I only think it's weird when a game is released and less than a year later there's a "remastered" version. When a game is actually old and there's the potential for a huge graphical upgrade, I think it's entirely necessary.

I'm not even someone who really hates remasters, I just think that the sudden wealth of them in the industry is a little jarring and it's causing developers to feel like they don't need to put much effort into things to make a good profit.

DVD had a lot of advantages over VHS: better sound & picture quality, special features, not having to rewind, more covenient packaging, etc. As for blu-ray, the picture quality was better than DVD's and noticeable.

Anyways, I'm so-so on these remasters. I liked the PS3 ones since they were a collection of games sold at a discount price, but I'm not a fan of these one year old ports like GTA5, Last of Us, FFX, etc. They don't have any perks or incentives over their last gen release, and the graphics aren't that noticeable. And you know what the worst part is? I got that PS4 GTA5/Last of Us Black Friday bundle for X-Mas, and I'll most likely end up owning FFX because I love SE.

One PS4 remaster of a recent game I would consider good is DMC. DMC improves its framerate to 60fps (something many wanted), throws in a bunch of new stuff and has a lot of gameplay tweaks. I was against it at first, but once I read what it would have, it became a must buy for me.

Remasters are ok in my book, especially during the transitional period between generations. As long as publisher do not cross the line and begin to remaster almost everything to make a quick buck. I'd much prefer that most resources goes into making new games.

Yeah, thats kind of the point I was trying to make. Most of these remasters should be released without fanfair, and sold no where near full price. Developers should not treat them like a brand new releases unless significant work has gone into them and said title deserves that treatement (Windwaker HD). Also comparable to the zelda example is Banjo on Xbox live. Looks much better then the N64 counterpart but they didn't make a fuss and rename it Banjo HD, they simply put it on the store for a fair price ($15). This is how most should be treated.

you comparing apples an oranges.

VHS to DVD to BluRay were big upgrades visually.

PS3 to PS4 is hardly a big upgrade.

The Halo MCC is a good example of what is an acceptable remaster. As it had significant improvements. The only problem is Microsoft fucked it up with not putting it all on disc and requiring you to download 20GB day one.

depends if its a updated graphics version or a remake with new additions thus making it a different game :)

Final Fantasy X remake on PS3 for example was good value as it was a combo of FF X and FF X-2 and it had the dark aeon battles as well as battle with Pennance so that made it good value as it was not just the standard port.

I appreciate your stance, but the VHS-DVD analogy is weak.

DVD, with its superior picture and sound, interactivity, and longer shelf life, was a huge improvement over VHS. To compare a PS3 game from 2013 to a PS4 game from 2014 and couch that comparison in terms of the migration from VHS to DVD doesn't work.

To answer your question, I, for one, have bad feelings about remasters, specfically the type of remasters that are popping up with greater frequency this generation.

Let me say that I totally appreciate the sentiment that "more games are always better." But I also appreicate the fact that these one, two, and three-year old ports, or "remasters," suggest that studios are making them to impel consumers to pay twice for the same product. If Microsoft wants to honor the tenth anniversary of Halo 2 with a remaster or Nintendo wants to bring Majora's Mask to 3DS 14 years later, I'm fine with that. But games like The Last of Us, DmC, and Tomb Raider  -- all of which would be unnecessary if backward compatibilty was standard operating procedure, by the way -- seem like cynical money grabs.

Depends on the game really, and how old it is, and how good it is.
Like, if MS were to remaster the first three Gears of Wars for X1 then I'd be all in favour.

It is not the same product. Nobody forced the buyers of the PS3 version to buy the PS4 version again, if they are still happy with their first buy.

Nobody forced buyers of the PS3 retail versions to keep the PS3 version if they wanted the slightly better remastered version. I sold my PS3 version of TLoU directly after the PS4 announcement for 30 €, managed to live without that game for a few months, and got TLoU:R for 37 € later (with the DLC included, photo mode, commentary).

The buyers of the digital PS3 version are out of luck... but I can't feel sorry for someone who buys games with account-binding when he is not sure if he wants to keep that game... especially if the console successor is already announced.

I am for it the only thing that bothers me is that you have to rearchiev everything, your unlockables and trophies etc. On ps3 there is no excuse for not being able upload your gaming data from the cloud to the ps4 as well as your archievements.