| starcraft said:
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.
|
Haha what?
I've debated point by point the actual content of your post and have never taken offense. You're very difficult to talk to starcraft when you keep trying to twist these type of things into your posts. They annoyingly get in the way of actual debate and at least to me come across as pretty childish. I have plenty of sly jabs in my posts too, but they're all responses to exact things you've written. I'm also certainly not throwing them in to try to descredit your points or what you've written, like you did above.
| starcraft said: 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. |
I wasn't offened by anything you said, but that doesn't stop some of your comments from being insults. Redefining what you said doesn't change that either. It really wasn't a big issue, but your defflecting and denail have almost turned it into one.
I said your comment looked "ignorantly wrong" because that was propor use of the word and writing "that comment lookes like it's lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular because it is easily determined wrong" would have just seemed silly. That isn't even remotly close to calling people suckers.
| starcraft said: 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. |
I wouldn't classify those three groups in the same boat. Immediate HD remasters are hardly different than late next gen ports. Definitive versions almost always include new content as well so imo they also shouldn't fit in there.
It should depend on the game. TLOU:R is a unique case, being an end of gen new ip exclusive. It should not of course depend on a person's opinion of the game itself.
| starcraft said: 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.
|
It is not the only evidence, just the most scientific. (Nielsen ratings have a clear PS bias?)
There is countless additional evidence as well. We have vgchartz game sales data showing huge shifts from xbox platforms to playstation platforms, we have polls with lots of people switching over, and we even have specific users all saying they switched from 360 to ps4. Off the top of my head, only stage and Aerys are vgchartz users that switched from playstation to XBOX. Of course there are more, but it's not even close to the opposite.
When people say TLOU:R took a lot of resources, they don't mean it cost as much as a new game. Selling half a million units to that "hypothetical" sub 3 million group would most likely be enough to make a profit, and that ignores the non financial rewards ND makes from making the game.
You're opinion isn't rare, it's just often unneccessary. HD ports usually do not decrease the amount of original content.
| starcraft said: 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. |
Yes, I didn't say much. You're section was weird and I really didn't know how to respond to it.
As to your last part...
| JoeTheBro said: 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. 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. That's not how development has to work. Again you're just making assumptions while Sony themselves are saying the opposite. "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?
|
You keep bringing in unrelated things (like this point about me only talking about you insulting people) so I have to keep discussing more things than just the merits of TLOU:R, but I've still given plenty of explanaition for the flaws in your assessment of the game.
| starcraft said: 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.
|
You forced your opinion on others and called people suckers who buy the game at full price. That is what I rebutted.
| starcraft said: 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.
|
I didn't take "issue" with your post. This is how forums are designed to work. You post your comment, and then other people respond to your comment.
I'll fully read your reply if you make one but at this point I'm done talking about anything but the game itself. I'm here to discuss video games, not discuss my video game discussion.
