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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Why The Last of Us Remastered Shouldn’t Really Exist

Tagged games:

 

Do you think TLOUR shouldn't Exit?

YES 150 30.99%
 
NO 220 45.45%
 
WHO CARES? 107 22.11%
 
Total:477
starcraft on 03 August 2014
SvennoJ said:
starcraft said:

Thanks to Carl for moderating this thread. It's really not as bad as the reports implied.

I've let comments about Halo go where they aren't too bad. As someone noted early on the article *does* mention Halo so it isn't completely off-base.

My take: All the TLOU fans take a chill pill. The game is going to get some hate, its a very obvious cash-in. Everyone does it, no one likes it, and it doesn't help gamers to support it ON ANY PLATFORM. There is a tiny, tiny market for whom this would have been a first time purchase - certainly not enough to justify the expense if Sony truly believed they are the only ones that will get suckered into buying it at the full (and ridiculous) asking price. Full or near-full price offerings a year (or less later) with some DLC that has ZERO marginal cost at that point included is a price-gouge. Doesn't mean it isn't worth it to a few people with money to burn, but its an unfortunate industry-wide strategy.

Also, logic dictates that this most certainly *did* distract from other gaming priorities. Developing the title, marketing the title, producing the title. All that can be debated is to what extent the distraction occured - and thats a debate we'll never have sufficient evidence to put to bed. Did it prevent the development of a unique small-scale title (ala Child of Light)? Did it simply delay Uncharted 4 by a few months, or result in less marketing dollars being spent on some other, new IP? We'll never know. But pretending the title didn't use up resources is ridiculous.

I find this pretty offensive as a software programmer myself. This thinking that software loses its value almost as soon as it is released is what is slowly breaking down this industry. I didn't expect this kind of post from a mod, calling people suckers for paying a, in your opinion, redicilous price for a game with all DLC content included.

Anyway which is it, zero effort, cash grab, or did it cost a significant amount of time to port by a group of people? Why assume a delay for Uncharted 4, engine optimization doesn't happen at the start of a project, that group of people will have been getting experience by getting it to run on PS4.
And again which is it, a cash grab, or less marketing dollars avalailable for a new IP. If it's a cash grab they should have plenty more money after to spend on the next game.
Making a small-scale title instead would have taken people from Uncharted 4 that are needed right now. Just being a small title doesn't mean you don't need the whole gamut of creative people to make it.

IMO the price is justified. A highly acclaimed game with all extras included for a small discount, ported to a new system. Great for those who haven't played it. Plus ND knows full well that most of those that will upgrade will or already have sold their ps3 copy, flooding the market with 2nd hand copies of ps3 tlou.

Anyway it's unfortunate gamer wide mentality that 6 month old games should be 50% off or more.

If you find it offensive, that is unfortunate. But as you yourself point out, thats the way the wind is blowing. Every industry uses resources (in this case, programmers, marketers, manufacturing logistics etc) in inefficient ways. Of course, if this sells well, it will be us as gamers to blame, and it will keep happening. The fact that we as gamers have continued support similar products released shortly after the original game released is what has led to this misappropriation of resources.

I think after your first paragraph you might have started responding to other posters? At no point did I say the game would have required zero effort. On the contrary, my whole point is that substantial effort went into the wrong product, and those resources would have been better spent developing new content, rather than going to quite a substantial effort to make a game look marginally better on a new platform - ultimately just to fill an entirely avoidable gap in Sony's content line-up.

Again, it is common sense to point out that this game most certainly did redirect resources. As you point out, that may not have been a total loss for other content (experience gained, etc). This is an example of arguing as to the extent of the diversion, which is exactly the reality I cited in my original post.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
Hynad on 03 August 2014
starcraft said:

If you find it offensive, that is unfortunate. But as you yourself point out, thats the way the wind is blowing. Every industry uses resources (in this case, programmers, marketers, manufacturing logistics etc) in inefficient ways. Of course, if this sells well, it will be us as gamers to blame, and it will keep happening. The fact that we as gamers have continued support similar products released shortly after the original game released is what has led to this misappropriation of resources.

I think after your first paragraph you might have started responding to other posters? At no point did I say the game would have required zero effort. On the contrary, my whole point is that substantial effort went into the wrong product, and those resources would have been better spent developing new content, rather than going to quite a substantial effort to make a game look marginally better on a new platform - ultimately just to fill an entirely avoidable gap in Sony's content line-up.

Again, it is common sense to point out that this game most certainly did redirect resources. As you point out, that may not have been a total loss for other content (experience gained, etc). This is an example of arguing as to the extent of the diversion, which is exactly the reality I cited in my original post.


Here's hoping you think the ressources spent on MCC should have been spent elsewhere as well.



starcraft on 03 August 2014
Hynad said:
starcraft said:

If you find it offensive, that is unfortunate. But as you yourself point out, thats the way the wind is blowing. Every industry uses resources (in this case, programmers, marketers, manufacturing logistics etc) in inefficient ways. Of course, if this sells well, it will be us as gamers to blame, and it will keep happening. The fact that we as gamers have continued support similar products released shortly after the original game released is what has led to this misappropriation of resources.

