, as opposed to the speculation that surrounded the supposed music licensing issues connected to Earthbound. None of that was ever confirmed or verified, it was all just speculation (admittedly, speculation which was logical, if not verified) on the part of fans.

As i mentioned above, there are way too many moving parts for it to happen. The contracts that would have to be negotiated and the percentages that would have to be paid to several different parties make it an economically undesirable. Nintendo would likely end up barely making enough profit to pay the coding and server costs that would be required for a release. Add to that the fact that Activision would more than likely view such a release as potential to poach sales of its "remake", and we have a situation where its not going to happen.

Anyone who wants to play the original game would be best served by just buying the original cart.

The point was that fanbase speculation, is fanbase speculation. That's all your post is.

Again, there's no evidence for starters that Nintendo even holds any rights to this and that it's in some sort of different situation than a title like Perfect Dark or the Banjo titles. So strike Nintendo from the conversation since it isn't their property.

Secondly, the actor's likenesses could easily be excised, with little negative effect on the game itself. So if they don't want to up for such licenses for a handful of low quality character faces, it's easily worked around.

Third, Activision is letting their 007 license lapse according to what I've read. It may have already happened, and it won't be getting renewed. What makes you think that it's so impractical for Rareware/Microsoft to deal with MGM directly in securing the necessary license to this franchise to make this remastering finally be releasable on XBLA for the 360?

Rareware owns the game itself, MGM is the licensor of the movie franchise itself, and then, there's the actor likenesses. Nothing that should be a major stumbling block. And one is obviously no issue unless we're talking about the foolish hope of it appearing out of the blue on the Wii U Virtual Console. If it ever gets rereleased, it's obviously going to be on a Microsoft system unless something major changes somewhere.

Nintendo was only even in the conversation back around 2006/2007 or so, because of Activision.

I'd like if they released the N64 Mario Party games (2 and 3, 1 is out of the question and we all know it). It would go great for when I have people over and play Mario Party 10 (I do have the old games, but hooking up old systems and using old, worn-out controllers is more trouble than it's worth). As for the rest that I care about (Conker, Banjo, and Perfect Dark), I have my Xboxes for those. I can't really think of anything else... Oh well. Good thing it's Nintendo's job to pick the games out, not that they're very good at it...

Why is Mario Party 1 out of the question? Just because it didn't appear on the Wii Virtual Console? I hate to tell you, but again, that's merely speculation and nothing more. It too was Hudson developed and Nintendo published just as the following two were, with no factual difference apparent between its situation and the sequels.

The Nintendo 64 emulator on the Wii was very lackluster and required a high degree of title specific customization to get a game properly running on it (As explained in interviews with Natsume and others). Mario Party 3 also didn't appear, so how do you explain why they sat on that one if you're presumably theorizing that the "glove controversy" was behind MP1 being absent?

My impression is that MP2 was the one that was most loved by the fans, so why couldn't that form the basis for it being selected to represent this series in what was an expensive and time consuming process to get a N64 title running?

That said, my hunch is that it indeed did play a role in the decision to skip over the original and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen yet again despite the Wii U's presumably much more robust N64 emulator that can run probably most anything thrown at it without much title specific customization. But the point is, we simply don't know since we're not privy to that detail.

Fans need to stop trying to portray their theories as something more. We're all guilty of it at times, but all too often, our speculation ends up taking root without any real basis to support it.

My guess is the N64 on Wii U is better than that of the Wii, so far Mario 64 runs pretty solid