• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. About KH Cloud ports

User Info: ChowYunFatt

ChowYunFatt
1 month ago#41
PaperSplash posted...
Again, not the console maker's fault Square Enix is cutting corners with these ports.

If the system was powerful enough, Square Enix wouldn't have to cut any corners.
Not as good as some, but far better than most.

User Info: Mikeachu

Mikeachu
1 month ago#42
SeamusOHassey posted...
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/4/9/AAWM21AACcwB.jpg
As if we even need to go that far:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/box/0/6/8/689068_front.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/2/AAHTg3AACdmc.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/box/3/2/7/686327_front.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/3/AAHTg3AACdmd.jpg

Anything you can say about 1.5 & 2.5 applies to these games as well. They came out years ago & run flawlessly.

User Info: rexcrk

rexcrk
1 month ago#43
Megaman Omega posted...
You made an alt to shill for this?
Got ‘im.
Bah weep grannah weep ni ni bon

User Info: PaperSplash

PaperSplash
1 month ago#44
ChowYunFatt posted...
If the system was powerful enough, Square Enix wouldn't have to cut any corners.
Or maybe they're just being lazy.

User Info: IcyWind14

IcyWind14
1 month ago#45
They actually only lost the source code for KH1, so KH2 and Re: CoM are PS2 ports and BBS is a PSP port.
It's the year 20XX and Mega Man 11 is here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEjxVfWzgVI

User Info: NegativeBore12

NegativeBore12
1 month ago#46
Mikeachu posted...
As if we even need to go that far:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/box/0/6/8/689068_front.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/2/AAHTg3AACdmc.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/box/3/2/7/686327_front.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/3/AAHTg3AACdmd.jpg

Anything you can say about 1.5 & 2.5 applies to these games as well. They came out years ago & run flawlessly.
i'd argue and say that Kh1.5+2.5 are less intensive than FF10 & 12. Because again, they lost the source codes for 1 & 2, so they had to made them from scratch for ps3

User Info: IcyWind14

IcyWind14
1 month ago#47
NegativeBore12 posted...
Because again, they lost the source codes for 1 & 2, so they had to made them from scratch for ps3

IcyWind14 posted...
They actually only lost the source code for KH1, so KH2 and Re: CoM are PS2 ports and BBS is a PSP port.

It's the year 20XX and Mega Man 11 is here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEjxVfWzgVI

User Info: TripMachina

TripMachina
1 month ago#48
NegativeBore12 posted...
I don't understand this, why are people pissed at this decision SE made? like ok, we can all agree that 2.8 & 3 can't work natively there but we should agree that 1.5+2.5 can't as well. Remember, these are not ps2 games, they lost the source codes for that so they had to made them from scratch. and before square is lazy, you guys should take a look at the games they gave us in the switch (whether it's a port or a new game). So i personally think you guys should stop blaming square for this because at the very least, they gave us the KH switch ports some of us so be grateful for that

Oh how I grow tired of this defending cloud gaming rhetoric.

Look, I'm going to try to explain this as simple and concise as possible, as I've already written too much in the past about this cloud version bulls***.

KEY POINTS

  • Cloud gaming is a part of the Games As A Service business model (look it up).


  • Single-player games shouldn't need an internet connection just to f***ing play.


  • "Oh but we should be grateful..." <-- f*** NO! Company has successfully snared you just like all the other naïve consumers who barely know or never heard of cloud gaming.


  • Company has complete control over your "rental" (you didn't buy s***), it's a service, not a product. Read their intentionally long and complicated EULA to see exactly what....oh wait, nobody f***ing reads that; we just skip through it to get to the game ASAP, and this very factor is an integral part of the scheme. You agree to the EULA, and they let you play...but little do you know that you've also just waived all your rights to said company for said game (service).


  • Company can shut down the server(s) ANYTIME at their convenience for WHATEVER reason with or without prior notice, and there's ABSOLUTELY NO compensation for you. Whatever money and/or time you put in the game (service) will be forfeit, as the game (service) will no longer be available.


