If you haven't played Control yet, the game's newest release on Nintendo Switch might be enough to finally tempt you to give it a go. But one question looms large over the Switch's version of the game: does it actually run well on Nintendo's less-powerful home console? The short answer is: yes. The slightly longer answer is: it runs well enough. The longer answer is this review.
Developer Remedy has partnered up with Ubitus, a cloud gaming company, to release the first "Cloud Version" Switch title to launch globally (Japanese gamers have already sampled the likes of Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Resident Evil 7 via the wonders of streaming). The fundamental difference between Control on Xbox and PlayStation and the Cloud Version on Switch is that the game is not running natively on the Switch itself; instead, it's streamed remotely from Ubitus' much more powerful servers. The obvious downside is that your Switch has to be connected to the internet to run the game.
Basically, the Switch isn't built to handle colossal, technologically taxing games, but this workaround means Switch owners will potentially be able to play them – with a small sacrifice in graphical fidelity and input latency. (Oh, and it would be remiss of us to fail to point out that, despite carrying a premium price tag, there's the danger that you'll lose access to Control on Switch if the servers ever get turned off in the future – an eventuality we'll all have to get used to if cloud gaming really is the future).
For those who aren't familiar, Control is an M.C. Escher and House of Leaves-inspired game about Jesse, a woman led to the Federal Bureau of Control as part of her search for... something. The FBC looks like any other office, to begin with – brutalist concrete walls towering over uncomfortable leather seating, and rows of desks lined up in window-lined rooms – but it soon becomes clear that there are sinister and supernatural things going on behind closed doors. Large parts of the game are squirrelled away in lore documents and FMV sequences, drawing a fair amount of inspiration from Remedy's previous title, Alan Wake, who also gets his own DLC – but more on that later.
Upon starting the game, two options are laid before you: Enhanced Graphics mode – which caps the framerate at 30 but includes higher detail and raytraced lighting – and Enhanced Performance mode, which eschews the raytracing for 60 frames per second. If the game detects any internet instability, the player will be bumped down to Enhanced Performance mode for a while, allowing for a smoother experience. We should note that our experience with the game may differ to your own, depending on your connection speed and the reliability of your ISP. It's also worth pointing out that playing the game docked with your Switch linked to your router via a wired connection is going to help keep latency at a minimum. What if your home internet setup is woefully inadequate? Worry not, there's a short trial period during which you can establish if Control plays nicely with your broadband connection, and you only hand over the cash for the full game after this trial session has elapsed.
The game runs remarkably well, considering that it's zooming across the internet pipes from some distant land. Input latency – perhaps the biggest worry people have about cloud gaming in general – isn't as huge a problem as you might expect here, and there were very few times we actually felt like the game was lagging behind our button inputs, which is remarkable in itself. Still, when it comes to visuals, there are some moments where Control struggles. Enhanced Graphics mode gives players reflections and more realistic lighting, but it doesn't really make a huge difference, since Enhanced Performance also looks pretty neat, and the raytracing actually makes things look fuzzy around the edges whenever the camera moves. When playing in handheld mode, this becomes even more pronounced, muddying the high-detail world into hazy, similar shades of grey, and the small, fiddly Joy-Con are not well-suited to the precision that the combat requires, making the game generally better suited to play on the big screen – with a Pro Controller, if possible.
It also turns out that the colour red doesn't handle compression very well, and if there's one thing to know about Control, it's that red is omnipresent. For the most part, the game handles the accents of red just fine, but some boss battles and setpieces require the entire room to be red. Add in a busy scene – particles, explosions, tons of enemies – and it ends up looking a little bit like a jar of jam that someone dropped on the floor. It's hard to see who you should be firing at, or what's going on, making specific moments in the game much harder than they need to be.
The difficulty in general, though, is pretty well-balanced. Control's greatest strength is its gorgeously kinetic combat, where Jesse comes into her own. Almost everything in any room is either grabbable or destroyable, and Control makes the most of it with Jesse's incredible telekinetic powers, hurling chunks of drywall at enemies until they explode in a satisfying puff of shimmering powder. In later levels, when Jesse's filled out her skill tree, it's easy to take out enemies in just one hit of a well-aimed desk chair hurtling through the air, and the game fills rooms with endlessly-spawning low-level enemies just to give you the joy of feeling powerful.
Unfortunately, the start of the game, when Jesse has nought but a rubbish gun to defend herself with, can drag a little in comparison. Control is not really a shooting game; although Jesse's gun is a large part of her arsenal and though it makes sense from a narrative perspective to hold off on giving her powers for a couple of hours, the latter game is much more fun with all the cool things she can do under your instruction. Story-wise, too, the game can be a bit of a turn-off early on. Like Jesse, the player takes many hours to understand exactly what's happening within the Federal Bureau of Control. Playing through those hours can occasionally feel like being at a party where everyone else knows each other, and you're frantically trying to catch up.
Once Jesse is beefed up enough that fights become a matter of minutes to complete, the game's first of two DLCs will open up: AWE, an Alan-Wake-themed investigation into a new shadowy enemy. Once the main game is finished, the second DLC becomes available: The Foundation, a post-game exploration of the FBC's origin. Both DLCs and the main game updates within them bring new mechanics, new weapons, and new upgrades to existing powers, alongside general quality-of-life tweaks to the game itself.
AWE is a fun continuation of Control's main game, although it largely relies on the player's knowledge of Alan Wake to be truly fulfilling. But The Foundation, which deals with a new threat to the Bureau, feels like a strange misstep. Despite its compelling story hook, The Foundation is difficult to navigate and even harder to figure out, with minimal signposting and a confusing map. It's much more of a slog than the main game, and even its new crystal-themed Create and Fracture abilities fall flat next to Jesse's existing powers.
All in all, Control is almost as fantastic on Switch as it is on any other console, and although it has occasional framerate drops and the odd bit of compression here and there, it's a feat in itself that it can be played on Nintendo's home console. For anyone who has a Switch as their main (or preferred) method of playing games, it's a no-brainer, especially with the addition of a Pro Controller, but – as you might expect – other consoles and PC are better up to the task of running the game, if you have them. If this is the first step to many other high-powered games on the Switch, though, it's a bloody good one.
Conclusion
Control is, and always has been, a fantastic game – that's not in doubt. Remedy's skill when it comes to creating a highly-detailed game-world is world-class, and the gloriously dynamic combat is second-to-none – once you've unlocked the required skills in-game, at least. The Nintendo Switch may not be the absolute best place to play Control if you're looking for crisp 60fps graphics and rock-solid performance, but it's perfectly good if you've got a relatively stable internet connection and a Pro Controller.
Comments 189
Yeah definitely not paying for a Cloud version, I'll stick to the Xbox One version and possibly get the Ultimate Edition when it's a lot cheaper.
I've been playing this on Switch for the past few days and while cloud gaming is a little different, this is a very quality experience. I normally pick the "graphics" option rather than "performance" when I log on but I haven't noticed any slowdown or any frame rate issues. Game is slightly challenging and it has awesome graphics and an interesting story. Keep em' coming.
Firstly, let me say how pleasantly surprised I am to see the review is from Kate Gray! Followed her writing and work since the ONM days, and its always a pleasure to read, and this is no different!
From the brief bit of time I spent with the cloud version of the game in the 10 minute streaming test, I thought it actually ran really well. I love Control, it's a phenomenal game, but it really struggles to run on even a base Xbox One, so it's super impressive seeing quite how good it looks on Switch. Great review!
Nearly bought it after the first free trial, (graphics mode) ran really well apart from a tiny bit of stutter. Oh, and the horrendously sensitive camera.
However, I decided to have a second trial (performance mode) the next night. Sat in the same place, but it was unplayable. The graphics were just a mush, impossible to see anything.
You only get two trials so I can't try again, so it's a no sale for me, unfortunately.
It would have been nice for them to include motion/gyro options so they could call it, (Joy)Control: Ultimate Edition.
Cloud based games are ridiculous. Your switch still has to play it so what’s the difference between this and a cart or digital copy? Wouldn’t the server overload and cause slowdown/crashes during peak playtimes? Wouldn’t the need for a constant connection cause a lot of drops in handheld (mine can barely handle a local smash match).
Waiting for the physical brigade to show up and get the party started! I've got steam and don't have issues of ownership. Then again I don't collect. All my previous gen consoles & games were either gifted away or sold.
@GameOtaku The Switch isn't playing anything here; it's merely acting as a video feed to a remote server, which is running the actual game.
I'd be happy to purchase on time limited bases. Sort of renting it.
To 'buy' it at full cost and not owning the game is a no go for me.
Don't say anything positive about cloud gaming Nintendo Life, its not allowed on the internet.
@GameOtaku The difference here is that your Switch doesn't natively run the game. It's being streamed from a seperate location and the device running the game will beam the video feed back to your Switch. It's exactly how services like xCloud and Stadia work as well.
If this was a native port it would've had to be compromised in way too many areas for it to even have been worth it, especially since ports of current gen games as is do charge full price on Switch anyway.
It's not an optimal solution to playing the game, especially if you actually own other platforms like PC or the more powerful consoles, but for what it is it's totally fine. I guess if Switch is all you have it's serviceable, but far from ideal.
It's an interesting proof of concept, but I don't want to encourage Nintendo to invest more into cloud-based gaming. Google expecting you to pay full-price to play games without actually owning them is what killed the Stadia.
@James696 Keep in mind that Stadia also charged most of their ports at full price which further cemented how badly they tried to kill console gaming. This is like 30-40 bucks from what I've heard and even if it isn't an optimal solution at all for playing the game, if Switch is all you have this might be your only avenue for getting the larger late-gen AAA content for the most part
Stadia went about it the wrong way by advocating for it replacing dedicated hardware, whereas this is just substituting natively run games.
If Switch really going to go full steam ahead with cloud gaming it really needs to make a service to accommodate it because not many will be dishing out $40. This would defintely add a lot of quality to the switch online service perhaps making a separate premium price from the current $20 1 year subscription. Making a premium that includes cloud games I think for $40 a year would be reasonable and a great way to compete with the other consoles considering they charge more.
