Support NeoGAF

[Jado]

You could use that (non-)argument about anything and everything.

No, you can't. Well, you could if you wanted to be facetious. But no, it doesn't apply uniformly. Saying a Dev should've done something new vs. working on a port is a unique argument that you can't apply to "anything and everything." There are good reasons to back this argument.

On the other hand and as an example: Nintendo should've diverted resources to a new IP vs. New Super Mario Bros 3 or Ubisoft should give AssCreed a rest and do something all-new? That is a completely different discussion/arguing points with more subjectivity.

 

[Fantomex]

Remastered are awesome. Have you guys gone in the Halo MCC thread lately?

 

[Gotchaye]

I don't have any problem with re-releasing slightly upgraded versions of last-gen games. I'm happy that more people get to play them, etc.

What I've always found kind of off, though, is how big of a deal various remasters are in the culture. It's really weird to watch some video game conference where a company is trying to get people who are presumably enthusiasts excited about all its upcoming offerings and then they start bragging about how they're re-releasing some game everyone in the audience already played. It makes the industry seem creatively bankrupt and it makes the audience seem totally uninterested in new experiences. Like, this is what we're excited about?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I don't have any problem with re-releasing slightly upgraded versions of last-gen games. I'm happy that more people get to play them, etc.

What I've always found kind of off, though, is how big of a deal various remasters are in the culture. It's really weird to watch some video game conference where a company is trying to get people who are presumably enthusiasts excited about all its upcoming offerings and then they start bragging about how they're re-releasing some game everyone in the audience already played. It makes the industry seem creatively bankrupt and it makes the audience seem totally uninterested in new experiences. Like, this is what we're excited about?

What example are you referring to when you say that people are most excited abou remasters?

I just can't think of a single press conference were a remaster was the highlight of the show.
Granted Sony did make sure TLoU and GTAV were part of conference at E3 but I never once felt they were the highlight of the show.

 

[Gotchaye]

What example are you referring to when you say that people are most excited abou remasters?

I just can't think of a single press conference were a remaster was the highlight of the show.
Granted Sony did make sure TLoU and GTAV were part of conference at E3 but I never once felt they were the highlight of the show.

I'm not saying they've been the centerpiece of conferences, but they've been given the same kind of billing as any other big new game. I don't know if there's a general lack of new games or if they're crowding out other games that would otherwise be presented (I suspect the former), but either way it's just not a good look when this sort of thing is a big part of your sales pitch.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Sure, right after we stop complaining about people who complain.

 

[RedSwirl]

It's basically the same as re-releasing an old movie on Blu-Ray. Classic movies get remastered all the time because people still want to watch them. It's the same with classic games.

I'm fine with even remasters of PS3 and 360 games because let's be honest, most of those games were seriously held back by the PS3 and 360, forced to run at 720p and 30fps, if even that. And for a lot of those games you already have much higher quality assets from the PC version to bring into a remaster.

What I would actually like to see are remasters of old console games to PC (specifically Windows). That seems to be the best way to "preserve" these games and keep them playable far into the future, because out of all the gaming platforms Windows has the best track record with backwards compatibility.

Edit: Man a lot of people didn't read the OP. One of the first arguments in the OP for remasters is most of them are farmed out to studios that specialize in ports. Those studios don't plan to make new games anyway, ports are their business.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I'm not saying they've been the centerpiece of conferences, but they've been given the same kind of billing as any other big new game. I don't know if there's a general lack of new games or if they're crowding out other games that would otherwise be presented (I suspect the former), but either way it's just not a good look when this sort of thing is a big part of your sales pitch.

While GTAV, Halo:MCC and TLoU u did get a presence because they're a big deal, but I still don't feel like it's become a trend trend. That's 3 remasters that got hype, while remasters like metro, TR, and SD all got no hype, but just a press release.

Metro Redux I feel deserved a lot more hype than it got.

 

[Mostlypainless]

When the best selling games of a given year are ports; publishers have little incentive to take a risk on the new content that drives the industry.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Edit: Man a lot of people didn't read the OP. One of the first arguments in the OP for remasters is most of them are farmed out to studios that specialize in ports. Those studios don't plan to make new games anyway, ports are their business.

yep, I'm grateful that publishers are doing their part to keep them in business.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

When the best selling games of a given year are ports; publishers have little incentive to take a risk on the new content that drives the industry.

From what I understand the best selling games are: watch dogs, Destiny, and call of duty AW.

