Some PS5 fans have been a little frustrated by Sony's output over the last few years, with what feels like fewer brand new games and an increase in remasters and remakes. While that's an understandable frustration, ex-PlayStation executive Shuhei Yoshida says these projects are necessary to allow first-party teams to keep making original titles.
Speaking on Kinda Funny Games, Yoshida is asked if there's anything he hears a lot from fans that is wrong, or perhaps just ill-informed, and he talks about how he sees a lot of commentary about remasters.
"I joked about [PlayStation co-CEO Hermen Hulst] being criticised for making too many remasters," Yoshida says. "I think the people who complain about that are maybe thinking Hermen is doing that instead of doing something new. But I'm sure these remakes are made by a dedicated, different team, or some porting teams, especially the PC version. So I don't think he's sacrificing anything by doing [remasters]."
Yoshida continues, pointing out that a remake or remaster project is "much cheaper to produce, creates additional revenue, and creates new users to the IP, especially when you port the game to PC".
Making remasters, PC ports, and remakes can bring in "enough revenue to keep investing in big titles", Yoshida says. "Single-player games now cost so much, so they need additional income by doing remasters and porting to PC to be able to do that."
He concludes by saying that if remaster naysayers "like first-party's output, the big single-player games, they should support Hermen doing these porting and remasters so that he can keep investing in these great new games".
There have been a fair number of remakes and remasters this generation, not to mention all Sony's PC porting efforts, so we do understand where people are coming from when they roll their eyes at, for example, Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered.
However, Yoshida's point makes a lot of sense. It might not be the sort of answer people like, but as game budgets skyrocket, companies like PlayStation need to generate more funds somehow, and this is just one avenue that helps the platform holder to keep producing top-tier original software.
What do you think? Tell us in the comments section below.
[source youtu.be]
Comments 87
Are you Shu about that? I’m willing to support remasters if they’re good, but not as many as we’ve been getting this gen.
Not sure I really buy this (pardon the pun).
For one, how about these studios invest in smaller non-AAA games which are original and smaller in budget to achieve the same goal? Why achieve income through rehashing old ideas and expect users to accept that?
It’s also the reason why they want a succesful live service title, so that it can fund those triple A single player titles people want from Playstation. Most publishers have at least 1 or 2 such titles.
I'd love to support remasters but there's still no remaster for Bloodborne or Gravity Rush 2.
I'm not buying an old game a second time just because a studio might maybe someday make a new game I want. That is ridiculous.
Devs play this game all the time. Whenever Sega gets asked about Saturn or DC ports they say 'just buy our Mega Drive games and we'll consider it' knowing full well they have no intention of doing so. We're on our Nth round of MD remasters and counting
It reminds me of the old Penny Arcade cartoon making fun of the lame excuses Silicon Knights would give for never making Eternal Darkness 2. 'We could make ED2, but we gotta break through this thick layer of Too Human first...' It's nonsense.
If that's true then it's good that I don't want them.
Or you could stop with the ULTRA REALISTIC THIRD PERSON CINEMATIC games and just make a lower budget more interesting title. Like ya know... Slitterhead just did?
Well they are hurting themselves by making bad live service games and considerably unappealing single player games moving forward.
Also yeah obviously remastering something is much cheaper lol.
Depending on price sure I guess. But I'm still expecting new games regardless...
Absolutely agree. Remasters take less money to develop and typically make more profit relative to the effort put in. That profit can go back into developing new games. Additionally there are many games missed first time around and it isn’t till the remaster that you jump in, it feels like a second chance. They will stop making remasters when people stop buying them in huge numbers.
@Nepp67 wow another person who played Slitterhead!!! Agreed for a highly budgeted title, i enjoyed it substantially more than the likes of Horizon
@Nepp67 the same Slitterhead that got 66 on Metacritic? That seems like an awful example.
@itsfoz In the interview, Shu mentions that it's usually not the original team that is making the remaster - it's either dedicated port studios (like Nixxes) or external teams, so it's not the opportunity cost that it may outwardly appear. Additionally, even if the remasters are developed internally, it's an opportunity for the rank-and-file developers to keep productive while the creative teams cook up what's next. It's a lot more work to make something from scratch (new story, script, mechanics, world design, etc.) that takes a lot of creative effort. While that kind of pre-production happens, there's a whole team of developers that wouldn't necessarily have anything to do. The remasters give those folks a chance to keep busy, productive, and employed, while also adding additional revenue to fund the bigger, new projects.