I’m all for cloud gaming on Switch if it’s only used for games that would be very difficult to port (which is sure to happen more and more as PS and XB head into the next generation). But I have no interest in Control. Too bad, I’d love to support this.
Should have been a 1 for being a cloud version.
@tobsesta99 It would've been a 4 or a 5 out of 10 if it was a native port given how graphically intensive it is to begin with. You severely underestimate the amount of effort it would've taken to bring the game to a console as meagerly powered as Switch
@TheFrenchiestFry
But you’re still paying full price for the game right? I see way too many problems with this to actually be feasible. Looking at comparable games already on switch I’d say it may be a stretch but given the main point of the switch being portability this goes against it entirely.
@thaantman
Thats a great idea! I would upgrade to premium if they do that.
Control is one of those games I have mixed feelings about. It does a lot right and my road to the platinum was pretty fun but the game just sorta ends and some of the game was slightly obtuse. I’d still highly recommend it though, it’s a worth a play for yourself. The things people are saying about streaming here are the same people said about digital games. Look how that turned out.
@GameOtaku It's not full price. Apparently it's 35-40 bucks
It wouldn't have been feasible to begin with without the cloud. Portability or ease of play aside, if they tried to natively port this game it would've 100% just not have been worth having it portably to begin with because it would've looked even worse than stuff like Witcher 3 or Wolf 2. In the middle of a pandemic going outside with my Switch is the least of my worries but I don't know if that applies to anyone else, but if this is what it takes to bring a popular game to a popular platform with minimal compromise, then it's fine. It's going to become a lot more of a common fixture anyway with next gen around the corner and Switch about to be further outclassed in power by both Sony and Microsoft.
Anyone living in a big city, close to the server farm where the game is running will tell you "Cloud Gaming can work", while some countries don't even have those server farms and for those people, they live so far from the closest location that the experience is simply unbearable. YES, there WILL be some big input latency for a lot of people and simply saying "go ahead it works" feels irresponsible to me without also warning people that this is something they should factor in. Thankfully you can try it out before you buy in this case at least. So if the experience is bad from where you are, you can rest assured that it will likely stay that way in the foreseeable future, unless they had more server locations that include one closer to you.
I've been tempted to replay this game because it's on switch. Might go for it because that maze at the end is just amazing! Can't go wrong, and the metroidvania elements of the game is also what's keeps me going.
But 8f you can, play it on a higher power console, i wanna play it on the PS5 whenever I get one in the next few years.
I’m all for more options. My only gripe is that the test run should be demo length. 10 minutes isn’t going to be enough for most people.
Nice nod to House of Leaves, very good
@TheFrenchiestFry
I’d rather they just not bother to port games like this via the cloud if it’s going to limit the functionality of a platform. If thousands of people try to play this game all at once it’s going to crash and burn hard. Only big cities with strong internet backbones can even truly benefit from this as rural and suburban areas are pretty much off the table. Wolf, Doom and Witcher ran perfectly fine as they were, not perfect but it did the job to a reasonable degree.
Reject cloud gaming. Im not paying $40 to rent a game. If it was cheap ($10?), ok. But for the cost of a full game, you should own it.
If we dont reject this trend, you're going to end up spending $$$$ for the privilege of renting games.
Physical---or download ownership---for life.
not paying full price for cloud gaming. look at season passes etc that well we didnt hit sales margin so fffffffffffff it rest is cancelled. never mind online games canned 6 or 10 months after launch. £35 to rent a game thats cheaper else where. plus come on most people these games target own more than one console.
It seems it would play fine if you had a proper connection but as it stands, it sounds rubbish on Switch. Sticking with the PS4 version.
@Lumber_Jack no one gives a toss. Grow up.
@James696
You are spreading misinformation. Let me enlighten you:
Stadia wasn't killed or shut down. It is still going, and the platform is growing slowly and steady all the time.
Stadia actually gives you options:
You can buy games individually, and play them up to 1080p without any extra costs or subscription like with Control on Switch.
Or you can subscribe to Stadia Pro (10$ a month), that gives you access to a library of games on the platform. Currently that library is at 31 games, that you can claim like on PS+. This library is growing every month, because more games is coming to Stadia Pro than leaving.
If you were Pro subscriber for the first year, you would now have access to 51 games, witch is half of the games available on their store. This is without buying any games individually on their store.
You will loose access to these claimed Pro games, if you stop being a Stadia Pro subscriber for some time. But they will come available again, including their save states, if you sing up again at a later point.
Stadia is currently the most impressive cloud gaming platform out there, from a technical perspective. It has the lowest input latency of all the cloud platforms and the best image quality (up to 4K). And it's available on phones, TV and in the browser.
What Stadia is still missing, before it really can take off, is a big catalogue of games and some exclusive AAA hitters. Right now, Stadia only has around 100 games in their store.
But Google clearly build Stadia for the future of gaming, and they are just starting to build it up slowly from the ground up. It needs to really shine in around 8-10 years, when the internet infrastructure and 5g is more reedy for it.
Stadia certainly did not live up to peoples and medias expectations, that is for sure. But those expectations were also highly unrealistic, when you think about it. Google basically started with an empty platform and store, and just build the tech for it to grow.
No new gaming platform regardless of technology behind it, cloud or otherwise, will be a instant big hit with so few games available at launch. It's always about the games, and it takes time to build up such a library and a new platform. Just ask MS about this, when they started with Xbox twenty years ago!
Google is a totally new player in the gaming industry. I would assume that Stadia has lived up to Google's own expectations? Any sane person would not expect more from a new platform, with out any current gamer base, and almost no games at launch.
Google also just recently bought some game studios, to build new exclusive AAA titles for the Stadia platform. It will still take years before we see any of them. They only need to build up their game library for Stadia, and that will happen over time.
I would rather buy individual cloud games on something like Stadia. It gives me more flexibility, and the big cloud platforms that Google, MS or Amazon has will provide better performance than what currently is offered on Switch. Google, MS or Amazon also have the financial capacity to keep it running forever.
It is not Nintendo that is behind these cloud games for Switch, but a much smaller company. I would think twice before buying games offered by a smaller cloud provider.
@GameOtaku I don't think the console's functionality is actively being hindered by this because I don't see people at present taking their Switches out to play, and frankly the world will get to a place where they are prepared for that kind of infrastructure
Keep in mind this isn't replacing a native port whatsoever. It's clear this came about as a discussion about how to approach the game on Switch and they probably did try to get it to run on there as a test. I personally just see it as more games coming to the platform. I understand why certain people are peeved but cloud gaming is frankly never replacing dedicated hardware anytime soon considering Sony and Microsoft are likewise still content with dedicated hardware and aren't leaving that boat anytime soon. Frankly if some games don't go this route Switch is practically going to be left without any meaningful third party support in the not too distant future.
@dres I don't think Stadia even lived up to Google's expectations either though. It sold abysmally at launch and now there are large droughts of content with very minimal communication from Google about any sort of roadmap for what will be coming in the future. They barely even have a first party portfolio, which was far from the case when Sony and Microsoft branched into gaming.
I don’t want cloud gaming to become standard,, but in cases like this where the Switch wouldn’t be able to actually run the game, a bad option is better than no way to play it at all. Though, the prices of these games should be dropped somewhat to reflect the fact that this is basically renting instead of ownership.
@dres @TheFrenchiestFry Stadia is a classic Google project. It was not designed to succeed. It never was. It was a tech demo and investor justification for the massive investment required. They released it as a "product" with minimal support, used it as a shell to allocate funding for expansion. I imagine there's a tax shell game involved in how they do this.
It was supposed to fail. They'll keep it running, barely supported and with barely any involvement while it sits on the warming tray. They used it to build out infrastructure to the tune of $billions. It's done. It'll keep existing, marginally.
They're going to sit on it now. When they're ready to make a move into really dominating the gaming space they'll activate a new project with a bigger marketing push, it will be a different service from Stadia. It will be monetized differently and with higher subscription fees. Then they'll advertise they're merging Stadia into it at some point and the subscriptions will convert.
This is how Google always rolls things out. They'll probably roll it out under the YouTube Gaming name, or somehow associated with the YouTube banner eventually (for more money.)
Stadia is nothing than a rollout codename project they charge money for to prepare for the big industry-disrupting push at some unknown time in the future. Microsoft and Amazon will probably factor into when they time their "real" launch.
MS probably still offers, for now, the most enticing solution. Traditional consoles, and I expect at some point your purchased library will become available on their cloud setup. That makes more sense as "value added" - subscribe to cloud to access all your console games on your phone, PC, or anywhere else. They're not advertising that yet, but I expect that will happen at some point. That adds value and options instead of being just a control system.
@spirit_flame Isn't Steam basically the ultimate collector's tool, though? The past 20 years of games all one one digital "shelf" - that's much more collector-y than cloud streaming at per-game pricing. Much more collectory-y than eShop and PSN, really, too, since long term BC/support is sketchy.
@TheFrenchiestFry
If you have multiple consoles why would you opt for in, a multiplat situation, a cloud based game when you can download or get the disc/cart of it? If graphics are so important mist would just go for the version with more power. If portability is more important then cloud gaming isn’t in the cards. (Yes I go outside the world keeps turning and I still have to work. No internet at home in my rural area is also another reason)
I have pretty awful internet and played the demo on my wireless connection in performance mode. And despite that it ran perfectly fine.
Clearly your mileage may vary but this should be a valid option from a technical POV for a decent size of the Switch IB.
$40 is already significantly cheaper than the standard full price a game like this on Switch would command.
For those who don’t think game ownership is a super important issue, this seems like a pretty fair deal to me.
So many people against something that they don't have to get themselves.
This may work for some people as an added bonus to their Switch. The people literally saying others should go without, simply because they themselves don't like it, need to relax, grow up and just let others enjoy things.
it's not even a switch game, it's an implementation of a cloud based gaming app using the switch
One that happens to let you buy and play only one game. But not a game in itself.
Why does NL actually review cloud games? These are not SWITCH games, they are basically PC versions adjusted to cloud gaming. I just do not get it.
