• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Can we stop griping about remasters?

Just give me a Demon Souls/Dark Souls Remaster for PS4/XBO and ill be a happy man =) I haven't played Demon Souls for this reason alone and I'm almost 80% completing Dark Souls (mini LTTP: one of the greatest and most addictive RPGs I've ever played, plus it has some of the most memorable boss fights since Metal Gear Solid 3)
 
RDreamer said:
GAF's complaints about remasters are bafflingly dumb. I don't understand it at all.

For one, no, a remaster isn't using resources that a new game should get.... Unless it completely and utterly bombs, a remaster will make profit. That, by definition, is not using resources. That's gaining them. Remasters also keep fan interest high, and even gain new fans, which raises the profit potential on said new game in a series.

The other thing about resources is that a remaster by its very nature doesn't really require a creative staff. At least compared to an original game or a new sequel, a remaster requires almost none of that. That means that the creative staff (i.e. the top level important people expressing the visions we want to see) is still free to work on the next new thing, while programmers will work on the port at the same time. It also requires less than a new game, because, again, you're not building it from the ground up.

Second, no one is forcing you to buy anything. You don't want to buy the remaster? Don't. It's there for people who DO want to, of which there are apparently plenty since the remasters are making money. Not everyone played nearly as many games as you might have. Even sometimes when people play a lot of games, they might miss a series. But these people still buy a new console before consuming everything in a previous generation. Why shouldn't they have an opportunity to play some of these games, in a better form. For example, I played a lot of games last gen, but I mostly missed out on Borderlands. Other games got in the way, and I just never had time for them. Now if things do come true and there's a collection for all 3 games, I'd be ecstatic. And no one's forcing me to buy it right off the bat at a high price, either. The neat thing is that whenever I feel like playing them there will be a better version out for me to play... simply because it exists. Why is this a bad thing? You don't have to play the FFX PS4 remaster. You don't have to play GTA V remaster. You don't have to play The Last of Us Remaster. You don't have to play the potential Borderlands remaster. But, if you ever want to go back and play them you have the option of playing an even better version. Where's the bad in this?

I also think it's funny that people bitch and moan about console exclusive games and then also bitch and moan about ports to new consoles. Shouldn't more people have access to great games?
Click to expand...

Just because the remaster makes a profit, doesn't mean it is not using up resources (including time and the programmers who are working on the remaster) that could have been directed towards the new game. The new game project could have been released earlier if they didn't reserves a part of the resources for the Remaster.

A game company makes 5 new games for 10 years.
With the same resources and the same time frame, they can 9 new remasters, and 1 new game project...I don't see how this doesn't count as taking away resources for future game project.

Like I said, this trend wouldn't have exist if there's true backward compatibility, and really remaster games that are 2 gens older or more.
 
ArtHands said:
Just because the remaster makes a profit, doesn't mean it is not using up resources (including time and the programmers who are working on the remaster) that could have been directed towards the new game. The new game project could have been released earlier if they didn't reserves a part of the resources for the Remaster.
Click to expand...

You can't say that having more resources means a game will get released quicker, nor does it automatically mean a game will be better. That's oversimplifying things and this is making a lot of assumptions. Assassins Creed games are living proof. Too many people can cause problems too. That phrase too many cooks in the kitchen applies to game development also.

I would imagine that remaster teams are between 10-30 people tops on a basic port to PS4/X1 using PC assets. Given what I have seen ONE person do with games that have had their source codes released (id games) and what one person can create as a Skyrim mod (see Falskaar mod), I don't feel that my assumption is off base. They're not the same thing I realize that, but the similarities do exist.

The point that you can't dispute is that remasters are a low-risk option that provides funding for new games, which is what everybody wants.
 
I'm just glad they remastered GTA V. I missed it last gen, but now I have an XBone, am highly unlikely to go back to my 360. This remaster came out, so I jumped in and bloody hell, am I pleased I did. I missed Sleeping Dogs too and never played Halo, so I've got a lot of catching up to do and I'm glad I can do it on current gen.
 
I don't really have a problem with the concept of remasters, it's more the implementation. I'd rather a console be $50-$100 more and have BC than pay more than that for individual re-releases.

I'd love to see more HD Remasters from the PS2/XBOX/GCN era, instead of remasters of games from last year.
 
17:7 is a pretty terrible ratio going into the second year.

