I personally don't buy remastered games unless the game that was remastered is from the PS2 gen and beyond. Remasters are neither good or bad, they are optional.
I sometimes get confused about Sony's 1st vs 2nd party developers, especially since a 2nd party may work on the remaster of a 1st party game. So I'm just going to focus on games published by Sony for the PlayStation 3, 4, and Vita, counting only retail games.
The PS3 had a total of about 120 or so retail games published by Sony, including "shovelware" games like "SingStar Apres-Ski Party 2" and the like. Of these, a few of them were remakes, remasters, and/or compilations of older games, including 2009's God of War Collection, 2010's Sly Collection and God of War Trilogy, 2011's Team Ico Collection, Ratchett & Clank Collection. and God of War: Origins Collection, the 2012 Jak & Daxter Collection and God of War Saga. Yes, that was a lot of God of War. Still, that was a total of about only eight games out of 120, maybe 7% of retail releases.
The Vita has had much less retail games, especially when discounting co-publishing deals and regional exclusives. Let's say about 35 total. Its library includes 2013's Jak & Daxter Trilogy, 2014's God of War Collection, Sly Collection, and Ratchett & Clank collection. That is only four games, but considering the high number of ports from the PS3 and other platforms, including PSASBR, Minecraft, Epic Mickey 2, and Borderlands 2, Sony gets its name as Publisher on a lot of ports of games to the Vita.
The PS4 has just 12 retail games from Sony so far along with 8 confirmed upcoming titles. Of these, The Last of Us is the most obvious example of a Remaster released so far. One can also argue that Minecraft, published by SOny at retail, also qualifies, seeing as the PS4 version is an expanded version of the PS3 version. And coming up, we have God of War 3 Remastered, Tearaway, and the Uncharted Collection. That is a solid third of Sony's announced upcoming retail games.
For comparison, it's time to look at the competition. The Xbox 360 seems to have had virtually no remasters from Microsoft itself, and even the XOne hasn't had that many. Of the roughly 20 One game released or announced by Microsoft, the only remasters or collections have been the Master Chief Collection and the arguable Minecraft version for the One, since like the PS4 version is based on an older iteration. That's significantly less than Sony.
Nintendo is a bit odd to judge due to their strong split between console and handheld games. The 3DS has had about 50 retail games from Nintendo. Of these, three were remasters of N64 games (Zelda and Star Fox), two wer Wii ports (DKCR and Xenoblade), and Pokemon got a GBA remake. THat is a fair number of remasters, but none of these were collections.
On the Wii U, 30 retail Nintendo games have been released or announced. Of these, only Wind Waker HD and Wii Sports Club are easy to call remasters or remakes. You may include New Super Luigi U, but that was also DLC, so I dunno.
Love and tolerate.
I am no fan of remasters if there only acouple years apart. I am a huge fan of them if the games are old and struggled on there hardware. Normally 5 years+ is a great time to remaster games. Homeworld Remastered for example came out in 1999 and that only cost me $29 on Steam. That is a perfect example. None of this BS like TR and TLOU which only came out acouple years ago and sell for a full price game.
Tachikoma said:
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. If someone wanted to buy a turd for a million dollars then they could. Doesn't mean that a turd is worth a million dollars. Just because I have an option to buy it (I don't) doesn't mean I can't complain that it's a shitty value. And if people say they're ok with the shitty value, the value's just going to get shittier. Would you argue that you think the ps3 slim should be $70 because you already bought a ps3 fat? I doubt it. Ummmm... the PS3 slim was less money than the PS3 fat's launch price. The PS3 fat cost more to make. The point of the slim, like the point of the remasters, is a cost cutting effort. Difference is, with the PS3 slim, the savings actually were used for the benefit of the consumer. Whether I bought one is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that it cost significantly less money to make, so it shouldn't cost as much to the consumer. Tomb Raider cost 20 bucks on the PS3 when the PS4 version launched at (I think) 60. Why Lara's spiffy new hair should have been worth 40 dollars is a mystery to me. Just cause customers are ok with being ripped off doesn't mean its ok to rip them off. 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. I'm fine with the Master Chief collection. Two of the games were completly redone (one was actually redone for a second time) and it made sense because the servers for Halo 2 were long gone. The Last of Us on the other hand was a particularly disgusting cash grab. Sony should have let fans know the PS4 version was on the way so they could make an informed decision on which version they wanted. Same thing goes for GTA, and anything else released within the last year or so of the PS360's lifespan. And, since the whole game was basically made already, there was no reason to charge full price. 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. Again, this is irrelevant. It's not about whether or not you owned the game. It's about charging the same amount of money for a game that took less than half the effort, and the fact that old content is being made instead of new content. You're acting like companies are doing some kind of charity by letting people play these games, when there are far more consumer friendly ways to do so. 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. If the teams are so small what is the justification for charging full price? And why is the alternative to making a remaster sitting on your backside? Why can't they be making new content? We've seen crazy good stuff coming from small teams. Plus, when you factor in the amount of remasters that have happened this gen, there have been enough resources used up to make a legitimate game. 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. Like I said, if the amount of resources used up for a remaster is so small, then consumers are being vastly overcharged for them. Of course, it's not an exact science, but the amount of resources invested in a game should have some bearing on its price. 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. Fine. But there is no reason we should be paying full price for Sony's (or whatever other company) training program. |
I really don't get why people are so eager to defend anti consumer policies. Thank you Sony may I have another I guess. If they want to do remakes, that's fine. They can offer those remakes at a fair price, or actually make meaningful additions to the core experience.
