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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
you keep saying you wanted evidence to prove they really got those game licenses, yet you don't have ANY evidence to believe otherwise.
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.
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.
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'd like to issue a BIG thank you to all of the people who through thinly veiled insults at me when I questioned their assertion that Nintendo "owns" the company that trademarked Perfect Dark et al. and MS wouldn't get them.
I then replied with:
Even if people deny that Nintendo own Rare LTD 100% (the company that allot of those games are registered too), which is a silly thing to do considering the facts, you still cannot deny that Nintendo own (directly) allot of the games that Planet XBox claims MS will now get. Killer Instinct, for instance, is one of the games mentioned that is trademarked in Nintendo of America's name!
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
Teasy, as far as we know MS/Rare owns these titles now. IGn got confirmation on this.
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.
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
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.
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
I've never said that AFAIR, but please feel free to post the quote were I said that.
yet you continue to forget how nintendo helped them with those N64 games when they were going "down hill" in your opinion.
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.
In the end you don't really know what happend, do you?
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.
Here's a clue, did Nintendo own battletoads? Obvisouly not So some games came over in the deal with RARE
Obviously not?.. how do you know? According to the copyrights for Battle Toads the owner was Rare LTD.. a 100% owned subsidiary of Nintendo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yeah a lot of things you can't seem to rember correctly.
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.
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.
Heh, but I do.. yeah that's logic for you.
He also didn't try to claim that the game looks far worse than many GC games
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).
and a lot worse then the "last finshed GC game". That's pom pom waving and complete BS.
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.
