Sony Not Planning on Doing Too Many Remaster Ports

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

What shenanigans is this?! I bought a PS4 so I could buy my entire PS3 library again, play the first hour of the same games, realize a graphic change didn't improve the terrible plots/characters, throw the controller down in a huff and go back to Steam.
If Sony doesn't half ass the PS4 releases, how am I supposed to feel like the PS4 was a complete waste?! For shame, Sony! For shame!

 

[Erttheking]

The only one I really want from you now, Sony, is an inFAMOUS 1 and 2 Remaster. That's really all.

Do that and you've got a guaranteed PS4 purchase from me. I have wanted to play those games for AGES but I never had a PS3. I would so buy a PS4 just to get them.

 

[Roxas1359]

Now Sony, want me to buy a PS4? How about you remaster the Ape Escape games, mainly 1-3, and I will run to my nearest store and buy a PS4 right now. Or better yet, make me my MediEvil 3 and Ape Escape 4! >.<

In all seriousness, I don't mind remastered ports or anything, because I know not everyone had a PS3 last gen and doesn't want to get one if they get a PS4, so this could be ways for people to get games they didn't play before. If there were games I'd want that were from last gen, and not just HD remakes I want, then I'd say do Infamous like how some of the replies here have been.

 

[Covarr]

I can understand where they're coming from. The Last of Us Remastered wasn't just an opportunity to sell the game to more people (and occasionally the same people). It was more time consuming and expensive to make than most remasters because the original code was so carefully optimized for the PS3. But it serves the dual purpose of porting the engine to PS4, so they can reuse it for Uncharted 4, and giving Naughty Dog experience with the PS4. Even if they weren't going to sell it, it would've been a good project to do.

But yeah, I don't see older Gran Turismo games the original LittleBigPlanet coming to PS4 ever, not for games that are so un-story driven; a sequel would serve the same purpose but better. Nobody would buy ports of these.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Irridium]

Well I don't care what anyone says I'll happily pay for a Dragon's Dogma remaster. I'd love to play that game on a console strong enough so that it doesn't have atrocious enemy pop-in.

I'll also accept a PC release.

 

[FPLOON]

So... Does that mean they would only remaster ports if either A)It was popular enough for everyone to get a change to experience said game "somehow" or B)It could bring something new to the table in general?

Either way, don't be afraid to just do it due to a high demand for it... Just saying...

 

[Rozalia1]

Bringing PS3 exclusives to the PS4 is a good move, and while many will bemoan it as greed I'd disagree (not that the gaining of money isn't involved, of course it is and if you think that is a bad thing than well...). Lots of people now have a PS4 when they never had a PS3 so those games are now available to them with better graphics and with all the DLC/extras bundled in.
I owned a PS3 but for example never got round to playing The last of Us, I've now bought it for the PS4 at a good price.

 

[SilverUchiha]

"You can't have too many of these things otherwise next-gen just looks like rehashed last-gen."

Too late for that. The only one who has changed from last Generation is Nintendo... and while I like them, they're really just playing "catch-up" in that regard. Granted, they're the ones who are most interesting at the moment, but they also had a year head start (which they mostly wasted).

"I think we'll look at it as and when it makes sense"

This didn't make sense because it only just came out in the past year. Re-porting it and charging full price (good or not) is still a rip off. I get GTA because it's still getting lots of online support and new modes (though I still don't LIKE the idea). Though it makes MORE sense for Sony to re-release crap over Square Enix, which is just re-releasing things they already said didn't sell well during their initial launch for the new consoles... expect something to somehow be different when cheaper copies for older consoles exist and are still just as good.

Nintendo has changed?

new 2D Mario check
new 3D Mario check
new wii sports check
new wii fit check
new Mario kart check
new smash bros check

lots of new ideas there.

What has Nintendo changed, you ask?

Better online support - check
Better online store - also check
Move to HD visuals - check
HD visuals with good aesthetics and use of color - double check
Reaching out to indies and third party devs (even if some aren't wanting to play - check
Getting good or interesting indies and 3rd party games - half-check
Pushing for better public image with livestreams, supporting Smash Tournaments, and even making fun of themselves and using the internet in ways they hadn't before - check
Having a unique gaming device that isn't reliant on gimmick motion controls - check (yes, I think the touch-pad is actually a worthwhile idea overall).

You're just looking at individual games. Games that have been improved by all the changes listed above. And, as I said, this is Nintendo playing catch-up, but they're doing so in a mostly impressive way.

 

[AdagioBoognish]

Can we reach way back and start remaking some classics? I'll buy anything that has an updated legacy of Kain: soul reaver or legend of dragoon.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'd rather get MediEvil 3 than ports of year old games, but whatever Sony thinks is best I guess.

Yeah, I'd like to see this, finish Legacy of Kain, a few other ideas...

You wanna remaster something? I WANT SKIES OF ARCADIA!!

 

[FalloutJack]

I'd rather get MediEvil 3 than ports of year old games, but whatever Sony thinks is best I guess.

Yeah, I'd like to see this, finish Legacy of Kain, a few other ideas...

You wanna remaster something? I WANT SKIES OF ARCADIA!!

I really wanted to play Skies of Arcadia but could not, partly because I didn't own a Dreamcast, but mostly because...do you have any idea how pricey this game is online for GC?

