The reason MCC got criticised was because all MS does is promote Halo, while Sony is always making new franchises. I mean what else is exciting for the X1 besides Halo as usual? TLoU:R is not outshining other games built for the PS4 like MCC is outshining sunset,QB and PS.

No, because that sounds like they were taken off U4 development and being readded.  That isn't what is happening.  

"The tricks and lessons learnt during the development of The Last of Us: Remastered will mean that the next game from Naughty Dog will arrive sooner than it would have done.

That next game, lest you forget, will most likely be Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End.

"Every single one of our game releases always benefits the next," community strategist Arne Meyer told CVG.

"We work under such an iterative process that our technology either informs future decisions or, as has been the case of with Uncharted, once we take care of one aspect we move on to another, like how we did water, then snow and sand.

"We're always building on top of what we've done previously, and The Last of Us: Remastered is probably one of the more concrete examples in a way. We're making this in a way that benefits our PS4 tools pipeline so that we can have a good head start on our next, full PS4 game."

Games aren't needed period for any reason.  Don't need them to live.  

Dont need them to live? Come on now.

New games are needed for a console to sell well. Remasters wont help much. 

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 strongly disagree.

1) Yes, it is a cash grab but no, it is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm assuming that your statement of "no one likes it and it doesn't help gamers to support it" is purely an opnion, not fact?

As evidenced by my use of the words "My take." For future reference, when reading any posts from anyone on these forums you should consider their content to be opinion. Even when they do not perform the courtesy, as I did, of clarifying that thats all their post is.

2) Where are you basing "tiny, tiny market?" Especially now that UK sales are out and it's not exactly looking tiny.

Joethebro and I had some discussion of this above. Sony's stated target market, if we're to believe their studies (for which we have no methodology), cannot be more than 3 million consoles.

3) A "price gouge" is a practice used during times of high necessity (such as food shortages) where there is very high elasticity of demand to charge ridiculously unreasonable prices to maximize profits at the cost of your consumers. At the very least your use of the term "price gouge" is an exaggeration.

I agree that in an definitional sense, a price gouge (just realised I mispelt it earlier!) is an economic term, and I applied hyperbole in using it here. It is one of the more superfluous uses of hyperbole in this thread thus far, however.

4) Again, where is your basis for "worth to a FEW people with money to burn"? Especially when there is a clear target market for this?

The clear target market is 3 million consoles. Again, this makes me doubt that Sony is hoping to sell just to those people. Though I am confident that anyone that can spend $50 on this game, and $400 on a PS4, has money to burn. Even more so if they have already played the same game on PS3.

5) Yes, it did use up resources. But you do understand that there are development benefits to releasing a profitable remaster that can impact games developed in the future? Easily outweighing the short term costs. But you're right, without insider knowledge, we'll never know one way or another. So why talk about it?

Because we're here to talk about games? Honestly, I have an opinion, its a reasonable one. I am perhaps the only person in this thread that went out of his way to flag his views as an opinion. In my opinion the redirecting of first party developers away from new content towards upscaling a game barely a year old is a cynical cash grab, not in the best interests of gamers.

The fact that you would call (or at least heavily imply in your langauge) ppl suckers (you might as well be calling them "idiots") for supporting something you don't agree with is pretty disappointing. 

I have already apologised for my use of this language if it offended anyone. I have not, nor would I call anyone an idiot or a sucker, so please do not put words into my mouth. What I did say is that I feel Sony's attitude was that they could monetise the same content again, to the same people. Anecdotally, it appears they have been successful in doing this (as you point out, UK sales were strong) - my point was that they viewed the market as a sucker for repackaged content (at full price originally). Sorry again if that was not properly articulated.

1) Seeing as that you are a mod (and your "takes") carry a bit more weight. One would hope that you would at least provide definitive evidence on your opinion or use statmenents more based on facts or at the very least use less inflammatory language. Especially seeing how KLXVER seems to have felt his position validated by your post. Also, why should (missed this on my last post) TLOU be the ones to take a "chill pill"? Defending (a reactive position) something implies something being attacked (a proactive action). Shouldn't the ones taking the proactive position be the ones who need to take a "chill pill"?

A couple of things need to be clarified here. When I in some way moderate a thread, post or user, my voice carries weight. On issue-debates, an opinion is an opinion. It would be the height of arrogance for me to feel that my opinons are somehow above others. Equally, its unreasonable of you to accept a higher standard of proof (especially for the unprovable) from mods, where they are simply functioning as users.

What KLXVER does and does not feel validated by is a matter for him, not me, and I suggest you address any comments on this to him.

I think the response to my post is a good example. Some people have taken issue with my choice of language - even where it is soft compared to much of the language elsewhere in the thread. Even after I have apologised for any offense, they persist. In this particular thread, this tendency to overreaction has been most prevelant in those who feel a need to defend TLOU. As to the content of the game, I cannot understand why it would need defending, it is excellent - but there you go. Hence, "chill pill." When used generally, and not targeted at an individual, its hard to see how this is offensive.

2)  3 million consoles is a "tiny, tiny market"? Geez, I guess we have different opinions on what a tiny, tiny market is. Might as well say the entire Xbox One install base is a tiny market as well.

And you say I am being inflamattory Lets agree to disagree.

3) As long as we can agree that what you said was a stark exaggeration, I guess we're good. But I feel that saying "everyone does it" doesn't make it okay, though.

As I said, a use of hyperbole - though hardly its most dramatic use in this thread...

