Dark Souls: Remastered is half-price for original owners

Folks who have the original Dark Souls on Steam will be offered a 50% discount on the upcoming Dark Souls: Remastered, Bandai Namco confirmed today. The revisions and additions in the Remastered edition aren’t huge but if you fancy returning to a fancier Lordran, that beats paying full price.

Remastered will be the only way to buy Dark Souls on PC, as Bamco also announced that they’ll remove ye olde Prepare To Die Edition from sale on Steam in a few weeks.

The console editions of Dark Souls: Remastered cost £30 and I wouldn’t expect it to be much, if any, cheaper on PC. So maybe £15 if you own the original? Some remastered games have been cheaper to upgrade to, some have cost more.

Dark Souls: Prepare To Die Edition will be removed from sale on Steam on May 9th. If you already own it, it’ll still be in your Steam library and you’ll be able to download and play that edition – it simply won’t be available for other people to buy.

Are there reasons you might want to buy the original edition rather than Remastered? [Edit: whoops yeah, mods certainly.] Historical interest, perhaps. And we don’t yet know the full extent of changes, so perhaps some might not be to everyone’s tastes. I’m not mega-into the sharpened textures myself. But hey, if you want the original, buy it now.

Dark Souls: Remastered is due May 25th on Steam.

Here, have a new trailer showing some familiar nasties:

That certainly is Dark Souls, remastered.

53 Comments

  1. Horg says:

    ”Are there reasons you might want to buy the original edition rather than Remastered?”

    Mods.

    • mitrovarr says:

      System requirements also seem like an obvious one.

      Also, some remasters are hack jobs that only marginally look better but introduce tons of bugs not present in the original.

    • HiroTheProtagonist says:

      Was going to say this. Some helpful anonymous person posted a video showing the remastered version alongside the existing PC version with DSFix, and it sadly shows some visual downgrades in the Remastering.

      Seems pretty par for the course these days.

      • Halk says:

        Could you share the YT video please?

      • Addie says:

        Is that comparing the original + DsFix version against the Switch version? Hopefully the Switch version is not representative of the version they’ve prepared for the PC and more powerful consoles, because it looks pretty lousy in comparison. Mind you, getting the right DsFix settings really lets the original shine.

      • Urthman says:

        The original Dark Souls had some of the best-looking metal armor and weapons I’ve ever seen in a video game. I don’t know if it was the textures or the lighting or what.

        From the preview videos I’ve seen so far, I can’t tell for sure whether they screwed that up or not, but from some of the videos it looks like maybe they did?

  2. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    Kind of weird to remove the original edition. I mean, people would still occasionally buy it, I’m not sure that it really costs them anything to run other than server costs, and I’m not even sure the multiplayer for DS1 still works.

    But neat. I’ll probably end up getting the remaster myself, even if I’ve never finished the first game due to being incapable of getting good.

    • svge says:

      Obviously it’s so that people who want to buy Dark Souls have to buy the new expensive version. I’m not even criticizing From Software, I’m just pointing out how glaringly obvious the reason for removing PTD edition is.

      • Premium User Badge

        Drib says:

        I’m a little surprised they didn’t just set the price of the old one equal to the new one and go that way.

        But yeah, I suppose I see what you mean.

      • mitrovarr says:

        They should make the new one include a copy of the old one, in case someone wants to play an old mod, or in case the remaster is just the worse game (distressingly common among game remasters).

      • PoulWrist says:

        The old version is a complete mess and I’d wager that most people are not going to be using mods to play it because they’re not comfortable enough using a computer to do so.

        It makes perfect sense to not ever make a customer experience that garbage version.

    • RobinOttens says:

      DS1 multiplayer still works and is surprisingly active. I didn’t have much trouble finding players to help me with the occasional bossfight when I was playing a month ago.

      I imagine another reason to remove the old version besides the money thing svge mentioned. Is to not split the player base. Any new player from now on is gonna be playing the new version. Similar to how DS2 multiplayer is pretty much dead now that Scholar of the First Sin is a thing.

      Also, looking at the footage this new dark souls 1 is 90% the same game. They already said they’re not changing things like enemy placement or game systems. So it’s only the (in my opinion worse looking) new lighting, and some extra details like plants moving in the wind and stuff.

    • modzero says:

      Because people would buy the old version by mistake, and get upset.

    • PoulWrist says:

      If it runs better on the new version, then I don’t see why to keep the old one around. Even with DSFix and so on, the old one was just odd in its performance – not to mention almost unplayable without DSfix… Makes perfect sense to remove that.

      • Helmic says:

        It really is about the mods. Hopefully the remaster will have sufficient graphics options that lower end machines will be able to play the new version better, but that may or may not be the case.

        The mods, though. PvP Watchdog reduced the impact of hackers, there’s complete remixes of DS1 that make the game feel new again. There’s challenge runs, rebalances, graphical overhauls that look better than the remaster, custom textures. Modding shouldn’t have been nearly mandatory to enjoy the game, but modding does make the game much more enjoayble.

