Top
120°

Next-gen game upgrades: the good, the bad & the ugly

Depending on the game and developer, next-gen game upgrades are either really simple and good, rather bad or disappointingly ugly.

The story is too old to be commented.
Imortus_san84d ago

If its free it is good, if it enhances the game play and the grafics it's very good.

No one as to upgrade the games for free, because the workers dont works for free, they have to be paid, so yes, it is a bummer if you end up paying for other peoples work, it's life.

Rude-ro84d ago

No one works for free.
Multi billion dollar businesses.
This is chasing additional profits.
Profits do not go to said devs. They go to CEO’s and upper management.
Most games are already coded to allow better performance/visuals per being most games are on pc.
Most major developers are not building new engines. They modify and just add on.
Your cod, battlefield, madden, and any other third party game is made for the lowest common denominator and then upscale per pc options.
They already exist so why would it cost more for a console?

84d ago
TheRealTedCruz84d ago

Agreed.

If a console company like MS chooses to do it out of pocket to add value to their console, awesome.
If a dev does it as a gratuity, awesome.

You aren't owed it.
People have happily paid for remasters for generations now.

zacfoldor84d ago (Edited 84d ago )

A small fee for a next gen upgrade to a game I already own? Workable.

Not letting me buy the upgrade separately and making me re-buy the game at full price from ground up, I'll pass. At that point it is no longer an upgrade, just the next-gen version of the game that happens to be forwards compatible. I'll not be rebuying my library everytime they launch a new console, no thanks.

I wonder, for those okay with this, would it be okay to do the same thing with mid-gen refreshes? Do you assume that it is more work to create a PS5 patch for a PS4 game, than it is to create a PS4 Pro patch for the same game? I honestly have no idea.

TheRealTedCruz83d ago

I agree that there should be a fee to upgrade, if the developer even chooses to rerelease on next gen platforms.

That said, people took the fact that a couple of developers offered them for free, then when Remedy put it behind a paywall, the narrative then turned to anyone who doesn't offer free upgrades are greedy.

The issue even with the fee is that devs looking to put their game on next gen have to deal with the fact new players can easily just buy the cheaper, last gen version, used, and pay a small fee for the upgrade, or possibly nothing at all.
If anything, even that would only work with digital releases, which are at least set to the developer's price.

Remedy is getting slack for their choice, but $40 is at least getting people a still fairly new game, its DLC, and the promise to get an even better experience next gen, despite being able to play it now.

I know this pisses off early adopters, but estly adopters have accepted they get less for more for generations now. And it's as I've said, there's little options had when handling these next gen upgrades. If you can offer them for free, awesome. If you can't, you shouldn't fault the developer. At that point, devs are, legitimately, in the hands of the devs, and can be hurt trying to offer one.

Check the Steam comments section of Observer. They're offering a generous discount on a fairly significant rerelease of their title to those who already own it, and it's nothing but comments on where to get keys dirt cheap, so you can get the new version for just a couple bucks.