Resident Evil 7 Not Coming to the Switch

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

12 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

I am not anti-Switch. I want the Switch to succeed, I just don't see it happening if they keep following this trend.

 

I see the Switch as breaking the trend though. Will exand on this farther down. With your regular posts, it does seem that you're anti though.

 

12 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

One of the most requested remakes of all time... :\

 

Not by me, at least. First and foremost, with "the next big one" I'd never include remakes at all and second, neither old nor new Resident Evil can interest me in the slightest - I tried a few recent ones but couldn't care for them, tried the remake of the first one and hated it with a passion for its faults. I liked the first movie though.

 

12 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

My point is Capcom is hard at work at RE7 DLC right now, the RE 2 Remake, and Street Fighter V. They have little time to squeeze a lot of big projects in. If RE2 Remake doesn't come to the switch, the chances of a big title from them making it to the system are far less likely. Still possible, but less likely.

 

My point here was that games far into development have less of a chance to be ported now than games that are still early in development.

 

12 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

Yes it does need to be amazing. Nintendo needs to have enough units in people's hands to tell Capcom that players will be willing to accept the significant graphics loss and buy enough copies to justify making the Switch version. Being inferior in graphics means it won't be a version of the game that convinces people to buy a Switch, but if people already have one, it might convince them to grab the game on the Switch. It's all going to boil down to how many of these things Nintendo can sell.

 

I'm talking from my knowledge and understanding of this industry. Porting games to systems that are not selling is generally a waste of money and too many losses on one platform usually results in dropping that platform as we saw with the Wii U and Third Party.

 

So we both agree that the Switch does not need to be amazing for the purpose of big third party devs to be interested, it just needs a large enough player base that keeps buying games, however it manages to do that. My issue was with you emphasising "TRULY", like Nintendo needs to go the extra mile in contrast to PS4 and X1 instead of just having large enough numbers.

 

12 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

Problem is that Nintendo relying on their playerbase is what failed them with the Wii U. Many people moved to the PS4 and Xbox One because they want MORE than JUST Nintendo franchises. If they bank on their original playerbase, they are going to be right back where they were. They need to attract NEW players, that's sort of the problem.

 

Speaking as someone who was a Nintendo only player until after the Wii when he went to X360 and then PS4, I disagree. I agree that the WiiU was a bad move and they lost many players with it. That's why though, they don't just need new players - they need their old fans back, those who grew up with SNES through GC (or even Wii) and which did not feel like getting the WiiU. I've gone into more detail about this in the other threads but to many of those old fans, the Switch screams "FORGIVE US, WE'VE LEARNED". The DS is the second best selling console ever and the Wii is number five, those player bases didn't all get a 3DS and most ignored the WiiU. Get those players back and you're golden, and that's what Nintendo is trying to do right now.

 

12 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

Everything you've listed in terms of support is relatively weak though compared to what the PS4 and Xbox One are offering though... :\

 

And both PS4 and X1 have been out since 2013, comparing that with the support of a console that's not even out yet is not fair. The games announced for PS4 before release weren't that hot either. Nintendo has always had less support than Microsoft and Sony, they were always more about the first and second party games. This time around though they're trying to reel in more third party devs, and it shows.

[ratchetdude231]

12 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

 

Isn't that basically what happened with the PS4 though, getting a shitload of older games again? It's a good way to get a larger game library relatively quickly, and for devs it's easy because they already have made the game and can just port it for more bucks while they are working on their new games. Seeing as the only two options are getting either games exclusive to the system or games which are also available on other systems, it's not surprising that many titles of third party devs are ports/multiplatforms.

 

Switch getting "last gen" FIFA? news flash: the Switch isn't that powerful, it can't handle PS4 graphics (and that's not what its playerbase is demanding). So the thing here is that EA is bringing the latest FIFA to the Switch, regardless of having to rewrite it because of the Switch's lesser graphical capabilities.

 

Square Enix is also bringing out Dragon Quest, both old ones and the latest one that hasn't been released yet (XI), which is only coming to Sony and Nintendo on consoles.

 

Skyrim is a great game and if there's any gamers out there who didn't play it but will do so now on the Switch then it's a win.

