Grab It crunches the numbers to find out just how much of an impact remasters are actually having on the next-gen release schedule.
I'm perfectly fine with remasters - it's helping me clear out my pile of shame, and I get to do so with better visuals and faster frame rates.
And all you have to do is buy the same game twice.
Every generation has its fair share of remakes. It what allows gamers to experience titles they missed out on before or to allow peopl to replay their favorite classics on new hardware
Still one of my favorite remakes of all time was Metroid Zero Mission. I had never played the original, I was too young at the time. And the remake was perfect.
Not true. Remakes are less and less common these days. It's a lot cheaper to port games, so that's what happens. Only remakes I can think of in the past several years are the handful of handheld remakes Square-Enix outsourced.
Well the first two commenters kind of beat me to it. Was going to say that remakes, sequels and remasters don't stop new IPs, they just add to the opportunities for gamers to game. If anything it broadens the horizons of current gen consoles, providing a gateway to the past and an entry point to the future all at the same time. I say bring it on.
I'm fine with it as long as they are handled by another developer so that the original can focus on new games. Plus this gives a rising developer a shot to prove how well they can make it and improve on it while at the same time being a learning tool for themselves.
They'll announce whatever they want when it's ready. Just because something hasn't been announced doesn't mean they're not working on it. Besides, Rockstar has two development teams Rockstar North and San Diego.
@ doctorfraud ,,the only games that aren't a remaster on PS4 are The Witcher, Bloodborne, Batman, Infamous SS and Killzone.,, What about the order 1886, driveclub, wolfenstein, until dawn, soma, alien isolation, metal gear, destiny, mad max , battlefield hardline and many many more. Try harder r3t4rd
Well the amount needed for a remake is pretty small so I'm ok with even a main team doing it as its only 10 members of their team for 6 months. Many of those members are likely not even going to be part of the early concept, pre-production part anyway. The average port team is like 12 or 10 people, its not as much as many people actually think. Many of those developers too are not regular developers, they focus on porting, not creating. Some do and that cool, but MOST port teams are just that, port teams. Some are both seeking experience, but what involves porting isn't really the same as what involves a ground up game. I agree though, most times its not the main team making those remasters, ports etc.
That's a causality things. Remakes and ports, in general, are indicative of a climate where new IPs are actively discouraged in favor of existing IPs that can more reliably be depended on to turn a profit. This is why we see so many half-ass ports, and so many "new" games getting slapped with a title from an existing franchise. The same thing is happening with television and film--rather than explore new ideas, the big money is all in rehashing old stuff. Generally speaking, the entertainment industry is much less willing to take risks when the economy isn't doing well... and in case you've somehow missed the news of the last decade, the economy hasn't been doing well for some time. Anywhere.
I wonder if the remakes will continue after backwards compatibility comes into play.
Interesting, in the mobile space there hasn't yet been a need to worry about backwards compatibility, it's just been a choice of the developer to keep their games on the stores or not (which is a whole different story). I guess this applies to the digital arena across all platforms now. So it really just becomes an issue with console legacy titles that were previously only available on a hard copy and have now been transferred/remastered/reboote d into the digital era. From this point I guess titles can just be updated to allow for new tech rather than having to worry about remastering/rebooting them. Although that defeats having to resell them. Probably why I'm not running my own game studio.
I reckon they probably will. Those publishers who are thinking of doing a remake for a particular game may not allow the original title to be backward compatible.
man...that statement was just so full of fail. A developer is not REMAKING game because of lack of BC! LMFAO! Craziest comment thus far. I'm hoping you mean "remaster" and even then that doesn't make sense. Some of you literally have no clue about business its sad.. They are not making it because you need to play it...they ae making it because it MAKES MONEY! Look on PSN on PS3....look at the PS1 titles on PSN. PS3 is 100% native BC with PS1. Yet....we have PS1 games on PSN. Having BC doesn't mean you HAVE THE GAME what does a publisher CARE THAT YOU "could" play their old title? That doesn't really help them. Them re-releasing the title helps them. I still don't get gamer's logic with them assuming its ALL ABOUT THEM! LOL! As if..them being able to play it, is the publisher's goal. No. Their goal is to make money, they are porting this because just cause you own a system with BC, doesn't mean you own the game. Like the example I used earlier...having a PS3 with PS1 BC..doesn't just net you a free copy of Parasite Eve, you still need to buy that...soooo http://www.amazon.com/gp/of... You ready to spend that much money for a new copy? I mean..you could go used, but chances are its not in good condition and isn't even guaranteed to work. So them not making a PSN version, means they don't make money. You could buy Parasite Eve on Amazon, Ebay etc....Square isn't getting paid by doing this. Gamers are not happy seeking to spend $100 or more on a title due to its low availability. A remaster, port etc is nothing more then a digital reprint on new hardware to supply gamers with a up to date version. Or did you think Harry Potter released to book stores once? Or did you think only a 16mm version of Star Wars exist? Or did you think no music was EVER re-released, put in a "Best of" or "anthology collection" etc? Soooo putting a DVD player in Bluray doesn't stop a Bluray version of a film from releasing.
