By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Tachikoma on 07 June 2015
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
pokoko said:

 

 

 


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.

This is just really basic common sense stuff.  If a team is working on a remaster, then that time is not spent on new content.  I'm not sure how you could get around this as a basic point of logic.  If you took the people who are working on remasters, and put them instead towards creating new content, you'd have more new content.  Yes?

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.

Sure.  And when they're ready, people will probably not complain as much.  But, right now, the amount of great new experiences is extremely low while the amount of last gen rehashings is extraordinarily high. 

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.

I'm not sure where Nintendo games came into this, so I'm not going to veer off topic.  While nobody should be surprised more that a remaster costs more than the original title, it's a question of how much more, and what content is added.  For exampe, there are remasters like the Kirby Superstar Ultra, Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition, The Orange Box, or The Master Chief Collection which offer a good value.  These games made significant visual changes, added a significant amount of content, or bundled a large amount of content.  Then there are games like Tomb Raider Bouncy Hair, The Last Of Us Remastered, Ultimate Street Fighter IV Input Lag Edition, the NES remakes on the GBA, and so on that offer a crappy value.  Sure you can wait, but there's really no reason for them to charge full price in the first place.

So you argue that remasters aren't worth the money because so little resources go into making them, but at the same time complain that their creation has a sizable impact on the development of new games?

Which is it exactly?