 

Sega is bringing their new Sonic games. Playtonic will bring the new Yooka-Laylee. Konami brings a new Bomberman exclusive to the Switch. Bandai brings Dragonball, a new Taiko Drum and a new Tales. Activision will bring their latest Skylanders.

 

The only game that really quizzes me is why the Switch is getting Rayman Legends from Ubisoft, which is newer than Skyrim but has been on the WiiU already unlike Skyrim. Then again, they are also bringing Just Dance 2017 and Steep to the Switch, both of which are relatively new.

 

Sounds like plenty of big devs already providing support for the Switch, before it has even been released (let's talk a year from now and see what has been released and what has been revealed). You say "so far Switch third party support is reminding me a lot of the support the Wii U got" before the console's there, I say things are looking much better.

Unless we are considering games like AC4 and Cod Ghosts ports because the PS4 version of those games launched a couple days after the PS3 version then no. If you are referring to remasters though ( ie TLOUR, Uncharted Collection, Bioshock Collection, God of War 3 remastered) than yeah, but the difference between the Switch and the PS4 is that for every remaster on PS4 there were at least 5 or 6 brand new third party games that came out. 

 

I do agree with you that it's probably best we wait and talk about it a year from now, but so far it isn't looking good in my opinion. 

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

5 minutes ago, ratchetdude231 said:

Unless we are considering games like AC4 and Cod Ghosts ports because the PS4 version of those games launched a couple days after the PS3 version then no. If you are referring to remasters though ( ie TLOUR, Uncharted Collection, Bioshock Collection, God of War 3 remastered) than yeah, but the difference between the Switch and the PS4 is that for every remaster on PS4 there were at least 5 or 6 brand new third party games that came out. 

 

I do agree with you that it's probably best we wait and talk about it a year from now, but so far it isn't looking good in my opinion. 

 

Yes I'm talking remasters, and while you may say "but PS4 got those titles months ago", they're new for Nintendo systems.

 

It's what happens when a new console is released while others have been out for a while; a lot of third party stuff will have been on the competition already. That's why I mention next year; not just to see what has been released (and with what quality) but also how many games have been planned for 2018 with same release dates across the platforms.

 

I think it looks good, especially considering devs will have a bit more effort to port for the Switch because of the lesser power.

 

Truth be told, I ignored those cross-buy games back when I had only a Nintendo console and I will just get them for PS4 now. I'm getting the Switch for the first and second party exclusives, for the four player couch multiplayer and to play classic N64 games on the go. The PS4 will be there for the graphical marvels.

[Cynthia-Roses]

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

I see the Switch as breaking the trend though. Will exand on this farther down. With your regular posts, it does seem that you're anti though.

 

 

I'm an old Nintendo fan. Nintendo got me into gaming. I even have the buttons of the SNES tattooed on me. So I'm a long time fan that wants Nintendo to succeed. I just don't see it happening with such an odd system.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

Not by me, at least. First and foremost, with "the next big one" I'd never include remakes at all and second, neither old nor new Resident Evil can interest me in the slightest - I tried a few recent ones but couldn't care for them, tried the remake of the first one and hated it with a passion for its faults. I liked the first movie though.

 

 

We're talking about moving the system and it being a success though. Your personal interests are irrelevant. Resident Evil has MILLIONS of fans that Nintendo could use to sell more units. If they only cater to OG Nintendo fans alone, they are banking on what failed them with the Wii U. They NEED THIRD PARTY. There's no way around it, if they don't get better third party support the Switch's existing support will dry up fast. They need it because if the Switch doesn't sell enough units, then they will have a hard time convincing devs that it's profitable to make games for the Switch. It's plain and simple. This means that games you may not PERSONALLY care for need to make it to the Switch. I couldn't give a damn about Call of Duty, but I know it's a big seller every year.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

My point here was that games far into development have less of a chance to be ported now than games that are still early in development.

 

 

And that's a problem because that means the Switch will have to wait LONGER to get those big titles it needs to stay alive. Nintendo should throw some cash around to convince devs to push current projects onto the Switch to give it some more meat in its library. Right now the biggest game at launch is Zelda. They are banking everything on Zelda... Which is also on the Wii U, so you don't even need a Switch to play it. It's not a 100% reason to buy new hardware.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

So we both agree that the Switch does not need to be amazing for the purpose of big third party devs to be interested, it just needs a large enough player base that keeps buying games, however it manages to do that. My issue was with you emphasising "TRULY", like Nintendo needs to go the extra mile in contrast to PS4 and X1 instead of just having large enough numbers.