4) There is a primary target market and secondary target markets. They stated clearly who their primary target market is in their interview. And (being one of those that fall within their primary), I happen to agree that with them as to who would find the most value in their offering. Why would you condemn them (as price gouging cash grabbers) when the consumers that would be probably be affected (by being the price gouged cash grabbed suckers) aren't even really the market they were aiming for (and the fact that they DO have a choice to purchasing) to begin with?

Let us reframe this debate a bit, as we dont seem to be meeting in the middle on this. In another thread on Sleeping Dogs, there is a broad support for bringing an end to this process or redoing relatively recent games to new consoles at full price with a higher resolution. It is not universal, certainly there are people on both sides of the argument. But had my original post been put in that thread, it would not have received nearly the same response.  I have made general comments about my thoughts on a cynical practice, and used the example of TLOU:R (as to do otherwise in this thread would be off-topic). Can I ask - would you honestly have had such a reaction to my post had I posted it in a non-TLOU:R specific thread, and had not used the word 'suckered' (for which I have already apologised)?

5) I feel like a "reasonable opinion" would be based on some form of evidence, not pure speculation. But that's just me. And I disagree. I feel that a company that releases great games should optimize their profits (for as long as they are not taking advantage of their consumers via pay-to-win microtransactions or providing poor value in their offerings). But for as long as the price is right and the vast majority of the market found great value in it and are happy with their purchase, who are we to tell them how much money they're supposed to make? More profits being given to a proven developer mean higher investment coming from publishers for future titles which would lead to better games (not to mention more jobs). Not even considering the future benefits of being given the chance to get over the learning curve of optimizing for a new console and doing it at low risk.

Given the news of the last two days this point is a little self-defeating. TLOU:R will feature additional DLC of limited utility. My Uni major was neoclassical economics. I've provided as much or more evidence as almost anyone in this thread. For the most part people have posted different links all referring to the same two interviews, of which we have different different interpretations. Again, it feels like you're taking issue with my post because I disagree with your point of view, not because of any inherent flaws with my posts. I do agree (as I have said) that value is subjective - if its worth it to you, wonderful. I do not agree that working on another (old) title on a console is in anyway more effective than working on a new title on a console when it comes to learning that console's ins and outs.

6) While I accept your apology, your exact words (and I quote): "...are the only ones that will get suckered into buying it at the full (and ridiculous) asking price." What do you call people who get suckered? Yes, they're called suckers. At no point did you say "Sony viewed..." in your later replies to clarify this point up til this point (tho I might have missed it so pls point me to where this happened).  The apology was great but let's not whitewash what you said. T'would be far better to simply take it back. And no, they did not "adopt the attitude of monetizing something to the same people". Again, they were very clear on who their primary market was.

If you wish to call people suckers, that is a matter for you. At no point did I do so, and I have apologised for, and clarified, any confusion around the meaning of my post. Others have said worse (including one directed at me), and have not even begun to approach anything resembling an apology. That you're concerned with me, and apparently not them, again promotes the notion you're concerned less about people's right to an opinion, and more about whether my opinion is allowed to deviate from your own.

1) A couple of things need to be clarified here. When I in some way moderate a thread, post or user, my voice carries weight. On issue-debates, an opinion is an opinion. It would be the height of arrogance for me to feel that my opinons are somehow above others. Equally, its unreasonable of you to accept a higher standard of proof (especially for the unprovable) from mods, where they are simply functioning as users.

What KLXVER does and does not feel validated by is a matter for him, not me, and I suggest you address any comments on this to him.

I think the response to my post is a good example. Some people have taken issue with my choice of language - even where it is soft compared to much of the language elsewhere in the thread. Even after I have apologised for any offense, they persist. In this particular thread, this tendency to overreaction has been most prevelant in those who feel a need to defend TLOU. As to the content of the game, I cannot understand why it would need defending, it is excellent - but there you go. Hence, "chill pill." When used generally, and not targeted at an individual, its hard to see how this is offensive.

2) And you say I am being inflamattory Lets agree to disagree.

3) As I said, a use of hyperbole - though hardly its most dramatic use in this thread...

4) Let us reframe this debate a bit, as we dont seem to be meeting in the middle on this. In another thread on Sleeping Dogs, there is a broad support for bringing an end to this process or redoing relatively recent games to new consoles at full price with a higher resolution. It is not universal, certainly there are people on both sides of the argument. But had my original post been put in that thread, it would not have received nearly the same response.  I have made general comments about my thoughts on a cynical practice, and used the example of TLOU:R (as to do otherwise in this thread would be off-topic). Can I ask - would you honestly have had such a reaction to my post had I posted it in a non-TLOU:R specific thread, and had not used the word 'suckered' (for which I have already apologised)?

5) Given the news of the last two days this point is a little self-defeating. TLOU:R will feature additional DLC of limited utility. My Uni major was neoclassical economics. I've provided as much or more evidence as almost anyone in this thread. For the most part people have posted different links all referring to the same two interviews, of which we have different different interpretations. Again, it feels like you're taking issue with my post because I disagree with your point of view, not because of any inherent flaws with my posts. I do agree (as I have said) that value is subjective - if its worth it to you, wonderful. I do not agree that working on another (old) title on a console is in anyway more effective than working on a new title on a console when it comes to learning that console's ins and outs.

6) If you wish to call people suckers, that is a matter for you. At no point did I do so, and I have apologised for, and clarified, any confusion around the meaning of my post. Others have said worse (including one directed at me), and have not even begun to approach anything resembling an apology. That you're concerned with me, and apparently not them, again promotes the notion you're concerned less about people's right to an opinion, and more about whether my opinion is allowed to deviate from your own.

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