There seems to be a mixed reception on games being brought over to new systems. One side says that it's great to have their older games be playable on the newer hardware, for the purposes of longevity and less need to revisit hardware that isn't supported anymore. The other side says that it's a lazy money-milking tactic, and that porting older games takes effort that could've gone into a new game.
Me personally, I don't really see an inherent issue with porting games over, but I do get some things that can come from it (though some others, not so much).
One thing people typically say, is that they want NEW games instead of older games a second time. I mean, I can definitely understand the desire to play new material, but when an older game is re-released onto a newer system, it's not necessarily taking away from any new game being developed at the time. In other words, the scenario of:
"Hey, everyone! Instead of working on a brand new game to look forward to, we've decided to sell you the exact same game again! Have fun playing Skyrim again!"
…isn't necessarily the case. Instead, it's probably something like:
"Okay, so this next big game is gonna require a ton of new assets and a ton of new stuff… this is gonna take a long time… but, we do have a game that came out before on an older system, so maybe we could also get a different team to work on bringing it over, which won't be anywhere near as intensive as making a brand new game from scratch. This could be a good holdover in the meanwhile. Plus, it'll get new fans access to it instead of relying on an older system."
Now, there's the issue of the port/remaster being full-priced, and I can get that. As time goes on, the games get cheaper, and a full $60 retail price might go all the way down to a mere $20. That is, until they decide to remaster the game, and then all of a sudden they REMOVE that original game from availability, and then make you spend a bunch more for the remastered version instead of having the original on file.
This happened to Dark Souls, which was $20 on Steam, and they took that one off when the Remastered came out, and it's twice the price. I think the same thing happened to Skyrim with the Special Edition, and it also happened not too long ago with Pikmin 3 (which was most recently offered on the Wii U eShop for $20, and it got taken off so the Switch can have the Deluxe for $60).
In the case of Pikmin 3, though, you need a Wii U to even take advantage of that lower price, and not many people bought a Wii U. So, I don't know how much the $20 was threatening the Switch version's price. On the other hand, Pikmin 3 was originally $60 upon launch, and if you didn't purchase it then, would getting it on the Switch really seem all that different? But then again, if we go by that logic, what's keeping Super Mario Bros. from being remastered in a way that justifies a $60 price tag as well? Does a game deserve to be cheaper just because more time has passed, or… I don't know, to be honest. Though, if I had to pick an appropriate price for the Pikmin 3 Deluxe port, $40 is good.
Oddly enough, though, I've seen people prefer an alternative to full-price ports, to simply not having the port exist at all. Which, if you already own the game, and they port it again for full-price, you not purchasing it a second time would yield roughly the same result as if it never existed. In other words, if you already have the Wii U version of Pikmin 3, you not getting the Switch version would be the same to you as just simply playing your Wii U version, so that's another element to this, I think…
One more thing, though (and yes, I am gonna use Pikmin 3 yet AGAIN).
Sometimes, when they bring new games over to newer systems, it's probably not just gonna be a port and that's it. They'll more than likely increase the resolution (and maybe frame rate), and they might even make some few graphical alterations. Sometimes, they'll add in some new stuff that was never seen before in the previous releases, like how Pikmin 3 will have new modes. I've also seen plenty of cases where they'll port a game that had DLC with it before, and will add in the DLC as part of the package they purchase from the get-go. Dark Souls had an entire Artorias DLC that became included with the remaster.
So does stuff like that deserve a bit of a price bump?
Sorry if this is confusing, but I'm wondering what the stance is for games coming to newer hardware and systems.
Source: Original link
© Post "Is it a good thing to have games be ported to later systems?" for game Gaming News.
Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020
2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.
Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]
2020 has a ton to look forward to...in the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.