Official M$ Press Release On Rare

Not all xbox games are at Xbox level 8)

The fact is, at the current time, the GC has very few exclusive titles (that could show off the power of the GC) and a lot of multi platform titles. Add the fact that Nintendo does not to seem to put priority on the same technical features that you could find on some xbox games (like bump mapping).

Anyway, the xbox is more powerful than the GC. That is what you can do when you can allow to lose billions of $ on a console, a luxury that Nintendo has not.

 

Quincy

As far as I was aware two sites were reporting it, Planet XBox and IGN XBox. If so many sites had reported it then I would have expected you to pick a more reputable one then IGN XBox, that was my opinion at the time. I looked around at different sites and saw no mention of this story and so my scepticism stayed, especially with the IGN writers obvious lack of knowledge, until I saw something more believable. Apparently though you would just like me to believe every rumour I hear before its even confirmed.

No I'm not, I just said that I would believe that MS had bought those licences after I actually got some evidence of that. What I'm defending is my right to be sceptical of something until I actually see evidence.. what exactly is your problem with that?

Firstly no your not reading them thoroughly enough, that much is obvious from your constant mis-understandings. Secondly it did matter at the time to a degree, because if they don't even know that Nintendo owned these games then they may just have been assuming MS got these licences along with RareWare. In the end that wasn't the case, but it could very well have been the case.

Don't bother trying to pretend your in the right here, you totally mis-understood what was an obvious comment, there's nothing wrong with that, until you start stubornly blaming me for your mis-understanding.

On the contrary its exactly the right time, anyone who believed it from reading one IGN XBox article, like you, did so for obvious reasons

Yeah whatever man, you said ALLOT of different things in those threads.

Does Ozy also have Nintendo pom poms then?.. because he also thinks its an average looking game. If its an average looking game then that means that it looks far worse then allot of GameCube games. If you'd seen anything of this game a while ago before any of this happened you'd have exactly the same opinion, that its an average looking game, but apparently it gets better when someone sticks an XBox sticker on the box

DemoCoder

I don't know who your talking about, because I know I have not changed my opinion on Rare since quite some time ago. But I find it strange that you focus on any GameCube fans that might have suddenly changed there minds on Rare and mention nothing about all the XBox fans that suddenly think Rare are the bees knee's. For instance there are people here who apparently hated every aspect of Goldeneye and even say it was laughable, but now that this deal has happened all of a sudden they can't weight for Rare's first FPS on XBox... not much sense there.

Ozy

You couldn't have picked a worse, more poorly done pic of SMS then that, look at the brightness of the pic. Although yeah overall the textures in SMS aren't too good, but that's Mario for you.

Glonk

I don't know which world your living in mate, but there is nobody here still saying that MS did not get these licences. I said I would not believe it until I saw evidence, then I saw evidence and said I believe it. In fact this is quite funny, because your actually the only person here that still doesn't believe that Nintendo owned all these franchises, not RareWare LTD, and so MS bought them from Nintendo and did not get them free with RareWare. As for proof, here is a financial report (below). It shows that at that time, before the deal with MS, RareWare limited were 49% owned by Nintendo, but Rare Limited, a seperate company is owned 100% by Nintendo, as is Rare Inc, Rare Toys and Games Inc and Rare Acquisition Inc. Therefore RareWare Limited down not own Rare Limited or Rare Inc ect.

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/report/financialstatements_5-30-02.pdf

I think that's the right one, I can't see it at College for some reason.

 

Fine, that's was your opinion, no matter how wrong it was. Anyway, if this was a story on IGN cube you woul have no doubt believed it, and one section of the gaming site is NOT more reliable than the other.

it looked to me like you only looked at one website since all you did was complain about planet xbox and calling them fanboi's. It wasn't a RUMOR Teasy, and your attempt to try and discredit the writter on something irrelevant in his article, was just a waste of time. You know you were wrong so i don't see the point in you defending that.

You can call it being skeptical, but i call it just being ignorant. IGN said they confirmed it and you still didn't believe it. So obviously IGN must be lying or had it wrong because in YOUR eyes it didn't make sense. you keep saying you wanted evidence to prove they really got those game licenses, yet you don't have ANY evidence to believe otherwise.

It's more like you don't know what you're trying to say, or what you are saying doesn't make sense. Which is pretty common from you. When you say stuff like, Rare isn't anything like they once were, they have been going down hill for years. Even though you always include starfox adventures on your list of must have GC titles. Then when starfox comes out and is really good, you claim this is a MUCH better game then the other projects they are working on because nintendo helped them, yet you continue to forget how nintendo helped them with those N64 games when they were going "down hill" in your opinion. That's flip flopping in typical teasy style

In the end you don't really know what happend, do you? Here's a clue, did Nintendo own battletoads? Obvisouly not So some games came over in the deal with RARE. So shut up about it already, it's over. The deal happened, and they got the games they wanted, now get on with your life.

