Capcom Could Release More Cloud-Based Games On Nintendo Switch

Hope Resi 7 bombs then.

"using a unique rental system where players pay for game time."
You mean exactly like PlayStation Now?

No thanks Capcom, real game releases or nothing for me! I hope your cloud crap bombs.

Inb4 omg Capcom is so lazy
Inb4 what the hell Capcom, I didn’t buy a Switch for a streaming service

Seriously, who cares. It’s all about the experience. If this means I’ll be able to play some great games in handheld mode, I’ll definitely support this.

Edit: Seems like I was too late.

And I'm "exploring the possibility" of not giving any of my money to Capcom if this becomes the rule.
Lazy b**tards, just port the thing to the console like everybody else.
Wasn't Capcom that before the Switch was released asked Nintendo to bump the RAM so it could run Capcom's RE7 engine?
Nintendo did bump it so now why don't they port the bloody thing properly?

@Yasume Problem is the experience isn't very good, will mean Capcom may do this with all titles instead of working on actually porting and make the games work with the hardware.

And we still don't know if Capcom will bring this service west, as well as it being very expensive for such a limited access time.

Now if they can get the online experiences smoother, make the costs of rental more feasible and lock this to titles that definitely won't work with Switch hardware. It'd be great. But will Capcom go that extra mile? We'll have to see.

@XenoShaun I’m trying to figure out your first sentence.

Anyway, we should just wait and see if they can deliver great experiences. If the games run like crap on the Switch, we’ll have a reason to complain. At this point we really don’t have a reason, though. It’s either AAA experiences on the Switch at more than half the price of a retail game or nothing at all. I’ll gladly take the former.

I'd love a real version of Resident Evil 7 for the Switch but would rather play it like this than nothing (I don't own a PS4, Xbox or gaming-spec PC).

Just released games physically or digitally Capcom 🙄

I do want to play RE7 on a handheld, but I'd rather sacrifice (some!) graphics than most portability. Also, I won't pay to have timed access to a digital game... I'll pay for the full experience, portable, and with the possibility of eventually selling my copy, or not at all. This is taking the "digital age" way too far.

If none of this bothers you, and you can't get it anywhere else, it's arguably worth it, as I think it's a great game, really.

Count me out.

Its really amazing seeing how entitled gamers are.

I hope all this streaming games nonsense fails strepitously. Either make a proper port or go away.

Not interested at all in this "format". It leaves the consumer completely at Capcom's mercy.
For them it's great: They can stop "selling" the game whenever they see fit (which would stop everyone from ever playing the game again on Switch), they can scale down the game's server side infrastructure (possibly degrading the experience for some or all users) whenever they see fit, they don't have to spend money actually porting the game to Switch, they completely prevent second hand sales, ...
This model is only good news for Capcom, and mostly bad news for consumers, so no thanks.
It's funny, how this idea that ownership is overrated is being sold to us by companies that are extremely zealous in keeping control of everything they own.

I love Capcom but have no interest in this at all.

Personally, I'd never stream a game that I could buy on another system.

@Galenmereth

"No idea why Capcom thinks otherwise."

We call that "easy money" ... Crapcom is a five stars master for that kind of thing. Remember the old time, SNES/MEGADRIVE era.

They were able to make stuffs like :

• Street Fighter II prime alpha turbo jet NASA 2nd impact of strike EX Dream team +

So, when it's question of rentability, they really know what to do...

@diwdiws Yes. How dare we expect to pay and actually receive a product, instead of a rental that is tied to online on a console that is half a portable. So entitled.

The only Cloud based game I want is FF7

@tabris95 or just like plenty of physical game rentals and so-called "computer clubs" (basically PC/console gaming cafes where you rent a room with all the tech needed and pick one of the available games) that used to be popular in post-Soviet countries.

