I'm not against remasters, but of all the games available, this certainly seems like an odd choice. I'd rather they find something else to remaster.
This is like one of the best choices for a remaster IMO.
1) Assets are perfectly fine, so a remaster is acceptable rather than a major remake
2) It is majorly harmed by the resolution and to a lesser extent the framerate of it's PS3 version. The game is jaggie-city and at least in the desert the framerate is a problem even for a 30FPS game
3) It is a PS3 exclusive and like half of PS4 owners didn't have a PS3
4) even if you did have a PS3, many PS4 owners may have sold them and may have not been avid buyers of late last-gen content
5) Again, it being PS3 exclusive (or console exclusive in general) means there's no PC version to run natively (or modded) at higher res or otherwise preserve
If this game isn't fit for a remaster I'm not really sure what is.
The game was a commercial success though?
A million in 3 months, probably a success considering long tail + >$60m in sales for a <$60 million game (Wikipedia claims $27m for the game $18m in marketing)
Has anyone heard anything more on this? My girlfriend has been bugging me to buy it on PS3 but I'd sooner have it on the PS4 instead.
You can get it for $16 on amazon, I'd just buy it. "worst" case, it's remastered as a budget release on PS4 and you can trade in your PS3 copy if you even want to replay, and if it's not a budget release on PS4 I really can't recommend it. I enjoyed the game, but it's clearly experimental and a $20 price tag is right about perfect for it.