Next gen ports - good, bad or evil. A debate.

[capcom_suicide]

There has been some good discussion on this. The danger is that consumers will be tricked into re-buying games for no benefit. (How many times have I bough Mario...!) Worse still it will encourage lazy development and stagnation of the innovation of games development.

In this thread I'd like to debate:

• Are there any compelling reasons to support games ports on XB1/PS4?
• What are the disadvantages of us supporting these ports`?

[chopemon]

The main benefit I can see from them is that they are relatively cheap to port over and thus can make the developer or publisher money easily. This is turn allows them to spend more money on new projects. AAA console games are ridiculously expensive to make and publishers need to find ways of funding them.

As far as I'm aware, there ports are outsourced or done by a small internal team so I don't buy the argument that they take resources away from the main dev team.

I also don't see them being a cause of laziness and stagnation. If you don't make new, good games you will soon run out of stuff to re-release.

Some people seem to be really angry about them. If you don't like them, don't buy them. I've bought games like Resi 4 loads of times but don't begrudge any of the re-releases. I can always replay the GC original but it is nice to play your favourite games on your current favourite console.

[Brad]

Just to muddy the waters, where does something like Dark Souls 2 fit in? I've read on here and other places that some people are assuming an eventual XBone/PS4 version and are holding out for that!

We gamers are our own worst enemies. We allowed season passes, pre-ordering, on-disc DLC, intrusive DLC (I won't let the Dragon Age thing drop!), day one patches and broken games (BF4) to happen because we failed to vote with our wallets. The big boys only know how to judge gamer satisfaction by sales. It's all they understand. The same thing will happen here. If TLOU on PS4 sells in great number then publishers will ask why risk something new when gamers are happy with a cheap upgrade?

This flies in the face of everything I said in the TLOU thread I think!

[Dogg Thang]

Okay, I'll try to summarise my feelings as someone who can't see any negative except if these ports took the place of genuine new releases, which they would almost never do*.

Multi-platform strategy. Many games go multi-platform. One recently debated game (Tomb Raider) was very much multi-platform, so why not include the newer platforms just because they were a little late getting there? If it's okay to release on Wii, PS3, 360 and more, it should be okay to add the PS4 or XB One.

More buying options. I haven't played Tomb Raider. If I had bought a PS4 and now decided I wanted to play it, would I want it on PS3 or would I rather have it all fancy like on my new PS4? Probably the PS4. Already played it? Great, so you don't need get it. You can if you want. But you don't have to. Options, they're a good thing.

What's really rubbing people up the wrong way? I read a comment just today (possibly from you, CS?) that implied that people didn't want these ports. The vibe from the TR thread was not that at all - it's that they did want it, they just didn't want to pay full price for it because it's available cheaper on another system. So is the issue the ports, or the price? Either way, the games are new to the systems and they are full modern games so I can't see why they wouldn't charge full whack for them. If you want cheaper, buy on a different system (benefit of buying options above).

As for the idea of supporting them, we're generally not buying games as a charity unless it's an indie game made by our mate and we don't have the heart to tell him we don't like it but we bought it anyway because we know he hasn't eaten in a week. We buy because we want. If we don't want, we don't buy. Now that said, I am not a fan of the argument that you should just vote with your wallet and shut the hell up - I don't buy into that at all so if there are genuine grievances, by all means let them out. But personally, I haven't yet read one that made me think, oh yeah so that's what all the fuss is about.


*Really the only instances where I feel I could possibly lay that accusation are first-party titles like Wind Waker HD where Nintendo would have had loads of time to develop for their own machine and yet just delivered a port. I felt that was pretty lazy. The problem with that example? Most other people seemed to take WW HD as a really good thing...

[capcom_suicide]

I think there is real value in debating this, as like you say Brad, we are the one's who purchase (and thus influence) the publishers. My "positive" thoughts have been related to having a PC that was good 3 years ago and realising how gimped the console versions of BF3 and FC3 were. Then my PC wasn't good enough and I missed out on some cracking games, and had hoped that they would be ported to next gen consoles. But what would I demand for that money?

- 1080p 30fps minimum
- All DLC
- ?25 RRP
- Measurably better gameplay.

The last one is the key issue. It is a criteria of success that is hard to measure.

So..... it sparks the horse armor concern, right? Suddenly lazy ports with no upgrades at all can be pushed and by supporting them we encourage a a self defeating prophesy.

This also comes back to the resolutiongate thread too right, because why do gamers think 1080p makes a game better?

[25.05.2005]

Benefits;

- More games on next gen. Unless there is definitive proof that these ports are harming the production of newer titles, then it is a benefit to have a great selection of games available to the consumer.
- Access to titles that people may have missed out on last gen. For example, I only had a 360, I didn't have a PS3. The Last of Us was unavailable to me. Now it is available.
- As above, some people will be fresh into console gaming. This gives them more access.
- DLC on a disc (if title includes it, and it should!). That's a good thing. It means you can keep it forever, without having to download again, or lose it in the case of being unable to access your account or console (for whichever of the multitude of reasons that this could happen).
- The best a game can be. If a game can look better, play smoother and maybe have slightly more features. Then that is good too.
- Possibility of the games being released at a budget prices. Formerly AAA titles, with hopefully improvements at less of a cost.

