Topic: Why Do Rehashes Sell?

I sold my PS2 copy for $15 and paid $20 for Golden. $5 for a remake with a moderate amount of new content on current hardware, portable and digital is far justified.

No need to exaggerate the cost and downplay the additional content to make your point that the remake isn't for you.

Because people don't like things that are different.

I prefer incremental improvements over attempts to revolutionize a franchise.... to give you an idea I hate Super Mario 64, Resident Evil 5 and Final Fantasy VII, I like NSMB, Resident Evil Revelations and Final Fantasy IX

@Bolt_Strike Don't overestimate the average consumer. It might lead you to disappointment. ^_^"'

But I'm generally heavily leaning against rehashes, unless the original is a cult classic. Stuff like The Last Of Us, Tomb Raider, or Beyond Two Souls, is what really annoys me, since I fail to see how developers deserve any money for rehashing their insanely successful titles in only one year, while the increase in content is barely more than a 10$ DLC in many cases, especially when exclusive content will be denied to owners of the original.
But then there are games like ICO/Shadow of the Colossus, FFX, Wind Waker HD, or the Halo Master Chief Collection, which make use of their long passed fame to show that their gameplay mechanics still work well today, while also getting a nice visual overhaul. It's much more respectable timing than throwing out "improved" versions in rapid succession.

1) Those re-releases you're talking about are ports to a console that can't play those games otherwise. Are you saying games should never get ported to other consoles within a year just because they're successful and people clearly want them?
2) 90% of the people buying those versions are people who never owned the original. The other 10% are people who sold or put away their PS3's and now want to have access to some of the games they enjoyed on the PS3. Is there really anything wrong with supplying the demand?

Don't get me wrong, I was annoyed by the rereleases, too, but now I realize they're really not a problem. It's not a release for me, but that doesn't mean there's no demand, and it's not like they're overshadowing actual new releases - Destiny, Watch_Dogs, etc. are still outselling the re-releases.

All right, let's take NSMB as an example. This is all of what the entire series has done for the Mario franchise:

-Brought over 3D moves like the Wall Kick and Ground Pound
-Co-op multiplayer (console games only)
-A handful of gimmicky powerups

And that was between 4 games. That's not even an incremental improvement, that's downright stagnation. Incremental would be if each game does something new, and by that definition, only the first two games in the series could really be called "incremental".

@CanisWolfred
1) The thing is, the majority of these games are still widely available on whichever platform they got released first, and pretty much anyone could grab a copy. So "missing it" is a really unfitting state for these games. Nobody missed them, thry just decided not to get it, despite availability, but that's the consumers fault alone. Supplying other platforms is good and all, but not a viable argument, either. You can't buy a console and AFTERWARDS expect any specific games from the previous one, so the demand didn't even exist, or even the need. But developers do it since the average consumer is so easily misguided.

2) Don't be too quick on that. Almost everyone I know who has a PS4 (including internet contacts and colleagues, and that'd be quite many) got at least one of the rehashed games while owning the original version, and forum feedback supports that. Nonetheless, that's mostly theory, but I haven't experienced many PS4 owners who DON'T own both a PS3 game they liked a lot AND it's PS4 rehash.

Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily against rehashes, I simply hate how lazily they're done, just to get glorified as if they revolutionized themselves. And most of this false impression is deliberately set up by developers and publishers to rip people off. They effectively render the work that brought them so much success obsolete by seemingly improving it, which is highly disrespectful to their own work and, in my eyes, makes them look like greedy fools. I see why others appreciate this kind of work, but I'm highly against it, because I want developers to maximize their possibilities to make new stuff, not just repaint what is already done.

Guitar hero seriously over-saturated the market along with rock band. It would be like having 6 versions of New Super Mario bros on one platform and within a few years span with levels that were structured exactly the same but had different backgrounds. Oh and if sony decided to put little big planet on a nintendo platform and also did 6 of them within a year or two without a level editor.

To answer the OP question. It is a ton of reasons. Perhaps its on a new platform and you really liked the game but don't have/can't find the original game or platform. Suppose you never ever played the game. Suppose it adds to the gameplay (I bought all of the street fighter IV games), or if it functions as a GOTY edition. Or if it improves on the original game mechanics or art direction (such as the dragon quest remakes, or the pokemon remakes, or windwaker). Or it is just your favorite game ever and there are enough changes to make you buy multiple times (bought okami for ps2, wii and ps3... if they do a hd version that goes to wii U I'm buying that one too). Also it may offer a quick way to expand your game library and catch up on some gems as well such as the HD trilogies on ps3 from ubisoft. I think a combination of all of those contribute to sales.

Why I like rehashes Because I care more about a game being GOOD then a game being "unique".

the best games ever are techinically rehashes because they are part of a series.

super mario 3 may have felt unique but it really wasn't that unique. why? becuase it's impossible to make a sequel unique without abandoning the core elements.

MANY People value quality over a false sense of uniqueness that's why rehashes sell.

Those links don't work.

Quality and uniqueness aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a good game that is also unique (Mario Galaxy is a good example). But regardless of quality it seems that similar games outsell unique ones, which doesn't make sense.

Doesn't matter how widely available a game is if it's on a console that you never owned. Many of the current PS4 owners are Microsoft or Nintendo converts. Sony is very aware that the PS4 is being purchased by many Playstation first-timers. In fact, they love to talk about it in press releases how they're clawing back market share that they lost last generation. Doing something like re-releasing one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time on your new console as a "welcome" to new members to the Sony ecosystem is strategically sound business.

