That I agree with. I wouldn't mind paying the full price if I hadn't done that already. Where is the small PS3-PS4 upgrade fee Sony? Come on even EA did it for their games so why can't Sony?

The question then becomes how do you distinguish folks like you, who paid full price and own the game and simply want to upgrade, from folks who bargain binned a copy of TLOU PS3, used, last week? Or folks who borrowed it from their cousin long enough to upgrade before giving it back so their cousin could upgrade too? Obviously it's much easier with Digital, (and no digital upgrade option does suck big, dangling ones, and all I can really do is facepalm about that,) but things get a lot hairier when discussing physical copies.

Requiring the PS3 disc to be in the PS4 console to play the game might work to prevent 'shared upgrades,' i.e. a guy with one copy helping his five or six friends all get discounted copies of the PS4 version with no restriction, but given how many veeery cheap PS3 versions are no doubt floating around, used, right now, the 'screwing over' basically becomes the customers screwing over the publisher. x_X "Hey, I own a copy of the PS3 version! Discount me! No, I didn't buy it from you guys, but don't care, DISCOUNT ME!"

The only thing that comes to mind that would have allowed those who paid for new copies the first time around to get an upgrade fee would be if the PS3 version had included something similar to an 'Online Pass' code when it released, only it's more like an 'Upgrade Pass.'

To be fair, of the options, an Upgrade Pass WOULD be the best way to pull off that kind of thing, and if Sony likely knew by the time TLOU PS3 version went gold that they'd be doing a PS4 port, I believe that they either should have gone with that option, or included on-disc 'serial numbers' that kept track of which disc copies had been used for an upgrade, and which haven't.

It all kind of boils down to whether Sony knew TLOU would be a smash hit months before it even released, (thus prompting TLOU:R) when they were still working on printing off the discs. If not, then the only way they could moderate physical copy upgrades would be some pretty strict DRM to prevent the inevitable flood of 'Five Minute TLOU owners.'

....again, though, no digital upgrade option is a big, stinky pile. Dx

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.

...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

The first point is completely separate from the others. You're insulting users and I'm pointing that out in case you didn't fully realize what you were typing.

Fair enough, if you took personal offense to my comment, then I apologise. I was evidently not as clear as I thought when I attempted to keep my post impersonal. Allow me to be fully clear in specifying that I, as an individual, find the near-to-full (and originally full) price of of a year old game with a higher resolution to be insulting.  Ultimately we need to keep the reader in mind - though I submit that my words were not meant to be personally insulting to anyone anymore than your calling my comments 'ignorantly wrong' is meant to be insulting to me.

The second and third sections however are similar, as I said myself. The second one is quite literally just a question though. Your original comment looks ignorantly wrong so I must have interpreted it incorrectly. What did you mean by "no one likes this?" The next section ties into this, since again I must have interpreted it incorrectly. What is "it" referring to here?

It = Immediate HD remasters, definitive versions and other full-priced releases of recent games with no new content. I admit that I used a generalism when I said 'no one likes it.' However, I would submit that whether people approve of the practice is predominently determined by whether they consider it to apply to the specific title being discussed. We, for example, clearly disagree on the nature of and value behind the re-release of TLOU:R.

"Some 31% of people who have bought a PlayStation 4 had an Xbox 360 or Wii but not a PS3 in the last hardware generation, PlayStation's American VP of marketing John Koller told me in an interview here at L.A. this week."

http://kotaku.com/sony-nearly-a-third-of-ps4-owners-only-had-a-wii-or-xb-1589874564

"You say you have stats for people who have PS4 that didn't own the PS3, or migrated from Xbox 360. Can you elaborate on that? Are you seeing a trend of Xbox-to-PlayStation migration?

Everyone in this industry always tracks that kind of stuff. I can give you some more detail. It's always fascinating to look at all this data. So, two of the things I can talk about - because they're true, and this comes from [industry tracking firm Nielsen Ratings]: 17 per cent of PS4 owners did not own a last-gen console. That in itself is a pretty shocking number.

31 per cent of PS4 owners did not own a PS3, but they did own either a 360 or Wii. Now, those are some pretty amazing numbers. And that's why, again, I think we're doing things like bringing the Last of Us to PS4, because there's a huge percentage of those people who never got to play it and that's a shame."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/468207/interviews/interview-scott-rohde-on-supporting-vita-the-last-guardian-and-xbox-jibes/

Both citing the same data, but those are two different interviews with two different people high up in Sony.

