Yeah no, in this case, they had to build a new house based on an old house miles away and had to recreate everything from scratch.

But hey, that's not the first time someone comes up with his opinions over the facts, we even got a guy explaining Smash Wii U wasn't a Wii U exclusive since there was the 3DS version too, and was the same game (despite being not)

There's nothing "factual" about a 2009 game with redone graphics being a new game in 2020. All that's changed is the graphics and the graphics are just the paint job.

The Crash N.Sane and Spyro Reignited trilogies aren't new games, and their graphics were totally redone. New paint don't make a new house.

You do realize a game is not just about graphics, right ?

Cause Demon's Souls and Crash/Spyro/Zelda LA/Tony Hawk have been build up fro scratch, new teams had to recreate the physics, assets, gameplay and other stuff of old games.

Doing a paint job is a remaster, which isn't the case here

That games are not just about graphics is my point. Games are fundamentally about gameplay, and the gameplay in Demon's Souls PS5 is the same as it was when it first came out in 2009, all that's changed is the graphics, which are just a superficial facade.

I already explained why Demon's Souls remake was not just about graphics, but let's agree to disagree. It's an $70 PS5 exclusive, and shouldn't be used as an example regarding backward-compatibility.

I read those points but don't concur, so we will definitely have to agree to disagree. I never used it as an example of backwards compatibility though.

I'd say it's more an example of the industry's lack of new ideas and subsequent habit of constantly strip-mining its past because it's easier than making fresh original content.

Well Xbox one had no games only BC and sold +50 million.....While at the same time PS5 with BC has recently is the fastest selling console outperforming consoles like PS4/Switch who had no BC. Researchers will always say it is not important =p....but right now 90% of the games played on Next gen consoles are BC games.

BC games don't get any marketing or barely but are important. That's why publishers take (candidate)BC games like the Mass Effect games and just pimp them up a little
and with the right amount of marketing make it potentially one of the biggest releases of the year...

Only a small segment of consumers care much about it so no, it's not important.

Doubt anyone who currently owns a PS5 or Series X|S would have bought one if they didn't feature last gen BC compatibility.

On Series X, I'm currently playing Wreckfest, Code Vein and Yakuza 6 and recently finished Valkyria Chronicles 4, Octopath Traveler and Nier Automata. None of them are even enhanced for next gen consoles.
Outriders is the only next gen game I'm playing at the moment as I've finished most others already (Gears Tactics, DiRT 5, The Medium, Control Ultimate, CoD Black Ops Cold War)

This whole remakes are new games or not debate are giving me Ship of Theseus paradox vibes 

For me games are about software development much more than gameplay. Saying reausing the gameplay does not make a game new it's like saying a movie remake with the exaclty same screenplay is not a new movie. Like, can we really say Lion King and Lion King lice action are the same movie only with a different animation technique? (Original being 2D cartoonish animation,  remake being a 3D photorelistic motion-captured animation)

 Of course no, because just like games aren't mainly about gameplay (but from coding and overall development) movies are more about filming filming and editing. The process seems more important than the actual product. 

Of course, writing the screenplay and the elaborating a gameplay obviously counts in as part of the process but you can reuse them and integrate as part of a new development cycle

Keeping the same energy, from a software standpoint as long the game developed source code, assets and models are mostly original then it counts as a new game

When I release a patch of an old system, I'm still working using the source of the original system. Even if it comes to a point the source code now it's not even 10% it was originally, still "the same" system, because every iteration was built in the back of an preexisting original software

When I'm creating a brand  new system, even when I reuse identical user-cases and usability in practice what really counts is how my back code is being written. Don't dare me to say I'm developing the same system because technology and methods behind this new software can be completely different even if the user don't perceive it as a new software