Game was released on three consecutive gens of Nintendo hardware
Some games have never received a port, remaster, remake and yet Twilight Princess has been available in 3 generation of consoles (GCN, Wii, Wii U) and received an HD remaster through Wii U - yet this is still Nintendo shunning Twilight Princess huh?
Like has been already said above, Twilight Princess is a title that's been give plenty of attention since its debut release. Ocarina of Time is soon releasing for its fourth platform, so Twilight Princess may follow that practice in time. Though unless some remake is being planned for it, I can only imagine it being made available on modern platforms through Nintendo Switch Online.
Tbh if its a remake I support it partially. I think the OOT stuff is cool at minimum. Full remake is what TP needs. I'm so sick of remasters and HD ports that it's borderline sickening. Shit console ports from LAST GEN for 80 is enough for me to throw away half the industry and I have. Charge me 80 for metroid prime when I can literally just buy it for 40 on gamecube.
Overall im happy to avoid Gen 9 altogether. Will never budge on that.
Ports to later-released platforms—and to a lesser extent, remasters—aren't the problem. I would personally rather see these projects come to fruition than a full remake since the latter allocates resources to something old than creating something new whereas the former requires considerably fewer resources and amount of time. At the same time, porting the original versions of games to modern platforms only makes preservation that much easier, although the option isn't always available or as straightforward as we'd like since many older studios with legacy titles simply deleted their game library's source code once each project was completed and shipped. However, the problem that arises with ports and remasters is pricing. Older games could easily be bundled together as a more premium compilation or sold individually on digital markets for cheap. But with Nintendo, they've demonstrated that they're not interested in doing that exactly but to instead offer older titles behind a subscription fee exclusively. Of course, this isn't entirely Nintendo's fault. Much fault also lies in consumers since they widely accept these trends.
What has Nintendo ported to the ninth generation without additional content or features that's been priced at $80? To my understanding, first-party Nintendo Switch 2 Edition of games are designed with some or all of those two aforementioned offerings. They're not a 1:1 port, and they're also not priced at $80.
What do you mean by "make preservation easier"? 9 times out of 10 the source code is altered to function on modern hardware, the graphics are heavily diluted, content is removed or added and lastly licenses expire forcing a completely new derivative of the original. Key examples being GTA Definitive edition. Which I enjoy but many purists find it putting lipstick on a pig. I wouldnt call GTA definitive edition preservation for the grand theft auto trilogy. Its a cash in. A completely new thing. Most remasters are different in general. Also what preservation would be occurring if Nintendo released Twilight Princess on its NO services temporarily granting access to a game until its digital store front dies or you lose subscription access then see ya? Like it did with Pokémon leaf green and fire red? Even with a physical cart. Id argue its preserving the remaster not the original game. But to each their own. I feel you'd have better luck running an Emulation server and ripping tons of source files if that was someone's intent.
Quite frankly "definitive edition" is a excuse big corperate uses to double dip a chip and market the same game twice. It was fun when it first started because it was almost always 20 to 40 bucks and massively improved material. The gap between gens graphically has closed a lot and honestly I dont see the reason. I'm not saying remasters cant be fun but If I can buy BOTW for 20 on switch im not paying 60 on switch 2. Then these companies wonder why software sales are at a dead still despite having more players in the playerbase. Perhaps predatory behavior with a consumer base. Lacking innovation. Rehashing old stuff. How many 3DS legacy storefront purchases for NES ports went goodbye when the shop closed? Not very preserving of Nintendo.
Moana remake bombed in box office. Toy Story 5 is like 3rd in gross. It shows people want new.
If by "bonus content" you mean a handful of dlc levels from previous gen that shoulda been free anyway and better frame rates, then nothing. But if you think that warrants full new release pricing or constitutes not being a throw away cash grab reskin than I simply disagree. These arent new games. I never said Nintendo doesnt polish the game up a bit. Its still the same game. Imagine the year is 1993 and everyone is excited for the new big metroid game. Super Metroid. And instead Nintendo said "hey here is metroid for nes again. I know you just beat it 5 years ago. But its back. And 16 bit. Pay us 60 dollars for it" it woulda just bombed. Even Mario All Stars had 4 entire remasters including a Japanese import of lost levels on one cart to ever dare entertain that price point. And it still became a pack in title later because of it.
Look at Rare Replay. 30 games for 30 bucks? Density. Most were 1 to 1. Now thats preservation. A rate of 1 dollar per game. No sweat off anyone's back because its content they already own. Costs next to nothing to port.
Tears of the kingdom released at full 70 I believe it was with only improved frames and fidelity.
Captain toad treasure tracker released for the same price as both its Wii U and 3DS counterparts and actually REMOVED content and concepts including the mario 3D world levels. It neutered the optional amiibo functionalities and pasted in 4 levels to attempt to remedy that and went full price on a game older than Queen Elizabeth II.
I dont mind ports. But it seems to be redundant and floppy, soggy greed. I can prove how off comparative reasoning alone. A game like Pragmata costed the same as TOTK as a port. Which cost more for the dev? Making an entire new project from scratch or taking a 7 year old game and making it 60 fps? Which has a higher ROI cieling? Which ultimately milks the most while giving least? That stuff isnt subjective. Lemonade costing as much as champagne is a rip off regardless if thirsty people pay it or not. But I know you didn't argue this.
Tbh if the price isnt 20 to 40 dollars it's a joke to me. Im over ports and remasters. I dont pay Resident Evil Requiem prices for Resident evil village on PS5 just because it was once a ps4 game. I can emulate pokemon leaf green for free, play a bootleg cart for 10 bucks. I'm gonna start emulating to the blue moon. Not just Nintendo. PS and Xbox too. I will never buy an access code to a non owned piece of legacy media for 60 bucks. Id argue that culture has far more enabled digital only and risked preservation than it has aided it in any way. It's a terrible trend and why Gen 7 obliterated Gen 8 in almost everones opinion.
I do agree with you though that its up to buyers to speak with their wallets but look at the rest of the countries decision making skills. People would pay 100 dollars for a bag of air if Nintendo branded it as Miyamoto's fart.
