Madword said:
Ok sounds more like you have a problem with consoles than anything.
Paying for online... thats nothing to do with developers, thats a Sony/MS thing.But this has nothing to do with remasters. I agree why Sony did this, they saw that MS made a lot of money last gen on this, and Sony having lost lots of money, thought we can hit MS in the pocket and make some money. Also it's not like you only get access to online, you also get to play games they give you every month. Yes I would prefer free multiplayer, but I can understand the cost of a server farm.
Remasters - as we already discussed, there is nothing wrong with remasters. Are you telling me you've never purchased a remaster or never wanted an older game brought back? I mean I just purchased HomeWorld remaster on the steam sale.... I had *never* played it. Just because you might have, doesnt mean that others hadnt. You are thinking about yourself and not other gamers.
Overpriced DLCS - some are, some are not. That is upto individual developers. Some are good DLCs and some are not.... this has nothing to do with Remasters though. Games are bloody expensive to make, and though some DLC is absolute crap, some is well worth the cash, for example the up coming Dying Light Expansion sounds like a good deal.
So I dont really know what you are getting at, as this hasnt got anything to do with Remasters or Halo running backwards compatibilty. If it runs badly in backwards compatibility, I would rather have a remaster running at 30FPS than going into the teens. Now one thing to remember here is that *You* do not need to buy anything that is for sale, you can choose to ignore it and play on a different platform or play other games.
|