I told you alreayd, but you continue NTO to listen. I read that info elsewhere, and just came across it again at IGn after reading your BS post. How many times to I have to explain that. Either way, your excuse for not believing IGN when they say they confirmed it, is nothing more that typical fanboi BS. you didn't believe it, becuase you didn't want to believe it. you jumped to conclusions, so don't try and make it seem like it was just skepticism. It wasn't IMO. I can also say that arguing with me about is going to solve nothing, becuase nothing you say will change my opinion on it.

yeah a lot of things you can't seem to rember correctly.

No, ozy doesn't have to like a build of the game that only took two weeks to get running on Xbox if he doesn't want to. He also didn't try to claim that the game looks far worse than many GC games and a lot worse then the "last finshed GC game". That's pom pom waving and complete BS.

 

Bryanb

This isn't true at all. The game was started and completed entirely at Rare. They didn't hand any of the devleopment over to nintendo engineers. My god, some of you will think of any excuse to make it seem like this company won't survive or can't make a great game title with out Nintendo.

 

I love Rare. They are among the top coders in the world (along with Factor 5, Bungie, ID, imo). They will be just fine on the Xbox. They will be successful. To what degree remains to be seen. I really dont see them reaching the audience that they did on Nintendo systems..at least not as big of one.

I personally hate the 'kiddizing' of Kameo and Joanna Dark ( think XIII). That move puzzles me with the XB skewed to PC gamers who are into 'older' type games. I'm sure they are trying to 'pull' some Nintendo fans over to XB. But Rare will be fine as will MS (everywhere but Japan). And Nintendo will be keep rolling with the punches as well. It's gonna be neat to see what surprises they have in store as far as developement partners. It's a ton of $$ cheaper to make the deals they are making. It's faster and easier development times. It's profitable for both parties involved. It free's up Nintendo's internal teams to be able to develope lots of games in a shorter amount of time. And besides, Who wouldnt want to work for Nintendo on one of thier worldwide popular franchises? ..oh.. Rare.

EDIT: I can truly say that I'll miss Conker and Banjo the most. The rest MS can have (especially if they go the path the artwork shows). There again I'm interested in any new original games they may show. Also interested in who left and who stayed at Rare as a result of this. Can't wait to see any new Free Radicals this may have created.

 

Ozymandis:

> We need more RPGs on Xbox, so when that game comes out, it'll help
> fill the void a little.

Calling it an RPG is streching it a little...

> I just hope they improve the Gamecube-quality visuals

Please... you sad troll.

SFA from the same company looks significantly better in every aspect. Textures are better, lighting is better, fur shading is better, art direction is better and poly counts are higher. That's not to say that the gfx won't improve (you're stuck with the art though) but considering how slow Rare is (took them 1.5 years to make SFA look decent) there's no way in hell it's not going to look like ass if the spring 2003 release date holds.


Qroach:

> that comment is pathetic.

How was his comment pathetic? Kameo doesn't look good. If you can't admit that I'd say the one who ought to put his pom poms away is you.

 

What's pathetic is the thought that this game looks worse then other GC titles or even the notion that this title won't look good wihtout nintendo's help. anyone that says the game looks worse now then it did on GC is simply being fanish. It's the same game.

They only have been working on porting it for two weeks, and after seeing the video clip, it certainly isn't looking any worse than starfox (which looks good IMO). Don't think that I don't consider you to be a pom pom waver too.

 

Actually no I would not have believed it from IGN Cube either if the article had been as vague and uninformed as the IGN XBox one. I would have brought up the same questions as I did for the IGN XBox article.

I didn't call Planet XBox fanboy's, I said there article was a poor one with no actual conformation at all, just there own opinions. Also I mentioned them because they were the source posted on this thread. What do you want?, me to mention one of the other sites I looked at that I could not find any of this info on?.. your really making no sense at all here.

Until I saw actual conformation that's exactly what it was. A few people on this forum said something and backed it up with a vague and un-informative article from Planet XBox and I'm supposed to suddenly take that as fact? Yeah as more reliable sources came to view it became apparent that it was true, but I think you'll find that un-confirmed truth is a rumour, because how does anyone know something is true before its confirmed?