You are absolutely right sir.
Backwards compatibility also affects digital purchases, though. For instance, if you bought a PS2 game on PS3, then buy a PS4 or Vita later, but these newer systems can't support that title, even though it seems reasonable, at least with PS4, to provide a PS2 emulator, or compatibility of some kind, for that purchase. When you buy a new PC, even if it's moving from 64-bit Windows from an earlier non-NT 32-bit version from the 90s, the same ROMs you illegally downloaded of NES games, Genesis, PS1 ISOs, or whatever, those same exact files don't have to be altered, but the emulator might. Sometimes the emulator doesn't even have to be altered. So the system moves on, changes bits, changes substantially in the operating systems, yet both emulator and game files remain the same. Backwards compatibility. In my mind it makes sense that a purchase on PSN ought to be expected to work across current Playstation devices. It's bizarre to me, for instance, that a lot of PS1 titles still require a PS3 to transfer to Vita, or that this differs by region.
The ability to cash in on remakes and remasters was probably the single biggest reason why two out of the big three ditched native BC, and honestly, I don't like that very much. Microsoft is only recently starting to remedy this in a way, and I hope Sony comes around to the same mind-set as well, with their next console, if not sooner via some sort of update. Native BC shows more respect towards the consumers that spent cold hard cash on building a collection of games, than constantly re-making the old ones does, especially when some of the remakes are of games that aren't that old at all. So honestly, I hope the remakes at least slow down, once Sony and Micro start properly supporting native BC again.
Sony ditched native BC due to technical and cost issues.
@ Shaun How old is PS3 tech, now? I find it hard to believe that it's still so costly that adding in the basic amount needed to run PS3 games would have been impossible cost-wise for Sony. Hell, they could have done for the PS4 what they did for the PS3, only better, by making two different SKU's. One with added BC at a higher [but significantly lower than the PS3's case] cost, and one without it for a lower cost. Given Sony's successful hype campaign at E3 before the launch, both would have sold like gangbusters, and fans would have appreciated the service of a choice in the matter. Hell, having that option might have gotten me to get on-board with a PS4 instead of deciding to stick to my PS3 instead. Now they're sticking people with PSNow, which is a poor replacement alternative, at best, and anti-consumerist alternative, at worst, for native PS3 support. As much as I love Sony for giving me so many good times with Ar Tonelico, Kingdom Hearts, R&C, and so many other great games, I cannot stand behind their abandonment of native BC, especially when the real reason for it, that of re-selling last-gen games that SHOULD have been playable through native BC from the get-go, for quick and easy cash, is so blatantly obvious.
I agree, it's gotten to the point where I'm buying another ps3 just to spite Sony for not having BC.
I'm fine with remasters if they're games from PS2, XBox, GameCube and older. Not last generation
I don't mind a remaster being from the previous generation, but when the game just came out 1-2 years ago that kind of bugs me.
Specially when it's priced over $30.
This is the biggest problem with the current remasters or remakes. The games aren't that old for people to even miss playing them...
yet these publishers makes excuses for them and people who already played them buy them again even when they own the previous version.
5% too many.
If you do not like remasters, just do not buy them. If everyone does not buy remasters, the publisher will not publish remasters. I like FFVII remake and Yakuza 1 remake. They are fantastic.
it not about buying them. It the fact that they are a waste of time. Those time spent on outsourcing and putting a team together to port or rework a game should be spent on new games. If you missed out that your fault.
What % of games were they before? I bet a lot less then 10%. Remasters and remakes are fine but when 1 out of every 10 games is a remaster and 7 are annual franchises that leaves a giant 2 brand new games to play per 10 based on numbers I just made up. Seriously though 10% is very high
The % isn't actually relevant. Take for example a scenario where you got 20 new games a year. Now add 10 remasters to the new games. Remasters there make up 1/3rd of the games coming out but if they were gone you would just have less games not more new ones. The only way it even matters is IF remasters are taking up slots that would otherwise be new games which generally isn't true.
