By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - How Many First Party Remasters Has Sony Actually Done?

Teeqoz on 07 June 2015
JWeinCom said:
pokoko said:
JWeinCom said:


Remasters aren't inherently bad, but the quantity of them is ridiculous.  That's not just Sony, but as a whole.  The pricing model is also getting shittier.  Last gen, the tendency was collections with 3 games or so, and often at a value price.  One game at full price is a shitty value considering that remasters take considerably less effort.  There are I believe at least 30 remastered games so far.  Now, if there was also a lot of truly great next gen content available, that'd be one thing, but that hasn't been the case.  The problem is less with the remasters themselves, and more about people not feeling that their console purchase has been justified yet.

 

Anyway, as for the original topic, you can also throw Street Fighter IV on that list, as that was a Sony developed port.  On the Vita side, Borderlands and Epic Mickey 2 were done by Sony (why they wanted to port Epic Mickey 2 of all games baffles me).

More content is better than less content and I've never seen a single argument that comes close to negating that.  I don't even care what that extra content is, as long as someone, somewhere, is interested in owning and enjoying it.

Years ago, when I first bought a Kindle, many older books were not available as ebooks.  The more time that passes, the more books are converted and I've never once seen anyone complain about that.  Every book, period, that receives an ebook conversion, makes any ebook device better.  Older content reappearing in no way, shape, or form hurts the enjoyment of someone who only wants new content.

Pricing is a separate issue.  Not enough new content is a separate issue--although it's also an issue for every new console ever, so I actually have zero sympathy for someone who bought a new console and thinks games magically appear because they want them to appear.  Older games being converted have nothing to do with that.

Quite frankly, what I've said all seems like common sense to me.  I simply cannot wrap my head about the idea of someone saying, "stop, I want less content!"

Here's the big difference.

If 1984 is made available on Kindle, George Orwell is not converting it.  1984 being made into an ebook does not take away time from other potential books that Orwell could be writing (obviously).  The person who is doing the conversion is almost certainly not a professional author.  The conversion of 1984 to Kindle in no way reduces the amount of books that will be available.  No new writing is not being done so that 1984 can be "remastered".  If I had to estimate the dollar amount of converting 1984 to Kindle, I'd say it would probably cost under 1000 dollars. (In fact, I'd estimate it is far far far less.  I don't know how licensing works, but the actual cost of conversion would be close to 0 dollars.  I'm sure a version of these books already existed on a computer, and putting them on the Kindle store probably took about one man hour).

Games are different.  Remasters cost money.  Maybe not a ton of money, but probably enough money to make a decent indie game.  It takes programmers.  While the guy who is converting 1984 to pdf most likely can't write a decent book, the team converting the Last Of Us into super duper HD most certainly can make a game.  If you took the same amount of people, and the same amount of money, you could get actual games. 

And that goes into the lack of games.  These remasters are taking up resources that could be used to make games which justify the purchase of the console.  I'm not going to argue about it, but I feel like the first year lineup for the next gen consoles is considerably worse than for the older systems.  Now, of course, the money generated from the remasters could be used to invest in awesome new IPs down the line, but that hasn't shown to be the case yet. 

Pricing is not a seperate issue, because it's what we see, and it's part of the reason people are complaining.  I'm not complaining about a theoretical world where remakes are reasonably priced, I'm talking about the actual world where pricing is laughable.  Developers are putting in considerably less work and charging signigicantly more money.  That's the reality, and that's what people are complaining about.

So, here's the thing.  Either

a) The remakes take very limited resources and we are being vastly overcharged for the products.

or

b) The remakes are taking up resources that could be used to create new content.  So we are getting less new content. 

That's why people are complaining.


Except we shouldn't be charged for the amount of money spent on the games, we should be charged for the content we get from them. Now, if the GoW3 remaster costs 60$, then yeah, that's too much, but if it costs, say, 30$m then it really isn't a lot for what is still a AAA game, despite it being a 7th gen AAA game. Take MCC for instance, that was 60$, just like a brand new release, but look at the amount of content there, 4 games in one package. The same counts for NDC, 3 games. TLOU is special, because it released so close to this gen, that it was still a relatively new game at release, and considering it was one of the most critically acclaimed games of last gen, it's not weird it was remastered. It also cost 50 dollars, which is less than a new AAA release, even though it included all DLC. The teams here are also considerably smaller than the team required to make a brand new game.

