Why are remakes/remasters getting so much hate?

After seeing people reacting to the news about the Batman games getting remade for PS4/Xbox One I'm starting to wonder, why do people hating on remakes/hd upgrades so much?

Obvious answer - people want new games, not the games they've already played. But realistically are we not just in an era were publishers just aren't willing to pump the millions needed into a new IP because they don't think it's financially worth the risk. The people who are making new games/new IPs are indie devs, but they're not satisfying that big new AAA IP that people seem to want.

There was an interesting piece with Mike Capps (ex-Epic) saying why he got out of development and it's pretty much that new games/IPs cost too much, have too much risk associated with them and nobody is willing to finance them. If nothing else, these remakes are keeping people employed and generating some amount of revenue for the industry.

I've no problem with remakes. I don't think they're actually taking any time or money away from other projects because with how the industry is now, there's nothing for them to take that time or money from.

The biggest gripes (or at least my reasons) have to be the age of the games seems to be far too recent and companies are in 100% cash in mode because porting the PC version of old games is so easy now . Go remake Shadow of the Colossus , Eternal Darkness, or KOTOR and you won't hear a peep from virtually anyone but companies know they would actually have to do so some semblance of work to actually remake those.

I didn't think having a PC architecture and making it easy on devs would cause this. I guess I only saw the positives of future titles being super easy to be made for all three systems at the same time. Publishers are evil and I should've known better I guess.

because it's creatively bankrupt.

edit: the 'cashgrab' component is also laid-bare. undoubtedly the cost to upscale and port an existing title (relative to a new IP or entrant in an existing series) must be minuscule, so even if they don't sell super well they turn a profit.

Yeah for me "remakes" mean properly reworking something or upgrading it to modern mechanics. Like how Metal Gear Solid got the remake into "The Twin Snakes" same game but notably more refined with new things added in.

Nowadays in the age of remaster it's just like "Well we can re-release the same game and just upscale the graphics," it's functionally the exact same. I bet it's getting to the point where marketing execs are saying "Lets hold back when making this game, so we can release a remastered edition that'll look even better." or something along those lines.

There's a difference between 'remakes' and 'remasters/hd upgrades' for me. If it's bringing that game to a market that might never have had it before then fair enough. Just making a game shinier and putting it on the latest console from the last console? Seems a bit weak to me.

If nothing else, these remakes are keeping people employed and generating some amount of revenue for the industry.

True but what's the point in an industry that repeatedly releases the same product (literally in the case of remasters) with slightly shinier looks?

Nothing wrong with remasters in principle, however this generation of consoles is completely devoid of big games and the ones that are being made keep getting pushed back. Also there have been way too many of them and for games that aren't even needing/deserving of it such as God of War and Tomb Raider (looked and played well enough on old consoles).

Also these consoles cost a lot of fucking money and Sony who is the biggest perpetrator of this don't really have any good exclusives to counter balance with all these remasters

So yeah the main reason for sure is exactly as you said, too many of them and not enough big games made just for current gen systems

As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with remasters as long as they don't hinder the development of new games. You are talking about remasters though, not remakes. That is something entirely different that I don't think happened in a very long time. The last I can even remember was The Twin Snakes.

@zevvion:

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

Would that count or would that be a "re-imagining"

Edit: On a roll!

Final Fantasy 4, 3 and Chrono Trigger on the DS I'd say are all remakes, good ones too.

Oh Snap:

The best of remakes: The Resident Evil remake on Gamecube...which then got remastered

Because they're lazy cash ins and they suck. Logic bomb dropped. I'm goin on break.

@sparky_buzzsaw: I think you mean "opinion bomb" rather than logic bomb.

As I said, I don't think these remakes making money are taking away from new games being made.

Because they are being seen as taking over the spot of new games rather than rounding out the library.

I bought the hell out of most HD collections released on PS3 because:

a) they were games I hadn't played in 8+ years
b) the jump from 480i 4:3 to HD 16:9 with stable framerate felt significant
c) they were appropriately priced at like $30-40 for 3 games.