Percentages are easy to skew toward what you want them to say, but I disagree that it isn't relevant. What we are falling into is annual franchises, remakes/remasters, and indies. We aren't getting as many of the "non AAA games" because the lesser studios are making remasters instead. Indies help make up some of that but in general we just aren't getting the same type of diversity of retail games as we use too.....that's my opinion anyway. I understand the business end of it. Makes more profit to sell more and develop less but I miss the variety of titles from past generations
Exactly. I don't have too much of an issue regarding remasters or remakes, it just depends on the game. I just don't remember there being as many last gen or even the gen before that. I think since development costs nowadays are so high most devs want to make a little more money on past titles to help fund other projects. Although sometimes it's an obvious cash grab like Prototype which will probably never see a 3rd installment so it was completely unnecessary.
It is high. Especially when you count indies
They can keep bringing them for all they like. I have no problem with them. People like to complain as if they're forced to buy them which makes no sense.
Every cent spent paying sub-studios and their employees to make these remakes and remasters of games that, mostly, aren't that old, is money that could be given to other main studios, to help increase the budget going into new games in these series, instead of remastering or remaking old entries left and right. Even if it's only a single million spent, that's one million less that is going into something fresher than a remake/remaster. Something that could definitely use that million for a little more polish, and to get more testers to work out their kinks and flaws before release. Considering how many games the new gen has, ten percent is quite a sizable number of remakes/remasters. I would rather see that number brought down to a firm 3%/5% within the next couple of years, than to have this number continue to grow.
What this article fails to talk about is ports from PC and other consoles as well... A lot of the Indie games were ported from PC to consoles. To me, ports, re-masters, and collections are all the same. They are not new content. They are just a repackaging of previous content. There is nothing wrong with it, but people should know that they are not buying new and original content.
How is a port not new content if you don't have access to it otherwise? Hypothetically, say you only play games on ps4. How is an indi game that previously was only available on pc or another console not new? It is a relative situation.
It is not new content because gamers have already experienced the shipped version of it. Just because your device of choice never had the game does not make it a new game. For example TLOU is considered a re-master. But there are many people that bought PS4 and never played the game before. Does that make it a new game? To me, it is the same with a game like Thomas Was Alone. First on PC in 2012, then PS3 in 2013. So, on PS4 and X1 in 2014... So is it a re-master or a port? The game may be new to the gamer's of the device but it is not new content to gamers as a whole. If I go and buy a music CD like Pink Floyd The Wall tomorrow, is that new content? Or did it just take me many decades to decide I wanted it?
Is there some clandestine ploy to make people think these games are brand new? I don't even understand the point of your comment. In every case, the game is either new to someone, or good enough to them in its original form that it warrants a second purchase. I doubt anyone bought a remake, remaster, or port solely on the expectation that it was a brand new game.
My point is ports should be lumped in as repetitive content with re-masters and collections. This would significantly change the 10% more to 30-50% at least. Saying that only 10% of games this gen are re-masters and collections does not tell the real story. There is a large portion of content this generation ported to consoles and even many games that were exclusive last gen are going multiplatform with the same game this gen (Ex. Back to the Future coming to XB).
I'm ok with Remakes specially when the add new content like Gears of War and Halo MCC, or Rare Replay a brutal remaster of 30 games, but not OK with remasters that add nothing or that they take stuff from, like the Uncharted Collection the took the online out when what they should have done was making the PS4 online work with the PS3 online, or just keep the online separate in both versions. Most of the times remasters suck, the Resindent Evil 0 and 1 games are 4:3 they didn't even made the games true 16:9, the fact that this campanys can get away with selling remasters means less new games, and I don't like that, I buy new consoles for more games and not the same I had before, for that you have BC, and if not then just keep the game for the older system.
The Uncharted Collection adds a number of new features, graphic and framerate improvements, and gives access to the MP Beta of Uncharted 4. Yes they took out the basic multiplayer from UC2 & 3. You know what they also took out? $100. Those who did not have a chance to play the games on the PS3 now have a chance to play the Uncharted trilogy in 1080p at 60 FPS. All told that's a good deal for me, and I already own all three on PS3. To someone buying for the first time on PS4, that's an amazing deal. The remaster of The Last of Us was amazing, and the remaster of Uncharted looks like it's going to be even better.
"The remaster of The Last of Us was amazing" that's one unesessary remaster to me, nothing new, and the game was not out long ago, they were just desperate to put something good out to make the console library, we have diferente perspectives.
