Why The Last of Us Remastered Shouldn’t Really Exist

[JoeTheBro]

starcraft said:

JoeTheBro said:

starcraft said:

My take: All the TLOU fans take a chill pill. The game is going to get some hate, its a very obvious cash-in.This entire thread is arguing about this. Regardless of it being a cash in or not, you are insulting a bunch of forum members who disagree with you. Saying "very obvious" just ain't cool.

Everyone does it,

no one likes it, I like HD ports and other rereleases and it seems tons of other people do too. What were you meaning by this?

 and it doesn't help gamers to support it ON ANY PLATFORM. This kinda ties in to the point above. You're just talking about buying rereleases and HD ports right? The only bad trend I could see coming out of this is future consoles once again lacking bc. That could be a bad thing, but there are many other factors that have a bigger influence on the systems including bc.

 

Plus there is good that comes out of buying HD ports and rereleases. Gamers get additional options when wanting to play their games, and pubs make money allowing them to invest in riskier titles. Stuff like this happens all the time and is very common within the industry.

There is a tiny, tiny market for whom this would have been a first time purchase - certainly not enough to justify the expense Sources? There are lots of reports saying the opposite about it being a tiny market. Do you think Sony is lying? Also how much do you think the port cost to develop? I certainly don't know, but you seem to be assuming a lot of things.

if Sony truly believed they are the only ones that will get suckered into buying it at the full (and ridiculous) asking price. Full or near-full price offerings a year (or less later) with some DLC that has ZERO marginal cost at that point included is a price-gouge. Doesn't mean it isn't worth it to a few people with money to burn, but its an unfortunate industry-wide strategy. Insulting half the people in the thread again? I'm not a sucker, and neither are the million other people buying it at full price. You don't think it's worth $50, but we do.

Also, logic dictates that this most certainly *did* distract from other gaming priorities. Developing the title, marketing the title, producing the title. All that can be debated is to what extent the distraction occured - and thats a debate we'll never have sufficient evidence to put to bed. Did it prevent the development of a unique small-scale title (ala Child of Light)? Did it simply delay Uncharted 4 by a few months, or result in less marketing dollars being spent on some other, new IP? We'll never know. But pretending the title didn't use up resources is ridiculous.

That's not how development has to work. Again you're just making assumptions while Sony themselves are saying the opposite.

Put some comments in bold. Your post was really strange man. Hopefully this gets you thinking down a better path.

Your first three bolded sections seem to be a series of different ways to say the same thing - something we ultimately disagree on. GOTY additions at full price are a cash-gouge to my mind. You disagree, thats cool. My preference is that resources go into new content for existing or original IP. The only counterargument I can see being reasonable is that the additional cash can cross-fund future development. Even then, those titles cost a lot of money for content that is simply repackaged. I have not discussed BC. That said, I do not think that 'many other things could also impede BC' makes it sensible to support something that certainly does.

The first point is completely separate from the others. You're insulting users and I'm pointing that out in case you didn't fully realize what you were typing.

The second and third sections however are similar, as I said myself. The second one is quite literally just a question though. Your original comment looks ignorantly wrong so I must have interpreted it incorrectly. What did you mean by "no one likes this?" The next section ties into this, since again I must have interpreted it incorrectly. What is "it" referring to here?

starcraft said:

Unless I have missed something, there are not lots of reports saying the opposite at all. There is a Sony executive in an unscripted interview citing a study he didn't detail with no published methodology?

"Some 31% of people who have bought a PlayStation 4 had an Xbox 360 or Wii but not a PS3 in the last hardware generation, PlayStation's American VP of marketing John Koller told me in an interview here at L.A. this week."

http://kotaku.com/sony-nearly-a-third-of-ps4-owners-only-had-a-wii-or-xb-1589874564

"You say you have stats for people who have PS4 that didn't own the PS3, or migrated from Xbox 360. Can you elaborate on that? Are you seeing a trend of Xbox-to-PlayStation migration?

Everyone in this industry always tracks that kind of stuff. I can give you some more detail. It's always fascinating to look at all this data. So, two of the things I can talk about - because they're true, and this comes from [industry tracking firm Nielsen Ratings]: 17 per cent of PS4 owners did not own a last-gen console. That in itself is a pretty shocking number.

31 per cent of PS4 owners did not own a PS3, but they did own either a 360 or Wii. Now, those are some pretty amazing numbers. And that's why, again, I think we're doing things like bringing the Last of Us to PS4, because there's a huge percentage of those people who never got to play it and that's a shame."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/468207/interviews/interview-scott-rohde-on-supporting-vita-the-last-guardian-and-xbox-jibes/

Both citing the same data, but those are two different interviews with two different people high up in Sony.

We also have less scientific reports showing that lots of people buying the remaster did not own the PS3 version.

 

I asked you for your sources for it being a "tiny, tiny market" but you didn't give them.  You also completely ignored my second question about how much TLOU:R cost to develop. May you please try to answer them?

starcraft said:

As to the last two, we get to the crux of what has gone wrong in this (and many other TLOU) thread. I have an opinion, many people share it, its different to yours. I clearly and upfront labelled my original post as opinion (not that I should have too, this is a forum and I wasn't citing evidence, so of course its an opinion). But because this conversation's current centrepiece is an exclusive to the Playstation line, there is an enormous sensitivity to the possibility that people might not have a genuine issue with this, and are instead trying to slam Sony.

What you've personally done is insulted a whole group of posters multiple times. That's certainly on the list for what has gone wrong as well.

Also I can't help but read this section of yours with a look of profound confusion on my face. There's just so many interesting things here that I fear I must have missed something of yours previously in the conversation.

For starters, I believe you're confusing this opinion as being a preference. If your opinion was "I don't like the taste of apples" then there's very little to discuss. With opinions like the ones in these threads however, they are free to be scrutinized and torn apart. Opinions can most definitely be wrong, and we're debating the potential problems with yours.

Secondly, did you just use my rebuttal as your rebuttal? Your first post called everyone who bought it full price suckers, so I pointed out that the people buying it have a different value for the game. Basically "hey, we don't all have to agree." Now in this section your response to that is also "hey, we don't all have to agree." What?

starcraft said:

...But because this conversation's current centrepiece is an exclusive to the Playstation line, there is an enormous sensitivity to the possibility that people might not have a genuine issue with this, and are instead trying to slam Sony.

I have no doubt there are some people out to do just that - but they do not speak for me, or many others. Some of us genuinely prefer a focus on new content and affordability, and should be as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours - irrespective of whether some posters get riled up by the odd troll

Truthfully, I don't care that this is a PlayStation game. When you and me are debating the actual merit of such a remaster, it feels strange for you to bring this up. It just feels like you're calling me a PlayStation fanboy, especially since you have a history of doing this to me.