@GameOtaku Yeah I'm not saying it's an optimal way to play the game. I own a PS4 and a PC in addition to a Switch and already own Control on the latter
This is purely for people who literally only own Switch and haven't bought any other consoles or have access to a good PC. Your mileage may vary with the experience but it's better that there's at least an option for those on that platform rather than letting them miss out on good games because once next gen comes around, this might be the only option left for AAA games being put on Switch.
@BlackenedHalo It is a game being made available to play on Switch, therefore it is a Switch game. Question answered.
In case anyone doesn’t see a problem with cloud gaming need I remind you of the Wii shop and coming soon all the flash based games on the internet?!
@GameOtaku The Wii shop that you can still download games you purchased from?
@GameOtaku The Wii Shop and Cloud gaming are completely different in terms of infrastructure and distribution. That's a terrible comparison
A more apt comparison would be something like xCloud or Stadia. The Wii Shop still let you download games you already purchased on your system.
@NEStalgia I love steam. I've been able to resurrect Janes 688i Hunter Killer sub sim on after 20 or so years. With the right management cloud based gaming can be a blessing. It's only recently that I picked up a gaming laptop. I do miss the old ways though. Big fat books that came with simulations (above mentioned sub game), games Like SU27 Flanker and the book that came with that.
@RudyC3 Yes - Thank you! It bothers me so much that this is never brought up in these conversations. Like, if I was to say that a car's maximum speed is 50mph and therefore anyone should be able to get to their local shop in 5 minutes or less, it would be obviously untrue for many as I wouldn't be taking into consideration the distance between each person and their closest shop - and yet, this simple concept seems to get overlooked every time when it comes to streaming games via the cloud.
the cup of coffee I had with it last week it ran aand looked fine. If I didnt have the XBOX One which is much cheaper than the PS4 version I'd consider it if it went on sale but full price? Nah.
It feels like a great workaround for those who want to play AAA titles on the Switch. I was impressed by my couple of hours trying it out. Kudos, and a strong way to breather some extra life into the Switch.
@GameOtaku Your argument against cloud gaming is pointless. Saying that it "shouldn't" be done because it limits a platform is... ludicrous. The developers of Control have already said they will never make the game natively for Switch. They don't think it's possible and they don't want to try even if it is. They flatly refuse. The game isn't and won't ever come to the system natively. The Cloud version was and is the only way it'll ever be on the system.
Just because it isn't playable while away from a stable internet connection doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Tens of millions of people play their Switch at home. And if they wanted to play this game on their Switch, then it's this or nothing and some of them prefer this over nothing. It comes in at a reduced cost and it actually runs better than the base Xbox One system runs the game natively. And your argument that if thousands play at once, it'll be unplayable, is also simply not true. The game has a queue system. If too many try to play at once, you get popped into a queue. It might take 5+ minutes at peak hours, but once you're in, you're in until you quit the game.
Should you probably just buy it on a different system if you own a different system? Probably. But if you just have a Switch and want to play it on there, then go for it. Also, being portable isn't just about being away from an internet connection. Countless public places have free internet now and even within people's homes, maybe they want to play when the TV is occupied or when they're in a different room or laying in bed, etc. Still gives that as an option.
Cloud gaming is only going to become more common and even if you don't like it, that's fine. There's no reason to argue against its existence as it only benefits the people who like it rather than hurting those that don't.
I am totally in favor of the cloud gaming as an option in cases like this where the Switch can't natively run the game.
HOWEVER, the pricing should be radically different. I feel like you should pay $5 for a week access or $10 a month or SOMETHING that reflects the rental nature of the format. I'm not gonna pay $40 for a game that I won't even own.
@Deltath
Do you honestly think the cloud is going to last forever? Given how atrocious the switch’s WiFi connection is this only makes sense on wired and not just any wired connection will cut it. You’d again have to pay the upper end. You don’t own this game. You are running it off a of eith your switch acting as a monitor and controller. Once it’s lived out it’s usefulness it’ll be gone.
Only would consider cloud gaming on a subscription basis with a rich catalogue.
The idea of "owning" a game between digital purchase and cloud gaming is nonsensical though. Only physical games are truly owned.
@BlackenedHalo Well, they made it pretty clear that the game is not running on the Switch and you need an internet connection to be able to play it. Still, if you happen to have a decent connection it's available to play on the platform, hence the review.
The game is running well enough for me, judging from the trial, but there's absolutely no way I'd spend 40€. Hell, I don't even spend this money for digital games (I have a sort of psychological limit of max 20€ for them), let alone cloud games.
@TheFrenchiestFry Then don’t bother bringing it then? It’s not that hard.
Tried it. Responsivness is incredible for a cloud game.
But it looks like a Youtube video, full of compression.
Believe me people : it's not the same game as the Xbox One X version, which was visually fascinating.
This cloud technology ruins the game visually.
But it's a great technology for less demanding games... which is paradoxal because those ones could run natively on a switch. So, even if I'm impress with the responsivness, I'm still thinking of cloud gaming for now "What's the point ?" 🤷♂️
@TheFrenchiestFry
The wiishops ability to do so will be cut before long.
I'd cloud this game for $20. Or maybe if it was part of a monthly subscription. But can't pay $40 to be anchored to my Switch at the mercy of the server. Especially when this game is $19 on PS4 now.
@TheFrenchiestFry nope, it does not run on the Switch
I am shocked that Nintendo Life have wholeheartedly endorsed this game when it costs £35 just to rent it.
However well this runs or how much of a technical marvel it is, it's a rip off, plain and simple.
I expected better of NL and if consumers don't call out this behaviour now, what hope do we have going forward?
Vote with your wallets people.
@tobsesta99 I mean if you want third party support to drive off a cliff and go back to being Wii U levels of content drought because your console isn't powerful enough to handle next gen multiplat games be my guest.
Options are always welcomed even if they aren't optimal. They don't care about your wants as a consumer. They're doing this purely to provide content for the platform by however means necessary and to ensure the console continues to thrive off of it in the gap betweeen first party releases
@GameOtaku Well of course they'd cut it before long. IT'S A 14 YEAR OLD CONSOLE LOL
@6thHorizon ridiculous post. Nintendo life are giving a fair review of the performance and playability of the game. You don't like cloud gaming, that's fair enough but don't expect game journalists to straight up trash a game unfairly.
@BlackenedHalo It's on the Switch, therefore it's a Switch game.
Streamed or not, it's still playable on the Switch through official means. Just because you dislike cloud gaming or don't think it counts as legit gaming (whatever that even means) doesn't mean NL doesn't have the right to review it
Besides there are a multitude of non-Switch related articles on this site anyway.
@TheFrenchiestFry
Unlike other consoles though you can’t buy the games at a secondhand store that were wiishop exclusive.
Third parties if they want to include switch should develop with it in mind.
@GameOtaku Yeah ok? They weren't going to keep the servers up forever but it's not like this game is disappearing off the eShop after a few months. It's going to be there for the console's entire lifespan and then some. By the time it gets taken off we would've probably moved down two console gens anyway if the Wii or PS2 were any indication
@BlackenedHalo maybe because its playable on switch. Good grief, we get it. You don't support cloud gaming but please stop expecting everyone to accept this view.
@TheFrenchiestFry
How can you say it won’t?
@spirit_flame Haha, yeah. RPGs, too. The original releases of Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II came with a spiral bound manual of a few hundred pages, and a cloth map, standard in the box. For $40.
@GameOtaku They put a massive AAA game on Switch. It's legit third party support. It's not like a small-time indie title or a WiiWare game of similar scale. Control and Hitman are big name games that are being used to support the console's continous stream of content, just through not as traditional means. WiiWare and cloud-streamed games are on completely different levels of support.
That'd be like if after the PS4 lives out its entire lifespan, every third party publisher just delists their games off the PS Store because "hey people can play these games on PS5 anyway"
It's a freaky game. The chattering of voices in the background is unsettling. But I love the way it feels like a TV show boxset. Making for a very interesting storyline. Liking it so far.
@TheFrenchiestFry @GameOtaku As a moderating stance here, GameOtaku may be excessively anti-cloud where there are valid merits to it, both in terms of Switch and via other monitization models than this terrible one. But Frenchiest is also taking an excessively passive approach IMO and downplaying problems with this particular method of release.
When the cloud gaming is part of a big service, Google Stadia, Amazon Luna, XBox Cloud, it's going to be there for a long period of time, as there's a solid backing behind it and the cloud service is the platform itself being sold. I'd not be worried that AC Valhalla will disappear from Stadia on a whim, or that the server will go away so long as Stadia is running.
But this model in particular, there is absolutely nothing to indicate this game will be available for the life of the Switch, at all, and the fine print and agreement explicitly requires you to consent to that fact. This isn't a Nintendo-provided service that they're on the hook to support as part of the Switch platfrom until platform EOL. This is a third party small cloud service, as contracted by the publisher, a known shifty publisher that practices terrible policies, and has already screwed other platform customers with this very game by limiting the "next gen" upgrade only to people who buy the Ultimate Edition, after the fact.
In fact I fully expect this game will not be available for the entire lifespan of Switch, let alone a time period beyond it, unless they get steady revenue with this game and model via some mobile app store sales or something. I expect, instead, this game to appear in Luna/XBox Cloud/Stadia and live there instead.
Argument of the concept of cloud streamed games should be kept separate from this particular game and the model/format/licensing parties involved which are more dubious as implemented here than cloud as a concept.
If Nintendo were providing the cloud service as part of it's official platform offerings, it would be a different equation.
@NEStalgia
That’s my biggest worry. $40 gone and unlike digital or carts once it’s gone it may be gone for good.
I don’t care how well it runs. This will lead to cheap and lazy developers bring less likely to actually port over even last gen AAA games
@JSDude1 That's a gross overexaggeration. I imagine this only happened because the developers couldn't feasibly port the game to Switch natively. It's the same reason why other platforms got the full Final Fantasy XV while all Switch has is Pocket Edition.
@NEStalgia Never completed it, one of the best games I've ever come across. I had the 6 cd wallet with a wall map I think. Planning to get it on Switch, when I finally complete Skyrim. Having this discussion with you has made me want to get the original manual for SU27, brilliant evasion tutorials in there as well as general flight. Nice to run into someone like you!