As much as i hate remasters and the creative bankrupcy of the gaming scene they represent, i have to admit, Zero Dawn was pretty damn good! Gorgeous game!
@Nepp67 Slittethead was critically panned and sold an estimated 11k - 21.9k copies on steam
@glennthefrog Same here
@itsfoz remasters are usually worked on by porting studios or art farmed out to third party art studios, often in Asia, it isn’t the opportunity cost you suggest. They don’t usually have top developers working on them who could make another game, that’s not how it works. That was Shu’s whole point that gamers don’t get.
@themightyant Opportunity cost was only half my point though.
The first half of my comment was that it's simply ridiculous to expect us to buy 2+ copies of their games just to maaaaybe get Bloodborne 2 or (insert dream sequel here) at some point in the future.
But sure, some remakes and remasters are farmed out to outside studios to do it on the cheap. Those tend to be riddled with problems in my experience.
For ten pounds? Sure.
No, how about I buy the games I want to buy. Nothing more to it than that.
@glennthefrog he never said you should buy the game twice. That’s missing his point entirely.
He was saying people who hate on remasters and only want new games don’t seem to understand that the money from remasters is what is helping to fund those new games.
I definitely don't mind supporting remasters...but not of a game I just bought and played last gen.
I have no interest in Horizon Zero Dawn or TLOU2 remastered lol
But I will support things like the Soul Reaver remasters and stuff like that, you know stuff that hasn't been available on most modern machines.
People think just making games "cheaper" is the answer when we've seen time and again that it rarely works. Last gen Sony did make so called AA games more then most publishers yet none of them made anything resembling critic or commercial impact.
Hi-Fi Rush is a recent perfect example of just because critics and core gamers loved it doesn't mean it translates into actual good enough sales.
@RagnarLothbrok It was surprising a lot more interesting(Especially gameplay wise) than a lot of Sony games out there that are generic and safe third person shooters.
@Majin_Deicide That's an excellent distinction to make.
Pricing also makes a big difference. Nintendo charging $50 for lightly retouched 3DS games from 5 years ago (that were a cheaper price back then) like Luigi's Mansion 2 and DKC Returns is just insulting.
I'll take a remaster of a single player game over a Concord or Fairgames
Nope, I’m not throwing away money buying another version of a game I’ve already beat in the last 15 years.
I'd buy any remastered game if it's a one I like
@glennthefrog @Majin_Deicide a key point you are missing is that you are enthusiasts who have likely played many of those games, but most players have not. Even the very best selling first party games only sold around 10-20 million on PS4, with most games far less than that, but there were around 120 million consoles sold. The remasters may not be aimed at you.
Every Push square reader's contribution to Sony's Remasters still wouldn't generate enough cash to cover the failure of Concord.
But aren’t some of these recent PlayStation remasters just downright lazy? PS5 remasters of games that were released on PS4, what is even the point of that? I can understand if it’s something back from the PS1/2 eras, but not something that’s for a previous console that is STILL widely supported.
Yes, I plead guilty for buying remasters: Donkey Kong Country Returns HD, but I never played it before. Skyward Sword HD, and I played the original on Wii, but with only 30 fps, too much talk, and inferior controls.
But PS5 remasters of PS4 games which run perfectly fine on PS5, with good framerates and resolutions? No chance.
Sure but not PS4 remasters.
I’ll certainly buy remasters of games I’ve enjoyed in the past and it also gives you a chance to play something that you didn’t first time around. Zero Dawn sold 10-12 million on PS4? So that’s over 100 hundred million PS4 owners that didn’t try it first time around 🤷♂️
Well I've bought Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted Legacy of Thieves, TLoU Part 2, Dead Space and Demon's Souls Remakes, GoT and Death Stranding Director's Cuts... So where's my new WipEout, Shu?
If remakes were coming out alongside new games and IP’s no one would have a problem.
I haven’t bought any remasters of games that were playable on current gen, I fail to see the point.
However I have purchased remastered/ported PSVR1 games and I see value in those ports but clearly Sony do not...seriously where is Wipeout psvr2?
