Bro Yoshida's mission statement on remasters

I haven't miss the point at all. You've just proved what I said in regard to it being a money grab. Justify it all you like, but doesn't change what it is at the core.

Selling regurgitated shit is NOT ok, even if it is to fund new IP. At the very least go back to early PS2-PS1 era games instead of shit that came out not even 5 years ago. It's total bullshit to get people to invest in a new console only to have their library to be littered with stuff that's still available in stores. At launch, and maybe some of the first year I really wouldn't mind I understand the need to put some fluff in your launch lineup, but you can tell this is a tactic that is going to be the norm. (They started this shit on the PS3) And you're right, I'm not really down on remasters, I just don't like the way they are being handled.

It's the same way with how the industry has monetized betas. It's a bullshit money grab, I don't expect them to be honest about it, but don't tell me I can't call them on their bullshit.

Oi. Just like the Halo DLC, it's optional. you're not forced to buy it. Ignore it and move on...

So this is Sony's fault?

Every one is doing it. And they will keep doing it

No one forces you to buy these things. End of story.

Glad to see nothing much has changed with some people around here lol.

Remasters are easy enough to ignore if you already played the game in question. They literally hurt nothing, and the minimal work it takes from a port house can go into funding the next entry.

Can we please be offended over worse things than having more options?

As always SWs is hypocritical. When Nintendo (and Square) does it it's a rehash or milkage. When everyone else does it, it's great for the fans.

Still I don't mind remasters so long as:

• It's a great value and not pricy (The Rare Collection is a great example)
• Isn't a remaster of a game that's less then a year old (I'm looking at you Naughty Dog)
• It's well made and not rushed, and not broken. (But ND do not make these mistakes).

Gears and Halo are already playable via backwards compatibility on Xbox One for Preview members..

Source: http://www.gamepur.com/news/19282-10-more-games-revealed-xbox-onexbox-360-backward-compatibility-features.html

You were saying?..

Bottom line: if the remaster brings enough new features/content to the table, then a person may see the value in buying it again, and that's up to the individual.. Why should this affect the option to play the original via backwards compatibility?.. This simple logic undermines everything Yoshida is saying in that article..

With the Halos being available through backwards compatibility, some people would still buy the Halo: Master Chief Collection and some people will be content with the originals.. With Gears of War already available via backwards compatibility, some people will still buy the Gears of War remake and some will be content to play the original.. And by that same line of logic, just because there are some people who haven't played Uncharted 1-3, doesn't mean they want to pay full price for a remake when they could get those games dirt cheap from a used games bin or borrow them from a friend and play them via backwards compatibility.. I never played Alan Wake and it's nice to have the choice between buying a potential $60 remake or simply borrowing the game from a friend for free. I mean, I thought cows liked "options" right?

What the OP is pointing out is the hypocrisy of his statements.. Sony is deciding for you, that you would prefer remasters over backwards compatibility.. And as usual, cows come running to their defense.. what happened to the battle cries at the beginning of this gen when "choice", "options", "listening to gamers" were the most important buzzwords when it came to Sony.. Now it's "Sony knows best"? "In Yoshida we trust"?

Just call it what it is: Sony has weighed the options of trying to get backwards compatibility to work on PS4 (a very difficult task) or trying to make money off of PS Now and Remasters.. They chose the latter.. It's just that simple.. "what gamers have been asking for" more-than-likely wasn't the consideration here...

.

I think people are offended by the lack of an option: backwards compatibility. And also offended by the idea that paying for remasters is a justifiable and long-term substitution for backwards compatibility..

thank you Shu! cant wait to play the Uncharted trilogy again!

@Ant_17 said:

So this is Sony's fault?

Every one is doing it. And they will keep doing it

that Silent Hill HD Collection still upsets me.. such a terrible port job

Why are you so butthurt OP? Yoshida does have a point remasters like TLOU sold extremely well. Seems like you and your fellow butthurt lens are in the minority. New PS4 owners that never owned a PS3 deserve to play timeless classics like TLOU, Uncharted 2, GOW 3, etc. at 1080p/60fps. If you don't like it look the other way Sony isn't forcing you to buy it.