Those aren't ports, although they are cross-gen.

 

[NahaNago]

I'm sure that most of these companies have teams dedicated to porting and aren't dedicating their entire staff to working solely on remasters.

i'm mostly talking about xbox360 games or ps3 games getting ported to next gen as at least downloadable titles. Well actually all gens that a company has created for getting brought to next gen. Would love it if all those psp and ps2 titles had a legal backwards downloadability for all older gen games on next gen whether it be handheld or console it doesn't matter.got just send it to ps4. Mostly because i just want crisis core on ps4.

 

[cantona222]

I played and beat the last of us, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raiders, GTA V on last gen. I wish I played another games at that time and kept these games for the new Gen consoles to experience the "definitive edition". That's why most of us complain I guess. knowing that if we waited 1.5 years we would've gotten a "better" experience.

 

[Choomp]

I'm pretty sure the people who complain about remasters are the same people that say indies aren't real games.

You're fighting a losing battle. However I do agree with you 100%

Eh, qua? I'd think people who dislike remasters would be behind interesting indie games.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I played and beat the last of us, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raiders, GTA V on last gen. I wish I played another games at that time and kept these games for the new Gen consoles to experience the "definitive edition". That's why most of us complain I guess. knowing that if we waited 1.5 years we would've gotten a "better" experience.

For me, playing an older game that I enjoyed with better graphics helps me re-live that experience.

 

[jimi_dini]

BC on next gen consoles will be easier than n ever going forward, as neither Sony or MS will use anything other than x86 type components again.

Not this again.

No, it doesn't work like that. And even IF it was easy-peasy (which it isn't), why should MS + Sony do anything like that, when they can simply SELL THE GAMES from last generation slightly "upgraded" on next gen again for $60 and people buy that without second thought? It's working really well currently. From a business standpoint doing so would be silly. That's like saying "oh, but next generation PSN / Xbox Live will be free again"

I'm 99.99999% sure, that the next generation consoles of those companies will not feature backward compatibility ... again .... Sony can't be even bothered with simply porting their PS1 emulator to PS4. Why do that and offer backward compatibility for old discs, which won't get you profit, when you can sell those games on your streaming service.

 

[JayhawkerStL]

This is not the reason for the lack of BC. Not even close. The reason for lack of BC is due to the radically different architectural designs. There is no way that these machines will ever be able to successfully emulate games from last gen. It's not something that can be patched in. It just wasn't possible. Sony went away from the cell tech because it was too difficult to use and too expensive in the long run to use.

Having said that, I DO think that if remasters sell real well that there will be less incentive to have BC in the next gen games. That is a concern I can agree with.

I think remasters and the desire to drive more sales is the reason for, "radically different architectural designs."

PC games seem to work a million Tim better over the years despite new OS's. Console makers could develop beefed up systems without making the previous Gen obsolete.

 

[Visualante2]

Leaky arguments? Really. Please elaborate. I started this thread to get real arguments against because I am tired of the "just because..."

Doesn't take away resources (except Rockstar North and 343i and Naughty Dog and etc...)

Only positive I see from this situation is that they may be able to put out their next game quicker having learned lessons from these remasters.

 

[jonno394]

Give me more remasters please! We can have new games and ports of old games too!

 

[OmegaDL50]

I'm 99.99999% sure, that the next generation consoles of those companies will not feature backward compatibility ... again .... Sony can't be even bothered with simply porting their PS1 emulator to PS4. Why do that and offer backward compatibility for old discs, which won't get you profit, when you can sell those games on your streaming service.

I'm not so sure if it would be cost effective for Sony to even stream PSX games via PS Now. In fact it may make them even lose more money then gain due to the bandwidth involved.

In fact SD video can be around a GB/half a GB an hour. streaming more than a few hours will easily get into "more data than the game disk" territory.

That said, for any PS1 game, by the time you've played the game for an hour or two over streaming video, you've already used up enough bandwidth to download all the game data and store it locally. For most PS2 games, it would take longer, but usually not as long as it would take to finish the game.

So it may actually cost MORE money for Sony if they stream old PS1 / PS2 stuff on PS Now rather then utilize software based emulation.

The PS4 is more than capable of doing this, of course if Shuhei Yoshida's offhand comment turns out to be true, then that would be nice.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/21/psn-transfers-ps4/

 

[witchedwiz]

I agree. Devs just have to price them right.

