Nintendo Switch

Japan: Capcom Has Announced “Resident Evil 7 Cloud Version” For Nintendo Switch

Resident Evil 7 is coming to the Switch, but not in the way that you would expect. This will be a “Cloud Version”. This version of the game will be completely run through the cloud, so you will need a stable internet connection on your Switch to play the game. As for DLC, the release will include Banned Footage Volume 1 and 2, End of Zoe and Not a Hero. The game can be played for free for up to 15 minutes. Afterwards, a 2,000 yen ticket is required, which lasts 180 days. The game will release in Japan on May 24th. Capcom confirmed the news in a Japanese trailer, so here it is:

Source / Via

Advertisements

58 comments

  1. HOLY MOTHER!

    This is one of my most wanted ports! I pray this ends up coming West (and not have to play it from the Cloud), but this means it can run!

    I’m frustrated, but very happy lol

    Like

    1. It doesn’t mean the Switch can run it. If anything it likely means they’re either too lazy to port it or the Switch actually couldn’t handle it, but either way it’s a guarantee that it’s actually running off a PC instead of the Switch itself.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. well, technically it’s running off a server, not a pc, but yes, it’s possible they weren’t able to get a satisfactory version running on the switch itself so they chose this interesting roundabout way to do it. Reminds me of Rainway streaming.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @iamkellam
        If it’s using the GeForce Now service, more than likely it’s running on a powerful server that even the PS5 and Xbox Two could even touch it. Plus, Nvidia is consistantly updating their servers with the last GeForce graphics, currently they’re running Titan V Cards

        Liked by 3 people

    2. It’s more than likely going to be using the cloud to push the visuals that are equivalent to what the PS4 and PC. The game can’t run on the switch natively less it has drastic optimization and graphical sacrifices. It will need to be on the cloud if it was to have those kind of visuals.

      Like

  2. Wow, that’s less than $20. Geforce Now which MAC people are using, said the service is actually pretty decent, even on fortnite. Latency isn’t bad. So this is definietly doable on the switch.

    Like

      1. Damn. Nintendo needs to pursue this kind of thing further for big games that wouldn’t work otherwise. Imagine RDR 2.

        Like

      2. It’s certainly a good business model for campaign type games, like this. But wouldn’t be very good for something like the AAA titles like battlefield or call of duty.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Basically, the game will be streamed from a Gaming PC, so it’ll most likely having the settings to match your bandwidth. So expect the Switch port to actually run better that the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X as the PCs they use in the Cloud Gaming services like Geforce NOW are triple the performance.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. I can’t think of a less attractive way to play games. You have to rent games and at the end of the day you don’t own a thing and the companies has eliminated 2nd sales. + you need a constant and quite decent Internet connection, making the handheld part of Switch less attractive since the on-the-go aspect will suffer from this. Even digital downloads increase the worth of the console itself at least.
      I’m using the Steam Link to stream games from my PC to my living room, and it works as a charm 99% of the time, but playing on the PC itself is better for games like King of Fighters and stuff.
      Digital Only do we have to accept, unfortunately.
      Streaming is not for the greater good of gamers.

      Like

      1. It really all depends on the price point. In this case, the game is $20. Whereas normally you would pay $60 and pray that gamestop gives you $20 for it, and they’ll sell it used to $55. So in the end, this model seems better for people, none of the runarounds with trying to trade in games. It’s like renting a movie, you play it till it’s over then never pick it up again. You’ve paid $20 for 20+ hours of gameplay until you beat it.

        Like

      2. But then again if you don’t have time to finish it or just want to take a break, you might have to pay one more time for the game, and we in Norway don’t give cr*p about Gamestop trade-ins anyway. And what about collectors? Streaming isn’t like a good option there. And in the big picture, say 80 years from now, you might have spent 300.000$ on games you still have, or 300.000$ in gaming bills. Even if it’s a hassle or not, you can at least CHOOSE to sell games if you buy them physically; which you can’t when streaming. I really really can’t see any benefits what so ever other than you get the game right then and there, but you get that with digital download as well.

        Like

      3. Like I said, it’s the same as buying a DVD/BluRay movie vs renting the movie. It’s only for immediate consumption, but with most movies you only watch them once anyways. So you can pay a much smaller amount, as opposed to buying and owning it for much more money. To be honest though, I’ve bought many $60 games on xbox that still reside in my parents basement. I play them many years ago and will never touch them again. A huge waste of money.

        Like

      4. While it’s true what you say that a lot of consumers only will play games once, there are people, including myself, who will play some games many times over. Like me and Fire Emblem, since it got so many ways to play a campaign. But yeah, I also have games I’ll never play again probably, but it doesn’t equal it’s better to rent them. You can sell/borrow/collect them. Me, I have two twin little brothers which are 15 years younger than me, and they love come and visit me and try all my games and consoles, and tell them facts and stories surround the games. It’s one of the magic moments you earn if you collect games like I do.

        And even if there’s a split between gamers who play a game once, or those who play many times over, it should be the gamers choosing, not the companies which want you to pay over and over for games and not borrow them to friends or re-sell them.
        And again the Switch on-the-go nature doesn’t fit well with this + delay man. Stream Super Smash? No way!