@Galenmereth "Let me just tell you how great it'll work over a tethered 4g connection: It won't. Not without serious input latency that ruins the experience"

As a Vita RP user, I can testify that it's a YMMV case at worst. The challenge of tethered 4G is getting the connection up and running as well as maintaining the stream quality so it doesn't collapse into patches of grey (although in my case, it mostly happens when the day's data limit ends and the provider cuts the speed to some 200 Kbps); it also has an appetite of at least 1 Gb/hour or so. And that's Vita's 540p - at Switch's default resolution, our local 4G struggles even with eShop trailers. But input lag? While I've had it a few times, it always took extra troublesome connections, like when your phone constantly deems 4G signal "insufficient" and goes back to H/H+ modes. Hopefully it gives the idea how 4G in Minsk can be - and yet the absolute majority of my RP time in over a year now has been spent with no input lag troubles, be it third-person action like GTA 5 and Enter the Gungeon, first-person action like Dishonored and Overwatch, even pure racers like NFS Rivals.

@JohnnyVanda you can expect all you want - consumer demand and wishful thinking are free actions. Entitlement lies in trying to turn one's expectations into the addressee's obligations. It's a market - either you like what a business offers you and you two have a deal, or you don't and you two go separate ways. But none of these companies is OBLIGED to follow demands [verbatim]. The most they can lose is our money, and realistic businesses never expect to earn all the money in the world anyway, especially in commercial Fiction where audience resonance is the perpetual gamble. So people have no right for naming, shaming and imposing in this regard.

Granted, in practice people normally don't do that anyway; fans inside them, on the other hand...

An article not relevant outside of Japan written in English

No, please no, just no.

Cya
Raziel-chan

Catch-22 situation?

-Switch gamers prefer a retail/digital version so they don't bother with this.
-Capcom: "Folk aren't interested; we're not bringing any more games to Switch."

Or...

-Switch gamers prefer a retail/digital version, but rent this to show their support (hoping for more Capcom retail/digital games in future).
-Capcom: "Success! We'll do this with all future Switch releases."

And either way the people did sigh...

I can barely watch a 720p YouTube video at home without interruptions (Australian internet is appalling, in fact the FIFA World Cup streaming service was such a disaster that a television network is picking up the slack). I will never embrace cloud gaming. Ever.

I'm not against it but I will never pay for such service.

@JohnnyVanda they are upfront in stating that you are just renting. How the hell can have any expectations to the contrary?. You are paying exactly what they are offering

It's a viable option for games that otherwise couldn't be playable on Switch (see: FFVII remake). I'm all for more, current gen games myself.

But 1) this also sets a precedent that may extend beyond those titles. 2) Even if the inevitable Switch XL/Pro/Plus is THAT much more powerful, enough to handle these games and for the cloud system to be redundant, people will still complain that they are exclusive to the upgraded model.

I don't know what's the one correct solution that everyone's happy with here.

@Silly_G chin up , internet gets better so done say ever

In Canada I use to have buffering even at 720p not I can stream 4K without pausing

I hope not. I'm tired of this trend of "live service" games.

@Galenmereth One of the few sensible comments on this thread. I think that your comment answers the question why this only exists in Japan.

The thing with RE7 is that it runs on a new engine and the costs that imply adapting it to a much weaker hardware without knowing how well the game would not only sell but run on Switch is probably the reason why Capcom has released a streaming version for Switch and not a very specific port, also considering the fact that RER sold better on 3DS than RER collection on Switch.

However, Capcom should release this version worldwide with a free trial of one hour so people know if their internet connection is good enough or not. That would be better than not having the game at all.

Port it right or don't do it at all. Don't support this streaming game crap.

@Yasume it can have photoreal gfx, 7.1 surround sound, the best story in any game ever, do my laundry, feed the dog, clean the house and i’m still not touching it. if i want to rent games other companies exist. this is bad precedence that will be abused real quick.

I'd rather they make the graphics a bit worse and release it on cart. Otherwise, I won't bother. I like to own my games.

They aren't getting support from me.

@tabris95 Isn't PS Now a flat $15 for the month? RE7 is literally hourly payments. It's an arcade cabinet tied to your credit card.