  • Worst thing of all is that this single-player cloud gaming is starting to become a new trend moving forward on Switch, which is bad if you really think about game preservation. If consumers continue supporting this cloud bulls***, more companies will eventually start turning to cloud gaming as a replacement for actual native-running ports. Companies can save millions of dollars by making cloud versions instead of actual native-running ports, but at the expense of consumers' rights and convenience. Last thing we need is more big 3rd parties like SquareEnix deciding to port a s***load of huge single-player PS4/PS5 games to the current Switch as cloud versions just to save money, instead of waiting for more powerful hardware to work with for creating actual native-running ports.


In my opinion, single-player games that truly can't run natively on the Nintendo Switch despite heavy optimization attempts, or end up like ARK, should simply be put on hold until more powerful hardware is released for the platform.

It is up to us, the consumers, to NOT support these single-player cloud versions, which hopefully could discourage companies to stop making them outright. It won't be easy for two big reasons:

REASON #1 - Cloud versions are MUCH cheaper to make, and the company can reduce server costs by scaling resources to match average number of active players.

REASON #2 - There will always be consumers who buy into this cloud bulls***.
"The only solution for Nintendo is to go full 3rd party since their hardware will be considered a joke even by Fisher-Price standards."
-Linetrix

User Info: NegativeBore12

NegativeBore12
1 month ago#49
TripMachina posted...
Oh how I grow tired of this defending cloud gaming rhetoric.

Look, I'm going to try to explain this as simple and concise as possible, as I've already written too much in the past about this cloud version bulls***.

KEY POINTS

* Cloud gaming is a part of the Games As A Service business model (look it up).

* Single-player games shouldn't need an internet connection just to f***ing play.

* "Oh but we should be grateful..." <-- f*** NO! Company has successfully snared you just like all the other naïve consumers who barely know or never heard of cloud gaming.

* Company has complete control over your "rental" (you didn't buy s***), it's a service, not a product. Read their intentionally long and complicated EULA to see exactly what....oh wait, nobody f***ing reads that; we just skip through it to get to the game ASAP, and this very factor is an integral part of the scheme. You agree to the EULA, and they let you play...but little do you know that you've also just waived all your rights to said company for said game (service).

* Company can shut down the server(s) ANYTIME at their convenience for WHATEVER reason with or without prior notice, and there's ABSOLUTELY NO compensation for you. Whatever money and/or time you put in the game (service) will be forfeit, as the game (service) will no longer be available.

* Worst thing of all is that this single-player cloud gaming is starting to become a new trend moving forward on Switch, which is bad if you really think about game preservation. If consumers continue supporting this cloud bulls***, more companies will eventually start turning to cloud gaming as a replacement for actual native-running ports. Companies can save millions of dollars by making cloud versions instead of actual native-running ports, but at the expense of consumers' rights and convenience. Last thing we need is more big 3rd parties like SquareEnix deciding to port a s***load of huge single-player PS4/PS5 games to the current Switch as cloud versions just to save money, instead of waiting for more powerful hardware to work with for creating actual native-running ports.

In my opinion, single-player games that truly can't run natively on the Nintendo Switch despite heavy optimization attempts, or end up like ARK, should simply be put on hold until more powerful hardware is released for the platform.

It is up to us, the consumers, to NOT support these single-player cloud versions, which hopefully could discourage companies to stop making them outright. It won't be easy for two big reasons:

REASON #1 - Cloud versions are MUCH cheaper to make, and the company can reduce server costs by scaling resources to match average number of active players.

REASON #2 - There will always be consumers who buy into this cloud bulls***.
yes but you must remember, this is the switch we're talking about. It's obviously weak (not too weak but still) to handle those games as evident with Outer Worlds & NG Master Collection. and honestly, i think Cloud based ports aren't rly a bad thing. sure they're not AS good as native ports but still a good substitution

User Info: Chipspirate

Chipspirate
1 month ago#50
^
We're talking about future switch revisions...
SW 5627-8379-7387
"Japn devs just don't actually want to admit anything and just stick to throwing weak arguments of why they couldn't do it." - yahya_no_1
  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. About KH Cloud ports
  • Topic Archived

GameFAQs Q&A