And how do you know the money isn't being put into creating new content (or new IP, even though I don't see how that's a requirement)?



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 07 June 2015
Teeqoz said:
JWeinCom said:
pokoko said:
JWeinCom said:


Remasters aren't inherently bad, but the quantity of them is ridiculous.  That's not just Sony, but as a whole.  The pricing model is also getting shittier.  Last gen, the tendency was collections with 3 games or so, and often at a value price.  One game at full price is a shitty value considering that remasters take considerably less effort.  There are I believe at least 30 remastered games so far.  Now, if there was also a lot of truly great next gen content available, that'd be one thing, but that hasn't been the case.  The problem is less with the remasters themselves, and more about people not feeling that their console purchase has been justified yet.

 

Anyway, as for the original topic, you can also throw Street Fighter IV on that list, as that was a Sony developed port.  On the Vita side, Borderlands and Epic Mickey 2 were done by Sony (why they wanted to port Epic Mickey 2 of all games baffles me).

More content is better than less content and I've never seen a single argument that comes close to negating that.  I don't even care what that extra content is, as long as someone, somewhere, is interested in owning and enjoying it.

Years ago, when I first bought a Kindle, many older books were not available as ebooks.  The more time that passes, the more books are converted and I've never once seen anyone complain about that.  Every book, period, that receives an ebook conversion, makes any ebook device better.  Older content reappearing in no way, shape, or form hurts the enjoyment of someone who only wants new content.

Pricing is a separate issue.  Not enough new content is a separate issue--although it's also an issue for every new console ever, so I actually have zero sympathy for someone who bought a new console and thinks games magically appear because they want them to appear.  Older games being converted have nothing to do with that.

Quite frankly, what I've said all seems like common sense to me.  I simply cannot wrap my head about the idea of someone saying, "stop, I want less content!"

Here's the big difference.

If 1984 is made available on Kindle, George Orwell is not converting it.  1984 being made into an ebook does not take away time from other potential books that Orwell could be writing (obviously).  The person who is doing the conversion is almost certainly not a professional author.  The conversion of 1984 to Kindle in no way reduces the amount of books that will be available.  No new writing is not being done so that 1984 can be "remastered".  If I had to estimate the dollar amount of converting 1984 to Kindle, I'd say it would probably cost under 1000 dollars. (In fact, I'd estimate it is far far far less.  I don't know how licensing works, but the actual cost of conversion would be close to 0 dollars.  I'm sure a version of these books already existed on a computer, and putting them on the Kindle store probably took about one man hour).

Games are different.  Remasters cost money.  Maybe not a ton of money, but probably enough money to make a decent indie game.  It takes programmers.  While the guy who is converting 1984 to pdf most likely can't write a decent book, the team converting the Last Of Us into super duper HD most certainly can make a game.  If you took the same amount of people, and the same amount of money, you could get actual games. 

And that goes into the lack of games.  These remasters are taking up resources that could be used to make games which justify the purchase of the console.  I'm not going to argue about it, but I feel like the first year lineup for the next gen consoles is considerably worse than for the older systems.  Now, of course, the money generated from the remasters could be used to invest in awesome new IPs down the line, but that hasn't shown to be the case yet. 

Pricing is not a seperate issue, because it's what we see, and it's part of the reason people are complaining.  I'm not complaining about a theoretical world where remakes are reasonably priced, I'm talking about the actual world where pricing is laughable.  Developers are putting in considerably less work and charging signigicantly more money.  That's the reality, and that's what people are complaining about.

So, here's the thing.  Either

a) The remakes take very limited resources and we are being vastly overcharged for the products.

or

b) The remakes are taking up resources that could be used to create new content.  So we are getting less new content. 

That's why people are complaining.