 

It DOES need to be TRULY amazing to ATTRACT those players though. The issue is that it's going to be an underpowered system. That ALREADY makes it less attractive to devs, so the only way to make it seem "worth it" is to get it in enough people's hands that third party devs make games for it anyways. Problem with that is that they need GAMES to get it into people's hands and to get games they need to get it into people's hands. Do you see the problem?

 

You need the games to get the players, need the players to get the games. They are riding EVERYTHING on Zelda. If Zelda fails to impress on the Switch they are going to have a long dry spell for the system. Most of the other big name games don't hit until months later. And with every month that passes, developers lose more and more interest on a system with a small install base. Christmas months can make or break a system, and if Nintendo isn't even up to 5 million sold by Christmas, they are going to be overlooked for the holiday season.

 

They are ALREADY at a disadvantage because they sold OUT of their original stock because they understocked. They won't have more units until April. This is bad because that's an ENTIRE MONTH they are not going to have to play catch up with Sony and Microsoft. Not a single unit is going to move in a MONTH in the West. That's a HUGE problem because they only have a few months to impress devs enough to get those big "gotta have 'em" third party titles. Every month counts, and to spend your first month on the market without selling new systems is a terrible way to begin.

 

You have to look at it from a business perspective and not as a fan or with your personal tastes.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

Speaking as someone who was a Nintendo only player until after the Wii when he went to X360 and then PS4, I disagree. I agree that the WiiU was a bad move and they lost many players with it. That's why though, they don't just need new players - they need their old fans back, those who grew up with SNES through GC (or even Wii) and which did not feel like getting the WiiU.

 

I never said they "just" need new players, but let's be blunt: Nintendo's systems sold less and less every generation up until the Wii. Nintendo has been losing fans for years. It's a smarter move to bank on making new fans rather than convincing the older players to come back, because MOST OF US have moved on. Most Nintendo fans are content with old school Nintendo at this point, and it'll be hard to entice them back.

 

Call of Duty Black Ops 3 sold more copies than Wii Us in existence. Like I said, new fans are the safer bet.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

I've gone into more detail about this in the other threads but to many of those old fans, the Switch screams "FORGIVE US, WE'VE LEARNED".

 

Learned what?

 

• They advertised the "HD Rumble" feature which is more or less another gimmick.
• Underpowered hardware.
• Low storage on the unit.
• Only 5 games at launch, the only one of consequence being Zelda.
• No achievement system.
• Now CHARGING For online play.
• Season passes.

Yeah they don't seem to have learned anything. They are doing a lot of the same crap.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

The DS is the second best selling console ever and the Wii is number five, those player bases didn't all get a 3DS and most ignored the WiiU. Get those players back and you're golden, and that's what Nintendo is trying to do right now.

 

It's not that simple. Most of those players on the Wii were not really gamers. They were casual players who have moved onto mobile phone games. You are NEVER Getting them back because they are not into buying dedicated gaming machines. The Wii was a happy accident, that even Nintendo admitted. Same with the DS which also had its playerbase fluffed with a lot of casuals playing games like Brain Age.

 

Focusing on the past is the opposite of what Nintendo should do right now.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

And both PS4 and X1 have been out since 2013, comparing that with the support of a console that's not even out yet is not fair.

 

Do you think customers CARE about fair? No. They are going to the stores to put down hard earned cash. They want the games, they don't care about being "fair" to Nintendo, they care about getting the products. This is business, and business can be ruthless. Nintendo knew the risks of releasing a new console in the MIDDLE of the cycle, they chose to take those risks, so it's 100% fair game.

 

If I'm a consumer going to the store, I am going to look at all the offerings and see who has the best. I'm not going to be concerned over who came first and who didn't, as is the average consumer. Dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. In terms of selling units, fairness won't have anything to do with it.

 

14 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

The games announced for PS4 before release weren't that hot either. Nintendo has always had less support than Microsoft and Sony, they were always more about the first and second party games. This time around though they're trying to reel in more third party devs, and it shows.

 

Not really since they are going to have even LESS at launch than the Wii U. So far all we have are promises, that's it. Many of the third party companies Nintendo announced "support" for have clarified their statements to make sure to point out that they are only "interested" in the Switch and have nothing planned currently. Atlus flat out said they were only interested in porting handheld titles to it.