If ever? They will turn them off as soon as they can.
They have no incentive to leave them up once they have your money.
@TheFrenchiestFry
We got a version of FF that works for its platform the only difference is in its graphics. Why not Control Switch Edition instead of the cloud route.
I simply say no to this way of playing
@GameOtaku FFXV Pocket Edition's differences extend far beyond its graphics. It ditches the one major thing that set XV apart from all the other numbered entries, being its open world design and non-linear story. It's nowhere close to an ideal alternative to just playing the main entry on PS4/Xbox One/PC because it's missing pretty much 80-90% of the core mechanics that gave XV an identity of its own next to the other main games. It's a version that works for the console, but it's terribly watered down to the point where I'd tell people who don't already have another console to just buy a PS4 to play the full XV instead.
If Control got a compromised edition on Switch in a similar fashion people would've probably complained regardless because people were already mad at the fact Switch essentially got a game that was made for mobile phones that was then ported to it while other platforms have the full experience as it was intended to be played.
It actually makes zero sense to me that, if there’s a way to better port an intense title like this to the Switch, that it’s not a good thing. So it’ll never be “yours.” Why does that really matter once you’re done with it? This isn’t Mario Kart here.
@kobashi100
Are you suggesting that the price of a game shouldn't be taken into account in a review?
£35 just to rent a game is a rip off by any standard.
I frequently see the cost of a game being considered in Nintendo Life reviews but not in this one. Why should this game be any different?
Many people like to live beyond the immediate moment. You'll be able to play Mario Kart in 10 years, any of them. This will be dead and gone by then. Even putting aside the inability to keep something for posterity with this design choice, being so cavalier about not owning the things like that you purchase, like some folks are, is how consumer rights are eroded. I can only speak for myself of course, but the possibility of having any digital good, of any kind, arbitrarily taken away from me because of forces beyond my control is kinda chilling in my eyes.
But then, I grew up in the days when you purchased a product, it was a physical product, and you were free to do as you pleased with it while it's in your possession. It's kinda sad that this can seem "old-fashioned" these days.
@GameOtaku Literally nothing that you're saying matters. It's completely and utterly meaningless. Just meaningless. No one said the cloud will last forever. No one is arguing that you own the game the same way you'd own a physical game. That isn't the point and has nothing to do with anything. No one is making you pay for the Cloud version if you don't want it. Literally all I'm saying is that there's no reason for you to give a ***** if someone else wants to play it anyway. There are tens of millions of gamers out there who only own a Switch and if they would rather play the cloud version of a game versus never playing it at all, why do you feel you need to stop them?
If the next-gen Switch work 5G, so with a stable internet conection on the go and the servers are powerfull enough for an endless amount of people playing at the same time and never shut down ever, then and only then I will accept cloud gaming.
Only Nintendo gamers could complain about a release on Switch. Cloud? Too high a price? Are you being forced to buy it? No. This nearly as boring and stupendous as the world crying about the United States next head of public relations like it even matters.
@TheFrenchiestFry I actually think you're over selling FFXV Pocket Edition. The idea that it's even a watered down version isn't really accurate. It's just a different game. The naming convention makes people think and act like it's the same game but downscaled, but it really isn't. The only thing even vaguely similar is the lore/characters. Everything else is different. This Otaku guy is crazy if he thinks this is a viable alternative and that we should get a Pocket Edition styled Control on Switch instead. Nevermind the fact that Pocket Edition only existed on Switch because it was an already made mobile game, not because it was actually designed for Switch.. and that this is the only time that's ever been done before.
There's no way developers would just start making 100% newly developed games with the same story but all different gameplay and engine just got the Switch. Wouldn't make any feasible business sense.
I'm not totally against digital gaming, but I can't see myself paying a premium price for access to a potentially unstable game that might become inaccessible in the future. Fortunately, I also have a PS4 Pro, so this review actually compelled me to sweep the dust off that console and give it a try on that...not this cloud business. I love my Switch but I also understand that it's not meant for every game.
@liveswired "Only Nintendo gamers could complain about a release on Switch"
If this sentence is supposed to mean something, it doesn't. Who else would complain about a release on Switch? Do you think iPhone users who don't own Switches are going to load up an article on Nintendo Life and complain about a Switch game they've never heard of for a system that they don't own?
Literally, in what reality would it be anyone but the people who own said system to complain about the games on it? As far as attempted insults, you've fallen quite flat.
Also, if you're trying to indicate that gamers of other platforms don't complain about releases on the systems they play, that's just a complete lie.
@Deltath
Because it’s this line of thinking that removes power from the consumers. Paying for a product that you have absolutely no clue as to how long you actually have with said product is ridiculous and needs to stop. Thinking of my massive games collection and I have no limit to my enjoyment of them until the carts breakdown, which honestly isn’t going to be any time soon. Where as with this I may or may not have an internet connection to play it and that is also only possible if it hasn’t been removed.
As far as the FF port is concerned it’s still at its core the same story as the others. Last I heard the console game isn’t even full open world! If Witcher, Doom and Wolfenstein aren’t clear enough as to what the switch can actually do when devs have a mind to do so I don’t know what is.
@Dualmask
Preach it man!
It’s a no from me.
@GameOtaku Again. Witcher 3 was always going to be easier to natively convert compared to Control
Witcher came out 2 years before the Switch launched, is an open world game that has long stretches of nothing happening in its open world and enemy encounters are minimal while travelling town to town and was easy to optimize from the start
You're comparing a mid-gen title to Control, a late gen, PS4/Xbox One game that constantly stutters and had an unstable as hell framerate at launch on those consoles, whose physics and mechanics would be more graphically demanding on those consoles and came out like a year ago. Witcher 3 being the criteria for Switch conversions will not apply to absolutely every good looking current gen game because there comes a point where it just isn't possible, and I'm frankly sick and tired of people thinking that just because Witcher 3 came close to not looking like ass on Switch, anything with a semi-realistic art style can be ported that easily. If that was the case the Switch wouldn't miss out on as many AAA titles as it did.
Reason why I was playing AAA games on the GO with Shadow or GeforceNOW the last 9 months and not 6 year old ports and no name games on Switch.
Enjoy.
@GameOtaku It doesn't "have to stop". You're not obligated or even encouraged to pay for this if you don't want it. I'm not going to either. I already have Control on PS4. But I'm fine with someone on Switch paying for this if it's what they want.
@6thHorizon the reviewe mentioned the premium price tag and the danger of servers being switched off. You are unhappy the reviewer never trashed the game and instead praised it because you personally hate cloud gaming. Why can't we let others enjoy the experience rather than constantly telling them not to support this way of gaming.
@spirit_flame Oh yes, the Interplay CD wallets (that inevitably managed to scratch the CDs with extended use! Those might be the best argument for digital gaming, ever, though ) I forgot about that. Riven had the nicest CD wallet. It was cardboard but such a nice flip case of individual sleeves. There was some other swag with Baldur's Gate II....a coin I think, and something else. All for the price of admission. No "gold collector's limited edition VIP access pass" shenanigans back then!
@GameOtaku Yeah, not "might" but will be gone for good once they EOL the service - and they almost certainly will once Switch is EOL - unless Switch 2 is promoting Switch BC, and the company feels this is still profitable to distribute for it.
I'm not anti-cloud-streaming. There's some benefits, usually associated with costs, involved, and some negatives, largely, it's not a great, or even possible experience depending on geography. This model, though, is a bit overpriced. And digital and cloud products depend a lot on consumer trust in the provider of how well the product will be supproted. Love them or hate them, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, they're going to support their services for the long haul even if they fail.
When Microsoft does cloud - right now it's "buffet" subscription only, not individual purchases, which is fair. You pay monthly and know you're getting access to the buffet. No worries over what you're not keeping, it's not hinting at possessing anything, just a cover charge for access monthly. But eventually if they have purchases too, you know they're hosting it themselves and there's low probability of it getting pulled out from under you.
This one is all but guaranteed to get pulled out from under you. If Nintendo provided their own cloud service, NSO Cloud or something, I would feel better that it's at least confirmed for the life of the console. Though I would also know, unlike MS, that it would also be ended at the EOL of the console.
I think whom you're renting your cloud products from matters more than anything when it comes to cloud. A no-name can't be trusted. Nintendo can be predicted, even if they'd offer poor value. And the big data players can probably be trusted, even if you feel slimy buying anything from them
@kobashi100
You presume to know what I think.
If people rent a game at this price in sufficient numbers, we will continue to get ripped off.
Nintendo Life should be looking out for it's readers and pressuring unscrupulous companies such as this to treat consumers fairly. Instead they have barely given the high rental price a mention, let alone reflecting it in the conclusion or the score.
Yes I do hope very few are suckered into renting a game for £35. That way consumers will get treated more fairly further down the line.
@graysoncharles
CDPR went the extra mile and made Witcher 3 work on the switch. A and B the C of D in fact. This dev simply didn’t try.
@GameOtaku The only reason this happened was EXACTLY BECAUSE the dev probably tried and actively discussed that approach with Nintendo
And I 100% bet if CDPR's next game Cyberpunk 2077 comes to Switch it will be through cloud streaming as well. Same with stuff like the Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes or Devil May Cry 5
If you seriously think porting a late gen game to Switch is that easy then I wonder what's taking DOOM Eternal so goddamn long that it's coming out after the other platforms already got their first batch of post launch DLC
If it was so easy then why didn't Square put Final Fantasy XV proper on Switch as opposed to Pocket Edition? If it was so easy why was Dark Souls Remastered on Switch basically not even a remaster and shared more in common with the last gen versions of those games? If it was such a simple thing to accomplish like Witcher 3, then where's stuff like Red Dead 2? That's another open world game with a realistic art style right there?
@TheFrenchiestFry
I don’t think so. CDPR has seen the response it’s full on cart port has had. There is no way I see them going the cloud route or the other games either. They want to give the consumer the best. The Control dev though just gave up.
