Currently Online 
| starcraft said: If you find it offensive, that is unfortunate. But as you yourself point out, thats the way the wind is blowing. Every industry uses resources (in this case, programmers, marketers, manufacturing logistics etc) in inefficient ways. Of course, if this sells well, it will be us as gamers to blame, and it will keep happening. The fact that we as gamers have continued support similar products released shortly after the original game released is what has led to this misappropriation of resources. I think after your first paragraph you might have started responding to other posters? At no point did I say the game would have required zero effort. On the contrary, my whole point is that substantial effort went into the wrong product, and those resources would have been better spent developing new content, rather than going to quite a substantial effort to make a game look marginally better on a new platform - ultimately just to fill an entirely avoidable gap in Sony's content line-up. Again, it is common sense to point out that this game most certainly did redirect resources. As you point out, that may not have been a total loss for other content (experience gained, etc). This is an example of arguing as to the extent of the diversion, which is exactly the reality I cited in my original post. |
That's the kind of thinking that I find offensive, upside down kind of reasoning. First of all porting a game and engine optimization are entirely different skill sets from creating a new game. Inefficient would be having those people play around with the new hardware making tech demos that will never generate any money.
The offensive part is saying gamers are to blame for willing to pay for an updated version of an excellent game. Are we simply supposed to forget about it or take out the old hardware and not have the opportunity for an improved and complete version to keep? Would it have been better if Naughty Dog delayed The last of us for the ps4 launch and released both versions without DLC for $60 at the same time?
You can blame gamers for waiting for a Steam sale or a game arriving on ps+ while simulteneously complaining about the death of mid tier games. But blaming them for supporting a game they obviously really like, that's weird logic.
The 2nd paragraph I admit I read wrong, you said Zero marginal cost instead of effort for the DLC. Yet they don't charge for the DLC so I don't see a problem there. Sure they list it as added value, which it is compared to buying it seperately on ps3.
As for the possibility of a diversion of resources, you could also argue Brooks's law. Divide and be more productive.
Anyway I'm happy they rereleased the game with the dlc on the disc. And I'm currently creating a photo album of my journey through the game. Something I always like to do on pc but wasn't possible on ps3. Sure I could have waited until the platinum edition for $30 in a year or so, or a second hand copy. Everybody is free to do so. But in this case I don't mind rewarding quality. (I did trade in my ps3 copy, I'm not a charity after all)