Salty is still Salty it seems. Let that anger go, bro.

I've never been a fan of this strange assumption that the lack of BC precludes remasters getting created or demands that you buy remasters. The Xbone still has titles like Gears Remaster and MCC and they've approved Halo 3 for play. Sony might be choosing not to follow suit right now, but my PS3 and that collection of games has gone nowhere.

Let's please drop this black and white fallacy that remasters are there because no BC. There is a more valid market for them.

I think you're missing the point.. Would TLoU have been re-released on the PS4 if the PS4 had backwards compatibility?.. especially since the game was barely a year old?.. As a PS4 owner who may have missed out on the game, would you rather pay $60 for an upscaled version or would you rather borrow the PS3 game for free or buy it for dirt cheap from a used games bin and play it on your PS4 instead?.. the choice is yours, but the key word there is CHOICE..

Just because it sold well (at a time when new next-gen games were few and far between btw) doesn't mean it was necessary.. and it doesn't mean that remasters and rental services like PS Now should replace backwards compatibility..

Remasters and backwards compatibility can co-exist as evidenced by the fact that you can play the original Gears of War on your Xbox One right now and yet they are still releasing a remastered version of Gears of War later this year.. What's wrong with having options?.. Yoshida seems to think he can decide for you and the same hypocritical cows who were touting "choice" and "options" as PR bulletpoints for the PS4 at the beginning of this gen are now pretending that "options" don't matter..

Sony decided that PS4 players didn't need EA Access.. Now, Sony is deciding that you don't need backwards compatibility because they can re-sell you remasters for full price.. What's next?.. Considering how fanboys bashed Microsoft for DRM and "always online" policies (that weren't even implemented), cows who are supporting this nonsense have really reached a new low..

Again, is there something wrong with the option of backwards compatibility?..

The lack of that option is the problem and that problem is compounded when Sony representatives go on record saying that selling full-priced remasters are the solution..

Maybe we should drop this black and white fallacy that just because people want backwards compatibility that means they are bashing the idea of remasters.. people just want to have the option to choose.. For example, Microsoft is providing that option with backwards compatible versions of Halo and Gears coupled with remastered versions of those same games.. Also, if you have a back-catalog of last-gen games and wanted to potentially finish them on your new console, complete with all the new bells and whistles of streaming, screenshots, split screen, etc, that option is now being provided.. Plus, if there's an old game you missed and wanted to try before the next-gen sequel comes out, you're a couple bucks and a trip to Gamestop or EBay away from doing exactly that thanks to backwards compatibility.. Not to mention the increased value of the monthly 360 Games with Gold titles that I can potentially now play on my new system..

And yes, when Yoshida essentially says "we're only going to give you the option of a $60 remake or an overpriced PS Now rental if you want to enjoy a PS3 game on your PS4, even if you already own that game", that's when people start to get offended..

Hey, I'm glad you still have your PS3 but not everyone is that fortunate.. Some people traded in their old console for a PS4.. Some people passed their PS3 on to a friend or family member once they upgraded.. everyone's personal situation varies.. What doesn't vary much is the appreciation in the continued value that backwards compatibility provides.. I was happy when Sony included it in the PS2 and PS3.. I was sad to see it leave the PS3.. and now that I'm happy to see it returning with the Xbox One..

The fans aren't asking for it...but sure are buying it. So that sends the message for more remasters. You really think that if Last of Us sold didly squat they would be incline to make more remasters? No. If you got an issue with remasters--take it up with the fans who fill Sony's pockets with money. Funny, it's like how everyone hates EA and Ubisoft but everyone still keeps buying their games. My point is not to defend Sony for remasters, though I don't have a problem with them, but to point out who's really at fault. Like Batman told Harvey Dent, if you want to point fingers, "point it at the people responsible" for it.

You idiots always act like remasters are something new. Tons of games from the Atari 2600 were remade for the 7800. Same goes for the Sega Master System and the Genesis, etc. But back then you didn't have to bother with the internet giving voice to a few cry babies making a big deal out of it.

hahah back then i wasn't gaming so i wouldn't know. Even if they were, i don't think anyone spammed HD ports as much as Sony does, its pathetic.