This..
And no, for me a remaster hardly is worth more than 30 dollar/eur (using 1:1 since it's the rate anyway for final users...)..
I can appreciate a good remaster but at the RIGHT price..

 

[schaft0620]

The reality is all of the right games are not getting remasters.

Skyrim
Borderlands
FFVII
Crash

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I think remasters and the desire to drive more sales is the reason for, "radically different architectural designs."

No dude.

The amount of money they make on remasters doesn't even begin to compensate for the costs needed to make a system backwards compatible.

The reason for the architecture changes was simple: They wanted a system that was easy to program for and cheaper to produce and that is what the PS4 accomplished. It's as simple as that.

Being able to sell remasters was probably not even a consideration when switching over to new architecture.

They are, however, a benefit that Sony or MS doesn't mind taking advantage of.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

This..
And no, for me a remaster hardly is worth more than 30 dollar/eur (using 1:1 since it's the rate anyway for final users...)..
I can appreciate a good remaster but at the RIGHT price..

Ill pay $60 for a trilogy of games that has all the DLC and standard enhancements. Two games? Maybe.

But for one game $39.99 would probably be my tops unless its a game that has a ton of content and DLC (ala Fallout games or Elder Scrolls)

 

[May16]

1. "Give me new games" - this has got to be the single worst argument I have seen for those being opposed to remasters because it has no basis in reality.

You sure?
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-trials-and-tribulations-behind-kingdom-hearts-3

Yasue explained to me that two teams of programmers were employed, one focusing on 2.5 Remix and the other on Kingdom Hearts III, while the designers split their time evenly between the two projects. Now 2.5 is out the way, it’ll enable them all to focus on Kingdom Hearts III

He goes on to say that he "doesn't believe" there was any slowdown, but this conflicts with what they've said about not knowing what Disney worlds will even be involved. There's no way that wasn't slowed down.

 

[Hypron]

I agree with the OP. I'd like every good console exclusive to be remastered somewhere along the way so that I can play them in good quality on a modern screen without having to either buy an old console or keep on using an old console.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

You sure?
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-trials-and-tribulations-behind-kingdom-hearts-3


He goes on to say that he "doesn't believe" there was any slowdown, but this conflicts with what they've said about not knowing what Disney worlds will even be involved. There's no way that wasn't slowed down.

THANK YOU! You are the FIRST person out of everyone who has presented some evidence that actually supports the notion that remasters can take away from company resources.

Having said that, I don't claim to be an expert, but there are certain stages of game development that don't require an increase of staff and whatnot. More resources doesn't automatically mean the game will ship faster or better. Assassins Creed is proof of that.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

What about next gen, when the new consoles are still just x86 machines with a discrete GPU? I can understand being okay with paying for something which would need to be ported, and take time and effort in order to get there. On the other hand, making people pay again for games which should to all intents and purposes be playable without modification, but with better settings, would be hard to defend.

 

[BigDug13]

Remasters are the only way to extend online communities as people move on from older systems. The cream of the crop games that people want to keep playing multiplayer on will get fresh legs with a remaster.

GTAV, Borderlands collection, Halo MCC, Diablo 3, etc. It lets people keep playing multiplayer in a thriving community on their favorite games instead of watching the community slowly disintegrate on their favorite games.

All thanks to no backward compatibility.

 

[jimi_dini]

I'm not so sure if it would be cost effective for Sony to even stream PSX games via PS Now. In fact it may make them even lose more money then gain due to the bandwidth involved.

In fact SD video can be around a GB/half a GB an hour. streaming more than a few hours will easily get into "more data than the game disk" territory.

So?
Internet bandwidth is cheap, just look at youtube and youtube is effectively free for the consumer. It's about getting people to use their streaming rental service, where you don't own anything at all anymore. You buy a day of playtime and that's it. For a business that's great, for the consumer that's really bad.

I mean why would you sell a PS1 game for let's say $5, when you can get your customer to rent that game for a week ... for $5. Hell, make that $1 per day or per week and it would still be a win for Sony. Sony invested tons of money into that streaming service. Putting PS1+PS2 games on there would be a gold mine for Sony. Backward compatibility + emulation on the console is the exact opposite of that streaming service.

I think maybe one of the ways to get people to use it would be to introduce trophies or some shit for PS1+PS2 games on that streaming service. I'm pretty sure that something like that would (sadly) work.

