"None of what you mentioned you get if you own the xbox one."

Lmfao what? Aside from 4K and 60fps you literally get everything else I just mentioned on base ps4 and xbox one. It's clear you don't know anything about this remaster and are just claiming ONLY better graphics and cash grab.

"You are referring to current gen, how does the xbox one benefit from way faster load times?"

Umm load times IN GENERAL are faster on ps4/xbox one, ps4pro/xbox one x and are made even faster on current gen due to better hardware. Did I really need to explain this?

"This is only beneficial to newcomers to the series, i have all 3, and all dlc's, and in no way am i paying another £60, to play the same games that look better, when i can pop the originals in the tray. Not to mention the entire series is already on gamepass including Andromeda."

And it will look, run, and play worse than the remaster. If you actually saw what they were doing with the remaster you would know that. But you're free to continue playing the objectively inferior originals. Andromeda is garbage in general, don't know why you mentioned that but whatever.

"Be careful about justifying full prices for better graphics, it is simply a cash grab, it is not even a remake. If you want a future industry where developers are releasing games, and then charging you another £60 to upgrade the game a few years later, then more power to you."

Lmfao I literally just listed everything the remaster offers on top of better graphics and you chose to ignore that. That's your problem not mine.

"Graphical upgrades should be free of charge for current owners of said game, not a full £60 brand new release."

Now this might be the dumbest thing you've said. If you really think they're going to release remasters of games that are 10 years old, that's been worked on for 2 years, and overhauls all 3 games in terms of graphics AND gameplay for free you are smoking something fierce. That is nothing but pure entitlement and you clearly don't know how game development works. They are a business not a charity, and this is coming from someone who despises EA.

"Question for you all, why couldn't Bioware/EA just release a Series S|X/PS5 patch for the back compat games? you know like some have done with multiple others? e.g. Doom and Doom 2 have a 360 version, and an xbox one version, why could they not have done that? cash grab, simple, no matter how much icing and sugar you want to put on it."

Umm because first of all, it's not BC on PS4. Second of all, they OVERHAULED all 3 games and included everything like I said before. Doom 1 and 2 on 360 and XB1 are 2 separate versions that run on 2 different engines and the XB1 version you STILL have to pay for. All I'm getting from your comment is that all remasters should be free, which again is nothing but pure entitlement.

"Faster load times? How?"

Lol there is a video that literally SHOWS load times are faster.

"So you have just clarified, that if you have the base xbox console, you do not get 4K or 60fps, lol, pretty sure i just said that to you and you tried to argue against it?"

Umm I just said ASIDE from 4K and 60fps as in it's NOT on base xbox one. I said you get everything else I mentioned on that list. How am I arguing against if I said it's not there? You're the one it's arguing is a simple upgrade and nothing else. Wow you can't read.

"Resident Evil 2 Remake - A full remake, not a remaster was only £39.99 at launch. My problem is not with company's remastering games, you simply did not read what i said, and went on an all defensive fanboy rant. The problem is the PRICE!!!!!!""

In the US the game launched at $60, the same price as ME Legendary Edition, which I'm perfectly fine with as the work justified the price. I read everything you said and you simply think it's just a simple graphical upgrade and therefore it shouldn't be worth launch price which is laughable seeing that they went through and overhauled 3 games in terms of graphics AND gameplay.

"A "remaster" seeing as you implied i do not know what one is, is the same game, with better graphics. A "remake" is a full bottom to top, remake of a game, with different gameplay elements etc."

No shit Sherlock. I don't recall ever saying otherwise? Did you know you can still remaster a game while improving gameplay, fix bugs, and make major changes as well?

"Could you provide a link with the load time comparison between base Xbox one and One X/Series X? you must have it as you claimed you know them."

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

This shows all the improvements of the remaster including load times. If it runs on PS5/XSX, it's clear they will be even faster due to the SSD. The video just came out a week and a half ago. If you actually took the time to look you would've found this.

"All I'm getting from your comment is that all remasters should be free"

No, i never said that, that is your tiny brain making assumptions, i will quote myself :-

(From another comment) :-

"I agree fully :-

Remakes - £40 or less.
Remasters - £25 or less."

"Graphical upgrades should be free of charge for current owners of said game, not a full £60 brand new release."

Good thing that video I posted shows it's more than just a graphical upgrade. You say my brain is tiny yet with your tiny brain you couldn't even make the effort to seek out what other improvements this game may have and just assume it's ONLY texture improvements and graphical upgrades.

"Have you got a video for the "improved gunplay and Mako"?"

Yeah it's in the video I posted above.

"If you want to pay £60 for a remaster, that is your choice, just don't be disappointed when you realise what you paid for is exactly the same game, that looks a bit better."

Except I know I won't be disappointed because I KNOW what they've done to the remaster entirely so I know EXACTLY what to expect. Good thing I do ALL my research.

That's a nice list of improvements, albeit simplified, that goes beyond just a simple graphical upgrade that you claim it is which it obviously isn't. But we can go into more detail with this here: https://blog.playstation.co...

"You claimed they are clearly compared here, but the video you linked, shows next-gen SSD loading times compared to the original, not the xbox one like i was referring to. He clearly says reduced loading times due to faster HDD's. How do i know this you ask? Because the xbox 360, and the xbox one have the same speed HDD, 5400RPM."

Lol first off an SSD is not a hard drive hence why SSD and HDD are two different things. Second not once did he say next-gen SSD nor did ever make any references to PS5 or Series X, try watching the video again. Third, while what he said was a general simplification loading doesn't ONLY have to do with the HDD. Since 360 and XB1 have the same speed wanna explain why games both remastered and back compat load faster on XB1 than 360? Because better hardware means better data processing. Need proof?