Disadvantages;
- possible development stagnation. Maybe it's easier to go for a quick buck and re-release a title rather than taking a risk with a new one.
- improvement isn't great. Questions will always be asked with these ports...what has changed, what has improved? Is it worth it. Sometimes it won't be for people who have already played the game. Especially if this price point is not attractive.
- price. Tomb Raider for example is available for less than ?10 now on PS3 and 360...yet it is still around ?30 on PS4. Is it worth ?20 more?

Personally, I want more ports. I want to replay my favorite games in a complete and improved form. If it is a game I've played before, I won't pay a high RRP. If it is a new game to me...I will. Pricing is important with these ports. I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, and it is simply a case of 'if you don't like them, don't buy them'...as the disadvantages aren't really so great.

[wakka]

I don't think there is much real harm to the games industry inherent in the current spate of ports. The only reason they're attracting hype is because of the absolute dearth of games on the new systems. You can basically release anything at the moment and get some sales, but that'll all change down the line when there's a healthy flow of new games arriving.

[Dogg Thang]

Suddenly lazy ports...

There's no real 'suddenly' about any of this though. As brought up in the TR thread, games have so often been ported to systems throughout the history of gaming. We're seeing nothing new here. So what is actually new? Is it that, in an age of Steam sales and cross-buy, we're just more reluctant to pay? If that's the case, this porting hasn't changed. We have.

[Brad]

Firstly, this is the best topic we've had in ages because it's really making me think.

Some of us here have just celebrated the arrival of Fez on Vita, PS3 and PS4. There is no doubt in my mind that this is nothing but a good thing for everyone concerned, gamers (who now get to play the game because they didn't have a PC or 360 to play it on), developers (who were in paid employment to make the ports) and the publishers who get money. So right now I'm with dogg on the whole issue but I expect a point to be made by someone else that'll sway me again! I'm like Indecisive Dave:

[Lebowski]

I like remakes when there improved, the hd remake of shadow of the colossus and ico where great as it was a game that was hampered by framerate issues on its original console. it was also nice to see Legend of Zelda the Wind Waker re-released on the WiiU in hd and widescreen as it made a fantastic looking game even better.

Where it gets a bit muddy is games like the Next gen Tomb Raider I feel it was a bit near to near the actual release, and clearly was rushed as a next gen game should be locked at 1080p and 60fps easily if these new machines are so Powerful.

Saying that i can see why Sony would want to release the last of us with a bit more polished firstly its not reached the same audience as Tomb Raider and secondly it was a single format game that a lot of switchers wont have played not to mention that it would benefit from the power that a next gen system could bring to it.

To sum up Multi-platform no, games that where amazing but creaky and would benefit form a boost of power yes.

[QualityChimp]

I would have thought that if people don't want them, they won't buy them.

They seem to be mainly single player games too, so it's not like FIFA or some other game that people will buy annually without any massive improvements.

They'll keep churning out the upgraded versions and as more new games come out, they'll struggle to have an impact as much as in this period at the start of the console cycle with less competition.

People will always like remakes, re-releases, remastered and cover versions, so there will also be an audience for games to have a new release.

Last of Us and Tomb Raider are both amazing games that deserve to be played by as many people as possible, so it's a "yay" for me.
I doubt an HD upgrade of Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust would sell particularly well, so I trust we won't get upgrades of everything.

Will we...?

[originalbadboy]

I have no issues with them, there are plenty of games from the last gen that I didn't get around to play or complete, so personally it does not bother me. If it fills in the gaps until the proper 'next gen' titles appear then that is fine.

I don't see how this is any different from buying the same film over and over again on different formats.

[capcom_suicide]

Fez was an interesting one. I couldn't image how that would be improved on Next Gen, and even though it's only ?6 I didn't bother. For me, I couldn't see how PS4 could improve over the 2013 PC version. I think the same was said about Tomb Raider by Uli, who had an uber PC and played it maxed out.

Therefore visual upgrades, framerate improvements and increased resolution are important for me. Resi 4 on Wii introduced a widescreen mode, so I jumped at that too.

These relate to my feeling that a gamer is better on the newer platform. Ports that have nothing to do with improved visuals also have had my money, and the biggest receiver of cash repeatably for the same game.... well that is Nintendo. First on SFC, then some of the exact same games on GBA, DS, DSi, 3DS and Wii........... (I don't remember any ports on NGC)

I can't for the life of me explain why I purchased Super Mario six times, but I'm afraid to say... I DID!

[PaTaito]

Imagine if film transfers were left as they were in the early days of dvd, and only new stuff looked good on blu...

If that market proves anything, its that LOADS of people want their stuff to look and sound the best it possibly can, given the technology available.

Absolutely no harm especially as most HD re releases are outsourced.

I welcome them wholeheartedly.

[capcom_suicide]

Imagine if transfers were left as they were in the early days of dvd, and only new stuff looked good on blu.

I'm not very good with film tech. Can you help me understand your point?