I don't mind remasters, I just don't find myself getting particularly excited about them. They also don't really drive console adoption, so while they are good for publishers they are bad for the industry overall. I'd much rather just buy old games on PC, knowing that I'll still be able to play them 5 years down the line instead of having to buy them again.
 
I don't really care about remasters one way or another, but the way they are being used (to carry a platformbetween newer games) is not working. Software sales continue to fall YOY as consumers are just balking at them. Old shit people played last gen isn't cutting it as they are being used now.
 
I wonder if all these people complaining about remasters still watch their favorite films on VHS.

Especially confusing are the people who admit to double dipping on a game on PC and console, but some how a next gen remaster is somehow sleazy.

Now that said, there has been a bit of a flooding of remasters, just like there was with HD collections from last gen.

Once a few publishers get burnt by putting out a few remasters nobody buys, things will correct themselves.
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
17:7 is a pretty terrible ratio going into the second year.

I don't mind remasters, I just don't find myself getting particularly excited about them. They also don't really drive console adoption, so while they are good for publishers they are bad for the industry overall. I'd much rather just buy old games on PC, knowing that I'll still be able to play them 5 years down the line instead of having to buy them again.
Click to expand...

17:7 is perfectly acceptable for the first full year of a consoles life. Too many people have expectations that game should be popping out when there is still a transition period. Remasters fill that void.

Another "bad for the industry" post....

I just don't get it.
 
I've never griped about a remaster.

I'm a graphics/performance snob and still anxiously awaiting RDR and Mass Effect remasters on current gen.
 
JohnnyFootball said:
17:7 is perfectly acceptable for the first full year of a consoles life. Too many people have expectations that game should be popping out when there is still a transition period. Remasters fill that void.

Another "bad for the industry" post....

I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

This generation, more than ever, offers little incentive to upgrade. You have

- Multi-gen games being announced even into the HD Twins' second year
- HD Remasters of games that came out last year. There isn't a massive gulf between the best of last gen and the early graphics of the new gen. (not saying new isn't better, it is, but is it compelling enough to upgrade?)
- A posible symptom of the collapse of the middle tier console game. Everything is polarizing into AAA, Indie, or Remaster.

PS2's first full calendar year (2001), we had FFX, Silent HIll 2, MGS 2, and Devil May Cry, and this doesn't even include some of the smaller middle tier titles.

Admittedly, console development is a lot tougher and expensive than that era, but I'd take a game that maybe wasn't 1080/60fps if it meant we got a few more mid-scale games from publishers.

Ubisoft is making good moves with things like Child of Light, and I hope they expand on games of that scale in the future.

tl;dr, I buy new consoles for new games/experiences. HD Remasters are only in vogue because backwards compatibility, which used to carry consoles through their early years, was taken away as a feature. I'm fine with HD Remasters as long as they are bringing something significantly new.
 
JohnnyFootball said:
You can't say that having more resources means a game will get released quicker, nor does it automatically mean a game will be better. That's oversimplifying things and this is making a lot of assumptions. Assassins Creed games are living proof. Too many people can cause problems too. That phrase too many cooks in the kitchen applies to game development also.

I would imagine that remaster teams are between 10-30 people tops on a basic port to PS4/X1 using PC assets. Given what I have seen ONE person do with games that have had their source codes released (id games) and what one person can create as a Skyrim mod (see Falskaar mod), I don't feel that my assumption is off base. They're not the same thing I realize that, but the similarities do exist.

The point that you can't dispute is that remasters are a low-risk option that provides funding for new games, which is what everybody wants.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessary means the game is better, but it is better than the game not meeting its deadline and still plays like crap. Additionally, lets not forget that those extra hands can also be in the form of bug testers too. Its hard to argue against the point that having too much people tend to have more benefit than having too few people on a project.
 
ArtHands said:
It doesn't necessary means the game is better, but it is better than the game not meeting its deadline and still plays like crap. Additionally, lets not forget that those extra hands can also be in the form of bug testers too. Its hard to argue against the point that having too much people tend to have more benefit than having too few people on a project.
Click to expand...

Just like its hard to argue that remasters are a bad thing and yet many people are trying.

Thankfully the majority of the people understand that they are there for people who want them.
 