LOL actually I jut noticed in the past month Sony must have changed their pricing to respond to MS GamePass....it's now $9.99/mo for 3 month buys for + members, or a flat $99.99/yr! Thank goodness MS is fighting back.

@Galenmereth Indeed. Heck even in Japan it's going to be a so-so experience. IMO even streaming over LAN, inherently less latency than even the absolute best of the best of the best internet streaming will ever be until the laws of physics can be altered, isn't really all that fantastic. Internet streaming will always be worse. Which means internet streaming even at its best, will always be "better than awful".

For some reason Ubi/EA/Capcom etc are all in this bandwagon, rubbing their hands together, smelling the money of they day they can finally get rid of Sony/Ninty/MS and just sell their own subscriptions each to their own games for maximum revenue by streaming the games to every device, all within the next decade. And at the same time have seemingly forgotten internet of that quality will be missing entirely from most areas at that time, the telcos/cable companies are NOT going to build all that infrastructure in that pace (the last town in the US finally got POTS phones in the early '00s. Imagine when that town gets internet beyond AOL? 2046? If they're lucky?) , but that the sheer laws of physics prevent real-time interactive streaming from pretty much ever being on part with local processing. Gaming is quite possibly the absolute worst use of cloud/streaming services that can exist. nVidia and AMD spend fortunes building busing that delivers things from end to end a few nanoseconds faster. And none of that matters in that streaming world because the fastest it'll actually get to the destination is tens of milliseconds later at absolute best. Hundreds at worst.

And if these publishers hope to just get major urban metropolises on fiber and that's "enough customers, screw everyone else" they'll quickly find new competitors rising to fill the gap they left, and most of the metro gamers that really didn't want streaming either, gravitating toward those competitors and real consoles instead. And that's to say nothing of PC gamers.....imagine: No more Steam, GoG, or Humble: Just streaming, and no need for any video card beyond the Intel Graphics? A $99 Chrome Book would be a gaming PC and the whole PC hardware industry would vanish.

Dream on, publishers. You're waging war against Intel/AMD/nVidia/Microsoft/Sony now. Good luck with that. Might as well just flip off Google and Facebook while you're at it....if you're going to get stomped, might as well get stomped so hard you're back to the NES.

Don’t these cloud stream games run poorly?

@XenoShaun me too. hope they will flatline so hard

I’m really mixed in this. Hate the proposition of not owning the game and not being able to play it without an internet connection but at the same time, I love the idea of this graphics intensive games being made playable on Switch by using the power of the cloud. I think I could make the compromise if they didn’t ask for full price. Says $39.99 instead of $59.99 and I think I’d be ok with it.

I hope it isn't successful there, anything gaming that is lock within the cloud is a bad idea at this point.

West Pennsylvania here...
Can't even stream DVD quality here on vudu without serious buffering.

This is just stupid

As someone who has thoroughly enjoyed RE7 Gold Edition on PS4, it shouldn’t be a cloud game. It needs to be on a nice fat cartridge, bought once, and enjoyed like a retail game. I just can’t support it.

Well,we get the possibility of having Capcom's support being turned into cloud games or we miss out on their technologically demanding games more or less.
I'm not sure how to respond to this.

@NEStalgia "And that's to say nothing of PC gamers.....imagine: No more Steam, GoG, or Humble: Just streaming, and no need for any video card beyond the Intel Graphics? A $99 Chrome Book would be a gaming PC and the whole PC hardware industry would vanish."

The games being cloud streamed will be games that are running on PC's, so if anything, a cloud streaming future actually serves to help the PC gaming market going forward, moreso than consoles.

For example, Madden was just announced for the PC after 10 years and EA just announced a cloud streaming service. If EA brings Madden to their cloud streaming service, it means they have Madden running on a PC, which means they can also sell the native PC (non-cloud) version as well.

Hey capcom add native voice chat to MHGU please!

