Sony Is Reportedly Working on a Horizon Zero Dawn Remaster for PS5

Peter_Brosdahl

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
8,085
Points
113
Sources have told VGC that Sony is reportedly working on a Horizon Zero Dawn remaster for the PlayStation 5. Originally released for the PS4 in 2017 Guerilla Games' epic post-apocalyptic...

Go to post
 
Aren't you getting tired of "remasters" ? I know I am.
Have to admit, I kinda am.

I think remasters of those 15-20+ year old games are ... acceptable, depending on how it's done. But one that's 5 years old? There's not a generation between what it was originally developed on and what it's being remastered for.

Now, if they just wanted to provide a patch that improved graphics for folks, a big PS5 update -- I'd even be willing to accept a modest charge for something like that -- $5 or 10 maybe. But to remaster it, for what I am almost certain will jack back up to retail price, with no consideration for previous owners -- that's just a money grab.

FFXV got a high resolution texture pack for free - and I know it's not the only one, just the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Many games got PS5 edition upgrades for either $10 or free.
 
Aren't you getting tired of "remasters" ? I know I am.
I kind of like them, if they're priced decently. Upgrade the visuals for new hardware, give you a reason to playthrough again (if it's a game you liked), and so on.
 
Aren't you getting tired of "remasters" ? I know I am.
Nope, but maybe that's because they don't remaster much that I actually play, only ones that come to mind for me are last of us remaster, and I never played the original as I did not get a PS3.

And some version of spioderman for the PS5 I got with miles morales for an extra 10€
 
Remasters were never a thing before the PS4, you didn't see a bunch of PS2 games "remastered" for PS3.

It's only last gen they realized they can squeeze more money without zero creative risks.

If it's a game that you haven't played in a few years the remaster won't seem all that better, since your memory of the original is an idealized version. I felt this all the way back when I played my first remaster I can remember: Chronicles of Riddick. I couldn't tell that I'm playing an updated version, it seemed like the same old game. Of course after launching the original I realized there is actually a huge difference, but it wasn't apparent until then. Same with ME:Legendary edition. It was at least 5 years since I last played the triology so when I got the remaster I could barely feel any upgrade.

That is why I'd rather game devs put all their resources into new and exciting projects, let the past be the past. Unless it is a remake, like RE2 / RE3 that is completely rebuilt from the ground up with new gameplay, I'm not interested.
 
I think remasters should be a free upgrade for owners of the original game or at least a minimal-charge option. I do think the label is being overused though. @Brian_B reminded me how yeah, it used to be we might see a texture upgrade here and there, and then we moved on and it didn't necessarily trigger a remaster release. Metro trilogy, Skyrim (not talking about all the re-releases that came after the texture pack), Shadow of Mordor, and FF were all examples of this along with more that I can't remember. It was a nice bonus when those happened. Occasionally a new build was rolled out, or something similar, again Metro Exodus, the last 2 Tomb Raider games, and then all of the recent Resident Evil games had significant changes years after their first release to update them to newer hardware. If I remember correctly all of those were free for owners of the original games or at least heavily discounted.

Now granted Sony/GG may be planning to also update the character models and animations along with some added features which is a bit more than just a new texture pack. However, should it be considered a full-blown remaster? Probably not and I do agree it's a bit more of a double dip but I still would want them to do it. As I've constantly upgraded my rigs it's nearly always been nice to replay a game and see it take advantage of tech that came out years later but on the flipside you're always going to have opposing views with some who liked it before and some who prefer the new.

I also agree that it's probably wiser for devs to focus more on new projects since most studios have very limited resources but I also feel these days that there's so much going on that it's nice for a fan of a game to feel supported as new tech comes out but it shouldn't always be at the expense of a full-priced new purchase. From RT to now three different upscale methods which then have generational support issues, two UW aspect ratios, HDR and 3-D audio, direct storage or whatever special Intel/AMD/NV/DX related features, and who-knows-what other bells and whistles there is a lot to cover these days for hardware support that people can nitpick over and as consoles get closer to PC it's also becoming more of an issue with newer console launches.
 
Nintendo has been milking that cow for .. ever basically.
Well, there is a reason I consider nintendo the worst of the worst. People bash EA and Ubisoft, but I think Nintendo is way worse. And I never were a fan of their IPs anyway.
 
Become a Patron!
Back
Top