 

It's not showing, it's showing that they blew out a lot of hot air, and if they can't sell enough units, it'll be the Wii U all over again. Third party will dry up fast.

 

13 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

Yes I'm talking remasters, and while you may say "but PS4 got those titles months ago", they're new for Nintendo systems.

 

 

But the PS4 got them as extra stuff, not as system sellers. They got them along with tons of new games. Nintendo isn't getting much in the way of new "gotta have 'em," AAA titles. Skyrim isn't going to change that.

 

13 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

It's what happens when a new console is released while others have been out for a while; a lot of third party stuff will have been on the competition already. That's why I mention next year; not just to see what has been released (and with what quality) but also how many games have been planned for 2018 with same release dates across the platforms.

 

The problem is the system has to SURVIVE until then. They need to give players something to do with it to convince them to invest in it for 2018. You can't release a system and then plan to release the vast majority of titles the next year.

 

13 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

I think it looks good, especially considering devs will have a bit more effort to port for the Switch because of the lesser power.

 

 

That's actually a disadvantage...

 

13 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

Truth be told, I ignored those cross-buy games back when I had only a Nintendo console and I will just get them for PS4 now. I'm getting the Switch for the first and second party exclusives, for the four player couch multiplayer and to play classic N64 games on the go. The PS4 will be there for the graphical marvels.

 

Honestly maybe you should take off your fan glasses for a moment and try to see this from a business perspective. What you JUST said there is part of Nintendo's biggest problem: They can't survive being seen as the "second" system. They need to be the system people go to BEFORE The PS4 if they want to compete. Nintendo's old franchises have lost a lot of steam, they need to adapt.

 

If they continue to refuse to adapt they won't last much longer.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

Was halfway into typing my response when I gave up. There were so many points wrong with your reasoning while at the same time you're accusing me of being a fanboy, you're just not open to reason. Not even going to bother with it any more, I've had enough of your twisted "hur hur they will fail because whatever" logic that apparently only applies to new Nintendo consoles and not any others, ignoring Nintendo's own statements and other people's opinions in the process.

Edited February 21, 2017 by BillyHorrible

[Cynthia-Roses]

1 minute ago, BillyHorrible said:

Was halfway into typing my response when I gave up. There were so many points wrong with your reasoning while at the same time you're accusing me of being a fanboy, you're just not open to reason. Not even going to bother with it any more, I've had enough of your twisted "hur hur they will fail because whatever" logic that apparently only applies to new Nintendo consoles and not any others.

 

Typical of one losing a debate, resort to saying "I gave up" to take the moral high ground, and just say "you're wrong, but I'm not going to prove it", and accuse ME of being "twisted logic" when you have not provided a counter argument.

 

Sorry but my logic is pretty sound when you pay attention to the trends in this industry. You have further proved you're a fanboy because instead of losing gracefully and politely agreeing to disagree, you have to storm off and pretend you're somehow still right despite not proving it. You are the one who has proven they are not open to reason, as you refuse to accept that Nintendo is taking a big gamble here. Sorry that you like the Switch, you're entitled to like it, I actually like the design of the system myself and it looks interesting, but I am looking at it from a BUSINESS STANDPOINT. And from a business standpoint it's a HUGE risk.

 

I don't know how you can accuse me of not being open to reason considering I have said exact words:

 

I WANT THIS SYSTEM TO SUCCEED. I do. I WANT it to be the thing that puts Nintendo back on the map! I just don't see it happening by taking these moves. Is it still possible? Yes. I am very open to the idea of somehow being completely wrong and that Nintendo just pulls it off beyond any explanation. Hell they managed to get the 3DS to sell after a poor launch by doing a move I didn't even consider and cutting the price down significantly by cutting the CEO's pay. They have pulled amazing moves out of their ass before.

 

However with how it is, it doesn't seem that feasible.

 

Sorry but the only one being closed minded here is yourself. I'm open to the idea of being wrong, I just need sound logic to prove it which you're not providing and certainly not with "I'm right, but I won't explain how" which you're doing right now. Sorry that not being overtly positive about the Switch upsets you, but it's nothing personal.