@yuwarite but would they want to? The whole point of streaming for these companies is to get out of individual sales and begin collecting steady subscription money for managed services, ideally (to them) specifically for their brand. Selling pc versions won't help them do that, and also allows what the publishers see as pc piracy to continue. Streaming is absolute drm, "life cycle management"and control along with steady revenues. No, in their ideal vision of the future, there are no game sales or platforms, you just subscribe to their services like a cable company. Waay more profitable for them. An iphone , chrome book, and ps6 are all the same machine for them. And gaming pcs would not need to exist.

I don't see that every happening but that's their delusion for now

In my day, I would rent SNES games for 3 days. What changed?

@NEStalgia I actually think that's a good idea, especially for casual audiences who want to play the odd AAA game on their cheap little Fire Stick streaming device. It helps bring more people in to hardcore gaming, who otherwise wouldn't purchase a console. That said, I don't forsee it being the only option for gaming going forward; it will just be one of many options.

Either way, it would still benefit PC gaming more, because the game's being streamed are technically PC games, that are likely being run on a Windows OS. PC's will never go anywhere, because the world will always need them for productivity, etc. Consoles, however, really only serve one purpose, which is gaming. The media side of consoles aren't as impressive in the wake of cheap media streaming devices. I could see certain people just buying a cheap streaming box, instead of a home console, and subscribing to 'Steam Stream' or something.

But yeah, I don't really see any of this bleak future happening. There's already streaming services available right now, such as nVidia's Geforce Now and PS Now, and they're not exactly setting the world on fire.

Does this confirm that Capcom hasn't been able to get the RE7 engine running on Switch?

@GingerNinja nah crapcom is being too fking lazy to port it the regular way.

@yuwarite as an option its great. You might be missing the context though of yves guillemot of ubi saying he believes they're will be one more console gen but after that everyone will be streaming. I.e. g3 thinks there is aps5, but that PSNow is ps6. That consoles just won't exist in 7 or so years. At the time he seemed out of touch. But then ea echoed that. And Capcom. And it becomes clear: it's a collusion of big publishers to try to force the issue so they can move to the holy Grail of business models for investors: subscriptions and obtain perfect drm and life cycle management at last.

Imagine, like hbo, starz, local, espn, cinemax all being bought separately you pay 15+ a month to ea, ubi, 2k, warner, to play all their games. No console, no Sony, ms, Nintendo, or valvesteam to split money with. 100% of recurring revenues all to themselves.

Thus: no more gaming pcs. And making data center builds of games does not imply retail sales of pc games, digital or otherwise. The platform isn't their Target, the business model itself is. Yves is also the man that said that essentially all pc gamers are pirates and forced always online drm. They do not want to deal with pc retail. They dislike it more than even consoles. With no games released for pc and all games streamed, who would buy a 400$ video card when an in cpu one does the same thing for free?

Guaranteed the aim here is neither to add options nor no facilitate pc sales. Is to force the industry into subscriptions direct to publish lpublishers and emulate the endless profit engine model of cable tvstreaming. Every investor perks up at the mention of subscriptions and recurring payments. In this case it cuts costs without ports, guarantees content control and obsolescence, and brings customer lock in.... Each publisher becomes their own proprietary platform. No, no more gaming pcs in that world, and be more consoles. All you need is your iphone or roku.

All that said, i think they're positively nutty and there's zero chance of their dream being realized. . That's just the corporate vision they're high on at the moment. Like when aol time warner thought tv would come entirely through the internet in 1999 and bet the farm on it.

Edit: sorry about the typos... Phone typing sucks and it's too hard to correct them all, lol!

[removed]

@NEStalgia Still, in order to achieve a cloud streaming future, PC hardware still has to be produced. Technology companies, such as nVidia, AMD, Intel, etc, are in the business of manufacturing computational devices for business and mainstream consumers. Their business model is not dictated by software companies, like EA and Ubisoft, etc. So it doesn't make logical sense for them to change how they operate, regardless of an all cloud-streaming future.