“If you want new single player games, buy remasters of old games. We need the money!” No. You don’t. You need to rethink budgets and scale and how AAA games are being made. Gamers “investing” in remasters to get new games is a ridiculous idea.
Mmhh. I wonder what other game genre Sony is trying to pursue fits this similar framework. Hint: starts with Live ends with Service! It’s almost as if you need to make these other types of games to, I don’t know, fund the $200 million dollar single player game. The PlayStation hardcore fan base need to wrap their head around this.
Here's the thing Shu-sama.....I agree with you but WHERE ARE THEY!!!??? Like if you give me remasters of Playstation classics I'll happily buy them but they aren't making any like where's my Resistance Collection, inFAMOUS collection, Ratchet Future trilogy collection, Little Big Planet, Sly I could go on give me these and I'll happily buy them
@Keyblade-Dan Parrappa the Rapper PS5 remake! Dino Crisis! Colin McRae rally! G police! Futur cop lapd! Vagrants story I could go on and on and on
I'm not wholeheartedly against remasters/remakes. I just would prefer they pick better choices than the ones they have chosen. I look for three main points when considering buying one of these.
1. Is the game already easily available on modern platforms?
2. Does it play well by today's standards?
3. Has it been long enough to really make a difference?
That's been the problem I've had with Playstation's remakes/remasters this generation. Horizon 1, TLOU1, Uncharted 4, Until Dawn...all games that fitted none of these criteria.
But on the flip side you got something like Persona 3 Reload recently. That one fit all of these criteria pretty much. And so? I happily supported it.
It's really not that complicated. If it's a game that makes sense to receive the remake/remaster treatment then I'm cool with it. If they are looking for ideas? Hey! There are plenty of choices from the PS3 generation! Look there!😃
@Korgon ah man yes the PS3 is actually my favourite generation. Some utter bangers came out on that bad boy. I’d pay top money for a Motorstorm trilogy
I will support the bloodborne, sly cooper and Jak remasters as soon as they’re available!
@Mikey856
Exactly! The PS3 has so many games that I think people would love to see come back. Motorstorm, Killzone, Resistance, the PS3 Ratchet & Clank games, Infamous 1&2, Folklore, Sly 4...I'd be all over all of these!
@RagnarLothbrok which other live service game did they fail? I'm not into those games and all I know of recently is Concord and Helldivers 2 and one of them was a hit.
Absolutely not. I've got to have a very good reason to buy a game I already have. Any idea that we're obligated to buy remasters that they're essential is laughable. I prefer playing the original versions anyway.
Make new games, and I'll buy them. I love Yoshida, but this isn't a good take.
I'm half agreed with him.
I'm willing to support remaster for games who doesn't age well or good-niche games that deserve a second chance but has bad time release and marketing. There's plenty of games like that from PS1-PS3 + PSP era like Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Puppeteer, Wild Arms 5 / XF, Jeanne D'Arc, Dark Cloud 2, Rogue Galaxy etc etc.
But remaster for PS4 games who still looks and plays fine like TloU 2 and Horizon like why?
@Nepp67 And how much Slitterhead sold? Even the excellent Kunitsu Gami only sold 500K which is sad.
And Sony made plenty of unique AA games back in PS3, PSP, and Vita era but people doesn't buy it. Games like Echochrome, Patapon, Tokyo Jungle, Puppeteer, Jeanne D'Arc etc most of them doesn't even pass 500K-1 million mark 😔
@glennthefrog Absolutely mental isn't.
"If give us money for this old game you already have, we might consider thinking about making a sequel. Which you'll also have to pay for."
@themightyant "if remaster naysayers "like first-party's output, the big single-player games, they should support Hermen doing these porting and remasters so that he can keep investing in these great new games".
The problem I have is that this quote makes it sound like Playstation is some charity, and buy remasters solely to allegedly fund new games that are not guaranteed, instead of buying a game based on it's merits. If an individual wants to buy a remaster fair enough, but any notion we're obligated to is silly.
@PuppetMaster What I mean by the Slitterhead argument is that Sony's developers seem to prioritize graphics and cinematics over having interesting gameplay. It's no wonder it takes 5 to 10 years for a developer to spit out a game.
Absolutely not. I do not want to encourage this trend of rereleasing the same games over and over again, even if the difference has only been a couple of years. If this is the plan then I won't even purchase new IPs and will simply wait for the improved version to release in 5 years time.