@GameOtaku Yeah because it's totally going to be so easy porting a game to Switch that literally had to be delayed because its other current gen counterparts were struggling to run optimally despite the game itself being announced before PS4 or Xbox One were even publicly unveiled
This line of logic is so one track minded it's almost childish. If it's struggling as is to run on either PS4 or Xbox One and is better optimised for both next gen consoles and PC then there's no way that game is getting a native port at all. It runs on a new engine and despite the map being smaller than Witcher 3, is considerably more densely packed than any of the towns in that game
@TheFrenchiestFry
Doom Eternal is going to be complete on cart with no patches for the switch version. (Possibly Covid)
And Square being Square and Rockstar outside of LA Noir hasn’t put anything else out. Having the rug pulled out from under your feet after paying money to play a game you may not even have a month to play is ridiculous too.
@GameOtaku Except Square actually tried to put FFXV and there's literal proof of that based on an interview with Hajime Tabata (the game's director)
Square isn't just skipping out because of bias. They actually tried and went as far as converting all the game's assets to UE4 as opposed to the Luminous Engine the game originally used and it STILL COULDN'T RUN.
https://www.destructoid.com/stories/final-fantasy-xv-director-says-switch-can-t-fully-handle-the-luminous-engine-others-being-tested-459051.phtml
At this point Witcher 3 is almost used as a crux to keep yourself in denial of how technically capable Switch actually is next to other platforms, and the saddest part is CDPR didn't even work on the port in house at all.
@graysoncharles
So what? They could’ve as well. Or use Panic Button. The fact still remains is that these stellar ports of PS4 and XB1 games can run on the underpowered switch.
@GameOtaku Again. Control came out in 2019. DOOM and Witcher were like 3 to 4 years old when they came to Switch and both are easily scaleable games, especially DOOM due to the nature of id Tech and its support for Vulkan which the Switch had natively from the start
Control is more graphically intensive than both of those games and had a horrendously unstable framerate on PS4 and Xbox One based on reviews and impressions. There was no way a native port would've worked without the Switch melting like ice cream. Witcher 3 does not make up the majority of current gen games
"b-b-but WITCHER 3 AND DOOOM" is like a running joke at this point. It's honestly laughable how naive this way of thinking is. I bet the only reason people think this way is because the games look semi realistic and have lots of detail, so that would automatically imply other games with semi realistic art styles and lots of detail would be just as easy to port. The harsh truth you'll have to grapple with is that the Switch is an underpowered as hell console compared to platforms way older than it, and as a result there is a very strict limit as to what it can and can't do. This isn't even me being biased towards other systems, it's just being realistic about its performance metrics. If it wasn't so underpowered and incomparable, then third parties would be constantly porting AAA content over just as often as the other consoles and PC. There's a reason why big name games like NiER Automata, Final Fantasy XV, CoD, the newer Assassin's Creed games and the RE Engine games are constantly skipping Switch. It's not out of bias, it's literally because Switch is that weak as a platform power wise that it simply can't run them
Don't care about the cloud stuff BUT Control is an absolute stinker of a game. I really despised it. Dull wave shooter mixed with a pretentious, irksome, nonsensical, sci fi yarn. Don't regret playing it (on PS NOW ... wouldve been ragin if I had paid £50) but had little interest in going back for the sidequests I missed after making a beeline for the final credits. Dreadful! YEUCH!!
@6thHorizon you are not getting ripped off though as you have a choice. Nobody is forced to buy the game. If you believe it's a rip off then don't buy. It's really that simple. Everyone who does buy knows exactly what they are getting and are happy to purchase.
@kobashi100 Don't bother reasoning with any of these anti-cloud people. It's not the most optimal way to play the game but a fine alternative for people who only own Switch as a platform option. It's serviceable for what it is.
Let their "vote with your wallet" mentality continue to cloud their judgement. I'm sure it worked great for Pokemon Gen 8 and The Last of Us Part II. They'll just continually convince themselves that no game was more graphically intensive than the 5 year old Witcher 3 and the 4 year old DOOM, and thus Switch is powerful enough to run anything natively.
Cloud gaming, yeah, sure is infallible lol
@TheFrenchiestFry
By your own admission Control hiccups even on the PS4 and xb1. So I’d expect a switch conversion to run a little lower than that but given that in of itself should come as no surprise since the switch isn’t as powerful. Square was more interested in the PC port than a straight conversion to switch but the article also said they may be willing to revisit a full port.
Paying $40 for a game that may not be available to play at the drop of a hat is ridiculous. 5 minute wait times? Must of you can’t stand a one minute loading screen let alone a 5 minute wait. You can pay $40 right now for a game that runs natively on Switch that can last decades and you are saying throwing that away in a cloud based game is ideal?!
@GameOtaku No it doesn't just hiccup. I literally said the performance was UNSTABLE, as in it was capable of dropping frames, stuttering, skipping frames or possibly a combination of 2 of those factors. If Control was that inconsistent out the gate on the more powerful consoles, that already puts it out of the running for a native Switch port that would be anything other than a complete disaster. If a port of it happened in that state, they'd have to compromise on way too many different elements just to get the game running, let alone running consistently and comfortably, and at that point it wouldn't be worth having portably if it looked and ran that awfully. It even sometimes stuttered on my fully specced out PC with an RTX 2060 and a 9th gen core i7.
And Square never said they'd be interested in a full port again, they only said they'd explore other ways to bring FFXV to Switch if the native port didn't pan out. Hence, you got Pocket Edition as your Switch "version" of FFXV.
And I'm not even saying I prefer it to be this way, but I recognize that it HAD to be this way for the game to even come to Switch in the first place. It's a less than ideal option for playing the game but if Switch is all you have it's a great game regardless and no one is forcing you to buy it if you don't want to, which I won't because I own the game on a superior platform, not because I'm that bitter about cloud gaming's existence, a thing that's been built up to anyway for years and isn't going to replace consoles and PC in the long term.
This was never done because the devs were too lazy to natively convert it. If anything it's on Nintendo for making such an underpowered console that it forced certain devs into a corner in terms of deciding how to go about bringing such games to the platform. It's stuff like this that honestly reinforces my stance on the Switch being a terrible option for a primary platform because it very much limits the library you have access to if you want more expansive and ambitious titles.
So is this ever eligible for an eShop sale?
@TheFrenchiestFry no it is not a gross mischaracterization. It’s a very real possibility. We know how lazy and cheap game developers can be, and say instead of Capcom green-lighting RE 2 Remake (or 3), which probably could run natively on Switch, they may give us a ‘Cloud’ version?? No, thanks!
@JSDude1 Because the full fat RE Engine can't run on Switch as it can on other platforms? Keep in mind the engine MH Rise is using is a custom iteration of the RE Engine designed specifically around Switch's hardware, much like what EA does with their Switch versions of FIFA titles. This is adjunct from the engine being used for games like the REmakes and DMC5, which the Switch was never optimized for whatsoever. There's also no way in hell RE Village comes to Switch in any other form outside cloud considering it's a purely next-gen game designed specifically for the new consoles and not even getting a cross gen release.
@TheFrenchiestFry Capcom could invest in getting it to run on one of the most
Successful consoles (sales wise) of the last couple generation-but you ~know~ they’d rather cheap out and put up a ‘Cloud’ version instead. They’re not alone in this thinking, especially if games like Control Cloud version are successful financially.
@TheFrenchiestFry
The comment from square saying they could re-examine a 1:1 port is in the article you shared. Read it again.
@GameOtaku The quote from the source article is as follows:
"Tabata-san explained that nothing has been decided yet. The development team is testing out what kind of specs the Switch can provide. They tried to test the Luminous Engine (which is the engine powering the game on PS4 and Xbox One) on the platform, and they figured out that at this point in time the team can’t “bring out the most of the engine” on the Switch."
"Tabata-san then clarified that this isn’t to say anything negative about the Switch, as the team did not do any specific optimization to the Liminous Engine for Nintendo’s console. They simply loaded it in to see how it would perform. They also made tests on Unity and Unreal Engine 4, and they noticed that those ran well on Switch."
The team is at a point in which they understand the technical specifications of the Switch, and they will continue to look into what they can do for the platform."
Nowhere did that state they would revisit a 1:1 port. All of these developments were just tests to see what Switch could provide in terms of specifications. It didn't confirm a single thing about their intentions to bring the full fat game to Switch at any point. The idea of bringing the game in its original state to Switch stopped as soon as they realized the console couldn't handle it either on Luminous, Unity or Unreal Engine. That's why Pocket Edition was settled on in the end. They literally tested the game on 3 DIFFERENT ENGINES before deciding FFXV was unfeasible, and yet you still think the Switch can handle absolutely anything because of a few scattered third party ports.
@JSDude1 Capcom were literally the ones to propose to Nintendo about putting more on board RAM in the Switch specs so they could potentially target RE Engine for the platform, and they weren't even the only ones to ask Nintendo to add more memory to the console. They actually told Nintendo directly that the amount of memory the Switch had wasn't sufficient enough for their upcoming multiplat releases that were internally being developed like Resi 7 at the time. What part about that is them being lazy exactly?
I think they should offer a PC Streaming from Steam/GOG/ETC. I know it's complex and Nintendo wouldn't be happy unless it could be implemented case by case (probably with a individual launcher). But what if the companies offer (for exemple) a 3 dollars launcher for PC owners streaming their game?
I hate this tbh it's a trend I don't want to see continue. if cloud gaming takes off soon most devs just won't put in the effort to make a good native port and just take this easy road.
@TheFrenchiestFry look we know that, but we also know they’re cheap sometimes (putting only half a collection on a physical cartridge..), so I wouldn’t put it past them to do a Cloud only version and think THIS is what Switch consumer will be satisfied with, when we will not!
@plug313 that’s Exactly what I’ve been saying ant why I’m so dead-set against it taking off on Switch.
Was skeptical at first but after trying it I'm very pleased with the performance! Also, NL, having the comment box all the way at the bottom after the comments is an absolutely horrible UX. Please put the new comment box at the top
@JSDude1 If there's literally no other way to get the game on the platform then don't be surprised if they put a cloud version instead. They at least tried to convince Nintendo to upgrade the internal RAM so they could have some chance at natively prioritizing RE Engine support on Switch and look what happened.
