Tachikoma said:
A) just because its similar to the original and doesn't do much or anything new does not devalue it, when new console hardware is released its the same price to everyone, because its still a complete console, the same goes for a game, if you already own it it is simply your option to rebuy or skip, those that never played the original get to play it in an often, nicer lick of paint, and to them its worth the asking price. If someone wanted to buy a turd for a million dollars then they could. Doesn't mean that a turd is worth a million dollars. Just because I have an option to buy it (I don't) doesn't mean I can't complain that it's a shitty value. And if people say they're ok with the shitty value, the value's just going to get shittier. Would you argue that you think the ps3 slim should be $70 because you already bought a ps3 fat? I doubt it. Ummmm... the PS3 slim was less money than the PS3 fat's launch price. The PS3 fat cost more to make. The point of the slim, like the point of the remasters, is a cost cutting effort. Difference is, with the PS3 slim, the savings actually were used for the benefit of the consumer. Whether I bought one is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that it cost significantly less money to make, so it shouldn't cost as much to the consumer. Tomb Raider cost 20 bucks on the PS3 when the PS4 version launched at (I think) 60. Why Lara's spiffy new hair should have been worth 40 dollars is a mystery to me. Just cause customers are ok with being ripped off doesn't mean its ok to rip them off. Collection releases are even better value for money, because not many people generally play all games in a series and those that skipped the franchise entirely get to play it all in one place, the sly collection and halo MCC are golden examples of this. That doesn't however mean games like tlourm are not worth it, even at just a year old there were millions of people who did not own a PlayStation who then bought a ps4. I'm fine with the Master Chief collection. Two of the games were completly redone (one was actually redone for a second time) and it made sense because the servers for Halo 2 were long gone. The Last of Us on the other hand was a particularly disgusting cash grab. Sony should have let fans know the PS4 version was on the way so they could make an informed decision on which version they wanted. Same thing goes for GTA, and anything else released within the last year or so of the PS360's lifespan. And, since the whole game was basically made already, there was no reason to charge full price. People love to think about their own situation or the situation of someone that already owns the game. But not the billions on the planet that do not, and from what I see, the people that complain about particular remasters the most, don't own and/or have never played the original to begin with. Again, this is irrelevant. It's not about whether or not you owned the game. It's about charging the same amount of money for a game that took less than half the effort, and the fact that old content is being made instead of new content. You're acting like companies are doing some kind of charity by letting people play these games, when there are far more consumer friendly ways to do so. B) Teams assigned to remastering older titles are often small side teams that would normally be posted to do dlc content, or mostly outsourced to other companies, in the event a main studios team does a port, they shuffle staff from their current tasks, so if staff are available because a segment of the project is done they're shuffled to keep them busy, no point paying a developer to sit on his backside all day. If the teams are so small what is the justification for charging full price? And why is the alternative to making a remaster sitting on your backside? Why can't they be making new content? We've seen crazy good stuff coming from small teams. Plus, when you factor in the amount of remasters that have happened this gen, there have been enough resources used up to make a legitimate game. Rid yourself of the silly notion that remasters tie up a studio so much that it impacts their standard games. Because its completely and utterly wrong. Like I said, if the amount of resources used up for a remaster is so small, then consumers are being vastly overcharged for them. Of course, it's not an exact science, but the amount of resources invested in a game should have some bearing on its price. From experience multitasking projects has actually been beneficial to game developers current titles as they're able to revisit old code design and often times find inspiration for an existing problem with the new title, and new hires are able to go through the old games source code and better understand the particular flavor of code design of that particular studio, which in turn makes the "new" games better. It can also be a good learning exercise as was the case with tlou. Where porting to new hardware gets a team to grips with the capabilities, allowing them to make better design choices for new games in their earlier stages, meaning less time wasted on ideas that wouldn't work. Fine. But there is no reason we should be paying full price for Sony's (or whatever other company) training program. |
I really don't get why people are so eager to defend anti consumer policies. Thank you Sony may I have another I guess. If they want to do remakes, that's fine. They can offer those remakes at a fair price, or actually make meaningful additions to the core experience.