Except we shouldn't be charged for the amount of money spent on the games, we should be charged for the content we get from them. Now, if the GoW3 remaster costs 60$, then yeah, that's too much, but if it costs, say, 30$m then it really isn't a lot for what is still a AAA game, despite it being a 7th gen AAA game. Take MCC for instance, that was 60$, just like a brand new release, but look at the amount of content there, 4 games in one package. The same counts for NDC, 3 games. TLOU is special, because it released so close to this gen, that it was still a relatively new game at release, and considering it was one of the most critically acclaimed games of last gen, it's not weird it was remastered. It also cost 50 dollars, which is less than a new AAA release, even though it included all DLC. The teams here are also considerably smaller than the team required to make a brand new game.

And how do you know the money isn't being put into creating new content (or new IP, even though I don't see how that's a requirement)?


I've talked about all this stuff already with other people.  Not to be rude, but just read over the rest of the topic.



globalisateur on 07 June 2015

This whining about TLOUR is totally undeserved. I won't repeat the fact the most PS4 owners didn't own a PS3 (because many were X360 or Wii owners) as many here wrote.

Critics forget (because they haven't played the game probably) that TLOUR at 45€ contains the game at 60fps (yes it improves dramatically the gameplay with the improved clarity and immersion because the original game at 30fps (but in fact often at ~25fps) was on top of it wrecked by some really heavy low quality motion blur) + Photo mode (which is a legitimate content whatever how we want to see it) + the Left Behind, a highly rated DLC costing 15€.

And TLOUR is the best remastered game we ever seen yet technically: and the PS3 game was already the most technically impressive PS360 game! Now we have a solid 60fps that it sustains 99.99% during the 20 hours game (whatever people say on forums, they are wrong and haven't played the full game and have only watched 4mn of a selected video showing the 3 worst moments from the whole game...), 2.25x higher resolution, 4x higher res textures, 16x AF, etc when Halo MCC has a fluctuating framerate in most of its games, one game is not even 1080p, with rather low resolution textures and low AF about everywhere in most games.

10 years from we'll still play TLOUR and marvel at the technical achievement even compared to then lately released PS4 games for a early "remaster". And a fair deal with the photo mode, 60fps in SP and MP and included DLC.



A_C_E on 07 June 2015
JWeinCom said:

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

Oh wow.  My opinion does not reflect the opinion of everyone else in the world?  Golly, thanks for filling me in on that.  I totally thought I was entitled to speak for the world -_-...

I'm not speaking for anyone else in the world.  I'm giving my opinion on the perspective, and I never claimed to be doing anything differently.  Honestly, it's kind of annoying that you're acting as I did otherwise.  Other people can have different views, but that does nothing to invalidate mine.

As for The Last Of Us, if you wanted to buy it twice, or three times, whatever.  Go buy up a warehouse full of copies if you want.  But, the fact that Sony released it on the PS3 while knowing full well they would create a remake within a year without letting their consumers know is anticonsumer.  Tell people that the game will be available on both systems.  Let them choose if they want the PS3 version, the PS4 version, or both. 

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.

The sarcasm and condescension in your post are entirely unnecessary, particularly when my post wasn't even directed towards you. If you want to disagree fine.  Do so respectfully. 

If people wouldn't buy this, that'd be great.  Unfortunately, they do, and that effects my experience.  If people buy overpriced remakes, that means more overpriced remakes will be released.  If people keep buying games that are broken, that means games I want will be broken at launch.  So, I don't have to endorse a program to be negatively impacted.

That's the beautiful thing about the English language, context. You don't have to say something directly to put forth what your saying. It bleeds through your posts as you push that all these remasters are nothing but cash grabs and anti-consumerist acts. If I miss-read your context (I'm sure I didn't) then I whole-heartedly apologize, not trying to put words in your mouth just trying to portray what you are saying. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, it's an opinion...your perspective of remasters is what I question.

I don't know, over a million or two people seem to be ok with paying full price for an upgraded 1 year old game with added DLC put into it. TLoU Remastered has been percieved as a good value for the amount that you pay as have almost all other remasters, no anti-consumerism laws have been broken from TLoU Remastered so I don't think you need to keep going on about something done in complete compliance with the anti-consumerism act as if ND or Sony are profiting off illegal operations.

