Sadly the Phantom Dust port is basically the original Xbox game at 1080P with Microtransactions and DLC. They don't have the source code anymore to even remaster it properly. It's a 2003 game running at a higher resolution. It's going to look extremely ugly and feel very dated, it had better not be a full priced release.

Personally I say buy the original Xbox game and emulate it on the Xbox 360.

The proper Phantom Dust sequel hasn't been cancelled though, apparantly they are still looking for a developer.

No probably not the bigger things in business or financial terms. But I assume them to be clever enough, to be able to change minor things. For instance the arrangement of game announcements during the presentation, take-in or take-out of game announcements

Will MS have RDR2 in their presentation perhaps, with some kind of exclusive deal of DLC? Or perhaps Sony has snapped that aswell.

The original game running at a higher resolution is fine, as long as its not broken. They apparently made this port via reverse engineering so they could do a "proper remaster."

I don't think it matters if they have the original source code. Its evident they can figure it out if they put the effort (i.e. money).

They updated the online portion of the game to work on X1 while the original Xbox servers are shut down. For those who want to play online, the original version wouldn't work. Also, getting an original copy is expensive.

Are you really entertaining the idea it could be a full price game? Voodoo Vince just released for $15. I think Phantom Dust will be $20.

Whether or not a sequel happens depends on how this does. I hope they put it on Steam because there may be an audience there.

Microsoft needs to learn that givng their IP's to third party is not always a great thing. They would be wiser to create a Retro Studios/ Sony Santamonica, which is good at making every style of game so they can resurface old IP with better quality control. The fact that I can detail how they can fix this shows just how much Microsoft is lacking in the development and creativity department. They can scare off bungie by not wanting them to create a new IP and can make a dedicated studio to Halo, but not one for resufacing known IP? Thats ridiculous. They need to treat Microsoft studios like a real studio and not just a publshing house.

Taking the original game and running it at a higher resolution is great. But I wan't more.
The textures, lighting, effects, models, details, audio should all be identical to the 2003 version, which is 14 years old at this point. It's going to look ugly.

It's not going to be the same as Halo 1/2 Anniversary, Homeworld Remastered, Perfect Dark or the likes with overhauled assets.

Also. They didn't really reverse engineer the entire game and do a proper remaster.
They hacked up the binary's, modified some configs.

It's really no different than basically a paid PC mod for the original game.

Ohhh.... It does matter.

Take Homworld 1 and 2 remastered, Gearbox had the original Source Code and the difference between the new game and the old game is startling.
Sadly, they couldn't do the same to Catalyst as the source code for that had been lost.

Having the source allows you to edit every single tiny little detail in the game and overhaul the game engine, even port the assets to a new game engine.

Cheaper than Morrowind GOTY or Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis. Both of which I own.

Shopping around I can pick up a a copy for about $20 AUD. I would expect half that in USD

I would also like them to stop closing down some of my favorite studios. Haha

It depends on the exclusive Scorpio games they will anounce

Santamonic probably helps polish games, but they don't create much per se. I've unknowingly playing a bunch of their games and they don't have a great record outside of GoW.

Its funny, you keep making the same terrible arguments. Bungie lied, they wanted to make more Halo but just not for MS. So they made Destiny, a Halo clone. Bungie can argue they were tired of making Halo but they made a blatant clone. They thought they had the next CoD if they went multiplat.

I believe Guerilla was tired of making Killzone and the series was mediocre, sales were modest, etc. So they made something completely different. That's what happens when a studio isn't lying.

For an old game it still looks okay. It was designed for a fairly powerful machine of the time. But if the old graphics bother you then don't buy it.

Even if they don't have the source code I believe they can do a lot, even make major changes to the presentation. The story is this port of Phantom Dust was done secretly at first so getting funding for a big remaster may not have been an option. But if its just $15 or $20, I don't think there is much to complain about.

The price has gone down, perhaps for obvious reasons at this point.

The Xbox being powerful was one of the reasons why I entered the ecosystem initially.

But games of that generation haven't aged well. Annoying part is, I am a collector, so if it's on Disk, chances are I'll probably pick it up at some point.
But it doesn't mean I should not be able to provide criticism where criticism is due. I criticise all the consoles and software equally in that aspect.

They can still do allot. But they can't do everything.
They are limited in mainly the same way modders are when a game doesn't have mod support, it takes a fair amount of cracking, hacking and reverse engineering to achieve some pretty basic things.
Discovery Freelancer for instance has been fairly open on it's approaches to modding Freelancer without any source or mod tools initially and have outlined their difficulties. (Which if you are interested, you could check out their Forum.)
They actually had to build allot of the tools to make their mod. That was after hacking the game.

Or take a look at Freespace, mods exploded once the source code was released for that game, some impressive overhauls are happening on that front, prior to the source being released, any and all efforts were pretty uninteresting.

This release I wouldn't call a "Remaster" though. Because it's not. A re-release is a more fitting term.