We also have less scientific reports showing that lots of people buying the remaster did not own the PS3 version.

I asked you for your sources for it being a "tiny, tiny market" but you didn't give them.  You also completely ignored my second question about how much TLOU:R cost to develop. May you please try to answer them?

I think it is inaccurate to define an off-the-cuff retelling of unseen data, out of context, with no methodology and a clear bias, as 'scientific.' Indeed, I was just yesterday discussing the same source with Hynad via PM. That this is the only evidence to suggest the PS4 is selling enormously to non-PS3 owners (at this point in the cycle, I am confident it will in the future) is telling in itself. Even were that not the case however - and taking Sony at their word - we'd be looking at well under 3 million console owners...for a game that all in this thread agree would have taken substantial resources to remaster. I feel it is naive to believe Sony conducted this exercise with a view to selling exclusively to those people, rather than to fill a gap in their line-up where no new content exists. I believe it was in that same Kotaku interview Sony discussed (whilst openly acknowledging gamers might not like it) the opportunity to bring more PS3 content to PS4. Sony themselves have acknowledged one of the points I am trying to make about prefering releases to bring something original to the table - I do not think I have been unclear, but if I have, do not let it indicate that my opinion is somehow a rare one.

What you've personally done is insulted a whole group of posters multiple times. That's certainly on the list for what has gone wrong as well.

Also I can't help but read this section of yours with a look of profound confusion on my face. There's just so many interesting things here that I fear I must have missed something of yours previously in the conversation.

For starters, I believe you're confusing this opinion as being a preference. If your opinion was "I don't like the taste of apples" then there's very little to discuss. With opinions like the ones in these threads however, they are free to be scrutinized and torn apart. Opinions can most definitely be wrong, and we're debating the potential problems with yours.

You haven't actually said much in the last three paragraphs - I'll be honest it just feels like an attempt to strawman me. My opinion is that Sony are trying to generate new revenue off old content, to the detriment of the generation of new content. My opinion is that that is cynical. I agree entirely that opinions can be wrong - aside from reiterating how insulting others may have found my post, you've not done anything to demonstrate that mine is.

Secondly, did you just use my rebuttal as your rebuttal? Your first post called everyone who bought it full price suckers, so I pointed out that the people buying it have a different value for the game. Basically "hey, we don't all have to agree." Now in this section your response to that is also "hey, we don't all have to agree." What?

Your rebuttal was not a rebuttal. We agree on the core point that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But it is my opinion you've attempted to invalidate, my opinion you've attempted to negate. I have admitted and apologised for using a generalism originally to get that point across.

Truthfully, I don't care that this is a PlayStation game. When you and me are debating the actual merit of such a remaster, it feels strange for you to bring this up. It just feels like you're calling me a PlayStation fanboy, especially since you have a history of doing this to me.

I was making general comments about the nature of this thread (continuing on from what I had said earlier in my post). I think its prudent at this point to remind you that you engaged and took issue with my post, not I with yours. Further, at no point have I described you as a fanboy. You're correct that we're debating the merits of a remaster. Perhaps it is a prudent moment to acknowledge something we both seem to agree on - that value is subjective. I feel this product is a cynical cash-grab that diverts resources and fills a gap in the PS4's line up that shouldn't be there. You are excited to play the game again and feel it is worth the $60 $50.

You might consider the possibility that our history of misunderstanding oneanother is what led you to take offense at my post, rather than the actual content of said post.

"In many ways, The Last of Us Remastered is the worst example of the gaming industry’s re-release trend we’ve yet seen, but it has escaped a lot of criticism by virtue of the excellent game that’s attached to it. People loved the original game, they love Naughty Dog and they love Sony as a manufacturer, mostly because they simply aren’t Microsoft. Indeed, when Microsoft unveiled theHalo: The Master Chief Collection at E3 2014, they received arguably more criticism than Sony has faced."

What a load of bullshit, the amount of hate that TLOU:R has gotten stands above any other remaster/remake this year or possibly ever.

Also this article provides a great new perspective on a topic that has not been discussed to death at all. /sarcasm

You might consider the possibility that our history of misunderstanding oneanother is what led you to take offense at my post, rather than the actual content of said post.