JCX said:
tl;dr, I buy new consoles for new games/experiences. HD Remasters are only in vogue because backwards compatibility, which used to carry consoles through their early years, was taken away as a feature. I'm fine with HD Remasters as long as they are bringing something significantly new.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with this. Remasters are in vogue because of how much the late 7th gen games were stifled by the longest gen like ever. TLOU v TLOUR is a revelation, and ~60fps was a gamechanger. Games are still being built around this 7th gen limitation unfortunately so it will continue for a while until the old consoles stop selling games
 
My problem is that I'm tired of everyone saying they want all these games remade. And when they are full priced, I just can't help but roll my eyes.
 
JCX said:
This generation, more than ever, offers little incentive to upgrade. You have

- Multi-gen games being announced even into the HD Twins' second year
- HD Remasters of games that came out last year. There isn't a massive gulf between the best of last gen and the early graphics of the new gen. (not saying new isn't better, it is, but is it compelling enough to upgrade?)
- A posible symptom of the collapse of the middle tier console game. Everything is polarizing into AAA, Indie, or Remaster.

PS2's first full calendar year (2001), we had FFX, Silent HIll 2, MGS 2, and Devil May Cry, and this doesn't even include some of the smaller middle tier titles.

Admittedly, console development is a lot tougher and expensive than that era, but I'd take a game that maybe wasn't 1080/60fps if it meant we got a few more mid-scale games from publishers.

Ubisoft is making good moves with things like Child of Light, and I hope they expand on games of that scale in the future.

tl;dr, I buy new consoles for new games/experiences. HD Remasters are only in vogue because backwards compatibility, which used to carry consoles through their early years, was taken away as a feature. I'm fine with HD Remasters as long as they are bringing something significantly new.
Click to expand...

Dude, go back to the first year of the Xbox 360. How much of an incentive did it offer to upgrade? I am just amazed at how quickly people forget how mediocre the first year of any console generation is, especially the PS3/360 era.

This one as far as Im concerned has been the best.
 
Remasters are just fine, and a lot of them seem very interesting for those who haven't had the opportunity to play the game when it first came out.

But,

They are not exactly conference material and I think most of the backlash comes from that.
 
I am 100% in the pro remaster camp. I love new games but I still love the previous gens classics. If console makers continue to shun backward compatibility then a remaster is the easiest way to continue to play some of my favorite games. Still have my fingers crossed for a ME Trilogy Remaster.
 
Experien said:
My problem is that I'm tired of everyone saying they want all these games remade. And when they are full priced, I just can't help but roll my eyes.
Click to expand...

But most of them aren't the equivalent of a full priced standalone.
They often offer multiple games and ALL previously released DLC.
GTAV is really the only one that offers very little over the version released last year.
Mind you, I am not saying that makes all of them a good value ($60 for TR:DE and SD:DE) both had mediocre DLC and had no business costing $60.

But it's very hard to argue that Metro Redux and Halo: MCC in terms of content didn't give you a lot for your money. Yes, I realize that Halo:MCC is considered broken by many, but 4 games for $60 is really tough to beat.
 
JohnnyFootball said:
17:7 is perfectly acceptable for the first full year of a consoles life. Too many people have expectations that game should be popping out when there is still a transition period. Remasters fill that void.

Another "bad for the industry" post....

I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

Rereleasing old games to bleed money from existing costumers does nothing to fix the very real issue of console industry contraction. If anything, it cements the trend, because people who were skeptical before return a year later and see the same damn games.

People re-buying old games are also less likely to spend money on new IP like DriveClub, Sunset Overdrive, etc. This makes companies less willing to invest in new ideas that drive innovation and console adoption.

I have no problem with cross-gen games and cross-gen new IP. Flooding the shelves with games people played years ago just makes these consoles look redundant in the public eye. Sony and MS need to find a way to ensure backwards compatibility going forward, the idea of constantly rebuying the same game is completely foreign to people invested in Steam/iOS/Android.
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Rereleasing old games to bleed money from existing costumers does nothing to fix the very real issue of console industry contraction. If anything, it cements the trend, because people who were skeptical before return a year later and see the same damn games.

People re-buying old games are also less likely to spend money on new IP like DriveClub, Sunset Overdrive, etc. This makes companies less willing to invest in new ideas that drive innovation and console adoption.
Click to expand...

These arguments fall apart when you consider the FACT that the vast majority of games released this past year were NEW games. Tons of new games. One of the best Novembers in gaming history and that continues to be ignored.

