Is there something inherently wrong with ports/upgraded versions of games? Don't get me wrong...

Is there something inherently wrong with ports/upgraded versions of games? Don't get me wrong, I'm tired of many "remasters" coming out on PS4/Xbone instead of new releases, especially when they're basically the same games running on better hardware. Ports like Sleeping Dogs, GTA5, Last of Us, and that came out a year or 2 later of already common games.

But at the same time, there are some ports or upgraded versions like Perfect Dark, EDF 4.1, which are like nice remixes of the original game that run a lot better, and are games not a whole lot of people probably had a chance to play on release or are hard to find.

It's one of those things that sounds nice in theory but doesn't often work out so well in its execution.

Too much money involved in their creation

With the way the industry is these days, money is all they care about making.

Minimal effort and money spent to make a "all-new" product is all the better. Profit margins exist in any industry, video games are no exception.

Like communism

It's not bad in theory, but it' bad on execution 90% of the time because of intent.
If it's made for money, they won't try to work on it.

I wish DMC4:SE fixed the backtracking

I wish it had some new levels for the characters

When its a much older game, older than one or two generations ago, I don't have a problem with ports and remasters.
I would still prefer new games in most cases, but I'm fine with getting a rerelease of something from my childhood on a modern system in most cases.

Just stop with the rereleases of games from the PS3/360 generation.

Play FF12 on the PS2 and you'll be begging SquareEnix to throw money at them for the remaster.

Oh and a kidney for an Onimusha HD collection.

Modern games are shit so it is only natural that we turn to the past.

I see remakes as a waste of time largely. There is however, value in maintaining a game post-launch and bringing it to other platforms years down the line. This is not necessarily a beneficial thing, particularly when games rely on temporary licensing agreements for content, as is the case with san andreas - but gameplay being preserved is a good thing.

I do worry about elements that are lost in remaster, porting, etc. What if when you port a game from the PS2 to the PS3 as an HD upgrade it messes with timings, visual effects, etc? It may be small now, but what if you end up porting it to the PS6 in 15 years? More and more things may be lost, and the farther it gets from the original experience, the less valid of a reproduced game it is. Accuracy and faithfulness should be cherished, but there isn't much wrong with experimenting with things as conker L&R did over Conker BFD. However, the option to experience it as it was, 1:1 like the Halo Anniversary series of remakes does is commendable and something I'd like to see more of.

The more we redo the past, the more that may be lost to interpretion, the more skewed our perception of the past can be. This is a damaging thing to the industry and distorts the history of games to no benefit of gamers, for it can retroactively and without disclosure incorporate changes that are more modern to a classic work. It's a very tricky balancing act.