Now for me, my issue with remasters is I already loved my OG versions plenty. I grew up as an RPG player and I'm not sold on graphics or accessibility features alone. My favorite N64 game is Mario Tennis, a game with about 2 hours of replay value...That's why I don't think there's a point to trying to sell the games again to a person like me -- I like my old Starcraft, my old Halo etc. just fine the way it was, I don't see a point in purchasing it again (then again I have no qualms about piracy or emulation of such dated titles either, especially when the IP owner has long since abandoned their support). I can objectively look at something like Diablo 2 vs. Diablo 3 and say "yes, those graphics are better than the older ones." But that doesn't make the case for D2 being bad; its the far superior game subjectively. My cousin just texted me 2 days ago randomly about how much more slick and easy to play the EE version of Baldur's Gate II was, it has all these simple interfaces with more transparency and such. Not trying to be too elitist, but my response was "So? I knew all of these things that were difficult for some, already." I loved that game and so was intimate with the Infinity Engine and the obscurity with which the game presents details on character sheets etc. I learned it. I'm meticulous like that. It doesn't add anything to person like me. It just slaps a new coat of paint on things and tries to market it as augmented in some way, but comes off as a blatant cash grab with some fanfic thrown in, SJW nonsense among the license holders, and not crediting community modders for their open-source contributions. Games like Halo: Anniversary or Starcraft Remastered are even more glorified reskins, though SC:R did add some additional server functionality. So no, I don't really see a point in doing a little cheap touchup work and then carting it out again. It is possible for a classic to remain classic despite the ever ongoing march of the industry touted uniformly as "progress." I think some of it stems from the same societal mindsets that arise from the corporate dumbing down of games in general too. Younger gamers look back and say "how outdated, how clunky and unintuitive" while the older gamers look ahead and say "how pointless, it plays itself, where's the incentive" etc. Yet the newer generations are the ones that shuffle off to the next CoD or Assassin's Creed each year and are buying gambling simulators, so they influence the industry and tell it what it can sell. I haven't bought a new game in 4 years. I remember ridiculing micro-transactions for cosmetics the first time I was exposed to them. DLC was a novelty in the infantile days of console network gaming. Now they aren't just the norm, they are the expected cash flow of many gaming titles, and if they aren't it's because they are paywalling content behind gambling. Er....I believe I ranted off-point. I still like my "old" games. They'll never not be what they always were to me. I don't think what constitutes a "remaster" in the games industry is enough to make me want it...twice. Reboots and retoolings are different that can go very very right if they keep in the same spirit of the original (Tomb Raider: Anniversary is a good example). Let us hope instead that they can "fix" where they went "wrong" (emphasis due to subjectivity) going forward,, though that's very unlikely. It doesn't make them money to do that.