It's a big reason as to why Capcom haven't supported Switch with any new multiplatform content outside Mega Man 11 which ran on the much older MT Framework engine. You can't call them lazy at all for that.
40euros for a cloud game? No thanks, I bought the ultimate edition on PS4 for 35! Seriously the pricing isnt right...
How many server-slots are there and are you willing to wait when your precious hour of planned gaming time has come?
1. I would like to congratulate the reviewer @KateGray for her very professional review.
2. Kate Grey is also an old Greek famous singer
3. Control plays very well on Switch. I recommend it for all those players that do not own other consoles or do not like playing video games on PC.
4. Waiting time is around 5 to 20 seconds @okeribok
This game struggled to run smoothly on the XBox One and the PS4. You needed the X or the Pro just to get decent performance out of its full-fat console versions. There is zero chance that a native Switch port was going to be possible without massively overhauling the engine and the assets, and Remedy clearly didn't feel like that was worth the expense and effort (and I can understand why).
The cloud version works well. If you have a different way to play Control, you should take it, because it's a gorgeous game that will look better when not streaming. If you don't, this is a way to play Control on the Switch that isn't bad.
That's all that needs to be said about it. The hysteria about cloud gaming is ridiculous. EVERY platform is doing this now. XCloud. PSNow. Stadia. GeForce Now. Luna. Facebook is doing it. It is inevitable (cue Thanos etc), but it's also not going to be the only way to play things. But if you want to play a big game without taking up a ton of storage space, or a game on a platform that can't handle it hardware wise, it's a great option to have.
As for Stadia, since folks are talking about it separately at some length, I've had a Pro Stadia subscription all year and I've put over 90 hours into Assassin's Creed Odyssey and all the DLC's on it, as well as a bunch of Destiny 2 and other games on that platform.
It's been great. I had a better experience with it than I had with a similar amount of time with AC: Origins on my local PC. My hardware is getting a bit old, so Stadia looks better, runs smoother, takes up no hard drive space, and has much speedier load times. I have no complaints with it at all. And Google has pledged that if they someday shut it down (which there is no sign will happen anytime soon, they have been expanding, not stagnating) they'll let you get your games out, so from an ownership standpoint it is exactly the same as Steam or any other digital platform. If you aren't buying a disc or a cartridge (and sometimes even if you are), you're buying a license that can be taken away, not a permanent object. And I've been on Steam for... yeesh, 17 years now. Getting old. And it's fine.
Full price for a cloud version... Niiiice...
@kobashi100
You still miss my point. My problem is with the review skirting around the issue of this new business model.
Usually Nintendo Life are vociferous when they believe a product offers bad value or represents dubious business practice but they weren't on this occasion for some reason.
I had come to expect better and it does make me question their integrity somewhat.
@TheFrenchiestFry
From the article: What does this all mean? Well, chances are they won't rework the massive XV for Switch, but rather, a Pocket release that still contains most of the same story beats seems more likely. This is all speculation as Square could make the full version sing eventually (more research on the Switch and better optimization could lead to that, Tabata says), but for now, I don't see them putting in a massive amount of effort in a 1:1 port given that their work is already cut out for them with the recently announced PC version.
So they were more interested in optimizing for PC over the switch. They “COULD” have tweaked the engine to run but actively chose not to due to priorities being elsewhere. It stands to reason if the modded RE engine will work for Rise then the same can be true for other games that use the same.
@GameOtaku The modded RE Engine works for Rise because it's built SPECIFICALLY for Switch, exactly like how FIFA on Switch uses a custom version of the Ignite Engine as opposed to the higher end Frostbite engine powering the other console and PC versions. It's not designed for converting multiplatform games over to Switch like the other RE Engine titles. It's basically a Switch-exclusive engine that uses aspects of the full fat engine but tailor made specifically for the Switch hardware because of its lesser memory and less power hungry processor. This does not at all mean that it's capable of handling titles like REmake 2 or Devil May Cry 5, because Rise itself still looks considerably more washed out resolution and geometry wise compared to any of the other RE Engine games, and it's also running at 30fps from what it looks like which is half the framerate of stuff like the REmakes and definitely DMC5 to begin with.
FFXV was easy to do on PC because PC conversion didn't require testing three different engines just to see how it could be feasible. It can actually handle the game as originally designed and then some if you have a more specced out config. They actually tried to make a Switch-specific version of the game by at least testing out how the game would run in other engines that weren't the ones the game was designed around and it still didn't work, so they obviously had no choice but to explore other methods since Switch was never going to be capable of a 1:1 conversion.
@TheFrenchiestFry
Not much difference really in frame rates unless you are really susceptible to them. (Ex I’ve noticed no frame rate issues in age of calamities demo)
@GameOtaku Comparing Age of Calamity to an RE Engine game has no correlation whatsoever. Age of Calamity is made on Koei Tecmo's in house engine that's designed for large amounts of enemies on screen while prioritizing performance. Resident Evil is pretty much the polar opposite of that and LDK mode in DMC5 Special Edition is exclusive to next-gen for a reason. AoC is also considerably more stylized in terms of art direction while RE Engine games are near photo-realistic in presentation
You're making very apples to oranges comparisons
@TheFrenchiestFry
The RE engine runs on switch. It’s modified to make use of its limitations. Rise uses this modified engine. That logic follows that other games that make use of the same engine could run on that platform. The argument that the switch is less powerful doesn’t amount to much. It may not be as pretty or run at this unrealistic golden standard of 60fps but if it can run a game relatively well with no major hiccups then graphics being washed out are fine.
@GameOtaku Rise isn't using the full fat engine, it's a Switch-specific one. It's not derived from the one that powers the multiplatform games because the Switch doesn't have enough dedicated RAM to handle that iteration. It's using a custom engine designed around the Switch's limitations that doesn't scale to the other platforms. This doesn't mean RE7 or RE2/3 are going to be any more feasible to convert natively than they were before because the Switch's version of the engine was built specifically for it and not for the other consoles
@TheFrenchiestFry
But they may be feasible. It’s still the engine modded to work on the limitations of the switch! Im not expecting it to look like a grand work of art! What a contradiction you have, Witcher 3 is photo realistic as well so wouldn’t that also mean that those ports of RE could be more possible?
@GameOtaku For the last time, just because Witcher 3 is a photorealistic game doesn't mean every photorealistic game can be ported to Switch that easily. Witcher 3 runs extremely well on graphics cards from like 6 or 7 years ago, and the game itself is helped by the fact that when travelling in the open world there's not much in the way of actual interactive elements like enemy encounters extra geometry which frees up graphics memory to efficiently handle other aspects of the game such as lighting and character model detailing. This is just not true for games like Control or Final Fantasy XV which are extremely detailed to start and in the case of the latter, constantly have things going on in its open world at all times like monster encounters, or fighting large hoards of enemies in story missions or the abundant amount of spells which have flashy particle effects and stylized presentation.
Again, apples to oranges. "But Witcher 3" is the most surface level argument you can make for Switch's power as a console compared to the PS4 and Xbox One. Even DOOM at launch apparently ran about as well as a Powerpoint slideshow in Nightmare difficulty and above, as well as most of the endgame levels that have unique lighting techniques before being patched to dynamically scale the resolution even further despite the fact the game itself was already pretty close to sub-720p in docked mode.
@TheFrenchiestFry
And again they could modify their engines to work on the switch to a degree and put effort forth to actually have the game run on the switch hardware. Witcher 3 is also open world rife with encounters. Before you forget Witcher 3 was on PS4, XB1 and PC so Control is still running on the same limited hardware W3 is!
Next thing I know you’ll tell me that Killer Instinct can’t be ported to Gameboy.
@GameOtaku NO IT ISN'T. You're basically saying game hardware is the same thing as a game engine, which it isn't. Control had an unstable framerate on PS4/Xbox One and ran significantly smoother on PC to begin with. Witcher 3 has long stretches where its open world is empty almost as if it gives way for you to travel to other towns. I've beaten this game on both PS4 and PC and had to actively go out of my way to find enemies like monsters or infiltrating enemy hideouts for EXP. Witcher 3 is an open world game whose open world has its objectives and details far more scattered out than any other open world WRPG or even JRPG I've played.
Comparing a densely packed, highly detailed action adventure game with physics-based platforming and Metroidvania elements that is only a year old and still struggles to run on the PS4 Pro and even the XB1X let alone the base consoles, to a scaleable, easily optimizable 5 year old open world RPG that can run on 6 or 7 year old gaming rigs is like comparing Pokemon to Shin Megami Tensei on the basis that they both have recruitable monsters. Apples to oranges yet again. You're trying to justify the feasibility of porting a game as involved as Control without literally any knowledge of how game hardware and game engines relate to each other in terms of performance or scaleability.
@TheFrenchiestFry
The smt and Pokémon argument is ridiculous, they really are for the most part the same. They “could’ve” built the port of control for switch using other engines or by just waiting and creating a port specializing in the switch architecture. Why would Capcom mod the RE engine when they could’ve used something else? My best guess is they want those games that use the engine to go to switch.
You can mod a dodge engine to work in other brands. The same logic applies here.
@GameOtaku And clearly you haven't played the former if that's your stance on it. I don't remember the Pokemon game that involved a high school kid wanting to wage a war on God and talking to demons as if they were his extended family members to recruit them towards his cause.
@TheFrenchiestFry
The way it works is really the same. Parents thought Pokémon was teaching kids to summon demons.
@GameOtaku Demon Negotiation and catching Pokemon work completely differently from each other. They're two distinct systems and MT did it like a decade before anyway. Even Persona collecting is completely different whether it be through the Shuffle Time minigame or through standard Demon Negoiation. You're literally arguing the similarities between the two with someone whose favorite and most played RPG series of all time is Megami Tensei.
@TheFrenchiestFry
It’s still the same basic concept! You are collecting monsters/demons and along the way you go through maze like areas and solve puzzles fighting bosses using many of the same monsters/demons you have on your way of completing your goals. The way you go about collecting maybe different but that’s about it. @Ralizah would get a kick out of this as we’ve had this same conversation several times LOL! I’ve played both series!
