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
goulibouli on 03 August 2014
Dallinor said:
goulibouli said:
I got banned for saying that the remaster, barely 1 years after it's release, at the same price, on the same platform (playstation) was a rip-off.

So I won't tell my opinion

Consider me, I don't own the game and I have a PS4. I'm very happy with the price and the fact that the game has been enhanced. It's actually cheaper than many other, far poorer games currently on offer on the system at the moment.

Am I being ripped off?

For a one year old game that has just been transposed and retouched a bit for an already more powerful console, at that price yes.

But it's not just the price, it is also the fact that if you own a PS3 and bought a PS4 or want to play it on PS4, there's no option but to buy again: NOW that's the real rip-off



Around the Network
fluky-nintendy on 03 August 2014

I think it would be silly of ND/Sony to simply discard the few additional and easy millions of copies this game can still generate, and have total credit for doing that because the game is arguably one of the best PS3 exclusives.

The videogame industry is an industry first and foremost, sometimes taking advantage of some easier things is part of the business. And no, no one is shoving it down your throat. Anyone who is going to buy is either a) a new-comer or b) a hardcore fan of the game that won't feel guilt for paying for the improved content again.



...Let the Sony Domination continue with the PS4...
JoeTheBro on 03 August 2014
starcraft said:


My take: All the TLOU fans take a chill pill. The game is going to get some hate, its a very obvious cash-in.This entire thread is arguing about this. Regardless of it being a cash in or not, you are insulting a bunch of forum members who disagree with you. Saying "very obvious" just ain't cool.

Everyone does it,

no one likes it, I like HD ports and other rereleases and it seems tons of other people do too. What were you meaning by this?

 and it doesn't help gamers to support it ON ANY PLATFORM. This kinda ties in to the point above. You're just talking about buying rereleases and HD ports right? The only bad trend I could see coming out of this is future consoles once again lacking bc. That could be a bad thing, but there are many other factors that have a bigger influence on the systems including bc.

 

Plus there is good that comes out of buying HD ports and rereleases. Gamers get additional options when wanting to play their games, and pubs make money allowing them to invest in riskier titles. Stuff like this happens all the time and is very common within the industry.

There is a tiny, tiny market for whom this would have been a first time purchase - certainly not enough to justify the expense Sources? There are lots of reports saying the opposite about it being a tiny market. Do you think Sony is lying? Also how much do you think the port cost to develop? I certainly don't know, but you seem to be assuming a lot of things.

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. Insulting half the people in the thread again? I'm not a sucker, and neither are the million other people buying it at full price. You don't think it's worth $50, but we do.

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.

That's not how development has to work. Again you're just making assumptions while Sony themselves are saying the opposite.

Put some comments in bold. Your post was really strange man. Hopefully this gets you thinking down a better path.



Links

Dallinor on 03 August 2014
goulibouli said:

For a one year old game that has just been transposed and retouched a bit for an already more powerful console, at that price yes.

But it's not just the price, it is also the fact that if you own a PS3 and bought a PS4 or want to play it on PS4, there's no option but to buy again: NOW that's the real rip-off

So the timing is important? If they waited 5 years, would it be any different? They'd be launching the title into a more competitive space and gamers like me would be annoyed they took so long to finally get it out the door.

Pricing in 5 years- should it get steadily cheaper the longer time goes by, or does it appreciate in value over time from the release of the original? 

There's 80 million or so gamers who owned a PS3 who didn't buy the game. I agree with you in part, if you owned the orignal, the current price for the remaster might be too high to justify double dipping. I can only specualte, but the market for new gamers is probably much larger, and for them the current price won't be a barrier. It's going to be very interesting watching how this sells given all the attention it has recieved.



 

starcraft on 03 August 2014
JoeTheBro said:
starcraft said:


My take: All the TLOU fans take a chill pill. The game is going to get some hate, its a very obvious cash-in.This entire thread is arguing about this. Regardless of it being a cash in or not, you are insulting a bunch of forum members who disagree with you. Saying "very obvious" just ain't cool.