As the world moves towards things like driverless auto mobiles and robotics, there's more demand for powerful native computational electronics to be produced, which couldn't rely on cloud computing, due to safety precautions, etc.

As for Yves, Ubisoft and PC gaming, I think you're wrong there, as the PC has been very profitable for them in recent years, and appears to be on the rise. There was a report that 18% of their overall sales for last fiscal year was from PC. Yves made a recent statement that he's keen to tap in to the ever growing PC eSports and Asian markets as well. If you're going to tap in to the eSports market, you certainly aren't going to do that via cloud streaming, since those games rely on their responsiveness.

Also, it's up to Sony, MS and Nintendo to decide whether they want to produce physical hardware or go all streaming; it will be their call, not companies like Ubisoft. But, if this hypothetical future did come true, and everything was a cloud streamed subscription, there's a chance that some developers wouldn't make as much money from the service. For situations like that, those developers will have to look outside of the service for an alternative, which is where I see PC's profiting the most from the situation. A company, like Valve, will come along and make a service that allows developers to produce and publish games locally for PC.

@yuwarite I'm not saying those hardware companies wouldn't make pc hardware, I'm saying gaming hardware would likely case to exist, it at least become a commodity legacy market for existing content for a niche. That's WAY to lucrative a market for those companies to cede without a battle.... And there pockets are much deeper than the publishers

They'll resist, and"help"gamers resist steaming taking over. Plus Sony and ms don't exactly want to give up consoles, especially Sony. A streaming future cuts them out of gaming, their lifeblood, almost entirely. Ironic, since they were the first with a streaming option.

I doubt that yves even correlates esports work but being streaming friendly. The guys in the csuite think concept, not implementation. That does pose a conundrum, but i still guarantee their hopeful goal is the elimination of unit sales in favor of streaming. Again I'm not saying it'll happen for many many reasons dear yves is either unaware of or ignoring, but that's the publisher dream. If anything i personally to think an enhanced game passea access model would take over first.

Your last paragraph goes back to want a said early in the thread though. If big pubs go that way, competitors would arise that would likely make them irrelevant.

@nhSnork

I think entitled gets thrown around too much. People have opinions and the purpose of this forum is to express one's opinion. If it's negative, then so be it. Nobody likes everything going on in video games and this is the appropriate place to discuss that.

Entitled used to mean an expectation of deserving something. I don't really see people here arguing they deserve to play RE7 on their Switches. Some say they'd like the ability, but that's not the same as saying I deserve to be playing.

@Terrible_Majesty Mind your language!

@NEStalgia I'm trying to explain that PC's, GPU's and high spec hardware, etc, won't go anywhere, because the world will always need them for work, productivity and activities besides gaming. GPU's aren't solely produced for gaming, they're still needed for 3D modelling, graphic design, video encoding, etc. Powerful hardware still needs to be produced for people who do local work, which in turn means 'gaming PC's' will inadvertently continue to exist.

The form factors of PC components and PC's may change, i.e., inserting one's phone in to a dock connected to a monitor and using it as a PC, but the basic concept of a PC and what it's used for will always be needed. So long as that remains true, there's always going to be the market, who wants to play games on their device. Due to the PC's open nature, it stands to be the only platform that could potentially save us from an all streaming future, by having services that are intended for buying local, non-streamed, games only.

Consoles are already closed-garden platforms; our experiences with consoles are dictated by the main 3 companies. So if those companies decided they wanted to go all streaming, there would be nothing fans of those platforms could do but go along with it, or move to an open platform, like the PC. This is what I mean when I say the PC will be the platform least affected.

@yuwarite I'm not taking about productivity pcs though, I'm talking about the gaming hardware market. Gpus for productivity are a much smaller market and revenue stream than consumer and enthusiast gpus that are all margin. Additionally gaming is a huuge driver of new pc sales, and always has been. It was myst that made cdrom standard, not power point install discs after all. Intel and amd would not be pleased with the idea that with streaming your pc is good for a decade plus with no real diminishing ability relative to content improvements.