If it's a game that 15, 20 or 25 years old maybe. Remasters/remaking the same games with the release of every new console generation no thanks.
I’m half and half on this one. I’m definitely not against remasters or remakes. I’ve bought quite a few of em during last gen and this current one. I’m kinda hoping the Dead Rising Deluxe Remaster has sold well enough for Capcom to peak interest it making a new game. But then again, Dead Rising was released over 15 years ago, and DR4 wasn’t all that great. I basically don’t want to buy remastered games that the original game was only released maybe like two years ago.
Modern Sony (and gaming in general) in a nutshell.
What the-? Then make remasters/remakes we'd actually want 🫤 Zero Dawn was a pretty polished game and it's available on the ps4 that most people were content with its initial release and didnt see a need to rebuy it. Meanwhile, Bloodborne's been locked away forever and id eat up an Infamous 1&2 remaster. (Is Sucker Punch a first party studio? Cant remember... But ultimately doesnt matter)
This dude is just spewing corporate bs. No!.... we shouldn't have to buy what we don't want In Order to get what we want. In fact if we buy into that nonsense what will result is actually just more remasters and remakes of games that don't need them in order to make a quick buck instead of anything new. we're already kind of seeing that proliferate more and more.
We are all well aware that they are cheaper to produce that is where the term cash grab got started from in the gaming world. But don't act like these somehow support making new IPS or games, they don't and haven't. they just result in a larger profit margins for shareholders and execs and a way to cut dev jobs in favor of AI and other tools that require the least effort and capital to use.............. if they sell.
@ThroughTheIris56 no one ever said BUY them if you don’t want them. By ‘supporting’ he meant don’t rubbish them. They may not be for you, that’s fine, but doesn’t mean everyone has to moan about them incessantly. They are helping to pay for the games you do want, that is his point.
And just because they aren’t for you they are for many others, they clearly sell well and make good profits else almost every publisher wouldn’t make them.
@Mikey856 Was that whole era of gaming really that incredible? My brother still talks very fondly of playing the 360, and even loved his PS3 when he first got it, even if he can’t really play it now.
lol, yeah , i support sony remasters by waiting until the pc release
If your business plan involves threatening your user base to purchase overpriced recycled content, you don't have a good business plan.
I get his point, but better offerings in expansion dlc for their games would surely bring in money, after all dlc requires just content to be coded, with engine and a lot of the game world / assets / systems already in place.
Ive never understood why Sony dont do this wheras a lot of others do.
I really do think that next gen we will see another £10 price rise, and given inflation since 2020 its probably warranted, even if not welcome.
I agree with him, remasters are great. They introduce new fans to games and series/franchises!
Which in turns helps boosts video game sales and greenlights new sequels/entries.
I just wish they'd focus more on older games from the PS1 thru PS3 eras...still crazy they did remakes for Until Dawn, TLOU1, and Horizon: Zero Dawn.
@Nepp67 My question and argument still stand.
You're talking about recent Sony studios but keeps forgetting that in the past Sony has studios who did AA games like Slitterhead. But guess what, people DIDN'T BUY those games and that's one of the biggest reason why Sony closed down Japan Studio.
Example like Forbidden Siren series, Slitterhead predecessor. Sony let Toyama / Japan Studio developed 3 games but none of them even break 500K copies. Hence why none of them ever get Greatest Hits version.
And you also forgot just because AA games is cheaper and didn't take as long as AAA to developed, doesn't mean it's okay to sell like crap. If the game sold like crap, not even recoup the devs cost, then how the hell the devs can pay their daily life or fund their next game?
I'm all for unique AA games but we need to agree with the sad reality that the majority of people doesn't buy it.
Makes complete sense, really. I still won’t buy remasters for games I don’t care to play or games that don’t even need one. Remaster Bloodborne, remaster twisted metal ps3, remaster infamous 1 and 2. I would absolutely buy those. But horizon? Last of us? No thanks.
I like Shuhei Yoshida but The Last of Us is critically acclaimed in the gaming world and so was the Uncharted series and copies sold showed that. But constantly remastering the same games and then doing special collection edition versions and then doing those same collections but as remasters, you're milking the IP to where gamers will see it as a cash grab. His response sounds more on the lines of capitalism talk rather than gamer interest discussion.