Fair enough, if you took personal offense to my comment, then I apologise. I was evidently not as clear as I thought when I attempted to keep my post impersonal. Allow me to be fully clear in specifying that I, as an individual, find the near-to-full (and originally full) price of of a year old game with a higher resolution to be insulting.  Ultimately we need to keep the reader in mind - though I submit that my words were not meant to be personally insulting to anyone anymore than your calling my comments 'ignorantly wrong' is meant to be insulting to me.

It = Immediate HD remasters, definitive versions and other full-priced releases of recent games with no new content. I admit that I used a generalism when I said 'no one likes it.' However, I would submit that whether people approve of the practice is predominently determined by whether they consider it to apply to the specific title being discussed. We, for example, clearly disagree on the nature of and value behind the re-release of TLOU:R.

I think it is inaccurate to define an off-the-cuff retelling of unseen data, out of context, with no methodology and a clear bias, as 'scientific.' Indeed, I was just yesterday discussing the same source with Hynad via PM. That this is the only evidence to suggest the PS4 is selling enormously to non-PS3 owners (at this point in the cycle, I am confident it will in the future) is telling in itself. Even were that not the case however - and taking Sony at their word - we'd be looking at well under 3 million console owners...for a game that all in this thread agree would have taken substantial resources to remaster. I feel it is naive to believe Sony conducted this exercise with a view to selling exclusively to those people, rather than to fill a gap in their line-up where no new content exists. I believe it was in that same Kotaku interview Sony discussed (whilst openly acknowledging gamers might not like it) the opportunity to bring more PS3 content to PS4. Sony themselves have acknowledged one of the points I am trying to make about prefering releases to bring something original to the table - I do not think I have been unclear, but if I have, do not let it indicate that my opinion is somehow a rare one.

You haven't actually said much in the last three paragraphs - I'll be honest it just feels like an attempt to strawman me. My opinion is that Sony are trying to generate new revenue off old content, to the detriment of the generation of new content. My opinion is that that is cynical. I agree entirely that opinions can be wrong - aside from reiterating how insulting others may have found my post, you've not done anything to demonstrate that mine is. 

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.

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.

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

"Some 31% of people who have bought a PlayStation 4 had an Xbox 360 or Wii but not a PS3 in the last hardware generation, PlayStation's American VP of marketing John Koller told me in an interview here at L.A. this week."

http://kotaku.com/sony-nearly-a-third-of-ps4-owners-only-had-a-wii-or-xb-1589874564

"You say you have stats for people who have PS4 that didn't own the PS3, or migrated from Xbox 360. Can you elaborate on that? Are you seeing a trend of Xbox-to-PlayStation migration?

Everyone in this industry always tracks that kind of stuff. I can give you some more detail. It's always fascinating to look at all this data. So, two of the things I can talk about - because they're true, and this comes from [industry tracking firm Nielsen Ratings]: 17 per cent of PS4 owners did not own a last-gen console. That in itself is a pretty shocking number.

31 per cent of PS4 owners did not own a PS3, but they did own either a 360 or Wii. Now, those are some pretty amazing numbers. And that's why, again, I think we're doing things like bringing the Last of Us to PS4, because there's a huge percentage of those people who never got to play it and that's a shame."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/468207/interviews/interview-scott-rohde-on-supporting-vita-the-last-guardian-and-xbox-jibes/

Both citing the same data, but those are two different interviews with two different people high up in Sony.

We also have less scientific reports showing that lots of people buying the remaster did not own the PS3 version.

I asked you for your sources for it being a "tiny, tiny market" but you didn't give them.  You also completely ignored my second question about how much TLOU:R cost to develop. May you please try to answer them?

Your rebuttal was not a rebuttal. We agree on the core point that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But it is my opinion you've attempted to invalidate, my opinion you've attempted to negate. I have admitted and apologised for using a generalism originally to get that point across.

I was making general comments about the nature of this thread (continuing on from what I had said earlier in my post). I think its prudent at this point to remind you that you engaged and took issue with my post, not I with yours. Further, at no point have I described you as a fanboy. You're correct that we're debating the merits of a remaster. Perhaps it is a prudent moment to acknowledge something we both seem to agree on - that value is subjective. I feel this product is a cynical cash-grab that diverts resources and fills a gap in the PS4's line up that shouldn't be there. You are excited to play the game again and feel it is worth the $60 $50.

Haha what?

I've debated point by point the actual content of your post and have never taken offense. You're very difficult to talk to starcraft when you keep trying to twist these type of things into your posts. They annoyingly get in the way of actual debate and at least to me come across as pretty childish. I have plenty of sly jabs in my posts too, but they're all responses to exact things you've written. I'm also certainly not throwing them in to try to descredit your points or what you've written, like you did above.