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

"So no major changes compared to the originals warranting £60, did i miss anything? what's that? my initial statement of mainly graphical upgrades is correct? even using your video link as a reference? Base Xbox one do not benefit from faster load times or graphical 4K assets? like i stated all along?"

Clearly the proof I provided shows that base xbox one DOES benefit from faster load times due to better data processing but you will continue to deny with your flimsy arguments. And I never stated base xbox one got 4K assets so not sure why you brought that up again.

"I am not paying £60 for a better ME1, and a slightly better ME2 and 3. I repeat, i am not saying it is bad, i am saying it is not WORTH £60, stop referring to me trying to discredit any work they have put in to the legendary edition."

Except you are discrediting them by claiming "it's simply graphical upgrades." If that was the case I would also say it's not worth $60 but they went above and beyond that.

"RE2:Remake in the UK was £39.99 at launch - a REMAKE from the ground up
MA:LE in the UK is £54.99 at launch - a remaster
That is my entire point"

Since you're in the UK I won't argue that. However I live in the US and they are the same price and I'm willing to pay $60 for both games at launch. You're free to do with your money however you want.

"Like i said, if you are happy shelling 60 for mainly graphical upgrades, your choice, i personally will not.
Now to go have a conversation with some adults."

You're right. It's clear I'm talking with a child here who doesn't understand much so I'll be on my way and go have a conversation with grown folks who actually have some sort of intelligence. Peace. ✌

"Intelligence shown, i'm done.

SSD - stands for "solid state drive"
HDD - stands for "hard disk drive"

Both are hard drives, or would you call it a soft drive? SSD just has no mechanical parts, hence the name "solid state""

Lmao what intelligence? Hard drive is literally the short term for HARD DISK DRIVE hence the term HDD. Do your research on what a HARD DRIVE actually is and the difference between that and an SSD. Better yet lemme do it for you. I can't believe I actually had do this for you lmfao.

https://www.google.com/sear...

https://www.avast.com/c-ssd...

"I did not call an SSD a hard disk drive, another thing you made up."

Oh my Lord do you even read what you typed? You literally said this "You claimed they are clearly compared here, but the video you linked, shows next-gen SSD loading times compared to the original, not the xbox one like i was referring to. He clearly says reduced loading times due to faster HDD's. How do i know this you ask? Because the xbox 360, and the xbox one have the same speed HDD, 5400RPM"

I don't think I need to say more on this, seeing it's clear you said it in this very comment.

"He said increased hard drive speeds, the xbox one and xbox 360, have no increase in hard drive speed between the 2, a child would devise that they are talking next-gen."

I literally posted videos showing games loading on XB1 FASTER than the 360 DESPITE both consoles having the same hard drive speeds and it's clear you ignored that. And no it's NOT next-gen as it's clear an SSD is NOT a hard drive. But something tells me you'll ignore that too.

""Hard drives in modern computers
Modern computers often use an SSD (solid-state drive) as the primary storage device, instead of an HDD. HDDs are slower than SSDs when reading and writing data, but offer greater storage capacity for the price.

Although an HDD may still be used as a computer's primary storage, it's common for it to be installed as a secondary disk drive. For example, the primary SSD may contain the operating system and installed software, and a secondary HDD may be used to store documents, downloads, and audio or video files."

Source : https://www.computerhope.co...

Note how they have a title "hard drives in modern computers" and then list the SSD."

Ok it's clear you didn't even read the source you posted. You just posted it and said it lists the SSD. First off they literally abbreviate HDD to HARD DRIVE like I said. Second they listed the SSD IN COMPARISON to a hard disk drive. Not once did they say "An SSD is a hard drive." They even show a picture of what a hard disk drive even looks like. You literally helped prove my point. You seriously need better reading comprehension bruh.

:Read up on knowledge, go back to school, i dunno "shrugs""

I don't think I'm the one here that needs to do that 😂

"It's sunny outside, just saying, your missing out."

I'm good over here bruh. No worries over here.

"If an SSD is not a hard drive, what is it? you claim it is not a hard drive?
So if i was to say "i'm going to buy an external hard drive this weekend", some might ask "what you going with SSD or HDD?"

Umm... an SSD or solid state drive like everyone else?

"You need to read up and differentiate "hard drive" from "HDD" they are 2 completely different things, until you can do that, i can not help you."

Since I seem I need to educate you yet again I will show you why they're exactly the same. As a matter of fact let's use the source YOU posted:

"A hard disk drive (sometimes abbreviated as a hard drive, HD, or HDD) is a non-volatile data storage device."

"It contains one or more platters, housed inside of an air-sealed casing." That doesn't apply to an SSD based on this picture here: https://www.computerhope.co...

Oh look here's the real kicker in your source.

"Should I say "hard disk drive" or "hard drive"?
Both "hard disk drive" and "hard drive" are correct and mean the same thing. However, we recommend using the term "hard drive" in your writing or when describing a hard drive. The term "hard drive" helps to distinguish it from an SSD (solid-state drive), which contains no platters, disk-shaped components, or moving parts."

Your source NEVER refers to an SSD as a hard drive and no one except you ever will as they function mechanically different. YOUR source is literally telling you what I've been saying this entire time. Remember that's YOUR source so you can't claim it to be wrong.

If you STILL can't understand that then I can't help you and we will never budge from our stances. But other than that, you have a blessed day.