it's not so much 8th gen systems as modern development standards now support cross platform development better than ever before. 

if gen 8 released 10 years ago games like destiny and titianfall and dragon age and CoD AW and watch dogs and middle earth and forza horizon and  rise of tomb raider and so on and so forth wouldn't have been cross gen.  last gen systems would have been dropped like a rock.  the only people that aren't happy with this gens library are the people that can't enjoy a game unless it is exclusive exclusive.  aka people who don't as much about games so much as image. 

No.  I'm complaining about one OR the other.  Obviously both of those are incompatible, which is why I originally presented it as an either/or proposition.

IF remasters are not taking up many resources, and therefore are NOT having a sizeable impact on development, then we are being vastly overcharged.  If the remasters are that cheap and easy to make then there is no reason we should be being charged so much.

On the other hand, IF remasters do actually take up enough resources to effect other projects, then the price may be justified, but we are losing out on potential new content.

So, either way, consumers are on the losing end of it.

Wow, only 3? They really should do much more than that.

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 people wouldn't buy them at inflated prices, they'd launch at lower prices, and prices would still go down, but to even lower prices.  It would be better for consumers.  Plus, unfair prices are bad in general.

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.

My specific issue with the last of us is the timing.  When the game was released on PS3, Sony obviously knew full well that there would be a PS4 version in about a year.  The right thing to do would be to let people know that the game would be released on PS4 as well.  That gives more choice to the consumer.  They can buy it on the PS3, they can choose to wait for the PS4 version, or if they want they could buy both. 

The way they did it was just dishonest and anti-consumer.  They withheld information that would have been highly relevant to the purchasing decision.  So people who *would* have preferred the PS4 version, but bought the PS3 version get kind of fucked over. 

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.

Which is fine.  If they're giving it to a consumer as a good value, I don't take issue with that.  There are some worthwhile remakes and collections.  There are others that are a ripoff.

And, the reason you are getting things like GOW 3 on its own is because people are saying "we will pay more money for less content".  If people weren't buying these games at full price, you'd be more likely to see something like "God Of War Trilogy Remastered" instead of just one game.  They'd still make money, and it would be a good value for customers. 

I'm sorry but you're going to have to back this up.  There is no way that remastering a game requires removal of a first-party studio "team" from a new project.  I request a source for that, especially considering that, as I've already mentioned, many games have been remastered by small third-party studios on a contractual basis.  Reality doesn't seem to gel with your "basic common sense".  You really think that everyone Sony has working on a remastering project would be working on a new game otherwise?  That's not logic, that's just an assumption.  If Sony weren't paying BluePoint for remasters, as an example, then they probably wouldn't be paying them at all.

Uhhhhh... who said anything about a first party team being removed from a new project? I'm not going to have to back up a point I didn't make.  I never said anything about first party, nor did I say anything about being removed from a team.

Simple fact is, that whoever is working on the game, first, second, third party, tea party, or whatever it may be, could have been working on a new project instead.  And if there was no demand for remasters, companies would need other sources of revenue, which I imagine would lead them to hiring Blue Point to do something else.

Whether or not Sony would do that is a question I can't answer, but the fact that they could do so is undeniable. 

Then that's even more of an assumption and one that ignores that contracted studios are doing what THEY want to do, perhaps because they like the work, or because they like the pay, or maybe because it's a good way of funding another endeavor.  Perhaps they'd even join the long list of developers seeking a job if it were not for this opportunity.  I'm sure Sony could find someone else if they declined.  Specialists exist in pretty much every industry dealing with technology.  

You can add up all the "could have been" scenarios you want but it still ends up as a house of cards.

Then that's even more of an assumption and one that ignores that contracted studios are doing what THEY want to do, perhaps because they like the work, or because they like the pay, or maybe because it's a good way of funding another endeavor.

I don't think you can back up that this is what they want to do.  I would hope that developers got into the business to work on original games.  And again, if this is funding original endeavors, I'll stop complaining when those endeavors come to fruition. 

 Perhaps they'd even join the long list of developers seeking a job if it were not for this opportunity.  I'm sure Sony could find someone else if they declined.  Specialists exist in pretty much every industry dealing with technology.  

Like I said, this is not just a Sony thing.  If there was no market for the remasters, they'd stop making them.  If consumers were buying mid budget original IPs, we'd likely see them make those. 

You can add up all the "could have been" scenarios you want but it still ends up as a house of cards.

You've had just as many hypotheticals as I have.  There are two perhapses in this post alone.  I can't predict the future, or any alternate pasts, but I feel the possibilities I've presented are based on pretty reasonable suppositions.  I can't predict the future, but I can say with certainty that teams working on remasters could be used on original titles.

Not that much compared to the amount of remasters and ports we got during the early years of Gen 7.

I don't really recall any remasters at the begining of gen 7.  Some crossgen titles that released across both gens, but not many straight up remakes that I recall.