I think after your first paragraph you might have started responding to other posters? At no point did I say the game would have required zero effort. On the contrary, my whole point is that substantial effort went into the wrong product, and those resources would have been better spent developing new content, rather than going to quite a substantial effort to make a game look marginally better on a new platform - ultimately just to fill an entirely avoidable gap in Sony's content line-up.

Again, it is common sense to point out that this game most certainly did redirect resources. As you point out, that may not have been a total loss for other content (experience gained, etc). This is an example of arguing as to the extent of the diversion, which is exactly the reality I cited in my original post.


Here's hoping you think the ressources spent on MCC should have been spent elsewhere as well.

Hynad I am not going to weigh in on the MS-Sony shit-fight this thread became...especially not when you and I are currently discussing just that via PM!



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Hynad on 03 August 2014
starcraft said:
Hynad said:
starcraft said:

If you find it offensive, that is unfortunate. But as you yourself point out, thats the way the wind is blowing. Every industry uses resources (in this case, programmers, marketers, manufacturing logistics etc) in inefficient ways. Of course, if this sells well, it will be us as gamers to blame, and it will keep happening. The fact that we as gamers have continued support similar products released shortly after the original game released is what has led to this misappropriation of resources.

I think after your first paragraph you might have started responding to other posters? At no point did I say the game would have required zero effort. On the contrary, my whole point is that substantial effort went into the wrong product, and those resources would have been better spent developing new content, rather than going to quite a substantial effort to make a game look marginally better on a new platform - ultimately just to fill an entirely avoidable gap in Sony's content line-up.

Again, it is common sense to point out that this game most certainly did redirect resources. As you point out, that may not have been a total loss for other content (experience gained, etc). This is an example of arguing as to the extent of the diversion, which is exactly the reality I cited in my original post.


Here's hoping you think the ressources spent on MCC should have been spent elsewhere as well.

Hynad I am not going to weigh in on the MS-Sony shit-fight this thread became...especially not when you and I are currently discussing just that via PM!


I have nothing against any remasters being created. People want them. Why shouldn't they exist? I don't care about the MS vs Sony vs Nintendo crap that so many people around here are bringing forth every chance they can. But when people say ok to one, but dismiss any value for an other for arbitrary reasons, that's when I start having a problem with those hypocritical stances.



starcraft on 03 August 2014
Hynad said:
starcraft said:

Hynad I am not going to weigh in on the MS-Sony shit-fight this thread became...especially not when you and I are currently discussing just that via PM!

I have nothing against any remasters being created. People want them. Why shouldn't they exist? I don't care about the MS vs Sony vs Nintendo crap that so many people around here are bringing forth every chance they can. But when people say ok to one, but dismiss any value for an other for arbitrary reasons, that's when I start having a problem with those hypocritical stances.

What you're looking for is a scratching-post for a range of issues that have gotten you riled up, and it isn't going to be me.

I have made specific comments about TLOU:R, and titles re-released in the same manner shortly after their initial releases with no or little new content. If you wish to engage with them, fine. If you wish to talk about MCC, Wind Waker HD, SotC HD, KH1.5/2.5 or anything else, find me in a thread about those!



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
Zekkyou on 03 August 2014
Conegamer said:
I see Carl and starcraft have already provided their input, and I agree with them for the most part. Though, this thread really escalated far more than it needed to, and the only thing I'll say about that is that you don't need to post in every thread; if you don't like the topic of discussion or the looks of a thread just move on and try another one.

Similarly I've got myself a copy of TLoU:R and it's excellent. Sure, it may not be needed, but it is wanted and the Sony fanbase are buying it and enjoying it, as are reviewers. Surely that is enough of a justification for the game to exsist, even if you yourself won't be buying it or see the point of it. Perhaps, then, the game isn't for you.

I'm not here to deny, however, that the game is a "cash-grab" or a cheap solution to an otherwise larger problem, because it is. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

My sentiments exactly. At the end of the day the only two things necessary for a game to justify itself is that it generates a profit for the developer/publisher and that it makes their customers happy. TLOU:R accomplishes both of those things.



RepedeGoesWoof on 03 August 2014

Really poor written article. Easily releasing the game on PSN for $20-$25? So release a game with improved visuals and all DLC at a lower price than the vanilla PS3 version?

I don't buy remasters or HD versions, but it's a win-win situation. People who haven't had the chance to play it can do so, it helps Sony/ND financially, and people who've already played the game can shrug it off as the these upgrades are fairly minuscule. It's not like the gamers who've purchased the PS3 version are missing out on much.



michael_stutzer on 03 August 2014

Sooo... Who is creating the next TLOU thread? I have been thinking but haven't come up with an idea yet.



-CraZed- on 03 August 2014
DaveyBoy88 said:
DonFerrari said:

And actually I remember more people complain about TLOUR than Halo MCC... didn't put the link so he don't grab more clicks.


Why'd you have to bring Halo into this? The Master Chief Collection is on an entirely different level from TLOU. 

I'm guessing because Halo MCC is specifically mentioned in the article.

 



DonFerrari on 03 August 2014
michael_stutzer said:
Sooo... Who is creating the next TLOU thread? I have been thinking but haven't come up with an idea yet.


This thread already generated a thread about people complaining that we complain when a product we like is slandered... maybe you could create the next TLOUR thread and generate a lot of threads in tandem with it =]



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."