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
DrDoomz said:
starcraft said:
 

 


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.





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

Around the Network

Logging off for now. No time to type up everything I need to say. Will be back in a few hours with my response. Gnyt. :)



DrDoomz said:
Logging off for now. No time to type up everything I need to say. Will be back in a few hours with my response. Gnyt. :)

Take your time

I just re-read my post anyway and some of it sounds overharsh. So might be best we both sleep on it



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

starcraft said:

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.

1) You misunderstand. I don't require a higher standard of proof from you (which would be hypocritical of me). Just a better attitude towards providing arguments or opinions based on proof. More of a "you're a mod, you should know better". Me mentioning KLXVER was less about my issues with anything he said and more of a "his feeling of validation was a direct result of your comment and that is the weight of opinions presented by a mod in a forum" and that is perhaps why people would take more of an issue to it as well.  I know it is unfair for you when you simply want to voice your opinion, but that is the weight of responsibility a position burdens any of us. But I guess that this issue is getting us way off topic so I will drop this for now (feel free to reply although I will try to no longer bring it up, hopefully, lol).

People feel the need to defend it because it is attacked. Simple as that. No attack, no defense needed. Again, the issue is really with the people who feel the need to attack and not the people defending it. You have people going too far from both sides, so again I'll have to ask, why are the people who defend TLOU:R suddenly the ones who need to "take a chill pill"?

2) 3mil is over half the XB1 install base. If you call 3 mil with 2x tiny, why isn't under 6 mill 1x tiny? :-p

3) Hyperole. Exaggeration. As long as we agree that it was a misuse of the word, then I guess we can agree to that.

4) And this is my position: for as long as a company churns out a solid product where its target market finds good value in it and is very happy with their purchase, they should be allowed to optimize profits by whatever mean they can for as long as it is ethical and non-abusive to their consumers (doesn't strip consumers of their rights). It is not up to the consumers to dictate how much profit they are allowed to have (especially when they are the consumers least affected or unaffected by it) or how they go about doing it.

The funny thing is, the remaster simply expands the target market (aka selling it to more people). This is one of the least aggressive, least unethical, least abusive things a company can possibly do to optimize revenue. There are FAR WORSE practices already out there (pay to win microtransactions, day 1 DLC, random purchasable booster pack rewards, etc) that simply squeeze more money out of existing buyers (tho there is a small niche that would double dip on the purchase, this niche is not the primary market of the title) rather than finding new buyers.

I don't know anything about the discussion on Sleeping Dogs nor do I care about it as I have no stake in the discussion. But this is my position on anything related to this matter, PS4, XB1 or whatever. 

You mention that people would perhaps feel less inclined to defend the title if you would have posted your comment there. But perhaps that is more to do with the lack of people caring enough about the game to spend time defending it more than your comment being less insulting/inflammatory to those supporting it. And yes, had you not used the work "suckered" and been less aggressive with your language (which was insulting to me tbh), I would probably have just shrugged and went on my business. Or maybe reply but with much less commitment. 

5) And I'm a BSBA Marketing/Management. The point of my comment has always been who the primary target market was (and how this target market would find great value and find the price very reasonable). Simple reverse engineering of their pricing, advertising and promotional strategy would tell anyone with any basic marketing knowhow that this was aimed at new users and not "double dippers" (which would fit your "tiny, tiny market with money to burn" description).

I did not take issue because you disagree with me. I took issue because I found your post insulting to me as I found value in the product and as sure as hell don't feel suckered in the least. I know that you've apologized for this however, so it's not really an issue anymore (to be honest the only reason I'm replying is because I already said I would, not because I'm taking any more issue or somesuch).

Also, I disagree on your opinion that getting over the learning curve by working on a new title is always better. New titles takes more time and a much bigger team as well as the risk of the game not selling well. A remaster of a game that sold well and has a clear market interested in it requires much less resources and less risk. Less risk (with good payoff) means that the team is basically being allowed to earn while they learn. This is always better than a newer, riskier venture, at least for the devs/publishers. And for me, devs and publishers making more money = more money for games in the future. Which is always a good thing for as long as the money goes to the right people.

6) Again, everyone is free to their opinion for as long as their opinion does not trample on another's. Saying that a person would be suckered if they purchased something is tantamount to calling them a sucker. Which can be taken as an insult and would no doubt incite a strong response. I know you've already apologized so I will drop this as long as you no longer bring it up. :-p

Anyway, seeing how well TLOU:R is doing puts me in a much better mood, I guess. I'm prolly done with this thread and would simply go off and say that it would be better if we agreed to disagree.



-CraZed- said:
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.

 

I never read the articles if they're not in the OP. Scream at me all you want, but you know I'm in the majority there.

 

:P