How Many First Party Remasters Has Sony Actually Done?

[JWeinCom]

Tachikoma said:

JWeinCom said:

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.

Or you know, just keep releasing remakes so that the people who didn't get the chance to play it the first time around actually get to do so without buying another console.

And they could do that in a much more consumer friendly way. 

Just because a game took less time and resources to make doesn't mean it should be priced much lower, or are you saying that price spent on a games production should reflect the retail value directly?

Have fun whining over gtav releasing at $400 then.

*sigh* No that's not what I'm saying.  I already said clearly what I thought on that matter.  "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."  That's what I said on the matter.  If you're going to argue with me, at least read what I said. 

Believe it or not, games companies aren't here to entertain you, theyre here to make money. If a company re-releases an old game and makes some money on it, then they earn a profit, profit that keeps the company going and allows them to take risks.in the future on new IP's and having larger budgets for future games, so even if you think "they're ripping people off" what would you rather have. A company that re-release a game for $5 and go out of business a year later (and all games in development get scrapped) or a company that re-releases, makes.some nice bank from people who bought it (regardless of their reasons to) and kept the cpany afloat?

How dare a company even think about doing something profitable?? What disgusting behavior.

So wait... anything a company does is fine as long as it makes a profit?  Oh boy.  This attitude is what brings us such lovely things as the season pass, games broken at launch, disc locked DLC, and all that lovely stuff.  Obviously they want to make money, but they should be required to do so while also offering a good value to their customers.

As for "what I would rather have" you've prevented a very ridiculous scenario.  First off, I'd rather have them use the programmers and resources towards new game.  But, if they must do a remaster, why are $5 dollars and full price the only possibilities?  Why not release it at something like $30, and give it some bonus content or meaningful changes to the gameplay?  That would be a fair price for people who haven't played the game, and would give those who haven't played it more incentive to try it.

In the end, you don't get it because you don't *want* to get it. You have a set opinion on the matter and that's that, millions disagree, and as it happens those millions are the ones buying remasters, so the practice will continue.

Ok.  And I think that practice sucks.  I'm not sure what your point is.  People have different opinions.  That doesn't invalidate mine.

And last but not least, remastering a game doesn't devalue the original game, sure it cost less to remaster than to make the original, but the company still had to make the original to begin with, so the remaster actually took the original effort and the remastering effort to make.

That's a fair point.  I'll have to consider that.