JoeTheBro said:
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. Fair enough, if you took personal offense to my comment, then I apologise. I was evidently not as clear as I thought when I attempted to keep my post impersonal. Allow me to be fully clear in specifying that I, as an individual, find the near-to-full (and originally full) price of of a year old game with a higher resolution to be insulting. Ultimately we need to keep the reader in mind - though I submit that my words were not meant to be personally insulting to anyone anymore than your calling my comments 'ignorantly wrong' is meant to be insulting to me. 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? It = Immediate HD remasters, definitive versions and other full-priced releases of recent games with no new content. I admit that I used a generalism when I said 'no one likes it.' However, I would submit that whether people approve of the practice is predominently determined by whether they consider it to apply to the specific title being discussed. We, for example, clearly disagree on the nature of and value behind the re-release of TLOU:R.
"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." 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? I think it is inaccurate to define an off-the-cuff retelling of unseen data, out of context, with no methodology and a clear bias, as 'scientific.' Indeed, I was just yesterday discussing the same source with Hynad via PM. That this is the only evidence to suggest the PS4 is selling enormously to non-PS3 owners (at this point in the cycle, I am confident it will in the future) is telling in itself. Even were that not the case however - and taking Sony at their word - we'd be looking at well under 3 million console owners...for a game that all in this thread agree would have taken substantial resources to remaster. I feel it is naive to believe Sony conducted this exercise with a view to selling exclusively to those people, rather than to fill a gap in their line-up where no new content exists. I believe it was in that same Kotaku interview Sony discussed (whilst openly acknowledging gamers might not like it) the opportunity to bring more PS3 content to PS4. Sony themselves have acknowledged one of the points I am trying to make about prefering releases to bring something original to the table - I do not think I have been unclear, but if I have, do not let it indicate that my opinion is somehow a rare one.
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. You haven't actually said much in the last three paragraphs - I'll be honest it just feels like an attempt to strawman me. My opinion is that Sony are trying to generate new revenue off old content, to the detriment of the generation of new content. My opinion is that that is cynical. I agree entirely that opinions can be wrong - aside from reiterating how insulting others may have found my post, you've not done anything to demonstrate that mine is. 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? Your rebuttal was not a rebuttal. We agree on the core point that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But it is my opinion you've attempted to invalidate, my opinion you've attempted to negate. I have admitted and apologised for using a generalism originally to get that point across.
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. I was making general comments about the nature of this thread (continuing on from what I had said earlier in my post). I think its prudent at this point to remind you that you engaged and took issue with my post, not I with yours. Further, at no point have I described you as a fanboy. You're correct that we're debating the merits of a remaster. Perhaps it is a prudent moment to acknowledge something we both seem to agree on - that value is subjective. I feel this product is a cynical cash-grab that diverts resources and fills a gap in the PS4's line up that shouldn't be there. You are excited to play the game again and feel it is worth the $60 $50. You might consider the possibility that our history of misunderstanding oneanother is what led you to take offense at my post, rather than the actual content of said post. |
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
