I think there is two things in it:
- If an old game is a good game, I don't see why it should be forgotten. If old mechanics or gameplay, or lore, or storytelling, etc... are good, they shouldn't be forgotten. New things shouldn't be rewarded because they are new, but because they are good or well designed. So if the video game industry is jumping to something new but what some people can judge as something bad or even in the wrong way, I think it's logical. As far as it isn't only conservative to be conservative, I'm fine with it. And sometimes I agree.
- Remakes and HD versions could be fine to introduce younger people or people who haven't played those games back in the days. Because of how evolved the whole video games industry since the early 90s, it's important to consider graphics, because the greatest way to improve video games was improving graphics for two decades. Improving gameplay, AI, etc... weren't the main goal. So I think it is important indeed to show to people used to play with modern graphics how good old games were, and why they were good even with old graphics.
But there is something to consider too: should HD remakes come into the first place in the video games industry pipeline? Shouldn't they be secundary? Should new games be produced prior to remakes? I think this point is the main problem. If a developer isn't wealthy enough to produce both remakes and new games, to come back into the industry maybe focusing on remakes is a good excuse. But considering big publishers, I don't think focusing on remakes is the right way to do. Doing some remakes, yes why not. But firstly remakes, I don't think so.