The PS4 is more than capable of doing this

Doing what? PS3 is already capable of running PS1 games entirely using software emulation. Their PS1 emulator is also available on PSP + Vita, but that existing PS1 emulator is still not on PS4 atm. PS3 is even able to run a few PS2 games entirely using software, but that existing PS2 emulator is also not on PS4.

 

[RooMHM]

I thought we could make it to page 2 without this. Even page 3 on a real good day.

But here we are. That's intangible, tinfoil link between a bad practice and thing-I-don't-like, despite OP's very carefully laid out post.

Next, the worry, because this poster is so worried about the state of the industry, and how the leaders are going to be affect, he doesn't mind grouping remaster buyers into a single category - people who have already played the game prior.

Nevermind the fact that there are many people who missed out on TLOU like I did, or people who didn't finish it the first time, or even people who just want to enjoy one of their favorite games in a better format.

Nevermind the fact that remasters have existed in other ways with ports on older systems that were clearly better than their previous versions (but that depends on the port. See: Mega Man DOS), so if anything, this is a generation that has less remasters than ever.

(Maybe you want to get nitpicky and play semantics here, and call ports of previous gens just ports, when many followed this upscaled/technically better suit and were remade for a purpose, but that's fine)

Nevermind the fact that there are literally less remasters as a whole in this generation right now than original titles.

I could go on, but you all get the point - no matter how many times you make this topic and explain to those who are unaware, some people won't listen. No matter how farfetched they sound.

Should we be celebrating there are more new games than remakes/ports ? Thank god we haven't reached final doom yet.

I never said all people played the game prior to buying the remastered version, it's just a matter of fact some people if not a lot already have. And I still believe games should be played in their original state except when they are close to unplayable. I'm not grouping players into a category, you're going full defensive on that. But in a age where people accept to pay content that was on disc when they bought it for a premium, i say that accepting to buy the same formula (gameplay/story/design) twice is really worrying and is giving a bad signal to already anti consumer leaders that kill the media year after year.
When people do not prefer new over rehashed, you can't say things are going well. Hell people (probably a lot) are going to vote TLOU GOTY this year...

edit: I'm not against ports by any means, because it is far less likely that people who buy them haven't already played them on another platform. But remasters from platform made by the same manufacturer greatly reduce this probability.

 

[JordanN]

You can tell the people who are shocked about remasters, were probably born after the 90's.

Not every remaster interests me but I'm not going to pretend those are the only games ever made. I'm sure any prominence they have will go away next year or the year after. Just be patient.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

What about next gen, when the new consoles are still just x86 machines with a discrete GPU? I can understand being okay with paying for something which would need to be ported, and take time and effort in order to get there. On the other hand, making people pay again for games which should to all intents and purposes be playable without modification, but with better settings, would be hard to defend.

Again, nobody is making you pay for anything. When I paid for a game on my PS3/360 I paid for the right to play the game on those systems. It does not entitle me the right to be able to play the game on the PS4. It's no different than upgrading a DVD to Bluray. I no longer have my PS3 or 360 but if I still did I could still choose to play those games on that system. It's not like the last gen versions of those games will cease to exist.

 

[MastaKilla]

I'm fine with warranted remasters. Give me a Socom 2 remaster or a Syphon Filter remaster and I'll be ecstatic. But do I want a beyond two souls one? Nope. When it gets out of hand is when the remaster trend gets annoying.

 

[Michanical]

And I still believe games should be played in their original state except when they are close to unplayable.

Why?!

 

[IdreamofHIME]

I don't mind them complaining as i believe they are just new kids who have never lived through a console generation change before.

If they are anything else, then they baffle me.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I'm fine with warranted remasters. Give me a Socom 2 remaster or a Syphon Filter remaster and I'll be ecstatic. But do I want a beyond two souls one? Nope. When it gets out of hand is when the remaster trend gets annoying.

We had 10 new games and 3 remasters since September. According to some people that's outta hand.

 

[Paracelsus]

Remasters are good when they are

A. Not used to fill shameful line-up voids for whatever company/publisher
B. Not used by neogaf as a positive argument towards whatever company/publisher

They are supposed to be a plus, nothing more.

 

[Tain]

These are ports, not "remasters". Even releases that have a significant amount of new content/assets. Using "remaster" to describe these releases bugs me a lot.

That said, while new games absolutely are more important than ports of older ones, I can't think of an instance of a port's development bothering me. Often enough they're pretty clearly outsourced or it isn't known what else the developer is working on. And for all I know they might need the cash from doing the port to make their next original game as best as it can be.