And if course none of the 3 console makers want streaming to replace their hardware. Ms would have been the only one that may have had incentive, and they took their opportunity to discuss streaming to immediately and intentionally double down on hardware in the next breath.

So the publishers are facing resistance from their consumers, the pc hardware industry, and the console industry.

As an option its fine, but their vision of universal streaming is beyond out of touch. They want that direct feed money.... But for consumers stemming means 10a month to get everything. Not 15 plus a month to every studio.

@NEStalgia Productivity PC's are inadvertently gaming PC's by virtue of having powerful hardware inside them. You're basically painting a future where consumer technology will be completely downgraded only because of the actions of cloud gaming/ computing companies, which doesn't make any logical sense in the context of how the consumer electronics market works.

There's always going to be consumer based devices, PC's, etc, which can't operate solely on cloud computing. Even the devices that games are being cloud streamed to, can't necessarily be weak, especially if they need to render a video image at 8K and beyond. So in the future there's always going to be powerful hardware out there, which means there's always going to be a market for locally, non-streamed, games, because people will technically own devices that non-streamed games can exist on.

The PC (or whatever form the PC continues to take as it evolves over time) is the one device that's least affect by an all cloud streaming future, because it's the only platform, that's entirely dependent on local computing. Whereas, consoles could essentially become small cloud streaming devices that are given away for free when you subscribe to their service, or they could just become an app, like Netflix, that you run on your media box.

But again, to repeat myself, that media box, that device you stream those console games is ostensibly a PC, in the same way an Android device is. That device has to receive 8K video and beyond; it has to multi-task, which means it has to have pretty powerful hardware, even if it's just receiving video. Take the Shield TV, for example, its primary purpose is streaming video; it plays back almost every major video format in 4K60 fps HDR, etc. But nVidia also markets it as a streaming device for gamers, because as a result of it having beefy hardware to render video means it can also play modern games, locally.

And yes, I don't see how an all streaming subscription service would benefit all developers. It's already a mystery to me how Game Pass benefits every single developer. Some say your payment is allotted to developers based on which games you play each month, but what if you play a lot of games a month? It doesn't sound like it's a more lucrative option to developers than our current business models.

@yuwarite at this point you're talking about entirely different topics and i think the conversation is at an end.

The point isn't about splitting hairs about what is or isn't a pc it what mythical content may or may not be made exclusively for pcs. We're taking about the core gaming industry, the intentions of the big publishers, and their intended business model of moving to games as subscription services for the core of the gaming industry. And the effect of that on both console and pc gaming hardware be and the enemies that will net them in the industry.

If you want to talk about what niche pc gaming industry will evolve when Derek Smart is still making space simulators for people who happen to own CAD stations, knock yourself out, but this conversation was about the mass market and core industry. The notion that Asassins Creed 12 and battlefield 15 and monster Hunter universe will be streamed-only to every phone and tablet and budget laptop only if you pay a sub free, too bad if you want it in local hardware.

Non gaming consumers don't buy powerful pcs. They haven't done so for nearly a decade. They buy laptops. Walk into stores consumers, not gamers, not graphics professionals, but consumers buy pcs and you'll see rows of laptops anda few "desktops"that are just laptop hardware in a slim case. A few actual desktops are at the end of the row. Your talking a niche if online enthusiasts in a world where the content many of them want isn't being offered in that format.

Think business and investment, not technology. Tech is irrelevant here, it's about profits and forced payment models. THAT is what they are making this content.

So lets pray it flops very hard 🙏🏻

@NEStalgia You're using an old precedent about laptops, since modern laptops with integrated graphics, can still technically run a lot of modern games. And if you look at other mobile SoC's, like the Tegra X1 in the Switch for example, and what the Switch is capable of, that's the kind of mobile technology we're seeing going forward. Apple products are definitely not marketed towards the niche, and they too rely on powerful hardware going forward. So I don't understand your logic of high end technology suddenly becoming a 'niche'. It doesn't make sense in the context of consumer electronics and how technology companies operate.