        I see your argument, but isn’t like Steam Sales or cheap digital downloads better?

        Like

      5. Yes, I like to buy games from Steam because I will always have them, I don’t have to worry about losing the install discs. But the problem is server time for this business model, the play time for the game is wrapped up into the price. So a forever license is not possible. I always prefer to own somethng, but if the price is low enough, renting a game might actually make more sense.

        The problem with totally discounting this business model of playing games in the cloud, is that you’ll miss out on many games that simply can’t play on the switch, and developers not willing to port the game to the switch. With cloud play, any game on Geforce NOW can be played on the switch, with very little effort. That opens up a large game library that you wouldn’t normally have. True, you can’t play portable unless you have a good wifi connection, but the switch was meant to do double duty as a home console as well.

        Obviously nintendo can’t make their entire library cloud play, due to the cost of server time and lack of portability, but being able to play a few AAA single player games every now and then is a good thing.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. I like the Vita and PS4-streaming capabilities. It would be better if Switch got a dock with more power and could stream your games that way instead of renting them in my opinion. You could say a dock would contradicts the hybrid console concept, but so would cloud streaming do, unless they make a 5G Switch or something.

        But still, a device that just can play any game locally would be ideal… which have worked so well for Switch so far. If they got that PC-streaming app on eShop, it would be a WAY better solution than renting.

        Like

      7. I agree, a dock with a coprocessor GPU would be nice, like they could stuff a Geforce 1050ti into an addon module that could be attached to the Switch Dock, sell it for $150-$200 and allow for some AAA titles, that would be cool. There is precedence for addon coprocessor’s from Sega and Nintendo. They’ve done it in the past. Or they can just sell people a whole new dock with the GPU built into it, to replace the standard dock. The 1050ti’s original MSRP was $140 to give perspective. Some titles could be limited to having the dock, mainly AAA titles.

        Like

      8. I agree. One of the benefits I imagined the Switch having with carts was full games on carts. I’m all about retro gaming, so physical media is essential.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. This does not get rid of the idea of “people playing on the go.” This simply adds to the switch experience in that you can have games that otherwise you would have never been able to play.

        Like

      2. The Switch’s whole appeal is supposed to be that you can play games on your TV and then take your console with you and continue playing that game on the go. That’s not true of games that are streamed so this definitely gets rid of the idea of people playing it on the go.

        Saying that something adds to the “switch experience” is the kind of language I expect from a marketing department.

        Like

      3. That’s hogwash. Limiting the game library of the switch and making sure that every game is “playable on the go” is just terrible. You can have games that have the full switch experience, and games that are limited to the home. It’s far better to have a full library with some games of limited functionality than it is to draw a hard line in the sand and say all games must be portable.

        Like

      4. It’s not hogwash. Can you play the game on the go? No you can’t. That can’t be disputed.

        If that’s not something that the Switch will even attempt to promise in the future then what reason would anyone have to buy certain games on the Switch? Why would anybody pay a rental fee to stream a game to a system when they can own it on other platforms for not a whole lot more especially when many consider the former system to be a portable first.

        A one-off thing like this is whatever but the idea that you think something like this should be embraced in the long-term even when it’s counter to the selling point of the system just makes no sense.

        Like

      5. Though I’m not surprised that you would have that opinion since you apparently think it would be a good idea to sell a $150-200 dock with a GPU in it to make up for it’s short comings. At that point, it would be 90% of the way toward being a full console but the reliance on another $300 system to work as a glorified card reader for it.

        Like

      6. That’s assuming that they’re even thinking about the fact that it won’t work outside of their house.

        I personally beleive that half the time someone on here touts the portability of the system, it’s only because Nintendo told them it’s the selling point of the system.

        Like

      7. And how does this game by capcom affect your life in any way shape or form? If you don’t like something, just move along and don’t buy it. Having options is never a bad thing. Perhaps someone wants to play the game and is going to be docked anyways. You act like this game is blinding you by being an option on your screen. I spend more than $20 going out to the movie theater, and I only enjoy that for 2 hours. $20 for 15-20 hours of gameplay isn’t bad. Let’s be real here, how many games like this do you ever pick up and play again? I haven’t replayed any of the old Resident Evil Games dating all the way back to playstation 1, which is somewhere in my parent’s basement. If I wanted this game, I could buy it on steam, because I have a good PC. But many kids today don’t have that since graphics card prices are through the roof. So maybe all they have is a Switch.
        You also have to keep in mind that RE7 was built on their own proprietary game engine. It perhaps doesn’t doesn’t scale down far enough to run on an ARM processor, especially when in depowered mobile mode. Doom and Wolfenstein were built on the id Tech Engine which we know can scale down. We also know games built on Epic’s Unreal engine can also scale down well, but it was built that way with mobile in mind with full cross platform capability. Whereas, RE engine probably wasn’t thinking about mobile ARM processors.