How many times do I have to say something before it sinks in with you? The article was saying that MS now owned x franchises because they had bought RareWare.. that is wrong and so made the article very suspect, how is that irrelivant? It's irrelivant now obviously, but wasn't at the time.

Of course it turned out to be true that MS got the franchises, but not in the way the guy who wrote the article thought. Which suggests that either he was right by sheer luck or that he did get info to say that MS got the franchises and simply assumed that was because RareWare owned them in the first place. But considering he did not actually give any source for his info I was not sure wether he had gotten any real confirmation or wether he might have just been confusing RareWare with Rare.

And BTW I was not wrong, go back to my posts, I did not say that MS deffinately did not get these franchises. What I did say is that I questioned the validity of the info I was seeing in this thread because it looked to me like the article could have been basing its info on incorrect assumptions. Because of that I would not believe this was the absolute truth until I saw something more solid. I didn't even say for sure that I deffinately thought that the article was wrong, I even questioned my own reasoning on thinking that it was wrong (obviously you ignored that) but still thought that the article wasn't really good enough to be 100% sure the story was true.

And how did they confirm it?, they didn't even say. How did I know what he meant by confirmed? At the time, for all we know, they could have looked at copyrights, saw that Rare LTD had the rights to the games, confused RareWare LTD with Rare LTD (which they did in that very article) and then that would, to them, have confirmed that MS now had those licences.

Your really not thinking before you type here. Nintendo owned all of those franchises, so until I heard different they still owned them, that is just simple logic. Something is the way you know it to be until you are shown that it has changed. I'll put it this way, just for you. Say you own a car, you park it and go into a pub. A bloke you know, but don't particularly trust, comes in and tells you its not where you parked it. Now what are you going to do?.. remain skeptical about this until you see for sure that its not parked there (after all you know you parked it there) or just believe the bloke on the spot and take the bus home.. after all it might have been stolen.. maybe I mean common, this is pathetic, I express some mis-givings about information that has not been confirmed in anyway (at that time, obviously it has been now) and suddenly I'm being unreasonable for doing so.

I just wanted to leave it and not bother with this but you won't let it go. Lets look at the comments that started all this shall we.

First Glonk said:

I then replied with:

At that point its clear that I'm arguing with someone on the point that Nintendo did own all of the franchises before they went to MS. How is that not clear?

You then replied with

I was perfectly happy to just explain what I meant to you and leave it at that, but then you come along and have the cheek to put the blame for the mis-understanding on me.

So its repeating myself time again now is it?, oh well I've come to expect that several times a post with you.

At first, to me, RareWare were fantastic.. gaming gods, even Nintendo didn't match them. What was this due to?.. one thing, Goldeneye. I played Goldeneye both one player and two player for years, it was my favourite game of all time, a masterpeice. So saying that RareWare are not what they once were does not mean that RareWare are crap, it means they are not what they once were IMO. The problem with RareWare is if they are not absolutely fantastic then its hard to justify the time they spend on games. SFA is apparently a very good game, but for the time it took you need it to be nothing short of exceptional if its going to be worth paying so much money for them.

RareWare had been working on SFA for almost 5 years, also Nintendo did allot of work on SFA. So yes I would have been very suprised if it had turned out as not a very good game and so obviously it would go on my big game list.

I've never said that AFAIR, but please feel free to post the quote were I said that.

Every game they made on N64 was of a high standard, but I only ever owned Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, and Perfeck Dark was disapointing given how fantastic Goldeneye was. Of course by then they had already lost key members of the team. Nothing else Rare ever made was anywhere near as good as Goldeneye IMO. Still quality though, and I would be suprised if they didn't keep making quality games, but I'm not sure how quickly they'll make them.

Err, yeah I do, MS bought the licence to all the games RareWare had worked on that did not include characters created directly by Nintendo. Again your totally missing the point, this is not about what I know now, it is about what I knew when I first questioned that article.

Obviously not?.. how do you know? According to the copyrights for Battle Toads the owner was Rare LTD.. a 100% owned subsidiary of Nintendo.

Oh my, your the one going on about it, your the one crying and complaining that I didn't immediately believe whatever I'm told. If you get on with your life and stop arguing over my right to be skeptical then I can get on with mine.

Oh yeah of course, you er.. read it somewhere but er.. can't remember where so I'll just have to make do with a link to IGN XBox and a massively vague and un-informed article. Frankly Quincy I would not trust you as far as I could throw you so until I saw a reliable source, like the one Cybamerc gave me, I was not going to believe 100% that the info was true.

I said I would not take it as real evidence due to the fact that it was a dubious article, that is being skeptical not saying outright 100% that the article was wrong. Go on, post a quote from me were I said catagorically that the article was wrong and that MS did not get the franchises mentioned. You can't do it because I said no such thing.

