It has been a bumper year for video game remasters. In the past 12 months alone, we have seen remasters of "Demon's Souls," "Nioh," "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World," "Age of Empires III," "SpongeBob Squarepants: Battle for Bikini Bottom," Sci-fi fans are currently enjoying the remaster of "Mass Effect Legendary Edition" and the HD remaster of "The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword" is just a few months away.

Given this aggressive release schedule, gamers would be forgiven for wanting to play nothing but remasters of old favorites. In fact, there is a great irony in the idea that remasters exist solely to minimize the developer's effort while maximizing the publisher's profits. Why create something new and risky when you can make fans very happy (and willing to pay for it) just by porting an old game to a new console?

I recently discussed this topic on TechRadar's web show Seriously, with Tom Farthing of GamesRadar, Matt Philliips of TechRadar, Sherri Smith of Laptop Mag, and myself, We discussed whether or not we could come to a definitive conclusion about video game remastering. Is remastering a boon for nostalgic players, a necessary evil for a fast-changing industry, or a greedy cash-grab?

First of all, if you have 20 minutes to spare, watch our discussion on YouTube and see for yourself. Also embedded below:

If not: I took a balanced approach. Remastering a video game is not as good as getting a brand new one, and it is a bit troubling that publishers often treat it that way. On the one hand, we live in a world where video games are badly preserved. Without the occasional refresh of old games for new systems, how will we revisit them - and how will young gamers discover them for the first time?

First things first: I'm glad the serious staff is taking the middle road when it comes to remasters. As with many things in the gaming world, there are pros and cons to remastering. But there is no denying that my feelings about remasters are generally more negative than positive.

My main objection to remasters is that they instill a strange sense of loyalty and appreciation in gamers. Every time a high-profile remaster is announced, you should see the reaction. In-person events are met with thunderous applause and cheers. Social media is abuzz with all-caps tributes to the original and words of gratitude to the publisher for bringing back a childhood favorite. (Nostalgia has power, and publishers know it well.)

I'm all for people being able to play what they want on whatever system they currently own. What I don't understand, however, is the breathless excitement that players often feel for something they've already experienced dozens of times. (Just ask the people who were so excited about "Mass Effect Legendary Edition" how many times they've played the trilogy.)

Remasters are certainly labor intensive, but there's no denying that they are generally easier to produce than reworking an entire game from scratch, whether it be story, mechanics, or art style. That's true for a new installment of an existing series, and doubly true for a bold new IP. The notion that developers are doing players a favor by giving them comfort food (and often charging full price for the privilege) is a strange and somewhat insidious form of brand loyalty.

Big companies have the resources to develop as many cool new ideas as they want, yet they keep pumping out the same old stuff. Game fans interpret this as an act of generosity. And we should trust that they will play it again when the remastered remasters are released a few generations later.

Nevertheless, no one is forcing anyone to buy and play remasters, and replaying old games can be a way to spend one's leisure time. But given the high demands placed on all other aspects of game development, it is a bit unusual for game fans to be generally uncritical of remasters.

On the other hand, there's a reason publishers keep putting out remasters: from the PS3's "Ratchet & Clank Collection" to the "Mass Effect Legendary Edition" just a week ago, a well-done remaster is a genuine pleasure for many people. It's fun to replay good games, and replaying them is easy with the latest hardware. There is nothing inherently ironic here.

However, I would argue that the main benefit of video game remasters is not replaying old favorites. Rather, it is to allow a new generation of players to experience a great game that is often hard to find in its original form.

Take the recent release of Super Mario 3D All-Stars on Nintendo Switch, for example. This remastered collection included "Super Mario 64" (N64), "Super Mario Sunshine" (Gamecube), and "Super Mario Galaxy" (Wii), all in the latest packaging. From a technical standpoint, it was not a great remaster, suffering from bugs, limited availability, and a general lack of meaningful improvements.

On the other hand, all three games are excellent entries in the long-running Mario series for children. The most recent Super Mario 3D All-Stars was released on the Wii, which Nintendo discontinued in 2013. Young Mario fans who currently own a Switch may have been born since then. It is not reasonable to expect children and their parents to seek out three retro consoles just to play a few Mario games.

From "The Last of Us" to "Resident Evil 3," there will always be gamers who were too young to experience games first hand or who did not have the necessary hardware. We cannot expect all gamers to become retro collectors. If new players want to experience old games, publishers need to release old games on new consoles.

Still, this would not be so much of a problem if video game preservation were not so dire: of the three major console manufacturers, only Microsoft has made a major commitment to backward compatibility, and besides, the Xbox Series X/S does not have the entire Xbox/Xbox 360 library on the Xbox Series X/S, and it is not possible to play the entire Xbox/Xbox 360 library on the Xbox Series X/S. Sony has nearly shut down its PS3 and Vita digital stores. Nintendo's Switch online service offers only a small selection of retro games, none of which are available a la carte; the Wii store closed several years ago, and the 3DS eShop followed suit in many areas.

The message is clear enough: video game publishers do not want you to buy their old games, even if you have the right hardware to play them. At the same time, publishers are cracking down on ROM sites and even preventing people from downloading old games from third-party sources. Many older games are completely impossible for the average consumer to play, and only marginally playable by tech-savvy retro enthusiasts who understand the ins and outs of emulation.

While there are no easy solutions to preserving video games, it is worth noting that movies face similar problems. Indeed, half of all films produced before 1950 are probably lost forever.

Remastering is one way to ensure that beloved video games remain with us for generations to come. Remastering is also one way to ensure that we return to the same handful of familiar series over and over again, instead of seeking out more innovative works. Let's find a wise balance.