Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Basically. |
If the cost is minimal, I would think that position wouldn't matter at all. If a remaster only costs a fraction of the original budgetm then at £40 a pop, even if only 100K sell, that's what? £1.2M of almost pure profit (since not much money would need to go into recouping dev costs). And that's for low sales.
I don't think being in 1st place has anything to do with the affordability (in terms of marketshare) of that kind of potential. Not to mention, they still have games coming out, so it's not like "we're in first, so we're not gonna give new games, only old ones". Nintendo could remaster Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn for WiiU and Microsoft could remaster Lost Odyssey for XBone, and as long as they're still releasing the new games they told us they're going to release, there should be absolutely no complaints. The fact that TLOU was in the works didn't prevent I:SS from coming out, nor did it put UC4 behind schedule, for example (for people who would say that Sony should put their resources elsewhere). So what's the problem?
Sony could announce 100 remasters right now, and as long as DriveClub, LBP3, Blodbourne, etc. come out...why should I or anyone else take issue with it? As long as remasters don't tamper with the production schedule of other games, being able to "afford to make them" has absolutely 0 relevance. If they don't interefere with other games, all the companies can afford minimal cost with maximum return potential.
