RubberWhistleHistle said:
Teeqoz said:
He even mentions it in his video:
The 7th gen got tons of remasters too. Yet, oh look, 7th gen magically got tons of great new games! Who could have ever dreamed that there could be such a place were new games and remasters could co-exist? Blasphemy! 7th gen never took place!
In addition, his argument that these remasters are getting more attention and PR than before is just flat out wrong. We have gotten two remasters this gen that has gotten a lot of attention and PR, and those are for obvious reasons. Those two being Halo MCC and TLOUR
Halo MCC (which, btw, has the second game completely remade, so his argument that it costs less is just wrong) got a lot of attention because..... it's f'in Halo, the xbox staple franchise, and a series that sells about 10 million for each mainline franchise.
TLOUR got a lot of attention because......it was like the most awarded game of the millenia, and therefore the hype was still strong a year after release.
Then we have the argument that these games take resources from developers which could be used for new games.
Often, remasters are done by completely different teams, in fact, there are even quite a few teams that specializes on remasters. And also, remasters don't take that much resources to make, so even if they are made by the same team, like TLOUR, it hardly takes away much from the base team. You also have to factor in that these remasters support costs for new games, which makes it easier to take risks with new games, instead of just releasing the safe moneymakers (That is so ironic, considering that these remasters are safe moneymakers, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. If you release one safe moneymaker, that makes it a bit easier to take the risk af a game that might not perform as well). Of course, remasters do take away some of the resources a team has, but not in a substantial amount, and even then, the returns from the remaster might be put back into the base team which, oh look, gives you more resources for new games!
People are overreacting, but it's the internet, so I'm not sure what I really expected... |
the remasters in the seventh generation came during the last 2 to 3 years, and were used as a cash grab back then as well. when the generation started, the ps3 and 360 were being supported like every normal console that started in a new generation. great content was made, and this lasted until about 2011 when things took a sharp turn for the worse. around this time (2011, 2012) we had pretty much seen everything that the ps3 and 360 are capable of. sony and ms started squeezing as much life out of these consoles as they could with new bundles and sony is especially guilty with the remasters. at this point, the PS3 did not net the kind of money sony was after, so i suspect that is why they shoveled all the remasters onto the system.
so no, remasters did not come at the expense of great games, but when you look at the last couple years of gen 7, it was COMPLETELY different than the first couple years. remasters were flooding the ps3 and it still hasnt stopped. in this sense, i dont see there being a transition from gen 7 to gen 8. i think the transition into this current generation took place somewhere around the end of gen 7. the way developers have handled video games has not changed even though new consoles have come out. the philosophy has stayed the same, so the lines between these two generations are extremely blurry.
to reiterate, the later years of gen 7 have so much in common with gen 8 while the first 4 to 5 years of gen 7 have not much in common with the later years of gen 7.
|
Also, my post is on topic and I'm just answering your question. Anyway, you're saying that it's proven that people (I assume you mean the majority) will buy the same game multiple times and yet provided no proof yourself. You didn't comprehend the part you bolded in my post.