    • LANCERZzZz says:

      They did the same thing with Metro 2033 when they released the Redux. Unfortunately, there were a lot more gameplay changes with that than with Dark Souls, and a lot of people (myself included) preferred the original.

  3. Scobie says:

    As someone who owns and loves the original, I’m gratified to hear that upgrading won’t be full price, but I’m still uncertain what actual improvement I’d be getting for my ~£15.

  4. kud13 says:

    I still haven’t gotten around to playing the original.

    Will the remastered edition implement better M+K support, or will it still be advisable to use third party fixes?

    • b00p says:

      the m+k support for dark souls 2 and 3 are just fine (how i played them) so i imagine that would be a primary feature they’d add in this case.

      • Horg says:

        I wouldn’t bet on that at all. The mouse fix for DS1 basically tricks the game into thinking the mouse is a controller with buttons remapped, the axis reversed and the negative acceleration toned down to be barely noticeable. There is no functional mouse code in DS1, unlike the two follow up’s.

      • Gryz says:

        Mouse support for DS2 is not “just fine”.
        Have you tried it ?

        The GUI has options to assign double-clicking certain buttons to certain actions. But for that to work, the game has to wait after each mouse-click to see if it was a single click or a double click. This makes clicking any mouse button very sluggish. I assign roll and jump to my mouse-buttons, and they react so slow, the game becomes unplayable.

        From has introduced a fix for that in a later patch. You can tell the game you’ll not be using double-clicks, and it can react quicker. That works. Unfortunately this setting does not stick in the save-games. (DS games don’t have config-files, they stick settings in the save-games). This means every time you start the game, you need to go into the menus, and re-enable this “don’t expect double-clicks”-setting.

        That gets really irritating after a 100 times.

    • -Ross says:

      I would -not- count on it. At least, I have not been able to find any mention of them fixing that. Tons of article saying they -hope- they’ll fix it, but no indication that they actually will.
      I also haven’t seen anything about them changing the engine, so the theory that that will inherently fix mouse/keyboard stuff seems pretty unrealistic. It’s just a resolution and framerate upgrade/unlock, some multiplayer changes, and other little tweaks.
      The latest mouse fix mod works perfectly for me (even better all the older fixes). If you have the game you should give it a shot: link to nexusmods.com
      Fortunately they’ve allowed people a little bit of time to buy the original after facts about the remaster come out.

      • Optimaximal says:

        I’m not sure on what authority you’re making these comments, but it seems obvious that the quickest way they could get this port to market would be to port the DS1 assets into the more advanced & stable DS2/3 engine, which has much more features as standard on the PC.

        I could never get DS1 working correctly, with the DSFix stuff – it kept crashing and I moved on. Being able to have another stab at it would be nice.

      • -Ross says:

        Oh bugger, I misread it as April 25th, not May! So they -are- deleting the old one before the new one comes out, that seriously sucks.

        @Optimaximal – No authority at all! I said, “At least, I have not been able to find any mention…”. I don’t see any point in guessing.

  5. Ham Solo says:

    As the DS games have a history of being some of the worst (major) PC ports in the history of modern gaming, I’ll wait until it is released and the port reviews are out.

    • Darth Gangrel says:

      They’re removing the old edition more than two weeks before the remaster is released, so we won’t be able to compare the different versions and choose the best/least bad one. Very clever *corporate conspiracy thoughts intensifies*

      If the old one goes on sale again at 5 euros, I might pick it up. I don’t like being forced to buy an edition which may not be that much better than the original, if I ever want to play the game.

      • Optimaximal says:

        They’re just taking it down from the store. Nobody who already has it will lose access to their PtD copy. There are plenty of people out there able to ‘make the comparison’.

        If they leave it up, you’d end up with Doom 3’s current marketplace situation, where you have the old version being sold alongside the more expensive BFG edition, which also has the older versions bundled along with an upgraded engine and modified game-play – sounds like this confusion is just what BN are trying to avoid!

        • Darth Gangrel says:

          I spoke out of my perspective, which is the only one I care about. If other people are confused by there being multiple editions, then bad for them. I’m not confused, so I’m unhappy with them denying me the choice of paying for either one after reviews are out. I’m not gonna let myself be rushed into buying the old version out of fear that the new one is worse or just as bad for a higher price, but as I said above, I don’t like the company is deleting a game from the store to make way for their more expensive more-or-less upgraded version. That’s smells of greed and reminds me of the practice of denying reviewers early review copies while doing an aggressive preorder campaign.

          It’s quite obvious that they’re not gonna delete it from people who already bought it, I never implied that and don’t know why anyone would think that I did.

    • DudeshootMankill says:

      I completely disagree with you. DS2 is the most well optimized pc game in recent times. And DS3 on a good rig is one of the best looking games.

      • Kingseeker Camargo says:

        Even the first Dark Souls wasn’t a bad port (let alone “some of the worst in the history of modern gaming”). In fact, it was a 1:1 conversion from the console version, it was 100% functional and it didn’t lose any features in the porting. In a whole bunch of non trivial aspects, I’d argue it was a perfect port.

        Now, it was painfully basic in terms of PC-specific options, true, but that’s another story.