@PuppetMaster With all due respect relax with passive aggressiveness. I get it AA games do not sell well and Slitterhead is a good example of it, but this also does not mean the devs should be going for incredibly high budget games that it costs them loads and loads of money. We all know what happened with Concord and they only got to make one game before it shut down not even like a month later and then the developer studio itself. And now we're also having multiple live service games that are costing years and years of wasted development. At least with Japan Studio they were able to make multiple games.
Remasters of a game that can be played for 1/4 of the price on the same console via retrocompatibility make no sense to me. They should at least aim for proper remasters of older successful games with QOL and proper visual enhancements.
Oh shut up There are more last of us remasters/remakes than there are games.
Ok but they are selling them full price, despite the fact that producing them costs a fraction of the original game. How does that make sense?
But that "different team" need to be paid to so it's still money down the drain unless the remaster recoup that cost...
I'll buy it if the original games is good, bought gravity rush ps4 remaster, shadow of the colossus ps4 remaster, tlou 1 ps4 remaster, and uncharted trilogy ps4. I have no plan to buy ps5 remaster of ps4 games, that's just stupid.
A remaster of a game from last gen, and can be played on the current gen console? I don't think so.
I hate statements like this. Sony is a huge company which should be capable of listening to its fan base and making rational decisions about games that will sell. Why should the onus be on the customer to rebuy games they own just to “show willing”. ***** right off.
I'll buy old remastered games but not stuff that came out 10 years ago
That's just silly
Remasters of PS2 games yes and maybe some PS3 depending but no to PS4 when they play a absolutely fine on PS5
I support remasters, I'd especially support a remaster of a certain PS4 game that begins with B
If you want playstation to carry on existing, you do what the customers want, not the other way around
Remastering older games (that many would like to see) to bring them up to current spec is probably too expensive and therefore doesn't provide the cash grab Sony is looking for.
Just continue to re-release as many Ps3 Ps2 and Ps1 titles and ensure they can be played and bought on modern consoles. They don't need to be very shiny just good and playable. There are tons of great games out of grasp of gamers yet are really great
@Mikey856 that's over 100 million lucky people then. Sony constantly trying to force people to like horizon with the "that's all you getting so like it" attitude
I support new games not remasters of the remasters or ***** PS1/PS2 games that Sony calls "classics" I see more classics among them
Ofc people and plenty of sites have now manipulated what Shu said.
He's being taken a bit out of context. He's not telling anyone who doesn't like remasters they have to buy them. The people that do like them will obviously buy them, what Shu is suggesting is people stop ***** on Herman because of them and explaining why they are necessary.
@themightyant Supporting means more than "don’t rubbish them".
@MrMagic 100% right. The irony is the full context of this was a question about “one thing gamers don’t understand about making games”… and gamers didn’t disappoint. They still can’t remove their pre-conceived notions about game dev even after being told they are specifically wrong about it by Shuhei Yoshida.
@ThroughTheIris56 Sorry tagged the wrong person initially.
That's absurd! Why would you say something like that? Wasn't the purpose of the design of the PS4 after all of that complaining about the PS3 to make games easier to develop for? Now, you're saying they're too expensive and developers just keep photocopying games and we buy them over and while developers just sit there waiting until the cash rolls in to finally get to work, five years later?
So, now we can only expect 1 game per console generation from first-party developers. You got Spider-Man 2 from Insomniac Games, you'll have to wait until PS6 for their next game. Sounds like a Non-denominational Pastor asking you to fill his collection plate.
All feels like a con game. PS3, first-party devs developed a game every two years, and that was on the console that had the most innovation in its hardware Id seen in a long time. With "easier more streamlined hardware" made from off the shelf common generic parts, you get a game every five years.
Don't believe me? Go back and watch the launch of the PS3 and how the media responded to it where PlayStation nearly went the way of SEGA at their "mercy", then watch Mark Cernys presentation on PS4 and tell me we're not getting conned
@IMustardMitt Isn't that why everyone demanded backward compatibility? What Xbox made a huge fuss after for so long, where people were blinded by the Xbox 360 and PlayStation was nearly executed because they griped and complained about the price, then when Sony removed backwards compatible chips to bring the price down, they nearly crucified the PS3 and PlayStation over NOT having backward compatibility. What's the point of arguing for backward compatibility when you're just being remasters?
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...