And yes, I know you're talking about the intentions of the big publishers, I understand that worry. And as you said, that's a problem that will affect every platform. But I don't see such a future having any impact on peoples desire to own PC's and other personal consumer electronics. We've established that a subscription-only service won't benefit all developers, especially those making experimental indie titles, so that's where locally-based venues will be needed. And if Sony, MS and Nintendo are only doing streaming from now on, where else are these developers going to publish their game on, if they aren't making as much money from subscriptions? That's where open platforms, like PC's will come in to save the day.

@yuwarite laptops with integrated graphics running most modern games? Huh? The minimum video card requirement for every ubisoft game bigger than just dance is certainly higher than integrated graphics with shared video memory..... I'm not sure what your really talking about there. Indies? Who cares? They're not "the industry"were talking about in an article about Capcom . Yves specifically said how much the model would help AAAs grow.

We're talking about the market for sli GeForce Titans and overcooked i7s and ram with red heat spreaders with flames on them for$1500, not a $599.99 hp pavilion laptop in Walmart with an i5 and integrated graphics with 4gb shared video memory. That's considered "high end". Heck surface book with discrete gpu starts at 1500... And desktop gpu products to circles around it and NEITHER would be useful in that all streaming future.... Why would a publisher sell copies and have end user pc support and worry about hardware and os differences when they could trim costs by supporting only their own controlled server platform and maximize value by charging subs. Why would they spend money supporting local pc play when they can tell the pc owners to just sucks it up, or "deal with it" in xbone parlance and stream it in their pc. Then every player be it pc or switch owners is playing the same platform anyway. And that$399.99 netbook is really all you need for gaming... Upgrades give you nothing. (Conversely gaming would suck equally on all platforms.... Ever actually try psNow? Shudder. I'm sure it runs great... If you live in California.) . I'm on fiber. I have 4-6ms ping to the Telco. Unfortunately the Telco has 200ms ping to Sony. Funny how to Montain ranges and a million miles of prairie can do that too a packet.....

Edit: i really should stop replying on a phone... To hard to fix typos.... Hopefully you can make sense of that!

@NEStalgia I think we've already established we agree that publishers have the discretion to publish their games in what ever means they want, be it streaming or otherwise. Albeit your reasons are mostly tin-foil hat conjecture based on the comments of some publishers (which we both agree are myopic), not everyone, and certainly don't reflect the entire industry as a whole.

The point I'm responding to, is your sense that the consumer technology and PC industry as a whole would somehow just die because of a cloud game streaming future. There will always be a need for users to purchase local hardware; there will always be an industry that needs to supply and evolve upon said hardware; that's what these companies do, that's how they function.

Intel, for example, have just started releasing products that feature their new combined CPU, GPU and HBM memory and are soon to entering the GPU market. These are not the signs of an industry changing its course, but evolving and moving forward.

The extreme gaming PC example you give there is irrelevant, because almost anything can be a personal computer these days, even our smartphones and tablets are essentially considered computers. Do you see Apple and Samsung making the specs of their new phones weaker with each iteration? They don't. They're always raising the tech level, inadvertently making those devices capable of playing modern AAA games, like the Switch currently is capable of.

As long as these personal computing devices exists, and they will, then there's a platform there for developers to produce local games on. The point I'm making is, if this doomday scenario were to come true, and Nintendo, Sony and MS went all streaming, the PC as a platform would be the last bastion of hope.

@cleveland124 entitlement isn't opposed to "liking everything" or saying only positive stuff - it's part of fanship garbage opposed to human decency and common sense. One can have and express dislikes about Fiction without the egocentric mentality and imperative tone permeating it, that's no rocket science. But when people succumb to consumerist arrogance and inner fans, they start acting and talking like anything beyond the way they want things to be is a breach of some mythical obligatons Fiction has before them.

I wish "entitled" were as easy to overuse as you believe it is, but alas, this site is part of a fandom - and entitlement is one of the most inherent traits about fans and fandoms.