GoldenEye 007 Designer Says Remake Motivated By Money

[Assassin Xaero]

Activision doing something purely for money and not out of wanting to make people happy or doing it because they enjoying making games? Nah... That is about as surprising as it will be if (when) Duke Nukem Forever gets delayed again.

But I can forgive them if I still get my P90/grenade launcher combo...

 

[rossatdi]

Because everyone knows the best games are only made by charities. Same goes with films, music and books.

 

[CroutonsOfDeath]

the point about this being a business or not is irrelevant really, that's not the point he's making and if you don't get that, look harder.

I can hear the cogs grinding from lack of use.

what he's getting at is that Activision is what EA used to be. You know all those EA Sports titles that had/have no soul and are just one bland mess with almost no redeeming qualities? They make money or they wouldn't exist. Do you buy them? I hope not. I don't, and I'd like to see them die a quick, efficient demise.

They aren't made for the sake of making a good game which would hopefully turn a profit by, oh I don't know, being a good game. They are made for the sake of exploiting idiots everywhere with more money than sense.

I can understand his consternation, ego driven or not.

Hah, here I was writing my post in the usual fashion of not really reading other peoples comments and I was just about to make this point when I saw you had already made it.

I do admit that I want to believe this could be a decent game but the second I heard the word "New GoldenEye game!" I went "Oh god are they pulling a 'Rogue Agent' on us?" When Rogue Agent came out, EA had proven they could do a good Bond game yet that games unimpressive blandness was obviously only titled "GoldenEye" to make people shell out thinking it would actually live up to the name.

The reason I want to believe this might be decent simply lies in the fact that I think TreyArch has definitely taken steps in the right direction in making semi-decent Wii shooters in the CoD 4 Reflex and World at War ports on a system whose only real good real time FPS (Real time as in not rail gun) prior was the Metroid Prime trilogy disc and obviously that was a different breed of FPS. I don't see any point in making it a GoldenEye game other than the aforementioned "Let's bank in on a name sure to sell!" but even so if it ends up being a decent Wii shooter AND a decent Bond game, I'll be happy. But rentals before purchases, and even if I do like it on rental if it's 60 bucks I'm going to be ticked.

 

[Jonny49]

Well...yeah. The games industry, like every industry, is a business.

Make money or fail.

 

[oktalist]

Oh my... A product that is made because of money... No, that just can't be.

Seriously, I don't like Activision myself, but you can't be such a baby face. Really, I don't care whether you made GoldenEye or Halo, you don't get to make such ridiculous comments.

Exactly what part of the following do you find ridiculous?

"I imagine it is a business decision isn't it? This name is valuable, let's use it. I find it hard to picture Activision's top management being excited about the original and wanting to do it justice. In fact, I find it hard to imagine them being excited about any game. It's my perception that they are trying to be EA, only more so. I think they are doing a fine job at that."

 

[Rutskarn]

What an amazing and incredible surprise.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Exactly what part of the following do you find ridiculous?

"I imagine it is a business decision isn't it? This name is valuable, let's use it. I find it hard to picture Activision's top management being excited about the original and wanting to do it justice. In fact, I find it hard to imagine them being excited about any game. It's my perception that they are trying to be EA, only more so. I think they are doing a fine job at that."

Okay, let's rock.

I imagine it is a business decision isn't it?

Well, no shit.

I find it hard to picture Activision's top management being excited about the original and wanting to do it justice.

Well, no shit, again. It's a remake, a GoldenEye at that one. What justice could you do to that game. You don't fix what ain't broken and GoldenEye wasn't broken.

In fact, I find it hard to imagine them being excited about any game. It's my perception that they are trying to be EA, only more so. I think they are doing a fine job at that.

Now, do you see what I'm talking about. If no, here's how I view it: "I am not going to get any revenue from this remake so I'm pretty sad and, therefore, should at least smear the company that is going to get money from this. But, hey, I don't have anything of any substance to say about them, I'll just state the obvious and, since this is the most universally loathed company ever, that'll turn everyone against the remake".

 

[demoman_chaos]

The point he is getting at is they are just using the name Goldeneye. How many people bought the UFC game just because of the UFC in the name? How many bought the new Banjo game because of Banjo?
They are abusing the name.

 

[Dejanus]

Kind of a pointless argument. In the games industry everything is motivated at least partly by money, and any amount of greed does not erase the fact that this was one of the most asked-after remakes prior to announcement. The demand was obviously there, so of course Activision jumped. I don't get off defending Kotick-Satan and his flunkies, but I am actually glad this is being made.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

but WHY do a remake? I mean, it's the WII. Wii's can't do shooters.

Maybe they wanted to stay true to Nintendo since the original was on the N64? But you're right.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Activision want more money. Here's Bob with the news.

Honestly? BlizzAct have already proved they're not just in bed with Capitalism but ....

I really can't finish that metaphor without squicking myself out.

 

[The_Puppy_Prince]

Meh it's a shooter for the wii so it's not like it's going to be good anyway.

Good Point

 

[droppingpenny]

Is this a bird, ist this a plane? No, it's Captain Obvious!

 

[The Rockerfly]

This picture sums up my reaction to this article perfectly

 

[commiedic]

Yea I don't seeing this do nearly as well anyways. Look at the past and now. When Goldeneye was originally released N64 was the system to own. No PS or XBOX maybe Sega Genesis, but that was outdated by the N64. Everyone owned the same console and bought the same games and people would bring over their copy to friends houses, but now you have Xbox 360, and PS3, Computers which are way bigger than they were then. Yea first you have people who don't even own a Wii and you have people who would rather not spoil the originals glory without Pierce Brosnan. Don't get me wrong it could be fun, but fuck a remake of Goldeneye without its original cast.

 

[oktalist]

snip

So, not so much ridiculous as obvious.

Just making sure you weren't just reacting to the headline "GoldenEye 007 Designer Says Remake Motivated By Money," which was a bit of an over-simplification. He was not saying that business should never enter into the equation at all. Just that the use of the GoldenEye name was a bit cheap.

Still, it's fairly rich coming from Martin Hollis, as since finishing with Nintendo in 2000, he has produced nothing but casual puzzle games. How's that for financially motivated, Martin?

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Maybe he's mad because they're pissing on the source material (changing Bond) and going for the obvious cash-grab (releasing it only on Wii where they can charge $50 instead of the $10-15 it would be on PS3 and 360), rather than making a true port that everyone can enjoy.

That and jealousy of course.

 

[GideonB]

This is probably true.
Hell I'd go for a VC port of the original game with online multiplayer compared to this. I prefer and want that. MUCH MORE.