Everyone does it,

no one likes it, I like HD ports and other rereleases and it seems tons of other people do too. What were you meaning by this?

 and it doesn't help gamers to support it ON ANY PLATFORM. This kinda ties in to the point above. You're just talking about buying rereleases and HD ports right? The only bad trend I could see coming out of this is future consoles once again lacking bc. That could be a bad thing, but there are many other factors that have a bigger influence on the systems including bc.

 

Plus there is good that comes out of buying HD ports and rereleases. Gamers get additional options when wanting to play their games, and pubs make money allowing them to invest in riskier titles. Stuff like this happens all the time and is very common within the industry.

There is a tiny, tiny market for whom this would have been a first time purchase - certainly not enough to justify the expense Sources? There are lots of reports saying the opposite about it being a tiny market. Do you think Sony is lying? Also how much do you think the port cost to develop? I certainly don't know, but you seem to be assuming a lot of things.

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. Insulting half the people in the thread again? I'm not a sucker, and neither are the million other people buying it at full price. You don't think it's worth $50, but we do.

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.

That's not how development has to work. Again you're just making assumptions while Sony themselves are saying the opposite.

Put some comments in bold. Your post was really strange man. Hopefully this gets you thinking down a better path.

Your first three bolded sections seem to be a series of different ways to say the same thing - something we ultimately disagree on. GOTY additions at full price are a cash-gouge to my mind. You disagree, thats cool. My preference is that resources go into new content for existing or original IP. The only counterargument I can see being reasonable is that the additional cash can cross-fund future development. Even then, those titles cost a lot of money for content that is simply repackaged. I have not discussed BC. That said, I do not think that 'many other things could also impede BC' makes it sensible to support something that certainly does.

Unless I have missed something, there are not lots of reports saying the opposite at all. There is a Sony executive in an unscripted interview citing a study he didn't detail with no published methodology?

As to the last two, we get to the crux of what has gone wrong in this (and many other TLOU) thread. I have an opinion, many people share it, its different to yours. I clearly and upfront labelled my original post as opinion (not that I should have too, this is a forum and I wasn't citing evidence, so of course its an opinion). But because this conversation's current centrepiece is an exclusive to the Playstation line, there is an enormous sensitivity to the possibility that people might not have a genuine issue with this, and are instead trying to slam Sony.

I have no doubt there are some people out to do just that - but they do not speak for me, or many others. Some of us genuinely prefer a focus on new content and affordability, and should be as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours - irrespective of whether some posters get riled up by the odd troll



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

Around the Network
starcraft on 04 August 2014
spurgeonryan said:
Wait. Did this already come out?

Yep.



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

bananaking21 on 04 August 2014

after reading some posts, posting in this thread, realizing its useless, and around another 300 posts later, this is what i got to say about this thread.

 



Nicklesbe on 04 August 2014

Agreed on the pile o' fertilizer. Looking at sales tho it's safe to say that all those that agreed with the trashy, poorly written article are completely and utterly wrong.



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

NotStan on 04 August 2014

I want to play TLOU to see what all the hype is about, buying a PS3 and THEN shelling out for a game itself when I already have a PS4 is not a viable option.

Imo it could have been even more competitively priced as it is essentially a straight up port, but for some bizzare reason in the UK it still sells for the same price as new games do on launch (35-39) when even though the new games have RRP of 49.99, they come out for 35-39, sometimes even lower.

It's a bit greedy, and that's why I will just wait a couple of months before it floods the bargain bins.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

brendude13 on 04 August 2014
NotStan said:
I want to play TLOU to see what all the hype is about, buying a PS3 and THEN shelling out for a game itself when I already have a PS4 is not a viable option.

Imo it could have been even more competitively priced as it is essentially a straight up port, but for some bizzare reason in the UK it still sells for the same price as new games do on launch (35-39) when even though the new games have RRP of 49.99, they come out for 35-39, sometimes even lower.

It's a bit greedy, and that's why I will just wait a couple of months before it floods the bargain bins.

It's £30 on Gamestop.co.uk.

UK game pricing is very strange isn't it?