By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Sony is looking at remastering PS3 titles the same way Disney remasters movies

DrDoomz on 17 July 2014
KLXVER said:
DrDoomz said:

Buying a game early does not entitle you to a discount. Some companies may opt to do this for their customets but it is in no way required for them to do so. Your purchase was made because you felt that the product was worth the amount of purchase when you paid for it.

The only real entity losing out by offering a superior product for less is the company that spent more on development and R&D on the new product.


Its not required, but its the right thing to do. The people bought your new product after all.

No, it is the AWESOME thing to do.

Sadly, in our reality, companies are not ethically required to be awesome. And being not awesome does not translate to them taking advantage of anyone.



Around the Network
KLXVER on 17 July 2014
thismeintiel said:
KLXVER said:
thismeintiel said:

What's funny is if next gen Nintendo stops recycling the tech and actually shoots to compete techwise with the PS5, he'll be on here explaining why its okay for them to abandon backwards compatibility.


No, I wont. I like many Nintendo products, but I dont give them any less shit if they pull stuff like this.

Alright, then start a thread bashing them for removing BC with the Gamecube, which actually would be easy and cheap (again, based on the same tech), just so they can remaster Gamecube games and FORCE people to buy them.


Ive never started a thread bashing Sony for the remasters either...



KLXVER on 17 July 2014
DrDoomz said:

No, it is the AWESOME thing to do.

Sadly, in our reality, companies are not ethically required to be awesome. And being not awesome does not translate to them taking advantage of anyone.

 

For all the talk from Sony about how much they care for their fanbase, I would expect them to give the fans a deal.



mysteryman on 17 July 2014
Hynad said:
mysteryman said:

I disagree.

BC allows newcomers access to the entire previous gen's library, not just those deemed worth of a remake. It's also much more affordable as most titles are in the bargain bin as the old gen starts to be phased out.

BC would have allowed all PS4 owners who missed out on the PS3 the chance to play TLoU, along with any other PS3 game they may have been interested in, straight off the bat.

As for OP; I wouldn't mind if PS1 and PS2 classics are remade for the PS4. Purely remaking PS3 games would be disappointing.

BC would also have made the console more expensive. Nintendo gets away with it because they don't aim the same technical advancements. They've been recycling the Gamecube architecture for 2 generations now. And it certainly shows.

No doubt it would cost more. Perhaps a second BC model to satiate the users who missed out on the PS3 would have been better. Especially when you consider the cost of the number of "remastered" games that may end up releasing over the lifetime of the PS4 (compared to their secondhand/bargain bin PS3 cost).

As for the rest, I guess you felt the need to get overly defensive. Well done.









Devil_Survivor on 17 July 2014

I just love how Andrew House pretty much admits this is complete bullshit and most people know it, however because some people are stupid enough to fall for it we're going to do it anyway.



 

Around the Network
DrDoomz on 17 July 2014
KLXVER said:
DrDoomz said:

No, it is the AWESOME thing to do.

Sadly, in our reality, companies are not ethically required to be awesome. And being not awesome does not translate to them taking advantage of anyone.

 

For all the talk from Sony about how much they care for their fanbase, I would expect them to give the fans a deal.

So getting a very popular, still-in-the-market product with improvements for less isn't a deal?



KLXVER on 17 July 2014
DrDoomz said:

So getting a very popular, still-in-the-market product with improvements for less isn't a deal?


Not for the people who bought the PS3 game, no.



DrDoomz on 17 July 2014
KLXVER said:
DrDoomz said:

So getting a very popular, still-in-the-market product with improvements for less isn't a deal?


Not for the people who bought the PS3 game, no.


Cept you already have (and played) the PS3 game, this product was obviously not meant for you (tho you are more than welcome to get it), so what are you complaining about?



DrDoomz on 17 July 2014
Devil_Survivor said:
I just love how Andrew House pretty much admits this is complete bullshit and most people know it, however because some people are stupid enough to fall for it we're going to do it anyway.


Why is it "complete bullshit"? Please explain.



KLXVER on 17 July 2014
DrDoomz said:


Cept you already have (and played) the PS3 game, this product was obviously not meant for you (tho you are more than welcome to get it), so what are you complaining about?


No, its not meant for us who have the PS3 version. Theyve made that very clear. 

Even EA, Ubisoft and Activision didnt have the balls to do this.