You guys act like ALL we are getting are remasters when they are the minority and if go buy the months of Sep. Oct and Nov. where the vast majority of game sales are it was basically 10 new games and 3 remasters. It's basic math.
YOU ARE GETTING YOUR NEW GAMES.

Can you honestly remember a 3 month period where we got more new games in the last 5 years? This ranks as one of the best.
 
JohnnyFootball said:
These arguments fall apart when you consider the FACT that the vast majority of games released this past year were NEW games. Tons of new games. One of the best Novembers in gaming history and that continues to be ignored.

You guys act like ALL we are getting are remasters when they are the minority and if go buy the months of Sep. Oct and Nov. where the vast majority of game sales are it was basically 10 new games and 3 remasters. It's basic math.
YOU ARE GETTING YOUR NEW GAMES.

Can you honestly remember a 3 month period where we got more new games in the last 5 years? This ranks as one of the best.
Click to expand...

2.5:1 is not "vast".
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
2.5:1 is not "vast".
Click to expand...

There were 3 remasters and if one less had been released it would have been 5:1 and one less even 10:1 so yeah don't act like it's uncomfortably close. 3 remasters is not a lot, but 10 new games is a lot. You guys focus on the negative.

Again answer this question:
Can you honestly remember a 3 month period where we got more new games in the last 5 years or ever for that matter?
 
JohnnyFootball said:
Dude, go back to the first year of the Xbox 360. How much of an incentive did it offer to upgrade? I am just amazed at how quickly people forget how mediocre the first year of any console generation is, especially the PS3/360 era.

This one as far as Im concerned has been the best.
Click to expand...

Fully aware of how bleak the first year of pretty much every console is (which is why I don't understand those threads during the first year of console's life), but that doesn't mean HD Remasters fix anything.

They're great for users who may not have had the previous console, but again, BC allows people to catch up on a bunch of games (not just the ones that fared well on someone's spreadsheet), often at prices lower than a brand new HD Remaster.

I still have a bunch of Wii games to finish. It's nice to be able to play everything on one system instead of having to 1) Hook two systems up or 2) by the shiner version that just came out on the new console, even though i already have the old version.

Someone said it in the GoTY voting thread, but eagerness for rehashing games from the recent past makes us seem unwilling to embrace new gaming ideas (see NMS "Where's the gameplay? thread)

Fisty said:
I dont agree with this. Remasters are in vogue because of how much the late 7th gen games were stifled by the longest gen like ever. TLOU v TLOUR is a revelation, and ~60fps was a gamechanger. Games are still being built around this 7th gen limitation unfortunately so it will continue for a while until the old consoles stop selling games
Click to expand...

The best way to get people to switch is to offer new, compelling experiences that only the new box can offer.
 
I think we "kinda" have a right to complain about them.

I mean, I really don't care about stuff like the Resident Evil Remake HD port, or any remaster that happens X amount of years after the original was released. If you can keep your game relevant years after it's release by upscaling it and selling it to a new generation of gamers, by all means do it.

I'm talking mostly about all those "killer app" games that were intentionally released exclusively on Old Gen consoles about a year ago like Last of Us, GTAV and Dark Souls 2, and that are now being resold to gullible gamers at full price.

This is where I draw the line. It's a marketing ploy to get people to double dip. They knew the installment base of the PS4 and Xbox One was too small at launch to recoup their development costs, but most of all, they knew they could get way more money by getting people hooked on the old gen version, then sell them the game a second time with better graphics.

Which is exactly what is happening BTW. People bought Dark Souls 2, GTAV and the Last of US on PS3 , not because they wanted to play it on that particular console, but because there was not any concrete talk of a PS4 version being in development. So people buy the inferior version then poof, how about you buy it again , suckas ! They intentionally kept buyers in the Dark about the possibility of a next gen version too, because they knew by doing so some people would have waited a year to experience these titles at their best.

I guess what i'm tring to say is that if the game happens naturally years after it's initial release, i'm all good for it... But if it's a dirty tactic to get players to double dip and give them twice the money, then I hate it.
 
Stealth_Cobra said:
I guess what i'm tring to say is that if the game happens naturally years after it's initial release, i'm all good for it... But if it's a dirty tactic to get players to double dip and give them twice the money, then I hate it.
Click to expand...

