Approvals 11/3 ▼
Pozzle (5) - 3186d ago Cancel
bensillis (2) - 3186d ago Cancel
CoyoteHunter (2) - 3186d ago Cancel
ameliabaz (2) - 3186d ago Cancel

Only 10% of All Current-Gen Games Are Remasters, Remakes and Re-collections

Grab It crunches the numbers to find out just how much of an impact remasters are actually having on the next-gen release schedule.

Read Full Story >>
Create Report !X

Add Report


+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)


Changed from Pending to Approved
Community3186d ago
SlappingOysters3186d ago

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.

Sly-Lupin3186d ago

And all you have to do is buy the same game twice.

FallenAngel19843186d ago

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

Double_O_Revan3186d ago

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.

Sly-Lupin3186d ago

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.

shipnabottle3186d ago

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.

crazed_shadow273186d ago

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.

3186d ago
crazed_shadow273186d ago

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.

Phill-Spencer3186d ago (Edited 3186d ago )

@ 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

_-EDMIX-_3186d ago

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3186d ago
Sly-Lupin3186d ago

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.

SlappingOysters3186d ago

I wonder if the remakes will continue after backwards compatibility comes into play.

shipnabottle3186d ago

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.

CoyoteHunter3186d ago

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.

_-EDMIX-_3186d ago

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.


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

You ready to spend that much money for a new copy? I 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.

Phill-Spencer3186d ago

You are absolutely right sir.

stalepie3186d ago (Edited 3186d ago )

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.

wonderfulmonkeyman3186d ago

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.

ShaunCameron3186d ago

Sony ditched native BC due to technical and cost issues.

wonderfulmonkeyman3186d ago (Edited 3186d ago )

@ 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.

thelwebb1003185d ago

I agree, it's gotten to the point where I'm buying another ps3 just to spite Sony for not having BC.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3185d ago
Relientk773186d ago

I'm fine with remasters if they're games from PS2, XBox, GameCube and older. Not last generation

crazed_shadow273186d ago

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.

spicelicka3186d ago

Specially when it's priced over $30.

Ck1x3186d ago

This is the biggest problem with the current remasters or remakes. The games aren't that old for people to even miss playing them...

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory3186d ago

yet these publishers makes excuses for them and people who already played them buy them again even when they own the previous version.