Welp, I'm sorry you aren't able to enjoy what you think are over-priced remasters.



JWeinCom on 07 June 2015
A_C_E said:
JWeinCom said:

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

Oh wow.  My opinion does not reflect the opinion of everyone else in the world?  Golly, thanks for filling me in on that.  I totally thought I was entitled to speak for the world -_-...

I'm not speaking for anyone else in the world.  I'm giving my opinion on the perspective, and I never claimed to be doing anything differently.  Honestly, it's kind of annoying that you're acting as I did otherwise.  Other people can have different views, but that does nothing to invalidate mine.

As for The Last Of Us, if you wanted to buy it twice, or three times, whatever.  Go buy up a warehouse full of copies if you want.  But, the fact that Sony released it on the PS3 while knowing full well they would create a remake within a year without letting their consumers know is anticonsumer.  Tell people that the game will be available on both systems.  Let them choose if they want the PS3 version, the PS4 version, or both. 

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.

The sarcasm and condescension in your post are entirely unnecessary, particularly when my post wasn't even directed towards you. If you want to disagree fine.  Do so respectfully. 

If people wouldn't buy this, that'd be great.  Unfortunately, they do, and that effects my experience.  If people buy overpriced remakes, that means more overpriced remakes will be released.  If people keep buying games that are broken, that means games I want will be broken at launch.  So, I don't have to endorse a program to be negatively impacted.

That's the beautiful thing about the English language, context. You don't have to say something directly to put forth what your saying. It bleeds through your posts as you push that all these remasters are nothing but cash grabs and anti-consumerist acts. If I miss-read your context (I'm sure I didn't) then I whole-heartedly apologize, not trying to put words in your mouth just trying to portray what you are saying. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, it's an opinion...your perspective of remasters is what I question.

I don't know, over a million or two people seem to be ok with paying full price for an upgraded 1 year old game with added DLC put into it. TLoU Remastered has been percieved as a good value for the amount that you pay as have almost all other remasters, no anti-consumerism laws have been broken from TLoU Remastered so I don't think you need to keep going on about something done in complete compliance with the anti-consumerism act as if ND or Sony are profiting off illegal operations.

Welp, I'm sorry you aren't able to enjoy what you think are over-priced remasters.


Then you're reading the context wrong.  I don't feel that I need to flag everything I say with "this is my opinion".  I feel that it goes without saying that whatever I say is my opinion because who else's opinion could it possibly be?

And if two million people, or 3 million, or a billion people think it's a good value, then that really doesn't make a difference to me.  My opinion is not a democracy.  The idea of charging more for something that takes less effort is hard to justify.  The fact that Sony withheld information from their customers that prevented them from making an informed choice is a blatantly anticonsumer policy.  And, I don't think that part is an opinion.  Sony prevented their PS3 customers from deciding whether to buy the PS3 version or wait.  No way you can claim that's good for consumers.

Speaking of which, I never said any laws were being broken.  There are tons of things that people or companies can do within the scope of the law that are still crappy things to do.  For instance, we're constantly getting games that are rushed out and broken at launch.  Is that illegal?  No (although there are some class action lawsuits going on I believe).  That doesn't mean it isn't against the best interests of the consumer. 



Around the Network
Tachikoma on 07 June 2015

incidentally, i don't really consider TLOURM and GTAV (xbo/pc/ps4) to be "re-releases" as such, more just "delayed" versions of the last gen counterparts, PC players had to wait a considerable length of time for the PC version long after xbox one and ps4 players had got the chance to play, yet we arent calling the pc version a rerelease of a rerelease, so why do the same for the xbox one and ps4 version?



A_C_E on 07 June 2015
JWeinCom said:

Then you're reading the context wrong.  I don't feel that I need to flag everything I say with "this is my opinion".  I feel that it goes without saying that whatever I say is my opinion because who else's opinion could it possibly be?

And if two million people, or 3 million, or a billion people think it's a good value, then that really doesn't make a difference to me.  My opinion is not a democracy.  The idea of charging more for something that takes less effort is hard to justify.  The fact that Sony withheld information from their customers that prevented them from making an informed choice is a blatantly anticonsumer policy.  And, I don't think that part is an opinion.  Sony prevented their PS3 customers from deciding whether to buy the PS3 version or wait.  No way you can claim that's good for consumers.

