Does the last-gen ports hold back games on current gen?

[LauriJ]

Your opinions are appreciated.

 

[pkmin3033]

Hmm...I don't think so, at least, not to the point that I'd be particularly concerned or annoyed. The problem isn't the excessive number of lazy ports (or "remasters" as they prefer to call them) but the lack of new titles on current gen, and I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between the two. I doubt new games would come out any faster if there weren't any ports on the current gen, at least.

You've had some developers like EA refusing to port games under the excuse that they want to focus on developing new content, but...well, that's EA, and EA are both lazy and incompetent, so perhaps they're not the best example. There are plenty of developers who are porting their old titles to the current gen whilst they develop new games, and they're doing it at the same speed as those that aren't.

I guess I see these ports more as filler space whilst developers work on new titles, rather than something to be concerned about. They let people who missed them the first time around for whatever reason play them on the current gen...or they let those of us who have played them before play them again if we want to. They're also closing the gap between generations and padding out the library whilst we wait for some new games to come out. They make the new gen more attractive: after all, you've got the "best" of the old generation and the promise of more games for several years to come to entice you.

I think the problem is more that the current generation was released too early and developers aren't very good at managing their assets or their time. Last gen ports are just one symptom of this stifling lack of creativity and excessive greed in the Western market, and they're by far the least worrying. Especially considering the usually reasonable budget prices and addition of all the DLC they usually come with.

 

[Palkia]

If anything due to there being PC's out there with graphical power superior to that of the PS4/XB1, it could be argue that current gen consoles are actually doing this to games that are on those consoles and the PC.

As for the last generation of consoles, I think developers need to let them go if they want to make more than the average indie platformer game. The technology in them is nearly over a decade old, and unlike the PS4/XB1, don't use standard x86/64 architecture. Plus, with the install base of those consoles being around 30 million units not less into their 2 years of being on the market, there's really no excuse.

 

[Cherrim]

They do and they don't, I guess.

Yeah, every time they do a remaster or port--whether it's good or lazy--that's manpower that could have been dedicated to something new, but companies never put their A (or probably even B) team on these things. They usually outsource them or let lesser groups handle them. They produce them because they know they'll sell and it'll help fund their "real" projects. AAA games are getting more and more expensive to produce with each generation, requiring massive teams to bring together a the full game experience that people expect but game prices haven't really gone up in the last while to compensate.

I don't mind remasters and ports here and there if it means I still get new entries in series and/or new IPs, but it is pretty ridiculous this gen that for a long time (and even now? I'm not paying attention) most of the games for the new consoles were just upscaled re-releases of games that came out last gen. @_@

 

[Satoshi Ookami]

There is no universal yes and there is no universal no...
As Cherrim already mentioned, remasters do take part of the staff that could be used for development of the new game.
But in my opinion, it's not because of remasters but because it's harder to think of something new, especially because of the indie flow.

 

[Spinosaurus]

For what it's worth, outside of pop ins Metal Gear Solid V is ridiculously impressive for a game that started development on last gen consoles. (and it's 60fps to boot)