Also they just kind of appeared without much marketing at a time in the console cycle where there were already plenty of new games worth playing.

I don't mind personally, I have most on of the recent releases pc, but this generation a lot of people made jumps from one console to another, and in a few years, to assume this generation will have a lifespan compareable to the previous, there will be a bunch of people who didn't have a system that would play these games, but now have a digital way to go back. Sure, going further and making sure the remasters are as complete as possible would be great, but sometimes that wouldn't make monetary sense. It would be cool if the Borderlands thing would include the first game, but there is A LOT of content as is. Same with the Batman one. And I'm sure if the rumoured Gears collection hits, it won't include Judgment. But still - that would be a lot of content. And as long as they make a little bit of money, the keep the games alive and in a best case scenario, perhaps generate buzz for a dev or a series that would be forgotten otherwise. Looking at you, No One Lives Forever and all parties involved.

For the most part they seem kinda lazy. Just uprezing the game doesn't seem enough to warrant a whole second purchase, and they don't put in a whole bunch of interesting extras. The Grim Fandango developer commentary was a really neat idea.

I think now that backwards compatibility is a thing of the past, remasters and remakes of any type are really great thing. As others have pointed out, though, a lack of new games alongside a flood of remasters looks really bad.

I want the remasters to continue, but right now videogames are in a weird spot where publishers and developers are putting more money into fewer games, and the consoles are relying on indie games and remasters to bolster their catalogue. Really, it just comes down to a lack of new AAA games, I think.

Because I mistakenly assumed that newer more powerfull consoles would lead to new games, not remasters of games that came out on the previous machines within the last 3 or 4 years. I'm all for replaying older "beloved" games on new platforms, but when the thing it released on is still plugged in it makes verry little sense from my point of view to pay full price for basicly the same game (save some graphical tweaks, and maybe a challege or horde mode slapped on and if your lucky some of the dlc to pad it out) I could get for 15 to 20 Euro's at a local game store.

I don't mind remakes or remasters when the titles in question are of at least a decent age. Remastering something from 2 years ago seems a little cheap to me, and if i had invested in the new consoles then i would probably be pretty hacked off.

With new games coming out on a regular basis on PC and remasters of actual old games coming out just as frequently, you really have to wonder what these new systems are really offering...not just the remasters they are being plagued with.

It's just that some of that a faaaaar too early for a remake. Like Borderlands: the Presequel coming out again this year is madness. The DmC remaster is also way too early.

These are called remasters but they're really just ports/GOTY editions. In most cases the higher quality assets already existed thanks to PC versions (though with something like DmC they are tweaking the game in addition to including those things.) Publishers see that the release schedules for the new consoles are sort of barren so they port whatever they have lying around to the systems to get some buzz and fill dates, plus extend the retail tail of the game. I don't see why it's a big deal. The real problem is the lack of "Big" games for the new consoles over a year into their lives. Smaller games are making it not feel like a drought, but the thing about smaller games is that they don't justify new hardware. I'm looking forward to Shovel Knight in April, but Shovel Knight runs on the 3DS. You don't need a PS4 for Shovel Knight. Or really Helldivers (which is fine on the Vita, which is weaker than the PS3.)

I have absolutely nothing against remakes.

Remasters, on the other hand, are starting to bother me. I feel like the PS4's library is going to mostly consist of PS3 games if this continues much longer.

Don't get me wrong, the remasters I've played have been awesome. While I think it's a bit sketchy re-releasing such recent titles, I also understand that game development has gotten hilariously expensive and risky. Until they figure out how to accommodate that, low-risk and low-cost releases are going to keep happening, and what's more low-risk/low-cost than a gussied up version of a beloved game?

So really, my problem isn't with remasters themselves, now that I've thought more about it. It's with the weird spot consoles and games in general are in right now.

