-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Cloud versions of KINGDOM HEARTS HD 1.5 + 2.5 ReMIX, HD 2.8 and KINGDOM HEARTS III announced for Nintendo Switch
- Thread starter RPGamer92
- Start date
Oh man, has cloud stuff succeeded enough on the Switch that no one wants to pay to port over a PS2 game now?
Yeah this is just plain weird. Additionally I would hate to think what the ROI would be on setting up and running the cloud servers themselves, given it's a portable console and you'd be basically tethering the user to their own house to play it. The users just aren't going to see any benefits to this particular version so it's just going to become a sunk cost on SEs part.
You're talking about the CMOS issue on PS4? Because that was fixed in the last update.
Seeing people say how we need a Switch 2 or a Switch Pro for these games, for THESE games of all the games. Switch has ports like Doom and Witcher 3. Can't seriously believe kingdom hearts games are more demanding.
This is why Square can get away with the UTMOST laziness and disdain for fans.
This is why Square can get away with the UTMOST laziness and disdain for fans.
Last edited:
Honestly there isn't an excuse as to why KH3 can't have a native port. It's an Unreal game. They can scale things back.
Only reason I can see for square not bothering to port 1.5+2.5 Is that they would be unable to port 2.8 or 3 to switch either so it's better if they bundled them all together.
The power of DisneyIs is my first time i see PS4 footage on a nintendo presentation.
KH3 definitely cannot run on the Switch. The other games, I see yer points. Could be a filesize thing? Idk.
But the fact that KH3 can't run on it anyway and would need a cloud version still cements the need for an upgrade. It's needed sorely, and dumb things like this would be less likely to happen.
to play the games on PC you need a constant internet connection so even if you got a steam deck as an alternative for these games, you will still need internet.
Wouldn't making native ports cost a lot more?
I'm not really sure how these cloud version work but I'm guessing it's running on a PC server and so on the Switch you will be just playing the PC port. Hence, the PC ports could've been developed with the Switch cloud version already in mind, mitigating the costs.
Per the 20th anniversary trailer, they're selling them as an all-in-one package:
Hopefully it's no more than $60.
"Kingdom Hearts HD II.8 Final Chapter Prologue Cloud Version". It keeps getting longer, haha.
It doesn't matter, even if they released a new portable to replace their only 4 year old device, by the time it had sold enough, the argument would simply become "Well, we can't possibly port our PS5 titles, sorry, ignore all those others doing so though".
The problem has nothing to do with anything that would be corrected by a upgraded version.
Yes, and they'd sell a ton more to offset that.
Why bother making native ports of anything when you can just throw it up on streaming services by that logic.
The Switch has half as much RAM as the PS4 which probably makes worlds like Pirates and San Fransokyo impossible to run, and even then, how far would you be willing to scale things back just to get it "runnable"?
Nintendo giveth, then Nintendo taketh away
I can understand 3, but 1.5 + 2.5 can definitely run on Switch wth.
I can understand 3, but 1.5 + 2.5 can definitely run on Switch wth.
1. No, you don't need one.
2. There's a HUGE difference between an internet connection check and a constant and consistent internet connection for streaming.
They aren't suddenly going to cancel the launch and then spend a year of resources doing rather substantial work to make a port for a system that is nearing EOL. Switch would be nearly 6 years old by the time they launch if they do that.
Even if it was possible it would probably cost a lot of money- which I can't see square spending.
Putting the three in a bundle is better than offering them separately - but I do wish there was an alternative pricing model for this stuff. I'm not against paying to stream games on my Switch, for the convenience that would offer (not only to me but to developers who maybe don't have the resources to do a bespoke port) - and I did have a pretty good time with Control Cloud Edition - but the pricing is all wrong for me. I can pay £10.99 and cover my Xbox Live needs, get a pretty robust ongoing lineup on Xbox Cloud as part of that deal - or I can pay for standalone titles like this, Stadia style. If I'm going to pay full whack I'd rather just own the software - be it digital license or physical. With stuff like this I only really 'own' it until they decide to turn it off. Digital downloads are a bit like that in the sense that they're only available to me until they're not - but at least with those you've got the actual native code downloaded to your device, and you can choose to keep it there... and the hacking/backup community can take care of preservation.
I would have been in on day one, but I will not be purchasing cloud games. This is a step too far for me currently - especially as someone buying an OLED model specifically for gaming while on the go.
Honestly? I don't think they would in the long term. Servers ain't free and are a permanent ongoing cost, including the hardware that would have to be provisioned.
But of course that is until Square shut them down, and it's going to be a case of not if, but when they can actually get away with that.
so whats the major drawback of cloud gaming if you have a good internet connection? no physical and some lag, right? is there anything else majorly wrong with it?
I haven't played any Cloud games yet, but this is my stance. If I'm buying a single game it's to have access to it for as long as the hardrive/disk/card can hold the data, specially because I might buy stuff with the idea of playing years later. But if you depend on the servers then you have to be there at the moment.
Streaming works better as a catalogue as you are trading the ownership for the library access and it's the reason why many multiplayer games have become FTP as well.
Of course, if you have a good internet connection and see the payment as going to watch a movie then I can see how some people would enjoy this system. If you're like this then feel free to make use of it.
You about to get wrecked even harder by Mysterious Figure in BBS, that's what, bahaha....
I would've been interested in a proper port, but cloud? Don't need it, so I shall be passing myself.
Actually they're not ports. Lots of code and assets where lost from the PS2 version, and they had to redo a lot for the first PS3 releases. That's why some textures and models are updated too.
(Of course, graphics are still PS2 tier)
I really hope the Switch in general isn't going this way. They could have ported 1 + 2 at least instead of this cloud stuff. As someone who owns the other consoles maybe I am missing the point here and this is for people who only have Switch.
This seems like a bad move for Nintendo. Their business seems to be built on the Apple model of "it just works, the whole family can understand it" and cloud gaming is just not easy to explain to people not into gaming.
This seems like a bad move for Nintendo. Their business seems to be built on the Apple model of "it just works, the whole family can understand it" and cloud gaming is just not easy to explain to people not into gaming.
...
You mean, "bothering" to release the games the same way they did for PC and Xbox?
Only KH1 had to be rebuilt for the first collection since they lost the source code. RE:CoM, KH2 and Birth by Sleep didn't have any such issues and were straight ports.
That said, I actually meant to say PS3 ports.
Got it, ty! as a switch only guy who would play it sooner, the drawbacks arent bad then. appreciate the responses!
Oh wow nice surprise. I'm thinking nintendo is going to have a built in cloud solution for switch 2/successor.
It's not really the same thing. PS4 and Xbox One are extremely similar, very traditionally PC-based hardware. I imagine doing it for the Switch would be a lot of work in comparison. They wouldn't be porting PS2 games after all, they would be porting PS4 remasters, to hardware that is completely different. Maybe if it was really just KH1 and KH2 they would've done it, but it's a fuckbunch more than that.
I also imagine that both Epic and Microsoft paid for the privilege lol.
That would not have changed this situation at all. This is SE doing the absolute minimum to maximize profit.
Cloud is amazing, but then again, a lot of people just don't have good enough bandwiths to play the game smoothly over the Cloud.
There's also the whole thing that, well, you need connection to play it, which absolutely sucks for a portable system. Too bad they aren't straight up porting it ):
There's also the whole thing that, well, you need connection to play it, which absolutely sucks for a portable system. Too bad they aren't straight up porting it ):