@imortus_san: Again, improved resolution, 60 FPS, all the DLC including the award winning DLC Left Behind, all at a discounted rate of $40. That's not desperation in any way, that's listening to your customers. Considering all the awards that the game won, there had to have been a lot of people moving from Xbox 360 to PS4 who hadn't had a chance to play the game last generation and now would have the opportunity to experience it for themselves. The Last Of Us Remastered game went on to sell 3.5 million copies, so obviously I was not the only one who wanted to play the game.
How about not counting indies? thats still a huge number.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It's hard to call indies "current gen". Most of them could run on an SNES/PS1. I don't mind remakes, but this article is deceiving.
ppl love to complain they will complain about anything .. more options is now a bad thing.
10% seems high especially considering that the libraries of gen 8 consoles are not that big yet. And what about the indies factored in? How many remasters did the PS3 and x360 have at this time in their lifespan? I don't really remember it being a thing then. Most seem like a cash grab to me. You wanna do a remaster right, do it like the uncharted and gears of war remasters and then bundle them with a current new title of the same franchise or offer them for a cheaper price. . That seems like a more authentic way. None of this upgraded resolution upgraded fps $50 price bs. If older games are so important then it really makes a case for backwards compatibility because I for one don't really enjoy spending money on stuff I've already purchased with only marginal performance enhancements.
Yes it was, PSN has more ports from PS1 and PS2 then the 10% released thus far. We are actually getting collections from the same port teams too btw. MGS Collection HD, MGS Legacy collection, God Of War collection, Bully was ported over, Persona 3 and 4 were, God Hand, Splinter Cell, Prince Of Persia, RE4, clearly RE2002 as it came to the PS3 and 360, Okami, Devil May Cry series and so much more. The reality is...the whole concept of a "cash grab" is almost an oxymoron. Your talking about BUSINESS their job is to MAKE MONEY!! Is it to make money ? Well...um yes, welcome to gaming! lol Those fancy AAA current gen games are not cheap to make. Why leave 1 million in the bank when they can just use it to port a title to make them 5 or 6 million to put back into a title like Uncharted 4 or The Last Of Us 2 etc? Mind you...those teams are not even working on those ports. Even if they were..it takes about 10 dudes to even work on them vs 100 plus members working on a full game. Its 200 million vs 1 million. Its 10 staff vs 200 plus some times 5 to 6 years development vs 6 months some times mere WEEKS! Cash Grab? Well yes, what did you think was going on in gaming? Did you think all those games being made where for fun and lolz? Oh GIVE THEM FOR FREE as a bundle? LOL! I think some of you legit fail to realize exactly why they are being made. The cost money, they were made to make money as GROUND UP GAMES cost more. We are looking at $60 games for going to be a decade now, this is the cheapest games have ever been ing gaming history and we have folks complaining about more games.....go figure. I mean...would you rather they charge $80 per game to make that money back, or release a port you don't even have to but to cover some of the development cost? I mean...who is dying because a port is coming out?
remasters cost a fraction of the cost of new releases and yield higher margins in return for the studio... by recycling old material thats already been developed. seems like a cash grab to me, yet people complain about paying for DLC that is actually NEW content that expands an existing game they've already paid for. ironic, imo. Studios are getting so comfortable with this they are even bypassing f the nostalgia factor at this point. Some remasters are still too fresh to even have a nostalgia factor... or even still too fresh to even want to play through again. basically its like this. i played TLOU on ps3 for $60. I can play TLOU on PS4 and its exactly the same except for running at 60 fps. So for a $399 ps4 and another $50 purchase (thats $450) i can play TLOU at 60 fps and get mostly the same experience. You won't convince me otherwise. I bought a ps4 to play things like Uncharted 4. not PS3's TLOU or GOW for the same price for practically the same experience. Its frustrating to me that my personal best game on PS4 is literally my personal best game on PS3. Maybe a better way to go is just to make consoles backwards compatible so you can just continue to play the games you already own. Then when someone wants to REALLY remaster a game (new models, new textures, new effects, animations etc) it will make them worthwhile, more meaningful.
