The game hasn't aged well, as bardicverse said, some things are better left in the past.

 The Banjo IP is owned by Rare/Microsoft so Nintendo has absolutely no control over it so why would it matter if they were cool with it being released on XBLA or not?  Also the players in all this were Rare/Microsoft, Activision, and Nintendo.  If Rare/Microsoft made the game then they were obviously onboard.  It's also hard to believe that Activision would want to hurt relations with Microsoft over Goldeneye.  What possible reason would they have considering the sales of the Guitar Hero and Call of Duty series on the 360?  So wouldn't it be logical to conclude that Nintendo is likely was the reason why it hasn't been released?

Why did MS not get the rights to the game before they invested money to make an XBLA version? That is just stupid.

I can see Nintendo's reasoning. Nintendo gets the original game, and MS get an updated, better version? Why would they ever agree to that?

I can't believe the people whining about this (less so in this forum than elsewhere,) making claims of greed by Nintendo. I suppose said people would want Nintendo to relinquish all rights to Zelda as well.

Nintendo is a company with competition. Why on earth would Nintendo make a deal that in their opinion would help their competitor, and hinder themselves? Simply because the Microsoft fanbase demands it? If a deal was struck in which the pros outweigh the cons, you better believe Nintendo would make the deal.

This is not about ego, its about business, and you do not give away freebees to your competition.

People need to grow up.

There are two sides to every story -- at least.

Here, we are hearing one. The side from the party that appears to have the most to gain if this deal went down. We do not hear from the side from which they would be making said gains.

It is possible that Nintendo is upset about not being contacted BEFORE all this started -- business manners are much more important in other cultures.

It is possible that Microsoft/Rare was going to let Nintendo release the N64 version only while it had the updated version. The article is silent on whether there was a Wii remake, but two factors show this is a possibility. First, the pix were both from the XBLA version. Second, the discussion talking about the photos talked about options of the HD version and how good it looked. (And you can't do HD graphics on a Wii).

So Nintendo, upset over what it saw as a breach of protocol and an unauthorized update to a game for which it had ownership rights, decided it did not want it released on a competitor's consoles where it would outshine what its console could do (graphically) -- and it gets called greedy and stubborn. It may very well be those things -- most big companies are (think Microsoft is not, or Sony, or Apple) -- but here it seems to have some good reasons for its decisions as well.

And has been posted before, Goldeneye was fun when there was nothing else better. It may not be as fun today.

Mike from Morgantown

PS -- I predict that Nintendo will NOT elect to put any game where it has lost ownership rights and the franchise has moved to another console on the VC. (In other words, don't hold your breath for any Rare games).

It sounds to me like MS is getting in the way of Goldeneye coming to its true home, Nintendo's Virtual Console

No....Microsoft offered, at a minimum, Goldeneye to go to VC. Nintendo didn't want just that.

Although it'd be interesting to hear Nintendo's side, we've heard Microsoft and Rare's side (supposedly). Maybe the Nintendo side hasn't spoken up because they are truly at fault?

Why not release it on VC? It's not like Nintendo will fail to make millions from it.

Can someone explain to me what can Nintendo do to stop this game from being released on XBLA?

They can sue if it is. They own the licesing rights and it can't be published i n any form without their approval.

Guys, Please stop responding to this argument. This is info stated on a blog. If Activision actually said this then why are respectable gaming site like IGN, Gamespot, or 1up.com not reporting this. It would be a big story and they would press Nintendo for an answer.

As I've stated time and time again, Activision, Nintendo, nor Microsoft own the rights to James Bond. MGM does and they have the only say as to what happens with the James Bond license.

Seriously, this argument is just bull. Hopefully, this story dies.