I think people largely gave the first wave of remasters this gen a pass, because they were either clearly there to fill a void for major releases in the first year, or in the case of The Last of Us and GTA V, had a great deal of effort and care put into them to make those packages worthwhile. Stuff like the God of War 3 remaster is sort of offensive though, because you can get all the God of War games on a single disc for like twenty bucks these days, and it's also just a single game from like 5 years ago. Sleeping Dogs Definitive Edition is another example of a really lazy attempt at a rerelease, because the original version still looked fantastic and was consistently on sale for like ~$5.

I was a huge supporter of HD remasters and collections in the last generation because it gave games a big graphical upgrade and brought a lot of older classics in nice and neat collections. But lately there's been way too many re-releases of games that aren't even that old and nowhere near as good of a value. I'd bet the reaction to God of War's re-release would've been completely different if they had announced all of the mainline games on a single disc instead of just one.

A post above me put it more succinctly: These aren't even remasters or proper collections anymore. They're just ports.

I'm genuinely curious about if this keeps up. If it continues at this rate, there will be (possibly already is?) more rereleases than there are new games on these systems. So what happens next gen? Do they just rerelease the same things again since there is nothing from this gen to port over?

Look, people have moved on to the new consoles, many don't want to turn on the old ones anymore, and are glad to be able to have stuff like Sleeping Dogs handy, whether or not huge effort has been put into the remaster is beside the point.

let the companies make money so they can stay on the up and up, i'm sure the developers don't mind one bit, and we all make sad faces when they go bust don't we?

There is no problem here as far as I can see.

I have no problem but I'm not going to buy or get excited about most of them.

The big game market just isn't very interesting to me. Only a few games I'm interested in coming out soon. But that is what it is. The smaller game market picking up the slack.

At least I think they could go further back to at least early 360/PS3 or go to PS2 or Xbox stuff more. Or like some others say, tweak the game more and give it new life.

There are a few that could still get me really excited. Like Red Dead for example. But mostly it's not something that I even look at.

these remakes are keeping people employed and generating some amount of revenue for the industry.

So does making new content, the games industry is not a charity we buy what we like and criticize what we don't.

My opinion on the matter is that re-releases should come with some new content and changes should be made to questionable mechanics and if they don't do that it should at least be cheap.

I don't take some hyperbolic moral stance on it or anything, but you can't deny that we've seen a significant swing lately towards more remakes and less new stuff. For people on message boards that play a lot of games this sucks because there aren't as many games we haven't played already. For myself it's not as bad because I went from a 360 last gen to a PS4 this gen, and there are a decent smattering of games I missed out on.

It makes sense that we're getting so many though, as it's sort of a perfect time. The last generation of consoles were "HD" (not really) so this generation allows for a clear marketable upgrade for most of those games "1080p and 60fps!" without having to put in the work of remaking a lot of stuff as they would if they remade a game from the PS2 era or earlier. Add in the fact that a lot of people in NA switched from MS to Sony this gen so there are a few series many missed out on, and the fact that many latter-day last gen titles were developed on then-old hardware, and you kind of have a perfect environment for many remasters to get made.

Remember backwards compatibility? It was a concept where you could play your old games for free if you already owned them for your previous console. You didn't need your old console anymore.

Remasters seem like cash-grabs preying on the fact that most people only have one console in their living rooms at a time; you could play games of the last generation, but you have to buy the game a second time (even though you're not really going to be playing it much).

@ostratego: That required additional hardware. The PS2 effectively had a PS1 in it. The PS3 likewise (for the models that had it) effectively had a PS2 inside of it. It also wasn't really as much of a standard as people seem to think. The PS2 was great for it, the 360 had a limited number of compatibly titles which was an ongoing matter. The PS3 and the Wii eventually stopped being backwards compatible with physical games of the older systems.

I don't see people complaining when Spelunky, Shovel Knight, OlliOlli and other older indies from last gen get ported over to this generation's hardware. Why are the remaster collections different?