        Like

      8. So I can’t comment on things unless they effect my life? In that same regard, you would have no right defending it because it’s inconsequential to yours. The fuck does “you act like this game is blind you” supposed to even mean. The fuck are smoking?

        At the clock speeds Nintendo chose, the Switch’s CPU is about half as capable as other consoles so I’m not saying that it could have been ported. I’ve been talking about how poor of a decision the Nintendo Switch was since before it’s release. I’ve said that both the very concept of a hybrid system and Nintendo’s implementation of one would limit the games that the system can get.

        First I got people telling me that I was wrong about the system’s performance and that it’s actually a marvel of engineering and design that crams the horsepower of a PS4 or XBO into a handheld.

        When I told them that’s not true and that it was running a TX1 they said it’s clearly not using a TX1 because that can’t run Wii U level games at 307.2 MHz.

        Then when it was confirmed that it was a TX1 and games came out on the system and looked and ran noticeably worse than their PS4 and XBO counterparts, I was told it’s just lazy developers who hate Nintendo.

        When people eventually accepted that their system of choice wasn’t a powerhouse, I just heard “I don’t care about graphics. I care about it’s portability.”

        I had said that the handheld mode was holding the system back the system, people said “So you’re saying that Nintendo should have just released a normal home console. There would be no point in the Switch if you can’t play it’s games on the go.”

        Now I got people saying it’s alright that this “hybrid console” gets games that can’t be played in handheld mode.

        Basically, don’t critique the flaws of the concept. Just make excuses for it. When the same thing is true for Nintendo’s next system, just repeat the process.

        Maybe your reading comprehension is bad but I already said that if this is a one-off situation than it’s not a big deal, I’m talking about the issues with something like this becoming more common on the Switch. If this became the go-to way for AAA games to be played on the Switch than not only does it get rid of the selling point of the Switch but it makes it no less suitable for running those games than a Roku.

        Like

  3. This is bullshit. Capcom is just being lazy and/or cheap like they were with the Switch version of Mega Man Legacy Collection 1+2. If Doom and Wolfenstein can be ported, RE7 should be able to be ported as well.

    I can’t help but think that this sets a bad precedent for future ports of games.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Not true. Capcom had a hand in the the switches development. They gave feedback when nintendo were developing it. The original switch was going to be weaker than it is now but capcom suggested a certain spec increase as the minimum increase needed tonget thier resident evil 7 engine running on it, and nintendo actually increased the specs to what capcom said, which is the switch that we have.

        Like

      2. Actually that’s not true that Capcom had a hand in the development of the Switch. Not sure why people frequently ignored the fact that the Switch uses an off-the-shelf SOC.

        Like

    1. Hmm, streaming games is a kind of rip-off in my opinion. Charging you money and ends up with nothing. Forcing you to play in the subscription’s timeframe and not your own.

      Like

  4. Making it streaming only kinda defeats the purpose of bringing your game to the switch. The appeal of bringing your fame to the switch SHOULD be the ability to take it on the go and play anywhere you want. By making it streaming only you make the game only playable where there’s WiFi. Don’t they see that? Don’t they know they’ll make more money by doing a full release…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You have a point. But I think that it’s absolutely fine to have business models like this as well for the Switch. It could open the door for so many more games and it could even be implemented into Nintendo’s online service. I’d embrace that. Having games like Breath of the Wild, Owlboy, Donkey Kong and so on on my system itself and having access to games like RE7, Battlefield 5, RDR2 via the cloud at home would be glorious. The best solution would be an upgraded dock though. I would buy that in a heartbeat. I really don’t need ALL my games on the go.

      Like

  5. This like a no win situation… since we have to support it and it has to do well so Capcom and third parties think Switch owners will play these types of games. On the flip side they’ll believe we will actually want this type of delivery on future games if this does well. It’s a cool concept but we will never own this game and instead just renting it. To me it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t kinda thing, but hey, it’s RE7 on Switch so that’s cool just not the way I had hoped.

    Like

    1. nah, we do not have to, I would hard pass on this.
      I’d say just play the 15 minutes, but don’t buy in to this model.
      That should tell there’s interest, but not for the business model

      Liked by 1 person

  6. The Switch has been out for over a year. The Game is two years old, why didn’t they just make a real Switch version? Absolutely makes Zero sense. Just like why video game developers dont make a game immediately after the release of a game they just released

    Like

    1. Actually this game is already available on Nvidia’s Geforce Now service. So all of the legwork is already done and implemented on the server side of things. All they had to do to bring it to the switch was develop a 45MB large app, that allows you to visually stream the service, and upload joycon/controller inputs. Relatively little effort to port it. But can make extra sales.

      Like

  7. Why the EFFING HEEELL are people CHEERING this?
    This is utter BULLSHIT. As someone before me mentioned… DOOM®, Wolfenstein™II… YES, WHY the HELL are you CHEERING such an immensely LAZY ‘effort’ from Capcom?

    I’m a Nintendo fanboy, but cheering Capcom for a STREAMING SESSION really shows the desperation of Switch owners… Who in their right mind STREAMS their games? Well OK… TRASH PEOPLE. There you have it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s