I wouldn't expect it too because unfortunately your opinion makes no sense and is based on nothing but blind love of the XBox, its impossible to argue against nonesense. But if you think I'm going to stop arguing so you can feel good about yourself that you won an argument, well sorry its not going to happen.

I don't need to remember, I saw the thread recently. You said many things, like the fact that RareWare just would not go on as an exclusive dev. They had to leave to be third party and if Nintendo would not allow them to be third party the staff would leave and make there own company. Well their desire of being third party must have disapeared rather rapidly as soon as MS made an offer, strange. From wanting to have more control about which console they deved for, and being owned 49% by Nintendo, they went to not caring about making games for more then one console and were 100% owned by MS.

Heh, but I do.. yeah that's logic for you.

He said that the game looked average, that means it has to look worse, in his opinion, then many GameCube games (Rogue Leader, SFA to name just two GameCube games that look very nice indeed).

So because I think that SFA looks allot better then Kameo I'm "pom pom" waving?, you just have to get a grip you really do.

 

How is it pathetic to think that Kameo looks worse then other GameCube titles?, it looks worse then Rogue Leader, it looks worse then SFA, it looks worse then Metroid Prime, it looks worse then quite a few GameCube games. Surely your not really trying to tell me that Kameo looks at least equal to the best looking games on GameCube?

Who said that?

Heh, Cybamerc isn't in your class of pom pom waving Quincy, your in a whole different pom pom waving league to him man.

 

My thoughts:

Cybamerc + Teasy = Nintendo pom pom boys.

Kameo = Great art design + good GCN-quality graphics that will hopefully improve.

QRoach, I admire your patience but this discussion isn't really worth your time. 8)

 

Johnny Awesome, your a troll mate, as shown by that rather pathetic post. When someone starts posting things like someone = something its not very far away from saying things like L33T and sux ect.

Its also very sad that you admire Quincy simply because you two share a fanatical irrational love of XBox.

 

Teasy,

Since you couldn't find the quote that proved this was the case in the article cyber pointed out, you must not be reading these articles completely, becuase the IGN article was NOT vauge OR uninformed. They clearly stated that the CONFIRMED the information was true. Also, you argued in the past that IGN cube was more reliable than IGN xbox. So now your saying you were wrong regarding that?

I'm not wrong, Teasy YOU were wrong. End of story...

(edit: I added the word fanboi since the forum removed the word)

Teasy, yes you did call them that. When you said:

"I'll doubt it no-longer though if we actually get something official rather then the king of the XBox fan-boy sites (Planet XBox)".

Do you remember saying that? This is what I'm talking about when i say you aren't reading things. You haven't even read what you've written.

I am? You're the person not making sense here. You don't even know what you've been writting. Not to mention the fact your still arguing something you were clearly wrong about, and trying to back your reasoning with something totally irrelevant.

You saw CONFIRMATION on IGN, yet you still didn't believe it.

When an actual new website that was at the X02 event reports that they confirmed this information to be true. Then you can, or at least should believe them. You don't have any real reason to doubt them, other than the fact you don't want to.

Again, are you blind? I can see exactly why you pointed that out. The only reason you mentioned this as your "reason" for the article being suspect is because YOU don't want to believe it. in your eyes, if other parts of the article sdon't seem accurate, then the entire article is not accurate. As i menitoned before and you still argue, that part of the article isn't relevant to IGN saying they confirmed something to be true!

Yes it turned out to be true, becuase they actually got confirmation at the X02 event that this was the case. "Sheer luck"? omigod, you'll find any excuse to try and not think you were not correct in your intial assumption.

Earth to blind guy, I told you before that i read about it elsewhere. I didn't see it on IGN until you made your rather uninformed post.

IGN was at the X02 reporting on the entire event. Take a wild guess!

I'm not the one that won't let this go? do you even know what you are arguing over anymore teasy? you arguing for your stance on something you compeltely had wrong.

A comment like this coming from the person still arguing over nothing? very funny

They have NOT been working on this game for almost 5 years! where do you get this garbage? This game was once going to be called dinosaur planet before Nintendo wanted them to make it into a starfox game. nintendo didn't help with the programing or art, so other than some of the design changes i doubt they had any mroe invovlement then other projects at Rare.

It was implied.

That is the first reasonable thing you've said in this thread. I agree.

So what about games like battletoads? Nintendo didn't own the rights to that game. how can they sell what they don't own?

...and what made you think Rare LTD is 100% owned by Nintendo? They didn't own 100% of the shares in teh company. So how could they own everyhing they developed 100%?