 

[Wedge7]

Agreed, I love remasters. Well, in my case, its not really fair as most of the time I probably bought the original and never actually played it yet, so the remaster is a perfect excuse to now play and beat it in higher quality. But even when I've already played it, such as FFX for example, I'm more than happy to have it in the "best" version, and dont mind supporting that practice at all.

 

[Acorn]

Gtav and TLOU are my goty again so I'm a fan.

 

[ultratruman]

I really want some kind of elder scrolls collection for the new consoles.

 

[RedSwirl]

Really though, good games should be on as many game platforms as makes sense.

 

[Arondight]

First time buying a console since PS1 so I'm pretty glad for some of the remasters that are happening. Meanwhile, I'm hoping Uncharted Remastered collection, GOW3 remaster and looking forward to playing Journey for the first time. Currently loving TLOU remastered. I just hope that there are far more new quality experiences and some people do raise good points that it looks a bit bad that the remasters are the best games on PS4.

 

[redcrayon]

The objection I disagree with the most is 'but we've already played these games'. TLOU was one of the best games on the PS3 and barely 10% of PS3 owners bought it. Not everyone is as plugged into the 'buy everything day one at full price then move on to the next big thing' cycle, the developers already have the money from those guys, it's the ones still holding on to their cash that they want now.

The last generation was also long, and spawned lots of new IP that the new systems aren't backwards compatible with. I'm looking forward to seeing the inevitable Mass Effect and Dead Space released again so I have the option of everything on the disc, or at least downloadable and playable on PS4. I don't want to keep half a dozen consoles plugged in under the telly when I can have one. Even then it doesn't mean I'll be shelling out for them on day now as they'll be a reasonable price within six months. I find it hard to blame a developer assigning a skeleton staff to keeping their back catalogue in print and the money coming in while the main teams are in a lengthy development cycle , it just makes business sense.

It seems to me that some people feel that just because a £60 remaster is released that gets good reviews, they feel the need to buy it even if they already played the previous edition recently, and then feel bad about it. Why not just pick it up a couple of years down the line for a few quid? Neither GTA or TLOU is going to go out of print in a hurry.

 

[Nerokis]

I agree. In general, I like remasters. They push back against a hype cycle that is fundamentally unhealthy by giving games an opportunity to experience a post-release resurgence. They give communities an excuse to get back together, and people who never got around to a game an excuse (or chance, even) to give it a shot. They help justify a game's initial investment by essentially giving it longer legs, which is particularly important during the transition between generations. Finally, I very much enjoy the opportunity to go through games I loved again with tweaks and improvements that help them feel fresh.

So for me, remasters seem win-win-win. I can understand not caring about them, or being tired of them, but some of the arguments against them seem hollow. Like, while the ratio of remasters:new games has probably gone up, that hardly means the former are resulting in less of the latter. Sure, there's the concept of opportunity cost, but there's also the concept of specialization of labor. They inform each other. Exact situations vary from studio to studio, I'm sure, but the process of creating a new game and the process of remastering another don't have the same demands, and I'm positive sometimes allocating people to a remaster project makes them more productive than they'd be otherwise. Overall, I find it hard to believe that remasters are typically prioritized within studios to the extent that new games are being significantly delayed for them.

In the end, new games are put into the hands of consumers reasonably close along the same timeline as they would have ever been, but then people also have a chance to experience lovingly enhanced versions of past games. I feel the happiness pie is bigger, not smaller, because of remasters.

 

[Oddduck]

People assume that everyone has played every game, and they own every system.

There's a lot of games I missed from the PS3/360 era because I just didn't have time to get to them.

There will be many PS4 owners who never owned a PS3, and they would love to play the Uncharted trilogy on PS4.

 

[Tragicomedy]

I'm playing The Last of Us for the first time and it's in the running for my favorite game ever.

#teamremaster

 

[Nizz]

I am with the OP 100%. There are still many games I hope get ported over, like the Uncharted and God of War,and Crysis series. OP brought up many valid points as to why remssters aren't such a bad thing at all.

I skipped out on some games last gen due to framerate issues. Having the chance to play them at improved framerates and resolution is a no brainer for me.

 

[mstevens]

I skipped a couple generations (most of the Wii, PS3, Xbox360, GC, parts of PS2) I love all these remasters. As long as new games keep coming out in greater numbers, I say keep polishing these classics and keep making them relevant.