Speaking of which, I never said any laws were being broken.  There are tons of things that people or companies can do within the scope of the law that are still crappy things to do.  For instance, we're constantly getting games that are rushed out and broken at launch.  Is that illegal?  No (although there are some class action lawsuits going on I believe).  That doesn't mean it isn't against the best interests of the consumer. 

You are right, the idea of charging more for something that takes less effort is hard to justify, in the case of TLoU Remastered I think it is very justified considering more money was put into a $40 game hence the $10 price induction.

We can fall back on opinions all we want. What matters more than opinions are the actual state of affairs. Remasters are good for consumers as well as help build the budgets for the up and coming games, especially in the first years of a generation. If you don't like it, then too bad I guess.

I honestly don't think you know what anti-consumerism is. TLoU is a product that had 100% honest regulated marketing/packaging with all the intended services that were sold in the interest of the buyer. Remastering TLoU on a NEW system with different capabilities, adding in more content, upping the resolution and framerate, enhancing the audio...this is not anti-consumerism, its the exact opposite. State your opinions all you want but there are definitions put in place and once you start spewing, "This is anti-consumerism", then you have officially treaded outside of the opinion zone and I'm sorry to say but you are dead wrong.

If TLoU (PS3) had code taken out of it and had its performance hindered on purpose just so ND/Sony could re-sell the game as a remaster then yeah, you'd have a point, but there is zero evidence of the PS3 being capable of running this game nearly as well as the PS4 handled TLoU Remastered.



JWeinCom on 07 June 2015
A_C_E said:
JWeinCom said:

Then you're reading the context wrong.  I don't feel that I need to flag everything I say with "this is my opinion".  I feel that it goes without saying that whatever I say is my opinion because who else's opinion could it possibly be?

And if two million people, or 3 million, or a billion people think it's a good value, then that really doesn't make a difference to me.  My opinion is not a democracy.  The idea of charging more for something that takes less effort is hard to justify.  The fact that Sony withheld information from their customers that prevented them from making an informed choice is a blatantly anticonsumer policy.  And, I don't think that part is an opinion.  Sony prevented their PS3 customers from deciding whether to buy the PS3 version or wait.  No way you can claim that's good for consumers.

Speaking of which, I never said any laws were being broken.  There are tons of things that people or companies can do within the scope of the law that are still crappy things to do.  For instance, we're constantly getting games that are rushed out and broken at launch.  Is that illegal?  No (although there are some class action lawsuits going on I believe).  That doesn't mean it isn't against the best interests of the consumer. 


We can fall back on opinions all we want. What matters more than opinions are the actual state of affairs. Remasters are good for consumers as well as help build the budgets for the up and coming games, especially in the first years of a generation. If you don't like it, then too bad I guess.

I honestly don't think you know what anti-consumerism is. TLoU is a product that had 100% honest regulated marketing/packaging with all the intended services that were sold in the interest of the buyer. Remastering TLoU on a NEW system with different capabilities, adding in more content, upping the resolution and framerate, enhancing the audio...this is not anti-consumerism, its the exact opposite. State your opinions all you want but there are definitions put in place and once you start spewing, "This is anti-consumerism", then you have officially treaded outside of the opinion zone and I'm sorry to say but you are dead wrong.

If TLoU (PS3) had code taken out of it and had its performance hindered on purpose just so ND/Sony could re-sell the game as a remaster then yeah, you'd have a point, but there is zero evidence of the PS3 being capable of running this game nearly as well as the PS4 handled TLoU Remastered.

Anti-consumer= against consumer.  People can indeed have differing opinions on what is good or not good for consumers.  And, you didn't even adress the complaint I had against The Last of Us.  But if you want to mess around with semantics instead of actually addressing the complaint I had against TLOU, then go ahead.

I'll put it simply.  Sony could have said "This game is coming out for the PS3, and we'll bring it to the PS4 later.  So, you can choose to buy it now, or if you're going to buy a PS4, you can wait for the upgraded version".  Instead, they didn't say anything.  So, people who would have preferred the super HD version already paid 60 bucks.