But that's why you have a choice to buy or not buy. The PS3/360 versions of Last of Us and GTAV do not cease to exist once the new version comes out. If you have a 360/PS3 you can still enjoy these games and in perfectly playable form, despite what some people on GAF will tell you. I'm sorry I can't call something a dirty tactic when you, the consumer, still have a choice.

Stuff like content being removed from games that should have been in the base game to be sold as DLC I consider to be a far more egregious. From Ashes in ME3 is the perfect example. Some have said that the Destiny expansion packs fall in this category. I know others can come up with examples too.

When I bought Last of Us and GTAV I knew full well that there was a legit possibility that they could be re-released and any rational person did too.
 
ArtHands said:
Just because the remaster makes a profit, doesn't mean it is not using up resources (including time and the programmers who are working on the remaster) that could have been directed towards the new game. The new game project could have been released earlier if they didn't reserves a part of the resources for the Remaster.

A game company makes 5 new games for 10 years.
With the same resources and the same time frame, they can 9 new remasters, and 1 new game project...I don't see how this doesn't count as taking away resources for future game project.

Like I said, this trend wouldn't have exist if there's true backward compatibility, and really remaster games that are 2 gens older or more.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand resources? Profit is resources. With profit you can hire more programmers. With higher profit you can do another project. I don't get why you're saying "well with the same resources they could do more games." That's complete and utter nonsense, because that's not how it works. They're not "reserving part of the resources from a new game." They're gaining more resources through a smaller project that profits. Again, they can hire programmers solely for the ports. They can use programmers during a time when the creatives are still mapping out a new game and the real grunt work hasn't begun. Wanna know how I know that's how it works? Because sometimes they even publicly hire another company to do the port! Bluepoint games did the God of War collection, the team ico collection, and the Metal Gear Collection. A Chinese company called Virtuos did the Final Fantasy X|X-2 remaster. Please tell me how these took resources and delayed the main game in the series... Do you somehow honestly believe porting The Last Of Us delayed or somehow affected a sequel negatively? It gained them more fans and a higher profit potential on the sequel! It also gave them money during a time between big titles! Square-Enix has publicly said their port of Type-0 is basically trying to raise the amount of their fans that have upgraded to PS4 so that FFXV doesn't fail. That's the type of thing these remasters do.
 
RDreamer said:
Do you not understand resources? Profit is resources. With profit you can hire more programmers. With higher profit you can do another project. I don't get why you're saying "well with the same resources they could do more games." That's complete and utter nonsense, because that's not how it works. They're not "reserving part of the resources from a new game." They're gaining more resources through a smaller project that profits. Again, they can hire programmers solely for the ports. They can use programmers during a time when the creatives are still mapping out a new game and the real grunt work hasn't begun. Wanna know how I know that's how it works? Because sometimes they even publicly hire another company to do the port! Bluepoint games did the God of War collection, the team ico collection, and the Metal Gear Collection. A Chinese company called Virtuos did the Final Fantasy X|X-2 remaster. Please tell me how these took resources and delayed the main game in the series... Do you somehow honestly believe porting The Last Of Us delayed or somehow affected a sequel negatively? It gained them more fans and a higher profit potential on the sequel! It also gave them money during a time between big titles! Square-Enix has publicly said their port of Type-0 is basically trying to raise the amount of their fans that have upgraded to PS4 so that FFXV doesn't fail. That's the type of thing these remasters do.
Click to expand...

But...but....but the money used to hire Bluepoint could have been used to hire more people to work on a game such that it can be released sooner. Remasters are the reason so many games are getting cancelled!!

Code: 
sarcasm
 
I think the only valid complaint is that remastered games are being sold in place of traditional backwards compatibility. The appeal of owning a machine that plays two machines worth of software will never diminish. Especially not for me, who used to rely on backwards compatibility to play games he had missed. New consoles have often come at the expense of the old, for me. I need to money from the previous console to justify the upgrade.

But if backwards compatibility is technologically impossible, which is probably untrue, then remastered games are the only way for me play these games. All the HD Collections last gen were fantastic for me. As somebody who never had a PS2, having an opportunity to play all the God of Wars and all the Metal Gears added incredible value to my investment.

I also come from the world of film enthusiasm. Which means I don't just buy the latest remasters for movies, I wait and pine for their releases. Having the highest quality transfer of a film is a big part of enjoying them. Even if the only difference in a remastered game is 30fps vs 60fps, I will be interested.
 
