Can you really call something a "new game" just because they turned up the resolution and added some nicer shadows? Look, I get the appeal of remasters. I really do. But charging full price—seventy bucks—for a title that already existed feels like a cash grab. The content is the same. The story hasn't changed. The core gameplay loop is identical. Developers are essentially selling us a high-definition patch and calling it a premium product. If the original release already made its money back years ago, asking customers to pay the same price again for mostly cosmetic upgrades just doesn't sit right. We're paying for nostalgia, not innovation.

Look, I hear what you're saying about acknowledging the work that goes into these, and I don't want to dismiss the effort entirely. But here's the thing—remasters aren't starting from scratch. They're building on years of existing code, design, and assets that already paid for themselves. The actual cost to produce a remaster is a fraction of what the original required. So why should we pay the same price? When a restaurant reheats leftovers and adds a new sauce, they don't charge you the same as a freshly cooked meal. Same logic applies here. If the remaster includes substantial new content, like entire expansions or rebuilt mechanics, sure, charge more. But a resolution bump and better textures? That's a $30-40 product, not $70. We're being asked to fund nostalgia, not innovation, and that's a bad deal for players.

Look, I think we both agree that some work goes into remasters. But my position is really about proportionality. If a remaster costs a fraction to produce—and it does, because the engine, design, story, and core assets already exist—then charging full price creates a huge disconnect between value delivered and price paid. Marca mentioned that developers deserve fair compensation for their work. Sure, I agree with that. But fair compensation doesn't mean maximum compensation. Plenty of remasters sell for $40 or $50 and still turn healthy profits. The publisher isn't losing money at that price point—they're just making less, and that's okay. Think about it this way: when a movie gets a 4K re-release, they don't charge you the same as a new blockbuster. They price it lower because it's an upgrade, not a new creation. Same principle should apply here. Full price should mean full new game.

Marca keeps saying "fair compensation," but that framing is misleading. Nobody's arguing developers shouldn't get paid. The question is whether $70 is proportional to the work actually done. And it's not. Let's look at the numbers. A remaster typically costs 10-20% of the original development budget. The engine's built. The story's written. The levels are designed. You're paying for texture artists and some engineering time, not a full creative team. So why should pricing stay the same? I'll concede one thing Marca hinted at—some remasters do add real value. The Shadow of the Colossus remake rebuilt everything from scratch. That's different. But most remasters are just higher-res ports with better lighting. That's not a $70 experience. Full price signals a complete new product. Remasters are fundamentally upgrades. Charge $30-40, and we're having a fair conversation. Anything more is just exploiting nostalgia.