Someone listed several. Certainly a lot more than what you listed in the OP

I don't think anyone could really argue that based on what we've seen, the apparent change between graphics between the 360 and PS4 generation is the smallest we've seen yet (talking about how it looks to the human eye, not specs).  Yet, we've seen more remakes than any other generation. 

I guess it's just this generation. Kids have shown that they'll rebuy games so from their point of view, why not make bank? 

Yeah.  To be honest, I'd probably do the same thing if it was my job to make money. 

A) just because its similar to the original and doesn't do much or anything new does not devalue it, when new console hardware is released its the same price to everyone, because its still a complete console, the same goes for a game, if you already own it it is simply your option to rebuy or skip, those that never played the original get to play it in an often, nicer lick of paint, and to them its worth the asking price.

Would you argue that you think the ps3 slim should be $70 because you already bought a ps3 fat? I doubt it.

Collection releases are even better value for money, because not many people generally play all games in a series and those that skipped the franchise entirely get to play it all in one place, the sly collection and halo MCC are golden examples of this. That doesn't however mean games like tlourm are not worth it, even at just a year old there were millions of people who did not own a PlayStation who then bought a ps4.

People love to think about their own situation or the situation of someone that already owns the game. But not the billions on the planet that do not, and from what I see, the people that complain about particular remasters the most, don't own and/or have never played the original to begin with.

B) Teams assigned to remastering older titles are often small side teams that would normally be posted to do dlc content, or mostly outsourced to other companies, in the event a main studios team does a port, they shuffle staff from their current tasks, so if staff are available because a segment of the project is done they're shuffled to keep them busy, no point paying a developer to sit on his backside all day.

Rid yourself of the silly notion that remasters tie up a studio so much that it impacts their standard games. Because its completely and utterly wrong.

From experience multitasking projects has actually been beneficial to game developers current titles as they're able to revisit old code design and often times find inspiration for an existing problem with the new title, and new hires are able to go through the old games source code and better understand the particular flavor of code design of that particular studio, which in turn makes the "new" games better. It can also be a good learning exercise as was the case with tlou. Where porting to new hardware gets a team to grips with the capabilities, allowing them to make better design choices for new games in their earlier stages, meaning less time wasted on ideas that wouldn't work.

Depends what you think are 1st party games.

it just comes across as a cheap way to make money and trick "morons" into buying the same game twice. maybe they're good, but that's how it's perceived. 

Lol @ the argument: I'd rather have new games rather than remasters. As if it worked that way.

Thankfully Tachikoma can, once again, be the voice of reason.

yeah. i don't get why games released 2 months ago need a remaster. 

I actually feel like remasters are good for people who are in similar situations that I am in, where I do not own the last generation console, but also want the next generation console. Of course, in the end, I'm just going to get a PS3 first, then a PS4 later (created thread about this one).