 

You could have just agreed to disagree, but you went the route of trying to insult me instead.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

I've brought enough arguments to the table in this and other threads, but you either ignore them, say I'm acting like a fanboy or weasel your way out of actually acknowledging my main points. I've discussed that the system is new often enough (so people should stop comparing the announced Switch games with the four year old PS4/X1 backlog), and that many games will be playable without the gimmicks so the old fans won't ignore it like the Wii U, and that Nintendo has said themselves time and again that they don't want to make a killing right away but that they're going for long-term gain with new gamers each month, and that the biggest draw of the Switch is being able to play on the go instead of needing an outlet like the PS4 or the X1, and so on and so forth. I'm done repeating myself for the Xth time if all you do is either ignore or misinterpret my points and say I'm a fanboy the rest of the time.

 

4 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

You could have just agreed to disagree, but you went the route of trying to insult me instead.

 

YOU are the one doing the insults by ignoring several of my points and discarding others as "fan glasses". I'm not going to go farther into this discussion if you're just going to act like that.

[Cynthia-Roses]

Just now, BillyHorrible said:

YOU are the one doing the insults by ignoring several of my points and discarding others as "fan glasses". I'm not going to go farther into this discussion if you're just going to act like that.

 

Fan glasses is not an insult. I was merely telling you to consider other perspectives. If that came off as an insult, then I apologize, but it wasn't intended as an insult.

 

2 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

 

I've brought enough arguments to the table in this and other threads, but you either ignore them,

 

 

Never have ignored them, I've always addressed them and countered them. That's not ignoring.

 

3 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

say I'm acting like a fanboy or weasel your way out of actually acknowledging my main points.

 

Never have done so, please provide an example.

 

3 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

I've discussed that the system is new often enough (so people should stop comparing the announced Switch games with the four year old PS4/X1 backlog),

 

But on a consumer level that's relevant. Do you think people care that hard about being "fair" to the system when they want X game? No, they want the game, and they don't care about the semantics. Are parents going to the store thinking "Well I have to be fair to the Switch and realize it hasn't been out long"? No. They are getting their kid the latest machine that plays the games he wants. This is business, and business isn't always fair. Nintendo knows the risks of releasing mid cycle, and they have to take those risks. I know it sucks, but sadly that will be a factor whether you want to admit it or not.

 

5 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

and that many games will be playable without the gimmicks so the old fans won't ignore it like the Wii U,

 

Gimmicks weren't the only reason the Wii U was ignored. Bad marketing and poor third party support helped kill it. Nintendo has improved on marketing with the Switch (look I am not strictly saying everything Nintendo does is wrong. See, I just praised their superior marketing for the Switch as I have done in the past), however let's be blunt: third party right now is mostly "promises". If they deliver on said promises then that's great and the Switch may be a huge success. However lots of gamers won't buy based upon promises, especially after the Wii U, and I think you can acknowledge that.

 

8 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

and that Nintendo has said themselves time and again that they don't want to make a killing right away but that they're going for long-term gain with new gamers each month,

 

And that is a risky strategy. It COULD work, but it's risky. They need a large enough install base by next year to justify those gotta have 'em titles, so they will need substantial growth to prove themselves. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, but it's going to be hard.

 

9 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

and that the biggest draw of the Switch is being able to play on the go instead of needing an outlet like the PS4 or the X1, and so on and so forth.

 

And that isn't entirely a good thing. The Vita was all about console experiences on the go and that flopped. Being portable may not be what people want. It's a coin flip at this point.

 

10 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

I'm done repeating myself for the Xth time if all you do is either ignore

 

Pretty sure I have responded to every point you've made thus far.

 

10 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

or misinterpret my points

 

No, I've taken all your points verbatim. I haven't misrepresented a single thing you've said. Again, point to examples please.

 

11 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

and say I'm a fanboy the rest of the time.

 

 

Literally never said that. Said you need to take off your fan glasses, which means you need to look at it from the perspective of an outsider looking in. Never said you were a fanboy, though to be honest your little temper tantrum is starting to make you look like one.

 

Again: proof?

[SolidJD]

On 25/01/2017 at 9:50 AM, BillyHorrible said:

There hasn't been a Resident Evil game on a NIntendo console or handheld since Revelations five years ago. There have been three other RE games that weren't on Nintendo so I don't see why RE7 not coming to Switch is a big surprise.