Finding and buying a Gamecube itself may be cheaper.

 

[Roxas1359]

Finding and buying a Gamecube itself may be cheaper.

It is. Skies on the GameCube costs about $60 to $100 for the game. GameCubes themselves go for about $40. What sucks is that Skies of Arcadia Legends is also one of the odd GameCube games that doesn't actually support 480p, and is only 480i. The original Skies of Arcadia on the Dreamcast is cheaper, but since the Dreamcast's online is gone you can't get the DLC for it that make the game the Legends edition.

I got lucky with mine as I got it for $10 back when GameStop still sold GameCube games, and I was surprised to find that it wasn't marked up or anything. I think the game is worth at least $60 for, since it did many things better than some modern JRPGs do.

 

[alj]

"next-gen just looks like rehashed last-gen". I Could not have put it better myself. You know you would not need to port so many games if you made your console backwards compatible. All this porting would also be more profitable if you ported the game to more platforms, all the platforms are x86-64 now so why not port it to xbox and PC too. Lets face it most PS4 owners will have or had a PS3 so are they relay going to buy the same game again ? Whereas an Xbox or PC owner has never had that game before so its like a brand new title for them for what may as well be free, pure profit!

 

[Rozalia1]

"next-gen just looks like rehashed last-gen". I Could not have put it better myself. You know you would not need to port so many games if you made your console backwards compatible. All this porting would also be more profitable if you ported the game to more platforms, all the platforms are x86-64 now so why not port it to xbox and PC too. Lets face it most PS4 owners will have or had a PS3 so are they relay going to buy the same game again ? Whereas an Xbox or PC owner has never had that game before so its like a brand new title for them for what may as well be free, pure profit!

I think your agenda is pretty clear...but I'll play along. What is even in the short term the worth in making their exclusives multiplats?
Exclusives are meant to ship consoles so how does letting a red hot over talent like the likes of The Last of Us go to other promotions in anyway help them?

Oh and The Last of Us Remastered has sold pretty well so I don't think sales are a problem anyway.

 

[Evonisia]

It depends on what you define as "too many" Sony, I'd like to see what you think that is.

Or just announce bundles. Counter the Master Chief collection with an InFAMOUS collection or something like that.

 

[The White Hunter]

I'd rather get MediEvil 3 than ports of year old games, but whatever Sony thinks is best I guess.

Yeah, I'd like to see this, finish Legacy of Kain, a few other ideas...

You wanna remaster something? I WANT SKIES OF ARCADIA!!

I really wanted to play Skies of Arcadia but could not, partly because I didn't own a Dreamcast, but mostly because...do you have any idea how pricey this game is online for GC?

Buy it and a DC, will cost you much less than a GCN copy.

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

Sony: We just couldn't invest the time and money in making the PS4 backwards-compatible with PS3 games, but taking the time and money to re-release individual PS3 games? That we can do!

inb4: BUT THEY COULDN'T DO IT!

The problem is they couldn't do it because the technology in the PS3 and the PS4 aren't compatible to pull that off. Don't get me wrong, I completely 100% agree with you that the PS4 (from where I'm sitting) is an abysmal failure in terms of what the device could actually be capable of (not sales) all because Sony insisted on the technology they used for the PS3... which is what caused that system to be overpriced and have an internal architecture that still hasn't been fully utilized. I like the PS3, but the choices they made with that system are now biting them in the ass (again) with the PS4, making it a system that, overall, does less and has kept me from buying it simply because I can't keep playing my PS3, PS2, and PS1 games like I can on my current PS3.

Well, it isn't inb4, since you were actually the first to say that they couldn't do it.
And I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.
Yes, the CELL architecture must be a pain to emulate. So what? Put a friggin CELL processor on the PS4, leave it off and use it only when playing PS3 games. See, problem solved.
It is not like manufacturing ONLY the processor is that much expensive nowadays. Then the software guys could fine tune the other components on the PS4 to work with the cell when it is in PS3 mode. Kinda like the Wii U's vWii.
So let's say that it would up the cost of the unit? Then what? Make 2 models, one without the PS3 backwards compatibility, and one "Deluxe" with that compatibility. Charge US$ 100 more for the backwards compatible one. People would trade in their old PS3s and get the PS4 Deluxe to keep access to their libraries.

Sony opted out of the backwards compatibility because they want people buying new games for their new system, not playing their old ones. That's why even though the PS3 can emulate PS2 (hence the seemingly untouched PS2 classics on the PSN) Sony still won't allow us to use PS2 discs no the PS3.

So yeah, stop making excuses for them.

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

Sony: We just couldn't invest the time and money in making the PS4 backwards-compatible with PS3 games, but taking the time and money to re-release individual PS3 games? That we can do!

Making the PS4 BC is easy it's just no one would pay $700 for a BC PS4 just like no one bought a BC PS3 they waited till it was removed and the console was cheaper.

Well, I guess I was ninja'd... Still, I disagree that the price would be that steep (they ONLY need the CELL and some competent programmers) and I think that there would be a market for a US$ 499 or a US$ 549 Deluxe PS4 with backwards compatibility.

The problem with the PS3 is that it was too expesive and it didn't offered a stripped down cheaper version (which eventually happened with the Slim).