Yes. Also, that must be why I never get any ;(
Printable View
Yes. Also, that must be why I never get any ;(
At least you get plenty of sand from the vagina fairy.
At least YOU get plenty of sand from the Jerk Store Fairy.
You were saying the problem was the license, not that it's third-party. Nintendo clearly has generous policies in place already for putting up third-party content - Castlevania IV, Solomon's Key, Gradius, Xevious, SFII, R-Type III, Contra III, and the entire Genesis and TG16 lineups say hello. The only question is whether Activision wants to board the money-for-next-to-no-effort train.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
What? The problem is that they would have to pay someone for the license. What's so hard about that? The biggest problem is Nintendo most likely wouldn't pay the money Activision wanted. That's what I said from the get-go.
Activision still has the license. They wouldn't need to pay for it again. It would just be a matter of Activision agreeing to put content on the VC as several other third parties have already done. I think it's reasonable to assume it's not a matter of Nintendo making an up-front payment to the third parties, but rather agreeing to give them some portion (probably half or better, if the fact that anyone is playing along is any indication) of the revenue generated by their games - otherwise, you're right, Nintendo would probably low ball them and we wouldn't be seeing ANY third party support, as most would rather just make their own compilation discs (as many are still doing anyway) and keep ALL the revenue themselves.
I suppose it's premature to talk about a specific title when Activision has yet to sign on, but if and when they do, the fact that the title in question is licensed shouldn't be an issue given that they still control the license in question.
If only I still had a (working) DC. But thanks for the heads-up, I'll look into that if I ever get another one.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Virtual Console games are, apparently, doing well. The only real question in Activision's mind is whether or not publishing Spiderman on the N64 is worth the licensing fee. With Spiderman 3 coming out this summer I'd think it would be a no-brainer, honestly.
The question would be more easily answered if we knew the terms of Activision's license. We don't, so it's all speculation, but you'd think it would be easy money if they tied it in to the movie.
James
Why would Activision only want as much money from Nintendo for a Spider-Man game as Hudson would want from a game that no one knows what the hell it is? Activision and the fact that they hold the license isn't the problem here. The problem lies with Nintendo and them not wanting to pay Activision the money to put the game on the service.
This has turned into the worst Wii thread yet, and that is an amazing feat.