@GameOtaku It's not just collecting monsters/demons. Fusing them is arguably even more important because of its ability to give you better demons and also free up space to add more demons to your existing party, and unlike Pokemon they act exactly like party members, and not an 1v1 attack unit like a Pokemon does. They're not part of an inventory system and they're way less expendable compared to Pokemon in my eyes.
MegaTen games also actually have stories and are considerably more difficult than any Pokemon game. Even Persona 4 is harder than games like Gen 5 or Gen 3.
@TheFrenchiestFry
Pokémon fusions are a thing. Gastly created Venustoise to fight against charmander and squirtle using venusaur and blastoise.
@GameOtaku Pokemon Fusions weren't a thing for years. MegaTen still did it first and is the entire crux of demon recruiting as opposed to a side mechanic that layers onto existing systems in Pokemon.
Again the only similarities either of these games have is that they're RPGs with catchable monsters. Same exact thing with Witcher and Control. The only thing they have in common are the platforms they were natively developed for.
@TheFrenchiestFry
But it did happen.
And while it may have been some efforts involved, switch ports of those games are entirely possible.
@GameOtaku No they aren't. Control being a cloud game is your proof that they recognized the amount of compromise that would have to happen if they ported it natively.
The Switch already uses an extremely dated processor that's been around for almost 8 years. It's obviously not capable of running most of the big name current gen games. The ones that did come to Switch are on engines that were optimized for Switch from the start of the console's life. You're literally saying that Control could happen just because it's on the same platforms as Witcher when there are numerous other factors to consider, like the fact that it already had subpar performance on consoles and as a result converting the engine to an even weaker console would result in an unplayable experience that wouldn't be worth trading for portability.
You have literally nothing to back your case up, and next to no knowledge about how game engines work, and yet you still persist with an entirely baseless claim that Witcher being a semi-realistic looking game means the Switch can handle any semi-realistic game just as well.
@TheFrenchiestFry
If I had made the same claims about Witcher 3 before it’s announcement I’m 90% sure you would’ve used almost the same argument then like many others did when consumers asked about the loss of a port.
@GameOtaku I honestly wouldn't have at all. Considering the game supports the Vulkan API exactly as DOOM and Wolfenstein did, it was never technically impossible considering the Switch had the hardware to support it since day one. It would've required a lot more effort but the framework was always there for a Switch conversion, as there were with games using engines like id Tech and UE4, but it's not nearly as infeasible as an engine as disastrous as the Luminous Engine and all the development problems that caused for FFXV.
Witcher 3 also came at a time when devs were still being experimental with the current gen console hardware, whereas Cyberpunk and Control are being designed completely around those consoles and will squeeze every bit of performance out of them to the point where they delayed the former game by about 3 weeks just to get it to be completely stable at launch on PS4/Xbox One.
There's a massive difference between early-mid gen games and the tech they employ compared to late gen.
@TheFrenchiestFry
So again bottom line is if they really wanted to they could have done something different and actually had it run on Switch. Devs that do extra work are what we need.
@GameOtaku If Control would've been brought to Switch in any other method that wasn't a direct port that looked terrible and ran at even worse framerates I guarantee you would've been just as angry and saying Remedy was lazy as you claim they are bringing the full game to Switch via cloud streaming.
Devs that do extra work are exactly what has been going on for third party Switch ports and nowadays they either look extremely compromised and have numerous issues like MK11 and Outer Worlds, are extremely dumbed down in resolution to the point where it compromises the game's visual identity like DOOM and Wolfenstein or are just MIA because it's taking way too long like DOOM Eternal
All of these are the result of the hardships developers go through to bring an already released game to the platform, and it further compounds the idea that Switch just isn't a platform suited for big name multiplat releases. The only reason I own one is for the Nintendo content, and for people who only own a Switch I can't say these ports are anything other than serviceable, fine ways to play the game, but for the most part they aren't worth the tradeoff for portability in my eyes.
Control being on Switch the way it is at the very least is far better than Square releasing a dumbed down, simplified version of FFXV that was originally designed for mobile phones, or games that require extra downloads over the internet because not all their content is even on the cartridge. If devs were really as lazy as you claim then literally any AAA third party game that released past 2015 or 2016 would've been cloud streamed
@TheFrenchiestFry
I don’t care how good a game looks that’s a ridiculous stance when you can play a console game literally anywhere other than a dedicated shrine on the tv. Devs being cheap by not putting whole games on carts is another problem entirely but has nothing to do with playing a good enough version of a game.
@GameOtaku @TheFrenchiestFry
lol
Control would have to be recreated around the limitations of the Switch hardware to even have a chance of being playable on it. Even on current gen (non-pro) home console hardware, the game is practically a slideshow at times. The Switch's CPU would choke on that game.
As to Pokemon and MegaTen... I mean, they're obviously different, even if the monster collecting aspect is similar, as is the focus on exploiting elemental vulnerabilities and building teams around exploiting said vulnerabilities. Pokemon doesn't have the fusion aspect, and MegaTen doesn't have breeding or the eugenics aspect. Tone, story, characters, gameplay flow, artstyle, difficulty, etc. are all radically different.
I believe what I've said before, and I stand by it, is that SMT is the game Christians were making Pokemon out to be, insofar as you make pacts with demons, can side with Lucifer, etc.
@GameOtaku A game being sacrificed in quality just for playing it portably is the ridiculous stance here. The fact that you're actually advocating for a game to look and perform worse just because you want it on your preferred platform helps literally no one. That's an incredibly misguided take to have. I'm getting the impression you only take this stance because you only own a Switch. Only owning a Switch is fine, but if you're actually so biased towards that platform that you'd willingly pay full price for a bastardized native conversion of a game that already makes the other current consoles chug just because of your precious portability is the even more ridiculous claim to make, because that's exactly why Switch misses out on so many big name titles to begin with.
@TheFrenchiestFry
Quality in what regards though. Doom and Witcher play good and look good. Nothing is lost on the pocket edition FF either you are still getting the same story only different visuals. Same with Blu-ray and dvds you are still getting the same experience on both one just looks a little bit better. It’s not as though this dev made an effort to get this game to work on more powerful hardware as as y’all have said. Cloud gaming is a scam of good money that most of us work way to hard to earn to just throw away.
I’ve been portable only for the last 2 gens (ds,psp, 3ds and vita)and now Switch. You can’t update a console that requires internet with no internet service available.
@GameOtaku DOOM and Witcher are serviceable for what they are, but far from the best way to play but it's fine. FFXV Pocket Edition is DEFINITELY not a good way to play the game considering it's too fundamentally different in gameplay and structure. It can't even be considered a good alternative to just playing the actual full version of the game considering it loses pretty much everything that made XV a unique entry in the series. Pocket Edition is so radically different from the main entry it can't even be considered anything other than its own thing, and it's completely watered down to the point where it's a terrible alternative to playing one of the series' most unique titles.
You can't just assume the devs didn't at least test out and discuss the possibility of a native port. If they are going as far as to say this game wouldn't even be on Switch without this method, then it's a clear indicator that they actually did attempt to explore multiple ways to bring the game considering this was probably in development for a sizable amount of time before announcement.
Cloud gaming is not really the problem. Microsoft has done an exceptional job on that front and proved it can co-exist with dedicated platforms. It's understandable people are peeved at essentially paying to have a license to play the game, but if there was no other option then this is again, a serviceable way to play the game and no one is actively trying to convert you into being under the mindset that cloud is the way things will go from here. These devs ain't lazy. If anything they're actually capable of problem solving their way around the limitations of this console very efficiently if the end result is as good as people claim it is. It's clearly not targeted towards the multiplatform gamers like me. For people who only own Switches it's completely serviceable if you don't want to shell out extra money for a new console.
@TheFrenchiestFry
Cloud gaming is not the solution. They can remove it at a moment’s notice and you could very well only be able to play it for may a day before. This model has no long term longevity. I can buy a nes game for $40 and it would still work! I’d gladly sacrifice visuals for a portable experience. I didn’t have an snes but I had a Gameboy and the Killer Instinct port of it was just as good as the SNES game.
"They can remove it at a moment's notice" - again, this is true for literally any digital media purchase you make, anywhere. Kindle books. Amazon Prime videos. Steam games. Nintendo games purchased through the eShop. Any of these can be, and in extreme cases have been, blocked or removed from purchasing customers.
We just generally trust them not to, because it would obviously be disastrous to their business to have the reputation of taking away paid content. And that arrangement has worked for almost 20 years now.
@GameOtaku The lack of permanence is the problem with cloud gaming. Not cloud gaming itself at all. In the end it's really not as different as servers for a multiplayer game or online game storefronts for gaming consoles being taken down after years of support. Nothing in terms of gaming online at all has any sort of long term longevity. Look what happened to the Wii Shop, or the new PlayStation Store which got rid of any games from platforms prior to PS4, or the servers on the PS3 version of Demon's Souls. Nothing in terms of gaming that is connected via the internet has any form of long term longevity at all and cloud gaming is literally no different than any of these other examples. It honestly baffles my mind that it took THIS long for people like you to actually start complaining about the lack of longevity in an online gaming model, because this has been a permanent sector in gaming for the better part of damn near 2 whole decades and no one has batted an eye until now.
I say, just let people enjoy things if they want to. Options never hurt anyone. I seriously think this is being overblown as hell in terms of how dire of a practice this actually is considering there hasn't been an instance of anything that is played via the web whether it be within games or a game in of itself, having any form of extremely long term longevity, but it's not like I'd want to digress back to an all physical age with no options for people who don't care about their game boxes or collecting.
Or maybe it hasn't worked, for you. Some folks still don't buy things digitally, period. But if you do, this is the same arrangement, only with the addition of your internet connectivity for the playing of in addition to the downloading of the game.
@ErraticGamer
Difference of cloud vs digital though is with digital you have access to the files natively. With cloud though you have nothing since you rely on the cloud and the game streaming from there.
@TheFrenchiestFry
I’ve been complaining about this for quite a while actually and primarily I buy physical only.
@GameOtaku Then that's a you problem. Don't know why you and a bunch of people in the comments are preaching that it's a scam and that it's a waste of money or that cloud gaming is a sin on the industry when it's literally just another option to play games, especially when games like these don't even encourage high replay value by default or are too graphic intensive to be accepted any other way.