Lets consider that last sentence for a moment. You've repeatedly claimed that my posts, or sections of them, are weird. You've not actually managed to articulate (in my opinion) why that is, other than that you disagree with them. Indeed, such disparaging remarks are designed to do nothing but discredit what I've written.

The cake taker is your assessment below that I have 'forced my opinion on to others.' Aside from the fact that this would be difficult to do in person, let alone via the internet, I am in fact one of the few people in this thread who explicitely highlighted their opinion as just an opinion. Which, given I am the only person you're engaging with, makes it seem likely this is less about the post, and more about the poster. That is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach, particularly given your continued attempts to strawman me (the best example in this post, is my never having stated anything like there being a bias in Neilson ratings - where you suggest I have).

I wasn't offened by anything you said, but that doesn't stop some of your comments from being insults. Redefining what you said doesn't change that either. It really wasn't a big issue, but your defflecting and denail have almost turned it into one.

I said your comment looked "ignorantly wrong" because that was propor use of the word and writing "that comment lookes like it's lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular because it is easily determined wrong" would have just seemed silly. That isn't even remotly close to calling people suckers.

I am glad you were not offended. Again, we'd have reached a resolution some time ago if we were both comfortable with disagreement. I would submit that it is you, and not me, that is unwilling to allow their own opinion to be challenged. For ultimately that is what we're each submitting, opinion.

I wouldn't classify those three groups in the same boat. Immediate HD remasters are hardly different than late next gen ports. Definitive versions almost always include new content as well so imo they also shouldn't fit in there.

It should depend on the game. TLOU:R is a unique case, being an end of gen new ip exclusive. It should not of course depend on a person's opinion of the game itself.

I feel this is the source of much of the disagreement in this thread - the misguided idea that TLOU:R is somehow a unique title, and not part of a wider industry trend.

It is not the only evidence, just the most scientific. (Nielsen ratings have a clear PS bias?)

There is countless additional evidence as well. We have vgchartz game sales data showing huge shifts from xbox platforms to playstation platforms, we have polls with lots of people switching over, and we even have specific users all saying they switched from 360 to ps4. Off the top of my head, only stage and Aerys are vgchartz users that switched from playstation to XBOX. Of course there are more, but it's not even close to the opposite.

When people say TLOU:R took a lot of resources, they don't mean it cost as much as a new game. Selling half a million units to that "hypothetical" sub 3 million group would most likely be enough to make a profit, and that ignores the non financial rewards ND makes from making the game.

You're opinion isn't rare, it's just often unneccessary. HD ports usually do not decrease the amount of original content.

^
This is another way of saying they rarely produce new original content.
This brings us to the crux of this conversation's existence. I have an opinion, its different to yours, both are unprovable, but you're apparently uncomfortable with the difference. I feel it is inherently unlikely, and almost impossible (particularly in light of the new DLC announced yesterday and NOT included in this 'remaster') that Sony planned to market to the (as you said, hypothetically up to) 3 million console owners we're discussing.

But even if they were, it is my preference that their first parties focus on original content. This, more than anything, is why I cannot understand your taking issue with my post, above all others. Preferring a focus on original content, or at least content that is not easily accessible for today's gamers, is a clear, uncontroversial opinion. It is not weird. It is not lacking in clarity. It is not an unpopular opinion. It is not being forced on anyone else. And yet you take issue with it - because you disagree with it, or because I made it?

You keep bringing in unrelated things (like this point about me only talking about you insulting people) so I have to keep discussing more things than just the merits of TLOU:R, but I've still given plenty of explanaition for the flaws in your assessment of the game.

I didn't take "issue" with your post. This is how forums are designed to work. You post your comment, and then other people respond to your comment.

Fair enough, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'll fully read your reply if you make one but at this point I'm done talking about anything but the game itself. I'm here to discuss video games, not discuss my video game discussion.

If you wish to respond only to posts relating to the game itself, I will rehash my oft-post thoughts:

- The game is brilliant. It is by all accounts still brilliant on the PS4 - and has a resolution (and in some, but not all cases, a framerate) bump.

- The game costs $50, and does not include all the content available for the title - more controversial paid DLC was just announced.

- I would have preferred that resources were focused on new content. I could also have preferred a focus on the externalities you laid out, which would have better been applied to a title older - one not so readily available in a near-identical form for a much cheaper price.