| Samus Aran said: PR spin to justify all the remasters. We all know that most of these remasters will be bought by people who played the original anyway. The only reason they're making remasters is because they're low effort, cheap to produce and fill in droughts in first party line-up. |
That's certainly not the only reason (actually you listed multiple reasons so your grammar should be plural), especially when the PS4 platform has new and exclusive titles being announced or released on a seemingly daily basis.
A possible and even likely situation is that they're remastering high selling titles from last gen to subsidize the loss they take/took on their riskier IPs that did not turn a profit. In parallel with loss leading hardware, you can also create loss leading software that can draw in niche crowds who would otherwise not consider buying the console. There's a variety of reasons a platform holder might do this - Firstly it bolsters their 1st party/exclusive portfolio; next, we have to consider the possibility that all of these niche gamers add a giant heft to accumulative sales at the end of the day. Then there's the fact that you're adding diversity, thereby adding value to the brand. Think about this - What is Playstation known for, gen after gen? Diversity. Something for everyone. Take into account that roughly 2/5 first party titles actually make them money. How can they possibly sustain this business model? Well, those 2 profitable titles get launched into the stratosphere. They make up for the less selling titles.
As for the remaster situation it makes absolute business sense as to why they're doing this; Approximately half the fanbase switched from a different brand, they can recoup some of their loss on the weaker selling titles, and, like you mentioned, it's just more games I can say my PS4 can play. The fact that you're picking on them for something that is business savvy, logical and not doing any harm to you, me, the brand or potential buyers tells me that you should not lead a company.