| JWeinCom said:
|
because many of us don't see it as anti consumer. If you dont' want the remake don't buy it. If you think the price is too high. Wait until it's lower. Though the price if still no more is actually a fair price, you just personally value it less. In fact if they were to change subsatially less than what they charge before many older buyers could feel ripped off and be less likely to buy new games as early in the future.
If you feel betrayed because TLOU came to another of their platforms within a short time, don't by the new one. or maybe sell the old one. (had you bought DLC it was good for both) but plenty of consumers were happy to have the game on their new platform and looking better than a streight port. I mysef personally didn't get TLOU remaster because I was satisfied with my experience, I can't scream they are ripping me off for it though, because I don't have to buy it again and the people who enjoy the better version now, aren't taking my amazing experience away from me.
While something else that they have done with their remakes/ ports is give consumers of the other verions the game for free with cross buy, flow, flower, escape plan, the unfished swan. One of the tiles they had had plus, on plus for hte new sysyem, Dead Nation, and another they gave on plus a better version. Pixel Junk Shooter.
While I think what they are doing with GOW 3 is a poor decision, it's not that there are too many remasters, it's that they won't be including enough content there(the 5 other GOW games). I'm looking forward to Tearaway unfolded since I've hear like 50% new content. Uncharted, I'm a little disapointed with some of the choices they made for the collection and will eventually get it when I feel it's priced at how I value the content they put in.
| JWeinCom said:
|
It's really not anti-consumer because it's optional. Personally, I don't buy remasters except if it's a really old game being remastered. You don't have to buy remasters neither do I. We're not losing anything from it. It's obvious that some gamers like 'em otherwise they wouldn't sell. Not everyone played some of these games because some people didn't own the console the game was originally released on or they were too young to be interested in it or they just simply missed the game. Should we shut down their chance of playing an improved version of a good game that we most likely played already? No.
Well I don't know but my ps4 store seems full off remasters. Mainly third party but most off them were HD to start with so yeah its gripping me a bit.
| JWeinCom said:
I really don't get why people are so eager to defend anti consumer policies. Thank you Sony may I have another I guess. If they want to do remakes, that's fine. They can offer those remakes at a fair price, or actually make meaningful additions to the core experience. |
I bought TLoU Remastered, I didn't get ripped off. I bought it and knew full well what I was buying (played and beat on PS3) and would have willingly paid full price for the game had I had the chance to do it again. I hold value in the entertainment that I purchase and I got more than what I paid for in TLoU Remastered. You just keep talking for all the people who bought and support remastered content but your views DO NOT match everyones. Value is in the eyes of the beholder not in the eyes of JWeinCom. Just because you don't think a certain remaster is worth its price doesn't mean the next person is going to view it the same way; some people are willing to pay the extra dollar for the extra frame rate, resolution and DLC.
Most people have already figured out the solution to Sony charging full price for their "training program". The trick is to not buy the product. There, now you have even more nothing to whine about. Your welcome.
Yes but the reason you getting remasters is due to them not having any games, whats that game there treating as if its a 1st party game again?? I mean come on, how the mighty have fallen
| MegaDrive08 said: Yes but the reason you getting remasters is due to them not having any games, whats that game there treating as if its a 1st party game again?? I mean come on, how the mighty have fallen |
The mighty have not fallen one bit. Not only are they destroying the competition, they have released great first party games, and more importantly they have great third party support of incredible games. Thanks to a combination of 1st and 3rd party games (including indies and Japanese games), ps4 hasn't experienced a drought. The same thing cannot be said for the competitors. Unless you were referring to them as mighty who have fallen, since that would make sense both in terms of support and sales.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
