| JWeinCom said: Here's the big difference. If 1984 is made available on Kindle, George Orwell is not converting it. 1984 being made into an ebook does not take away time from other potential books that Orwell could be writing (obviously). The person who is doing the conversion is almost certainly not a professional author. The conversion of 1984 to Kindle in no way reduces the amount of books that will be available. No new writing is not being done so that 1984 can be "remastered". If I had to estimate the dollar amount of converting 1984 to Kindle, I'd say it would probably cost under 1000 dollars. (In fact, I'd estimate it is far far far less. I don't know how licensing works, but the actual cost of conversion would be close to 0 dollars. I'm sure a version of these books already existed on a computer, and putting them on the Kindle store probably took about one man hour). Games are different. Remasters cost money. Maybe not a ton of money, but probably enough money to make a decent indie game. It takes programmers. While the guy who is converting 1984 to pdf most likely can't write a decent book, the team converting the Last Of Us into super duper HD most certainly can make a game. If you took the same amount of people, and the same amount of money, you could get actual games. And that goes into the lack of games. These remasters are taking up resources that could be used to make games which justify the purchase of the console. I'm not going to argue about it, but I feel like the first year lineup for the next gen consoles is considerably worse than for the older systems. Now, of course, the money generated from the remasters could be used to invest in awesome new IPs down the line, but that hasn't shown to be the case yet. Pricing is not a seperate issue, because it's what we see, and it's part of the reason people are complaining. I'm not complaining about a theoretical world where remakes are reasonably priced, I'm talking about the actual world where pricing is laughable. Developers are putting in considerably less work and charging signigicantly more money. That's the reality, and that's what people are complaining about. So, here's the thing. Either a) The remakes take very limited resources and we are being vastly overcharged for the products. or b) The remakes are taking up resources that could be used to create new content. So we are getting less new content. That's why people are complaining. |
Why advance something like this without even the slightest bit of corroboration? I look at all of Sony's first party studios, all of which are working, some even with multiple projects, and I wonder what you're talking about. I look at all the second-party studio projects Sony is funding and wonder what you're talking about. I look at remasters being done by contractors that specialize in remasters and I wonder what you're talking about.
There are a ton of announced and unannounced games in the channel that we know about. They aren't out yet? That's because making games takes a long time, especially with new hardware and new tools, and Sony did support the PS3 until the end. They'll be ready when they're ready.
As far as anti-consumer goes, wait a little while and they'll be under twenty dollars. Remastering a game might require a fraction of the money needed to create a new game from scratch but they did invest resources and obviously they expect a return; no one should be surprised that it costs more than an older version with copies already shipped and sitting in retailer warehousing. Nintendo games, on the other hand, will still be close to full price years after release but I seldom see people complain about that. Isn't Skyward Sword still retailing for $50 much worse for consumers? The Uncharted Collection is only $10 more now and will probably sell for less within a year's time.