I'm totally fine with remastered versions of classic games. It gives games the chance to be appreciated by a new audience and gives nostalgic guys like myself another way to re-live games I have fondness for. Remasters also help bridge the gap a bit from one generation to the next. GTA V is a great example. I knew I was getting an Xbox One two months after that game was scheduled to release, so I didn't bother getting a version for a console that would soon be old to me. If GTA V hadn't ever come out on the new consoles, I likely would never have played it. Or maybe some guy bought a 360 last-gen, now has a PS4, and now gets to play TLOU when he otherwise wouldn't have.

For those who hate them, it's not like you have to buy them. The "well, I can still play it on the old system, so why would I buy it again?" argument isn't as great as people think it is, either. Yeah, you can, or you can play it with better graphics, a better controller, etc. I have a (dusty) original Xbox, but the choice of playing Halo: CE on that or via the MCC on the Xbox One is pretty obvious (now that the MCC works, that is). I don't buy the theory that the existence of remastered games prevents new games from being made, either. The MCC isn't preventing Halo 5 from coming out. Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition isn't preventing Rise of the Tomb Raider from coming out. Etc., etc.

Remastered games don't seem to be a huge drain on resources, but that doesn't inherently make them lazy. Is it less work than developing a new game/franchise? Obviously, but it gives devs another chance to be rewarded for making a great game (as they should be). Gamers seem to selfishly expect devs to constantly bet the farm on some creative, ambitious idea, but that's not exactly practical. That's how studios die (that, or getting acquired by EA). All it takes is one whiff for things to go really south in a hurry, and new IPs up that risk substantially.

Anyone who wants to bitch about a lack of new IPs ought to put their money where their mouth is and start funding kickstarter projects, buying creative/ambitious games before reviews come out, etc. Oh, you're not that eager to risk money on something that may be a bust? Well, now you understand exactly where devs are coming from. I seem to recall people proudly cancelling preorders on The Order: 1886 recently because it reviewed somewhat poorly. Fine, but you don't get to whine about a lack of new IPs while you're sending the industry a message that you won't support them unless they're 100% awesome.

The gaming industry will supply what gamers demand. Not what gamers say they want, what gamers actually do and do not spend their money on. Right now, gamers are more willing to buy remastered games than to support new IPs, so that's what's being published. Even fully competent new IPs like Titanfall and Destiny are constantly marginalized and nitpicked to death because they weren't fucking perfect. This isn't the late 90s/early 00s when you could make a game with flaws, people would buy it anyway, and a franchise could be built from there. As gamers, we're getting what we deserve.

@junkboy0: They remade SOTC on the ps3. But I agree with what you're saying. It's not remasters that are the problem, it is the games that are getting remastered.

Remasters are fine, I only get games that I passed on last gen because they had performance issues, it's up to the consumer to decide if it's worth their money. Publishers really don't owe anyone anything, they put these out because they make money and they won't stop until they don't. Bobby Kotick is right, this is a business not a lovey dovey good vibes commune. Unless of course that approach makes money...

i think the more relevant issue is cost- these things are cheap to make. put them on digital platforms, and your path to profitability is very quick.

They are OK, if they are from the older era (ps2 or older) and fix somethings like bad frame rate. Collections like Master Chief and MGS are really cool idea too. Problem is when they are used just to fill the library quota of the platform and don't offer really nothing new (like GoW3 and DmC recycles seem not to).

@charlie_victor_bravo: You have paid literally zero attention to what the DmC remaster is if you think it brings nothing new. The remaster changes almost everything about the actual game that you play.

I don't think they would be as much of an issue if they weren't such blatant stopgaps in the place of actual, new games.

I skipped the consoles this time around and went PC only, so this trend doesn't really affect me. All of the games I own still work just fine, and there hasn't been a remaster released so far that I felt offered enough to warrant buying it again. Besides, I want to play new games or at least work through games in my backlog that I have never played before, not replay games I already played years ago.

I'm usually not the type to hate things that don't affect me so I can't say.

