• BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    The article speculates on why there is a difference. Part of the reason might be that it’s £60 for a remaster of a 23 year old game? I’m not really sure who this game is aimed at; it was always unlikely to be a huge hit on PC. But It’ll probably do better long term when the price comes down and with steam sales etc.

    • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Just a correction: it’s an actual remake like Resident Evil 4, not a remaster. Entirely new engine (Unreal 5), character models, environments, music/sound, and new content around the plot. Considering the original came out in 2001, the updates were sorely needed imo.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean… it’s the best survival horror remake since what? Dead Space? It’s aimed at people who like good games.

      For the record, a 3:1 or 4:1 split between consoles and PC isn’t necessarily unusual for AAA stuff, particularly for a game that is strongly associated to the PlayStation brand that isn’t cheaper on PC. This game runs heavy, if you’re on a laptop or an older PC and have a PS5 that is a common sense purchase.

      Great game, though. Really enjoying it so far. And like the other poster said, not a remaster at all, it’s a full remake. Not that I wouldn’t have bought a good remaster of the original. It’s been hard to get solid versions of those games, historically.