This thread is complete non-sense. If you want something you bought on DVD on Bluray buy it if you do not. Do not buy it

if this is a secret PS4 bashing thread about PS3 games on PS4. The same rules apply. Jeez some people are sad

It makes sense business wise for Sony to put out LoU but it also makes sense for people to complain about it if it bothers them.

I know if I were a PS4 owner going through a retail game drought and the only game on the horizon was a re-release of a less than a year old PS3 game I wouldn't be too pleased.

...I wanted to believe! I WANTED to BELIEVE!!

I hope Harry Potter and Hermione Granger iare unlockable characters in TLoU PS4 now...but it's time for me to CRY!

Why?

I just bought Dynasty warriors 8: Extreme legends for ps4 to ease the wait for Watch dogs. I had not played it yet on ps3 and it runs very well with so much action on screen I can't help but grin at the mess.
Beyond 2 souls already looks better on ps3 than Dynasty warriors on ps4, so why not a ps4 version for those who haven't played it yet, and for those who like to play a different path through the game in 1080p maybe a few years later when it goes for cheap. It's not like it's bundled with the system driving up the price. Why complain about something you don't have to buy.

Because of the next part after where you bolded.

So you haven't played DW8. What about someone who has played LoU and doesn't care to play it again? Maybe they want a new title from Sony and not a rehash. It's a perfectly logical reason to not be satisfied as a customer. Not saying it's a big deal, haven't seen anyone make it a big deal. But it's a valid complaint.

If MS has nothing in store this holiday season except a Halo 2 rehash, I will not be happy. Same logic applies here.

Ok, I'm glad you're putting in some input now for discussion, so I'll reply appropriately.

1. "No one would balk at a recent DVD release coming to blu ray because that's what they were there for, movies".
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that movie formats are inherently SUPPOSED to have every movie ever made? If so, I'm not so sure it differs from modern gaming. People cry when there's no BC, remakes have been around since GC, and homebrew markets thrive on emulating old games. I'm not saying it's 1:1, and you're saying that new consoles should have new games...look, it's not like ps4 lacks in that respect. It has more new games than x1, and a better starting library than most systems in history. Look, I'm not saying that this should be a standard, but when you're talking about the one game that has earned more goty awards than any other in the last 10 years, add the expansions, upgrade to 1080 and 60fps, well, to me that seems like something ps4 owners might want. Sure, maybe you could call it a cash-grab, but you could also call it filling demand. This is one of the reasons why I used harry potter as the movie. It was a major release that came out on dvd and then shortly after on BR. People expect to be able to watch a movie in HD when they buy BR. Similarly, people now almost expect backwards compatibility....why? Because they expect to be able to play the games they love, or missed opportunities on the new system. There were lots of ps2 games I wanted to play on ps3, but I didn't have bc. I also didn't buy another ps2. I waited for the ports. I missed sotc, ico, gow2, persona4, odin sphere. I play on 3ds too, and I'm always like, "what do you mean I can't play metroid fusion. I would pay 20$ to have that". Because I never owned a gba, and I never will, and this is a demand that Nintendo is missing out on. 

2 I agree, I would also like something new, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything new on ps4. There is a huge amount of content on there, and plenty of new games. It's not like they took time out of their schedule to "remaster" the game. It's a port plain and simple. The hardware is capable of running it at a much higher quality. A port can be done by a small team in a very short time, especially given that Sony has engines in place already for cross-gen titles, as does every major developer.

3 But why should people balk? Sony provided massive amounts of content in the end of the ps3's life. They kept pumping out titles non-stop when ms began shifting to kinect and x1. Should they have just saved LoU for ps4? We need to think rationally about this- be business minded...consumer minded. What makes more sense? Save all your development for ps4, or continue to support ps3 and transition into ps4? Should they not release the biggest game of the gen (arguably) on ps4? Objectively, Sony's transition to ps4 is probably close to the very best handling of a launch transition that has ever been.

4. No, close, but no. Not old movies, movies on the cusp of format change. My argument is if you change formats, why wait? If it's ok to release a cross-gen title simultaneously (like titanfall), why is it not ok for the gap to be bigger. Had titanfall been on 360 8 months ago, would it upset people to have it on xb1? I'm not trying to make this a ps vs xb thing, but why is cross-gen and multiple year remastering ok, but continuously putting out strong content and upgrading it for a new platform bad? Again, it's not like this is costing them huge resources to put out. It's a port. Would it have been ok if Sony had told us first- had Sony said it is on ps3 and will be released for ps4 when that comes out. Would it be better if it was 8 months ago? 6? 4? How does one guage a timeline on this? Why is it ok for some cross-gen titles (like titanfall) but not for others. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but let's put some science into this. 6 months is ok, 10 is not, announcing at release the intentions is ok, surprise porting is not. Having 10 games already is ok, 8 games is not. Movies, books, television, music is ok, games are not.

We may be able to figure out numbers, or we may not be able to agree on them. One thing I've learned though, it that when the difference between right and wrong comes down to a debate about where the goalposts are, at least one side is trying to score a touchdown.

In closing, you want to know an example of a company that instead of releasing on the platform available, waited for the new one? Square-enix did with ff13. It was originally a ps2 game.

Like the jest of the OP, does it bother people that movies are re-released, does that prevent new movies from being made. It's usually not the same people that do the port. Definitely not the design team, artists, motion capture department, sound engineers, etc. It takes very little resources to make a port. It's a good project to get familiar with the hardware, get new people familiar with the engine, and make some extra cash that can be invested in the next project. How can anyone be against that? It's not new game or old game, it's bigger budget new game and better looking old game.

Halo 2 is diffferent, that's a remake, a lot more work. TLOU, Beyond 2 Souls, Tombraider, Dynasty warriors 8, merely and increase in resolution, framerate and some aspects of the engine cranked up. Big difference.

The analogy with BluRays doesn't hold any weight with me because the markets are too different. The BR players most people buy are far, far from $400. The BR discs most people buy are far, far from $60. And there are far, far more BR releases every week than games. For example, Get Carter came out on BR for the first time ever just this Tuesday. Did I feel cheated because I already own the DVD? No. There are TONS of other releases I can buy. Furthermore, I didn't buy my player from Warner Bros.

Next gen consoles have huge droughts in releases. I don't see any problem with someone being disappointed and complaining that instead of a new next gen title they get a rehash during a dry period in game releases. Like I said I don't think it's a big deal, but it's a valid complaint. And I don't care what went into Halo 2 HD, at the end of the day its a game I already played and I would be bummed if that was all MS had.

@bolded- You're right. Some were nearly 1000$. A 600$ ps3 was literally described as the best BR player on the market for the price.

Maybe you've missed it, but we aren't talking about BR in it's 7th year of life, we are talking about when BR was first released, where there were droughts. When porting Harry Potter meant the studio couldn't port casablanca (for instance) and studios had to decide which movies to port and which could wait.

The problem with the "disappointment" is that the people saying "we'd rather have a new game than a port" are being ridiculous. That was never a choice. The choice was "port or no port", not "port or new game". It's not a big deal, and it's not a valid complaint. The only criticism that even has any merit would be that of the ps3 owner who bought last of us thinking it would be exclusive, but was planning to buy a ps4 and could've saved his money for the ps4 version.

I re-bought Strike Witches in Bluray, I wasn't sure if it would make much different but it looked a lot better then the DVD copy.