The Last of Us Remastered is sitting at over 1.5 million sales. Your ranting about the market for these remasters not existing is completely absurd and has no basis in reality. Obviously, the demand does exist, or the games would never have been remastered.

And no one has ever glorified last-gen remasters as revolutionary.

Working links now. Sorry bout that.

These two videos go pretty in-depth into the statistics and psychology of the disconnect between what gaming forum-goers say they want and what continues to be produced and why new games with minuscule enhancements year by year sell by the truckload.

Worth watching for anyone frustrated by the issue. And, for the record, these are the tail end of a three-part series than began with dissecting WHY the Wii U isn't selling and how it's similar to the situation the Virtual Boy faced 20 years ago. Here's the first part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS1p7W5dmBE

Because for the most part, people want more of what they previous enjoyed. It's why sequels exist, to provide more of what was popular the first time around.

This^

So much wrong with this theory. First of all, to accuse forum-going gamers of "lying" about wanting innovation and saying that that group shares the blame is ridiculous. There's no reason to lie about that. It is far more likely that this group is simply not a demographic that drives sales. Now they did mention the dudebros, but that's not the only other demographic here, there's also the casuals to account for. And remember that the Wii brought the casual market into the industry, which accounts for the high sales of the Wii. This also is likely a factor in why the first two NSMB games sold so well. Also, their theory about Youtubers driving sales doesn't make sense either. If that were true then there would be no difference in sales between innovative and non-innovative games.

EDIT: Also, that chunky pasta analogy, that's what innovation is. It's something that does something new and unexpected.

@SpookyMeths That's more of a marketing strategy than anything else. They ease people who are reluctant to get a PS4 by giving the impression of an open-minded community where everyone is welcome. Gaming communities can be very intimidating to outsiders, despite there not being much reason to in the first place. Besides, if you're late, you're missing stuff. That's how it goes.

Also, I think you're not understanding what demand is. Only very few people were running around demanding a specific PS3 game to get rehashed onto PS4 prior to that games' announcement. People were just jumping the call when it became official.

@BinaryFragger That's exactly what I think is wrong. If it's about providing people on a different platform with a game, why doesn't this happen everywhere? Notice that mostly blockbuster titles do this - because it's a safe bet if mis-advertised correctly.

@Both And just to clarify: this could've been easily avoided by making the PS4 backwards-compatible with PS3 games - but Sony didn't. For a logical reason. More Profit.

Nonsense, sequel=/=remake.
A sequel presents the same gameplay, but in largely different context, and often with improvements, additions, or changes to the content and gameplay.

Yeah, I think people don't understand how sequels (should) work. I don't pay 40-60 bucks for a level pack unless you're either incredible or incredibly innovative, and usually both. I really need to go in-depth someday on the difference between an interesting and a not interesting sequel, because I think people (and tbh a good chunk of companies) don't actually understand this.

Does that always work though? Not really.

Alot of games actually crash and fail when a change is made. While some games are innovative and work tramendiously (Skyward sword, hyrule warriors) others seem to lack and actually downgrade the appeal to the franchise, especially if it's the first in the series for new players (Other M, Apparently Mario sunshine)

We see games like CoD, mario galaxy, half-life, smash bros, pikmin, etc that are litteraly copy and paste games that have nothing really new other than maybe maps, missions, enemies, and playable content. These games however are some of the best selling because it appeals to those who enjoyed the originals/prequels. For example, a player who enjoyed a pokemon game may like the strategic gameplay.. but when they come up with a game like conquest or ranger they may hate it because it's nothing like they're familiar with, and vice versa. Halo wars suffered from this as well, despite being possibly my favorite halo, nobody liked it because it wasn't the traditional shooter halo fans begged for.

It's what WE want.. we ask for innovation, we get it, and we hate it sometimes. If we got something we enjoyed, then we'd want to extend what we played rather than try something different sometimes, and while yes we can't have 20+ zelda games being exactly the same, we can't constantly be changing the formula either, because then we see a different view on the franchise. Hyrule warriors was good and all, but anyone new to the zelda franchise will like the game.. buy another zelda, and realize that it is completely different from any of the other games and may even hate it because it's what they're used to.

I probably worded this very poorly but whatev.

I agree with everything except this example. Halo Wars was disliked because it was a terrible, dumbed-down RTS. Personally, though, I can thank it for making everyone and their mother bring Command & Conquer to my attention, especially Red Alert and C&C3.

I'm not literally saying a sequel should be nothing more than a level pack. No one would pay 40 dollars for a bunch of NSMB 2 DLC on a shiny disc.

But for the most part... people want the same kind of experience they had before when they buy a sequel. New characters, areas, ideas... yeah. But they don't want a massive overhaul of everything. Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts failed because people wanted another 3D platformer, not a weird vehicle building game with nothing much to do with the originals (on a gameplay level).

Games that sell and appear to be rehashes (like Call of Duty sequels) sell because they're what people want. Or more precisely, they're what fans of Call of Duty want. They want more shooting enemies in the face, more online death matches, more arenas to fight in, more guns... They like how the core gameplay works and don't want it changed, like the tone of the game (and don't want that changed), and just want more of the same 'experience' in new settings and with new characters.

You may consider it a rehash, but it's honestly just how sequels tend to work. For people interested in these types of series, they don't want 'originality' in some ground breaking sense, they want just more of the same with a different coat of paint and new content.