Y'all people hating on rereleases still have yr old VHS players hooked up to the TV right? You didn't rebuy anything on DVD did you? Bet you didn't rebuy any of that on Blu-Ray either did you? Nah, you'd never fall for such a blatant cash grab just for a higher resolution experience. You're waaay too smart for that.

Obvious answer - people want new games, not the games they've already played.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

@itwongo: I don't like it either (the fact new games are so costly, risky and take so long to make), but I'm not going to begrudge developers and publishers trying to keep the lights on between new IPs.

That's just the world we live in when it comes to "AAA" games.

@brendan: OK, fair point. I remembered that it added DLC and 60fps, but forgot about the rest.

It doesn't really bug me either way, but I do wish more studious could work towards remastering/remaking older games that are hard to find/play these days.
That's why I really loved the Ico/Shadow remaster, ICO was either hard to find or expensive when found, so having it come out for the PS3 was great.
Then again it's not like consoles have been slacking in that department, especially with digital stuff, you can download a nice handful of original Nintendo stuff, Sony puts a lot of its PS1/PS2 classics up. Don't have a xone so I don't know what xbox is doing but they probably have some older stuff on their too I would imagine.
Then on PC you got GOG and Steam and even Origin raking in the old stuff and making them really easy to start.
So I guess really I made my own point moot, it's pretty easy to get a hold of older games.

Anyways, I'm no tech expert graphics type of guy, but I do know that during the PS3/360 era that my computer out performed both of those consoles, meaning any games that came out for all 3 and didn't hold their graphics back of the PC version would always look or run better on the PC.
So the way I see it, now that PS4/Xbox One are out, they've caught up to the computers of the previous generation, so for people who mostly/only stick to consoles, this is their way of experiencing what PC users were getting but now on their console.

Plus as a few others have pointed out, it is a vote with your wallet thing, if you don't like it, don't buy it? Which certainly doesn't mean shut up about it, I know sometimes people jump to that too, I like discussions though, it's fun, good times. But if it bothers you that much, not buying it is sending your message, and other people buying it is sending their message, and so long as people buying it know what they are getting into and are okay with it, theeeeeen that's cool? If someone sees the Batman remasters and all they are getting is somewhat prettier graphics and are cool with that, then... that's cool?

Wait, the batman games are seriously being ported to new consoles?...lol

If I wanted to play them I would play them again on the original console or as someone who has a PC I will play the PC version that will still look better than the vast majority of these so called "remasters".

God this generation continues to be weak and disappointing

I don't think I've ever hated remakes. Not cared for them, sure, but never outright hated them. I mean, I finally got to play Homeworld 1 and 2 after always wanting to, and damn, they're great.

Most remasters are done by dedicated port houses. So is there any proof that making these is actually limiting the amount of new games publishers make? I don't see it. The reason were seeing so many of them is that it doesn't take much for these port houses to do it (its their specialty) and its an almost guaranteed profit for publishers, who now have an extra revenue stream to feed into new game development.

Honestly, what we should be worried about is the lack of new ip's in favor of boring sequels. Though, I'm playing black flag right now and its making me love assassins creed again. So maybe this doesn't matter much as long as they make good games.

I haven't given up hope like some people have. I think there's going to be plenty of games for this generation of consoles.

Personally I like remasters for 2 reasons:

1. There are a lot of games that I have not fully experienced last gen, or just played but didn't own. Not to mention the fact that I have not purchased any bit of DLC.

2. I can loan games from the library where I live, so the more choices the better.

I don't know, but personally i won't pay money for games i've already bought. I guess if people are willing to pay for them, then I can't really have a problem with them making them.

I actually do still have a VCR connected to an old tv, and no I didn't rebuy any of those old films on DVD. I also still havent bothered to pick up a blu-ray player because it doesn't seem worth it (and if I ever did I certainly wouldnt be rebuying old films I already have on DVD).

So I guess I'm pretty fucking smart then, eh?

Because mandating that we all purchase new versions of old games is complete and utter bullsh... Wait, what? We're not required to buy them? Oh, I don't get it then, either.