It's completely understandable if you don't like this approach personally but it's just an option to play the game. It's probably going to be the route a lot of developers take since Switch can't handle any of these titles natively to begin with, and if third party support is to stay then it's probably the best option unless Nintendo by some miracle starts making powerful consoles again that are on par with the competition like they used to be.
@TheFrenchiestFry
An option that will not stand the test of time let alone the switches lifespan.
@GameOtaku You have access to the files unless they take them away or lock them from working, both of which have happened on digital platforms. Again, legally, it is EXACTLY the same as what's happening here. And the reasons to be confident or skeptical about it are also the same. So folks who have bought in to digital distribution for almost 20 years have no reason to fear this unless they think their connections aren't stable enough (or they like modding games, on PC, I suppose).
If you think game streaming isn't gonna hang around, you haven't been paying attention to the music industry, the television industry, the film industry, or much of anything else. The tech is good enough, and when given the option to just click a button and have a thing play with no effort or hassle in exchange for a small dip in control and quality, consumers have chosen that every single time it's ever been offered to them so far.
I actually think for games it's MORE likely for this to catch on, because if somebody wanted to decide between a Blu-Ray of Endgame or a streamed copy it was the difference of mabye $25 of media and under $100 of a physical player vs a monthly fee to Disney+. With games you're talking about potentially saving hundreds of dollars on hardware, never upgrading a video card again, never having a hard drive or a console crash on you, and being able to play Cyberpunk the minute it releases with no download delay. Assuming the tech works (and it does), it's a more attractive proposition, not less.
@ErraticGamer
The majority of the world has gone crazy. It’s far better to own a game than rent or stream it, you just have more control that way. As long as you have the files on your memory card or cart you’re pretty much set for the future. With the cloud you have none.
@GameOtaku You don't own any game you've bought digitally, that's exactly what I've been saying. You never have. Nor any movie, any song, any book, whatever. You own a license to play that game / read that book / watch that movie, and that license can be revoked. They probably won't, because - again - it would be ruinous to their business to have everybody think they're gonna lose their stuff. But your ability to download the file has no connection to your "ownership" of it in a world where they can remotely update your device to take it away or stop playing it. Cloud gaming is not a change to that arrangement. It just makes it more clear. If you were downloading games without having the level of trust to stream them, you were already operating off a false premise.
(And yes, you individually might be able to never connect your device to the internet again, and thereby preserve the things you've downloaded in perpetuity. But basically nobody actually does that, and if the day ever came when they shut it all down, it'd be too late.)
@GameOtaku You literally have no control over digital games either. Those are also tied to a license that can be revoked at any point, which is exactly how services like Steam operate
Hell Nintendo with 3D All Stars and Shadow Dragon are another very recent example of how limited the availability of digital software is. You have no control over when it's going to go away, and that's all on the company controlling and distributing the game.
Another example is P.T., the playable demo that announced Silent Hills. Konami literally went as far as not only pulling the game off the PS Store, but also not allowing you to reinstall the game if you had it deleted from your hard drive, and an update which caused the game to become completely unplayable on existing PS4s. Once again, this is prevalent in more areas than just cloud gaming and I really don't get where you're coming at with all this preaching about this anti-consumer practice when there are examples of it having been done before in methods you think are totally fine and you think you have complete ownership over
Control being on Switch the way it is is totally fine, and an adequate alternative to playing the game if you just own that console. If you're so peeved about letting people enjoy the game on their Switch, I'd recommend just caving in and buying another platform since they're going to run the game considerably better and you get to own it physically
Hell you've already been whining about Persona not being on Switch so buy a PS4 and you can have both Control on a superior format and your precious Persona 5 Royal.
@ErraticGamer
Or back them up on separate storage devices.
Digital if it worked as it should we would never have to rebuy old games again. So there’s a plus at least that’s how it works with apple products.
@TheFrenchiestFry
A internet connection is required for PS4. Not everyone has an internet connection available at all times. Hence why I went with the switch so it’s easily transportable and can be easily updated. There is no way you are actually going to argue now that P5 can’t run on Switch.
The PT example is my worst fear actually taking place. We should as a community fight or legislate against this sort of thing but y’all have gotten way to comfortable in giving in to them.
@GameOtaku Not denying at all that P5 can't run on Switch but I let that go a long time ago. I got Royal on PS4 after the pandemic basically closed my school for the rest of the year, and after the constant e-begging from Nintendo fans and Atlus' Twitter being plagued by salty Switch owners I literally could not care less if it does or doesn't happen. If it happens, I hope Switch players support it but if it doesn't well tough luck, Smash isn't a game predicting prophet and you basically set yourself up for disappointment this entire time.
I'm literally just pointing out that Control is an option for people who can manage but don't have access to higher end gaming platforms, and if you care so much about owning your game physically, especially a game this graphically demanding, there are two other platforms at present, with two more on the way that will provide a much better experience. This clearly isn't meant for me as much as it is for people who only own Switches and don't care about the other platforms. That's literally the jist of it. It doesn't matter if it's cloud gaming or a digital only release or a standard release, it's an option and it's not at all indicative of every future third party release being the same way.
@TheFrenchiestFry
Control would still not be widely available. Don’t you know how many rural areas there are and other geographical locations were the stable connection required for this simply isn’t possible? It’s not going to have nearly the reach of Witcher or Doom in that regard.
The best solution I can see going forward is for devs if they want to include the switch is to develop games closer to the specs of the switch first and then bump up to the umpth degree for the other platforms. That way they would have a build ready for all situations.
@GameOtaku Except that solution obviously will never happen now that next gen is around the corner and devs would want to take advantage of the clear benefits of making their games more ambitious since their new platforms will allow them to do so.
Purposely limiting games for the sake of keeping parity with a lower end platform has just never been a thing when developing for multiple systems. Usually the less powerful console gets their own bespoke version of the game to compensate for the fact it's too meager power wise to handle the proper release, and I'd rather they not purposely downscale their games or compromise their visions just because of one platform being added to the equation. These are next gen games that deserve the next gen treatment.
Now with this being an option it no longer just has to be that way and obviously devs will capitalize on that if they aren't satisfied enough with results they get from attempting to natively convert the game. They aren't doing these kinds of releases for the sake of pissing consumers off. They want to clearly get their game on a platform this successful but feel as if attempting to port it natively if it's too intensive will result in an experience that wouldn't be worth the sacrifice since it would be noticeably worse than the other platforms. The world will eventually get to a place where this infrastructure is common enough that it won't be nearly as much of an issue. It's been building up to this point since the days of Onlive and GeForce Now, so it's clearly not going anywhere. It's just a matter of how soon "eventually" ends up being.
@TheFrenchiestFry
I don’t see that infrastructure happening our lifetime. Before we forget the switch is a next gen console. Wiiu, PS4 and xb1 were the previous gen.
@MJL Hello!! <3
@GameOtaku No. Switch is current gen. Anything released between 2011 and 2020 is a current gen system including handhelds like the 3DS and the PS Vita. Switch is not next gen by definition. Switch is just Nintendo's second 8th gen console after the Wii U.
Whatever Nintendo's next console after Switch ends up being will be a next gen system. Switch is just a current gen console that came extremely late in the lifespan of the other two platforms. That isn't even going into it spec wise because I wouldn't call a 2013 Tegra X1 Processor and 4GB of RAM next gen by any means
@TheFrenchiestFry You're gonna get carpal tunnel fooling around with GO. ☠️☠️☠️
Coming from someone else who is a sole Switch owner, would much rather have a physical copy, and has crap internet (currently live in a rural area where even call signal can be a lil dodgy), I don't inherently have a problem with this. My main gripes, like others have expressed, are price(yeah... quite a bit steep for the nature of play) and the fact that you'd hope it's a last resort effort to at least have the game decently available as opposed to a copout, ala EA w/ this Fifa legacy mess(yeah, dif kinda laziness but... ). I mean it's a shame it isn't exactly available to someone like me, but I guess at least the option is there so others don't feel totally left behind.
Speaking of portability, I play like 95% portable on my Switch since I'm on the go a bit, so, while I mayyy consider a 'next gen' system(just hate being tethered to a TV for gaming nowadays), a part of me wishes Sony would surprise us with a 'Vita-comparable' alternative to the Switch. 🤷🏾♂️ xD That thing deserved way more love than it got. :l
Streaming services in general have never been my thing up to this point though tbh(I haven't bothered with Netflix or any of that in a looong while).
@Lalivero I too really hope Sony reconsiders going back into handheld gaming in some form
The Vita was great but because of how powerful by handheld standards at that time it was, it was considerably more costly to develop for compared to 3DS content, and as a result the Vita was woefully lacking in games unless you really liked RPGs or Japanese titles in general. I hope Switch's success at least signals Sony that people still actively care about gaming on dedicated handhelds because I absolutely adored the PSP and personally considered it on par with the DS in terms of the sheer volume of content.
@Deltath 🤯🤯🤯
I am just excited to see this option out. I hope it gets supported so other companies try it out. But I agree with others here. A service Like XBOX is offering as part of the Ultinate pass for XBOX on mobile. Same idea but a Switch instead of your phone. Heck, wouldn't it be awesome if Microsoft let Switch owners buy in to say a $10 a month game pass making the Switch work like an Android phone does to stream the same games? I mean all it would mean is boku bucks for both Microsoft and Nintendo as it would all push more subscriptiins and more sales of hardware. Win win I'd think. Why should anyone with an Android phone be able to stream games but Switch owners can't? Surely tech folks could connect the service to Switch. Just a thought.
Control is now on Xbox Game Pass for Xbox and on Xbox Game Pass for Android. So you can even play it on a decent phone or tablet with Xbox controller now if your wifi is decent. Happy gaming! 🙂
I’ve had a remarkable experience on my connection today. It’s been a really great way to play one of my all time favorites. I’m down for more cloud games and I’m paying for the experience I want now.
You people and your talk about control over media is delusional. I think your stuff owns you, and not you owning your stuff.
All things fade.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...