Cacpom needs remasters like these for some "free" cash.

They can go right ahead if it means they stay in business long enough to make Dragon's Dogma 2.
 
xtrasauce said:
Complaining about remasters is like complaining about old movies being re-released in high definition.
Click to expand...
You had a point a couple years ago. Now we are at the point where they're remastering things that came out like a year before the remaster. It's not just old games being re-released anymore. It's fairly recent games.

I'm not totally against remasters, and I've bought some myself, but at the moment I think the industry is leaning on them too much. They also seem to be the way for companies to replace backwards compatibility, now that they're releasing things like Last of Us and GTAV, and I honestly think that it's an embarrassing standard to set.
 
I'd love Nintendo to flesh out there games lineup with some great HD remasters. Windwaker was great so anything along those lines I'd lap up. Metroid & Galaxy remasters for starters please.
 
Robert J. Sullivan said:
Can we start griping AFTER we get that dragon's dogma remaster.
Click to expand...

Imagine if they where planning a PC exclusive remaster but saw the backlash against remasters and said no.

yes-wait-wtf.gif
 
Remasters are fine when there is significant added content or a large gap in the release. Something like TLOU or Tomb Raider though, yea good luck with that.
 
see5harp said:
Remasters are fine when there is significant added content or a large gap in the release. Something like TLOU or Tomb Raider though, yea good luck with that.
Click to expand...

TLoU included all DLC and it was actually good DLC. Tomb Raiders DLC was a complete joke. Plus, TLoU was $10 cheaper than TR
 
xtrasauce said:
Complaining about remasters is like complaining about old movies being re-released in high definition.
Click to expand...
What a terrible analogy. It's not at all the same.

1) Original film prints are/were in much higher resolution than even most HD formats.
2) Even in the HD era, there still aren't perfect framerate solutions to match original film print standards.
3) Most HD formats still produce various kinds of artefacts and imperfections in motion, refresh, etc. that are inferior to original prints.

And so on. In other words, HD re-releases of old movies are still (for the most part) below the original standard for film--including films from the pre-sound era. This is nothing remotely like what's happening in HD-updates to old games.

Complaining about HD updates of old games is much more like complaining about Turner-era colorization of old black and white films, or like complaining about the Lucas/Spielberg revisions of their original classic films.
 
As a PC gamer i hate Remasters of games old 1-2 years because publishers are selling these upgrades that often can contain some bug fixes.
 
JohnnyFootball said:
TLoU included all DLC and it was actually good DLC. Tomb Raiders DLC was a complete joke. Plus, TLoU was $10 cheaper than TR
Click to expand...
That weird as the limited edition version of TRDE was actually £8 cheaper for me then TLOU £39.99 price.
 
RDreamer said:
What about when 1/3 of your console purchasers didn't own your previous console and 17% didn't own any previous console? Because that's why TLOU happened.
Click to expand...

Yea, if it proved to be profitable then it's obviously a good move. If you hadn't played the game last gen, then I don't see anything wrong with buying the game. For me though even playing a game I played recently is tough. I gameflyed TLOU for ps4 and really only got though the first section. A photo mode just wasn't all that compelling to me and there were other new games to play. Knock yourself out if you wanna pay for the same thing again though.
 
Zen_Arcade said:
Which wouldn't be a problem in the first place is companies kept their consoles backwards compatible. Sure, remasters fill in a gap, but that gap used to be filled for free. Or at the very least, way cheaper then it would be now.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the only legit complaint for remasters. I really hate that there isn't backwards compatibility, too. I hated that last gen I had to replace my backwards compete PS3 with a non-PS2 backwards compatible one. I hate that my PS4 doesn't have any backwards compatibility. It sucks, but I kind of think of it in the way I think of paying for online now... consumers spoke, and it seems they didn't give a fuck about backwards compatibility last gen, and thus this gen got shafted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Can we get remasters of the PS1 Spider-Man games?
2
61
797
VulcanRaven replied
Can we stop using Jez Corden as a Source?
2
58
903
SpiceRacz replied
Can we talk about seasonal gameplay changes in multiplayer games?
8
241
Brakum replied
We were 100% right about how DLSS 5 works
3 4 5 6 7
341
2K
Thebonehead replied
Todd Howard when asked about FO3/NV Remasters, “We’re working on a whole bunch of stuff”
11
463
Laptop1991 replied
Top Bottom