patjuan32 said:
jarrod said:
patjuan32 said:
jarrod said:
patjuan32 said:
Garnett said:
Doesnt RARE have to approve of this?
If RARE does approve this, MS better shove its foot so far up RARE's ass that avatar clothes come out , why would they allow it when Nintendo was being greedy with the rights...
But it does sound like Activision is gonna milk this series just like CoD and GH.
|
No, the Bond IP does not belong to Rare. Activision has the license to develop bond games similar to Ubisoft having the rights to develop Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles games. Ubisoft also remade one of Konami's classic games,Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time, with out Konami's permission. Remember Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Reshelled for the XBLA and the PSN.
|
Konami signed off on that btw.
Most speculation is that Rare just didn't retain rights over GE's code in the split, just like they didn't over games with Nintendo licenses (DKC, DKR, SFA, etc). Rare only kept code and properties to original titles (Banjo Kazooie, Killer Instinct, Conker, etc) or games of theirs that pre-existed the Nintendo partnership (Sabrewulf, Battletoads, JetPac, etc).
|
But then why did Goldeneye levels end up in Perfect Dark. A Microsoft representative even stated this as a selling point for the Release of Perfect Dark on the XBLA.
|
Because those levels were in the original PD, and Nintendo still has a decent working relationship with Rare. They had an amicable split, had Nintendo wanted they could've held on to more honestly...
|
Perfect Dark runs on an enhanced version of the GoldenEye engine.This means that Rare actually had the code for GoldenEye. The only thing that they lost was the license.
Ubisoft gave Konami credit for making the game. That still does not mean that they needed Konami's permission to remake the game. That comes from the owner of the IP.
|
No, it just means Rare retained rights over Perfect Dark. Doesn't matter if they reused any code (which they likely did), they own that game, and Nintendo's not going to stand in the way of something like that. They don't own Goldeneye though, since Nintendo had obtained that license and Nintendo held on to everything that was "theirs" in the split.
And did you actually watch the credits link. It literally says "under license" from Konami, Ubisoft isn't crediting them for the hell of it, they paid for it. Developers still retain rights over game design, code and content, even for sublicensed IPs.