Which of the options Sony had would have been better for consumers?  If you think the option they did not take would be better for consumers, then the option they took would be anti-consumer.



A_C_E on 07 June 2015
JWeinCom said:
A_C_E said:
JWeinCom said:

Then you're reading the context wrong.  I don't feel that I need to flag everything I say with "this is my opinion".  I feel that it goes without saying that whatever I say is my opinion because who else's opinion could it possibly be?

And if two million people, or 3 million, or a billion people think it's a good value, then that really doesn't make a difference to me.  My opinion is not a democracy.  The idea of charging more for something that takes less effort is hard to justify.  The fact that Sony withheld information from their customers that prevented them from making an informed choice is a blatantly anticonsumer policy.  And, I don't think that part is an opinion.  Sony prevented their PS3 customers from deciding whether to buy the PS3 version or wait.  No way you can claim that's good for consumers.

Speaking of which, I never said any laws were being broken.  There are tons of things that people or companies can do within the scope of the law that are still crappy things to do.  For instance, we're constantly getting games that are rushed out and broken at launch.  Is that illegal?  No (although there are some class action lawsuits going on I believe).  That doesn't mean it isn't against the best interests of the consumer. 

You are right, the idea of charging more for something that takes less effort is hard to justify, in the case of TLoU Remastered I think it is very justified considering more money was put into a $40 game hence the $10 price induction.

We can fall back on opinions all we want. What matters more than opinions are the actual state of affairs. Remasters are good for consumers as well as help build the budgets for the up and coming games, especially in the first years of a generation. If you don't like it, then too bad I guess.

I honestly don't think you know what anti-consumerism is. TLoU is a product that had 100% honest regulated marketing/packaging with all the intended services that were sold in the interest of the buyer. Remastering TLoU on a NEW system with different capabilities, adding in more content, upping the resolution and framerate, enhancing the audio...this is not anti-consumerism, its the exact opposite. State your opinions all you want but there are definitions put in place and once you start spewing, "This is anti-consumerism", then you have officially treaded outside of the opinion zone and I'm sorry to say but you are dead wrong.

If TLoU (PS3) had code taken out of it and had its performance hindered on purpose just so ND/Sony could re-sell the game as a remaster then yeah, you'd have a point, but there is zero evidence of the PS3 being capable of running this game nearly as well as the PS4 handled TLoU Remastered.

Anti-consumer= against consumer.  People can indeed have opinions on what is good or not good for consumers.  And, you didn't even adress the complaint I had against The Last of Us.  Explain to me how not knowing about an incoming PS4 version was good for consumers.

Re-read the post? I kinda did address your question. My point was that TLoU Remastered was released on a NEW system, Sony shouldn't have to market something a year in advance for a product that hasn't even released yet. TLoU (PS3) was marketed towards PS3 owners, TLoU Remastered was marketed towards PS4 owners. Re-read my previous post and you will see that I would agree with you had ND/Sony released the remastered version for the PS3 with better visuals and overall better performance. Why don't all companies let consumers know that a GOTY or Complete edition is coming out for the same game within six months when they are on the same console?



JWeinCom on 07 June 2015
A_C_E said:Re-read the post? I kinda did address your question. My point was that TLoU Remastered was released on a NEW system, Sony shouldn't have to market something a year in advance for a product that hasn't even released yet. TLoU (PS3) was marketed towards PS3 owners, TLoU Remastered was marketed towards PS4 owners. Re-read my previous post and you will see that I would agree with you had ND/Sony released the remastered version for the PS3 with better visuals and overall better performance. Why don't all companies let consumers know that a GOTY or Complete edition is coming out for the same game within six months when they are on the same console?

And would it not have been better for perspective consumers to know that both versions were coming out so they could choose whether to wait for the better version?  I don't see what new system or old system had to do with it.  It is OBJECTIVELY BETTER for consumers to know about both versions. 

As for GOTY editions, I honestly don't like that practice.  But, at least it's common enough that gamers should know it's coming.  On the other hand, I don't believe there is a precedent for a game being rereleased that quickly, so gamers should not have expected it.