        If you were to play it with a gamepad, not only you would be playing the same game as console gamers; depending on your PC’s horsepower you might’ve been playing the absolute best version, since you could probably just brute force your way through the more infamously power hungry sections.

        If you wanna talk about truly bad ports you should see things like the original Resident Evil 4 or Devil May Cry 3.

        • -Ross says:

          “a 1:1 conversion from the console version” — boy, in my book that’s kind of the definition of a bad port. Barely a port at all. If someone ‘ported’ a PC game to mobile but it required you to hook up a mouse and keyboard to your mobile device, wouldn’t that be a bad port? I’d say a ‘good port’ is one that makes it seem like the game was specifically designed for the new platform. The whole point is to adapt it to different hardware. According to the RPS fanzine, they even admitted DS1 was a bad port: link to pcgamer.com

        • Machinedrum says:

          Not a bad port? Any action oriented game locked to 30fps in PC is a bad port in my book :)

        • Raoul Duke says:

          Wasn’t a bad port?

          I’ve been playing Pc games for 30 years and it’s the biggest dumpster fire of a PC release I think I’ve ever encountered. Awful controls, awful frame rates, non scaling UI, generally looks like total garbage, horrible input issues, appalling bundled crapware…

          This new release should be free for existing owners, maybe then we can get a half way competent release of the game we bought.

          “Wasn’t a bad port”… *shuffles away muttering angrily about Dark Souls fanatics*

      • Gryz says:

        See my comment above, how the setting “don’t do double mouse-clicks” doesn’t stick. You need to reset that option every time you start the game.

        Also, I wasn’t able to get DS2 to work in ultra-wide-screen mode (21:9). I was able to get that to work in DS1 and DS3, via user-supplied tools and utilities. But not in DS2. Any decent game has ultra-wide-screen support built in. But not the DS-games. Imho that is sloppy.

    • fish99 says:

      That’s only true for DS1.

  6. skyturnedred says:

    I just hope the upgrade offer isn’t time sensitive.

  7. Sly-Lupin says:

    Lol, what? They’re charging *anything?* just for a few minor graphical tweaks? No thanks.

  8. narbareck says:

    It’s still a rip-off. In the worst case scenario, upgrading to Scholar of the First Sin set you back 9€ when it launched, if you already had all the DLC. That “remaster” at least featured some semblance of actual content to go back to it.

  9. K_Sezegedin says:

    Is this one of those things where everyone will eventually migrate to the remastered version and if you want to keep ds1’ing you have to come over eventually?

    So much utility built into the original with DsFix, and DSCM and DS Watchdog I’d hate to give all that up just for stuff like higher res and fps that you can get from DsFix anyway.

  10. Aveline says:

    Will the “remaster” have better ultrawide display support? Currently it’s doable but the HUD gets stretched. DS3 support is marginally better but still requires a hack so probably not.

  11. Viral Frog says:

    Still not enough to get me to buy it again.

  12. Turkey says:

    Seems like it would probably be a lot smarter to give it away for free or super cheap as a loyalty bonus for long-time supporters. CD Project’s been building up a ton of good will over the years by doing stuff like that.

    • Vodka, Crisps, Plutonium says:

      I’d imagine, since it’s a multiplayer game that massively relies on active interaction between the players and post-game chatter to discuss their sessions / discovered secrets, adding a topic like “hey, i got this game for free / with 85% discount” for old-timers to brag about would just cheapen the purchase and overall experience for newcomers.
      I got my Bioshock remastered collections for free on Steam and I’ve never touched them, but if anybody is interested in actually coming back to the multiplayer community of DaS1, then 50% discount is a more or less good compromise between rewarding original game owners without devaluing the purchase for new players too much and a way for them (original game owners) to show their investment in actually playing the multiplayer for longer than 5 minutes without inflating players online counter in first day only for it to drop drastically, ‘cuz people who’ve just got it for free and briefly checked out the updated version dropped out of the game.

      Also it’s a good way to squeeze more dosh out of fans.

  13. frosty2oo2 says:

    the real dark souls starts here?

  14. Vodka, Crisps, Plutonium says:

    Nice to see they’re still relying on Gaping Dragon to sell that final impression to the customers. It definitely sold me the original game.

  15. Chaoslord AJ says:

    I’d just accept ~15€ for moving ivy, fresh playerbase and servers and quality of life. Any more and it’d be wait-for-sale.
    The “prepare to die”-port they sold us was a hack job anyway so a discount is due and fair.
    From what I heard the new contract porters have a good reputation (Dragon’s Dogma port) although some reviewers mentioned the drab colors of the remaster and modded ptd still looked better than the remaster though the remaster seemed over all better than vanilla ptd-edition.

  16. corporatemachine says:

    scru yew bandai , they are squeezing our nuts for cash ! what a crap money grab tactic ! same was done to skyrim! they made legendary version disappear and ripped new players off for a shitty modded skyrim. wow , I am so PISSED. Prepare to die is good enough f–k you !!!

  17. corporatemachine says:

    f__k you namco !!!

Comment on this story

HTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>