Sooo just answered none of those questions huh bud? "Studios are getting so comfortable with this they are even bypassing f the nostalgia factor at this point" You mean Blue Point Games? Soooo you do now again that those teams don't make games they just port them right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... Now...Blast Factor is the only game they actually made, they are teams that just port content...thats it. " i can play TLOU at 60 fps and get mostly the same experience. You won't convince me otherwise. I bought a ps4 to play things like Uncharted 4." Thats nice. Who said it was made JUST FOR u4one? I mean...you do get that its being marketed to all gamers right? You don't need to buy it and no one is forcing you to. They made it for all, you can buy it if you never played it...you can buy it if you wanted to see it in HD at 60fps etc. "I bought a ps4 to play things like Uncharted 4" LMFAO! Yes...I'm sure you did...what doe's a remake actually do thats hurting that point? That is like me getting mad at Madden because I bought a PS4 for Uncharted 4.....soooooo who is putting a gun to your head and forcing to buy and play those games? "Its frustrating to me that my personal best game on PS4 is literally my personal best game on PS3." ..subjective, you again didn't even need to buy that port, it was very much a choice for you to do so. So your mad that others get to play this game? I legit don't really understand what your mad at, PS4 games are still being made and this whole article proves its only 10% of games that are even remasters. As I again fail to see whats wrong with it and why your upset about it. "Maybe a better way to go is just to make consoles backwards compatible so you can just continue to play the games you already own" Again...you seem to be extremely self centered. Who said its about providing you with those titles you ALREADY OWN? You can still keep your PS3...you can still not buy those remasters...do you not understand others around you exist? lol BC was not really going to change much of that as XONE is getting BC and STILL has remasters... PS3 has NATIVE PS1 BC..>STILL HAS PS1 ports on PSN! As to why you think a remaster is ONLY made to give U4ONE a game to replay that he already owns...beyond me. Maybe, just maybe its for those who didn't play it ANNNNND those who wish to replay it. No one is forcing you bud, even with BC ...we still get remasters sooooooo yeah.
Interesting way of putting it. 10% of 100% but just how many current gen games are in existence? So are we talking about 10% out of 50 current gen games? That would make it a hell of a lot more significant than say 10% out of 1000 current games. See what I mean. Also what exactly constitutes a re-master, re-make or re-imagining? Are we talking about ANY game that was released and/or sold last gen that is now making the rounds again? Either way its a horrible practice. If it was used as it was meant to, then that would be a different story. But now its used as a stop-gap and filler to supplement your library while-U-wait for a current gen game to make the rounds. Which is all well and good, but then they ask you to pay (again) for a game sitting right there on your shelf. Cause you know, they cant make it BC. Meanwhile XB is doing just that.
10 percent is actually a huge amount. I'm not against them where they serve a purpose, but for anyone to think 10 percent (especially with all the indies) are remakes, that's actually an ASTOUNDING number. Remember the #1 rule of numbers... you have to understand what the context of what the number means. In this case, if the number is around 10 percent, and for the context, it's MASSIVE. Of course, how accurate is that 10 percent, like the guy above points out to what is a remaster... But if it's anywhere close to 10 percent... that is a MASSIVE AMOUNT OF REMASTERS/ETC. There is a need for some remasters, but it also hampers the creation of new IP's. What are you going to remaster if the game that could of been remastered never was created because the dev spent the time and resources to create a remaster from last gen? That's why I feel remasters shouldn't be lead projects. They should be side projects. Keep the creation and experimentation going, and if on the side you want to see if a small team can remaster a previous game... no problem.
10% is actually quite a lot....But I'm completely fine with it tbh. Always more games you want than can buy, as long as it stays like that, they can remaster as much as they want.
At least you guys get the remastered and remake games there are so many Nintendo games I want Nintendo to remaster on the Wii u because it's their first hd console but instead they waste remastered games on the 3ds don't get me wrong I like the ocarina of time and majoras mask remaster but they would have been so much better on Wii u so like I said at least you Microsoft and Sony fans get them
remaster exclusive to ps4 make sense since many xbox360 owners went to ps4, cant say the same with xbone were everyone who bought gears of war remaster already played it on xbox360.
Lol, 10% is preeetty high. Imagine that every 10th new game announcement is a remaster announcement. Not that Im that much against them, I guess it just shows we went too far into the 7th gen and some of the games never achieved their maximum potential. Then ofcourse some of the games that are ports with additional changes are now days advertised as a "remaster" so that adds even more to the bunch. Honestly there are quite a few good remasters and most dont tax the original developers at all. Theres even some collections with multiple remastered games that add more to the value. Still, if developers/publishers do these remasters, at least make sure you take every possible chance with the game as possible. Speaking of remasters... I just realized Red Faction Guerrilla + Armagedon would make a decent remaster. Guerrilla ran at a very unstable FPS with okay graphics on consoles.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.