It's a big surprise as one of the Switch's selling points is that it has big third party support with big games like Skyrim etc... 

 

To be fair, even if this came to the Switch, I would not play it on that console. I enjoy my experience on the PS4 and if I was to replay the game again after completing it I would do so on the PS4. 

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

5 minutes ago, SolidJD said:

It's a big surprise as one of the Switch's selling points is that it has big third party support with big games like Skyrim etc... 

 

RE7 was out before the Switch was though. Either the Switch is at fault for getting games that have been released for other consoles already, or the Switch is at fault for not getting them, there's no winning in these conversations.

 

I'd say that IF we see a Resident Evil appear on the Switch, it will be a new one, not RE7 or some remake. Though you'd think that RE7 wouldn't be hard to port as they already have made downgraded graphics for PSVR...

 

5 minutes ago, SolidJD said:

To be fair, even if this came to the Switch, I would not play it on that console. I enjoy my experience on the PS4 and if I was to replay the game again after completing it I would do so on the PS4. 

 

Personally I will keep the PS4 active as well. I will play most cross-buys on the PS4, most non-Nintendo that I really want to play is Assassin's Creed / anything Rockstar / anything Rocksteady anyway and I want to have the full versions, I still remember my experiences with Force Unleashed on both the Wii and the X360 - it was one of the last games I played on the Wii and one of the main motivators to getting a different console alongside it, the other argument was being able to play GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption and the likes.

 

Yooka-Laylee though might be one of the games for which I make an exception, it just feels right to get it for a Nintendo console.

 

Would you recommend RE7 to someone who didn't enjoy previous entries in the franchise? I recently tried the original when it was on PS+ and hated it, I've dabbled in a few other titles before but never really got into it. I'm really into horror in general though, I loved Alien Isolation for instance.

[SolidJD]

1 minute ago, BillyHorrible said:

Would you recommend RE7 to someone who didn't enjoy previous entries in the franchise? I recently tried the original when it was on PS+ and hated it, I've dabbled in a few other titles before but never really got into it. I'm really into horror in general though, I loved Alien Isolation for instance.

 

Yes. I would recommend it for sure

[Cynthia-Roses]

Just now, BillyHorrible said:

RE7 was out before the Switch was though. Either the Switch is at fault for getting games that have been released for other consoles already, or the Switch is at fault for not getting them, there's no winning in these conversations.

 

There is, Nintendo could buy to get these games on the system.

 

Also this is the risk of releasing mid-cycle. Nintendo knew that risk and decided to take it.

 

1 minute ago, BillyHorrible said:

I'd say that IF we see a Resident Evil appear on the Switch, it will be a new one, not RE7 or some remake. Though you'd think that RE7 wouldn't be hard to port as they already have made downgraded graphics for PSVR...

 

 

Switch's hardware is significantly less powerful.

 

2 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

Would you recommend RE7 to someone who didn't enjoy previous entries in the franchise? I recently tried the original when it was on PS+ and hated it, I've dabbled in a few other titles before but never really got into it. I'm really into horror in general though, I loved Alien Isolation for instance.

 

Yes it's a totally new experience.

[dmsleight]

1 hour ago, SolidJD said:

To be fair, even if this came to the Switch, I would not play it on that console. I enjoy my experience on the PS4 and if I was to replay the game again after completing it I would do so on the PS4. 

In order for the switch to have a flourishing and lasting base, it needs to be able to appeal to the general masses.  Most people cant/wont buy 2 consoles.  So, while they do have a big draw with their 1st party games, they get killed by not having general games that sell big, e.g. sports games (madden) and fps (cod) and other big name, wide market appeals (RE, RDR, AC, GTA, etc, etc...).  For the vast majority of gamers, casual or otherwise, Switch must have these games.  It is unsustainable otherwise.  People wont want to miss out or be unable to play certain games or have poor representation of a particular genre because of the console they own.  PS/Xbox have wide and deep support bases.  It doesn't even matter as much if a particular game isn't as good looking etc as another console (to a point) so long as people can play it.  Don't make people buy 2 consoles, you will lose!

 

 

[ShonenCat]

It is a real shame that RE7 will not be on the Switch. I can't say I'm too shocked though

Edited February 24, 2017 by ShonenCat
Typo