You can tell me to get on with my life, ok fine, I HAVE. It's you that hasn't and it's exactly why you keep bringing up this Rare LTD garbage over and over. Forget about it teasy....

Ha, that's funny, do you really think i care if you would trust me? With your track record, I wouldn't believe a thing you've been saying.

Yet you continue on with more nonesense... go figure.

Oh, LOL, now that comment takes the cake. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Isn't that smart?

 

Johhhny, i agree

Teasy,

LOl! Funny, how we were arguing about all this before Xbox was even invovled. If anyone here has an "irrational love towards and inanimate object, it's yourself. The way you rabidly defend it, you'd think it was your child.

 

Btw Teasy, I guess you were wrong about who owned some of the game properties.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/812540.asp?0dm=C11MT

I suspect you won't trust this article, or find some way to discredit the author. Perhaps you want to argue with Hochberg (american co founder of Rare) about who really owned these licenses?

As I said previously I'm sure there was some dispute over who owned what. Nintendo, however didn't OWN everything. The way I see it, if Nintendo really owned anything Rare worked on you would see the Nintendo name on the trademark. The only game that happend for was Diddy Kong racing.

 

Just for the people interested. Have a look at Dinosaur planet (Star Fox Adventures before it was changed on the N64) looked pretty good for a N64 game.

http://www.mystdrag.com/dinosaurplanet01.mov

Some might recognize some of the stuff in the video...

 

This discussion is hilarious. The whole arguments of GC crowd regarding who owns rights to what was based on the single link on Nintendo's website that listed how the companies are related to Nintendo. It was posted over and over and over again (and I see Teasy did it yet again here), as an unimpeachable proof that MS is not going to get any licenses out of this deal. The argument went something like this: "Well, this and that was devloped/publisehd by X, and X is a part of Nintendo, hence Nintendo owns this and that." Newsflash: The glorious link to nintendo.com didn't say who owns rights to any of the software in question. Just because someone develops something doesn't mean that they came up with the premise and own rights to it.

LOL - Quincy had evidence to back up his beliefs. You had... nothing, except for massive denial. There is that subtle difference between believing in what suits you while having evidence to back it up and believing (or in this case, not) with 0 evidence to back up your position (save the aforementioned link of glory). So Teasy, do tell: when did IGN Xbox that you worked so hard to discredit posted some outrageous rumor that was 100% false? In other words, what so undermines their credibility in your eyes, besides them posting the news that Teasy does not appreciate? And "uniformed" article? THEY were right, YOU were wrong... so who here is the uninformed one, exactly?

Link? Magazine reference? ANYTHING?

 

Just for curiosity, the Microsoft PR just said that Rare games averaged at 1.4M (Ed Fries) and that total sale sof Rare games at 90M (J Allard)

That means, they have released like 60 Million seller (on average)

my god, Rare should have bought Nintendo with all this money.

You should stop with this talk. your messages are so long you are the only one to read it.

 

Why are u guys still arguing IP's? Who cares? The deal is over. BTW the interview of the Stampers is up....

" We've just reached a point where we changing direction, but we still have a great relationship with them and we still have some Game Boy titles that we'll be delivering for Nintendo. "

Chris Stamper said that. They also said there was no "rift" with Nintendo. No haggles over IP's at all. They even had the deal worked out in less than a day (the IP's part). So alot of people were way wrong on several fronts. They stated that they left Nintendo for a "change in directions"...not because of Nintendo bullying them or telling them what to do. I think they should just come out and say "we could not control our erections after seeing the $$ MS held in front of us"..but oh well..that's not good PR speak..albeit probably some truth to it..haha.

I'm not sure why Nintendo would still let Rare/MS put GBA games out. It's plain the GBA does not need Rare/MS. I just dont see what Nintendo has to gain from that move. Any ideas?

 

As far as I know, Nintendo has the rights to make the rules for admission on GBA as they will, but they can not change them nor prevent some dev which satisfies the rules from developpping on GBA.

The rules are simple (if I am not wrong): either you are a GBC dev and you can get GBA dev kits, or you have to dev GC games as the same time you develop on GBA.

Square satisfies the second rule, Rare satisfies both rules.

 

You're not going to see any mention of bad blood between MS/Rare and Nintendo. Airing something like that to the public would no doubt result in some sort of lawsuit. Or, part of the deal would require either side to be quiet about the circumstances behind everything.

You're right though Goldni, arguing baout this IP is a total waste of time considering how the deal has been finalized.

I think nintendo is letting them release games on GBA becuase they will still make money off those games.