I'm starting to think that these agreements on remakes are intentional trick-deals.
How well is a remake* expected to sell for it to warrant a new game in that franchise?

* usually done on a low budget that does directly affect a number of production aspects

That's entirely possible. I think the background art looks great. The portrait of Gabe might need a little work, but it's a work in progress and hopefully the 3D models work well with the backgrounds.
It does reek a little of "cash grab" in the sense that Activision has been sitting on the Sierra properties for so long. After seeing good sales from places like GOG as well as the support for last year's kickstarters like Jane Jensen's, they probably thought, "Oh, there are quite a few people ready and willing to support new adventure games."

I don't think that GK1 remake success --> GK4 so easily or directly. However, I suppose it's better than the alternative, which is nothing.

If you refuse to take carrots in the fear they'll be snatched away, you'll definitely never have any. ;-)

Come on guys, this is the first time in over a decade when there's been a realistic chance of getting some continuation to the Gabriel Knight story. Surely this is not the time to brood? :-)

Which is why the "buy the remake to help GK4" line makes sense. Sure it might not work, but it's obvious that the sales are what will drive a new version.

Far as I know the Monkey Island remakes were never meant to result in a new game. They were just a work of love to bring MI to a new generation.

As for Larry, I imagine that as with most Kickstarter games, the idea was to have enough money to create a game, then create the next one from the profits. Problem is that most Kickstarter games spend more money than they get, so there's need for even more sales. Still, has it been said that there won't be another game?

the part that puzzles me about the whole "make a remake, see if its popular, then make the new sequel"...
is usually thats assuming that the remake is going to be much cheaper to make.. but this is a game with a huuuge amount of dialogue and theyr paying to completely re-record it.. and the art is completely re-imagined and it obviosly will use a very different engine. When all is said and done the cost to make it must be comparable to making a total new game. Thats probably why activision had 2nd thoughts and decided theyd rather let phoenix make it.

Not quite. They don't need to design all the puzzles or do much of writing. That does bring the cost down somewhat, as puzzles can be implemented in a raw form in the get go even before the new graphics are done. The coders can do scenes with placeholder art while the art people do the artwork and this leads, in an ideal case, in much faster development cycle.

Though from the looks of it that didn't really happen here.

Ugly FMV? Beast Within was a masterpiece. I really loved GK3 too.

Yes ugly, I didn't say anything about the story because it was good, but the FMV graphical style was awful and close-to ruined the game. As for GK3, well I couldn't even get very far into it because of that very-early-3d graphics, I mean Jesus I'm the last person to be a graphics whore about something but I don't think I'll ever understand why they chose 3D at a time when 3D was still so primitive. Just use sprites FFS! GK1 is the best because the 2D artwork is beautiful, and the voice work is the best of the series.

Reviving this thread because Just Adventure has published a "First Look" of the game here.