In Japan, The Nintendo Switch Is Streaming Games That It’s Not Powerful Enough To Run

The Japanese Nintendo Direct housed the oddest news when the company revealed that Assassin’s Creed Odyssey will be playable on the console when it releases thanks to streaming. This cloud-based version of the game will only be available in Japan, but it raises a number of interesting questions about the future of video game streaming and its potential.

The story is too old to be commented.
zivtheawesome663d ago

bu bu but i thought the switch can run any game and if the developers don't port to it then they are lazy...

wonderfulmonkeyman663d ago (Edited 663d ago )

Enough with that.
No one's saying it can do everything the other two can; size differences alone prevent that.
But on the flip side, it is also much, MUCH more capable of running demanding games, in a manner acceptable for its size, than fanboys from the other two consoles are willing to admit it can, and who frequently lie about it or deflect whenever proven wrong.

You can see it for yourself by recalling the hoards of rejects that said Wolfenstein II wouldn't be able to run beyond 25 frames, even docked, based purely upon the kind of realistic demanding graphics the game uses.

That's not the only example, but it's the first that came to mind.
A second is that Ark: Survival Evolved is on the way to it, and from the video we have of the Switch version thus far, before whatever improvements they've made since then, it's matching the framerates of its other versions with little difference in graphics.

There's obviously going to be concessions made in some games to fit them onto the Switch, but they are, by and large, usually negligible concessions that don't make the games suddenly become horrible, like so many salty haters will try to convince you they do in every single game without exception.

And, as a blunt aside, if graphics are the foremost concern for these kinds of games, then the complainers shouldn't even be playing on consoles in the first place; they should be investing in PC's.

TekoIie663d ago

"And, as a blunt aside, if graphics are the foremost concern for these kinds of games, then the complainers shouldn't even be playing on consoles in the first place; they should be investing in PC's."

To be honest I enjoy seeing people argue against the Switch for being the weakest on the 3. It's like they completely forgot how weak the PS4 and Xbox One are. They were basically comparable to mid end PCs when they launched and struggled to hit the 1080p 60fps standard that everyone was going nuts about.

Nyxus663d ago

@ Tekolie: ...So? The PS4 came out years before the Switch and yet Switch cannot run many of the multiplatform games that run fine on the other systems. There's no denying that the difference between Switch and the others is significant enough for it to have consequences beyond just a slightly lower resolution or frame rate.

And besides, PS4 has been putting out some of the best looking games available, even to this year. So it doesn't look all THAT weak.

TekoIie663d ago


So im was pointing out the hypocrisy.

"The PS4 came out years before the Switch and yet Switch cannot run many of the multiplatform games that run fine on the other systems."

And the PS4 is in the same boat in that it isn't running games especially well either. Like I said the 1080p 60fps standard that came about hasn't held up. The system is great value for money but we shouldnt pretend it was cutting edge tech when it launched. Im not even trying to bash it just saying lets cut through the crap and just admit that current gen was behind tech wise. Affordability was the priority for Sony (and should've been for MS) rather than power.

Nyxus663d ago

@ Tekolie: When PS4 and XB1 launched they set a certain standard for this console generation. When Switch launched years later, it was below this standard, and the result is that many games can't run on it. The PS4 not being 'cutting edge' does not change that.

TekoIie663d ago


"The PS4 not being 'cutting edge' does not change that."

I haven't disagreed with that so not sure why you're arguing.

Neonridr663d ago

@Nyxus - the point here is, nobody was expecting the Switch to get every game or match the PS4/XB1 in every department. The console is the system itself and can be taken with you. Sure, if Nintendo had made a backpack that you had to carry around while playing, then sure, set your expectations. But the Switch is less than 1/20th the size of the PS4. To expect the same level of performance while keeping costs reasonable is just laughable.

Switch owners know what they are getting. So if devs are trying to find ways to get games on the Switch, then clearly they see this as a revenue stream. I mean even if only a fraction of the people support this, it's still better than 0 sales in the minds of the developers.

ChickeyCantor663d ago

>The PS4 came out years before the Switch and yet Switch cannot run many of the multiplatform games that run fine on the other systems.

Yeah I take my Ps4 everywhere with me. Bring power supply too the whole shebang. Not to forget a big ass tv and then I go into the park and play my TRIPLE A games there. Suck it Nintendo.

EddieNX 662d ago


You do realize you're comparing home consoles to a portable hybrid that's less than a tenth of the size.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 662d ago
SpeedDemon663d ago

Lol, no one said that it can run everything.

zivtheawesome663d ago

oh you should see people online when a new AAA game is announced "why no switch?" "switch?" "lazy devs wheres my switch port?!" etc. it is impossible to expect open world games like Assassin's Creed to run on Switch's CPU, of course GPU could always be downgraded, but the CPU cannot just keep going down, unless if the game that's left is only a shell of itself. with the case of DOOM, we are talking about a game fairly based around small fighting ereas, meaning significantly fewer calls for the CPU in comparison to open world games, which is also why DOOM runs on 60fps on PS4 and X1.

Thepcz662d ago

It can and does.

The matrix (ie the reality simulator used to enslave humans) was actually being streamed on the switch from the actual CPU based on the moon.

If you look closely at the jacking in chairs, they all have switch tucked underneath the seat

ChickeyCantor663d ago

The switch runs breath of the wild. It's not a power house, but at least it comes packing for what it is. I'm content honestly.

Also game engines are tuned for switch. Porting isn't even so much an issue anymore. Your point is moot.

Etseix663d ago

Breath of the Wild runs on the Wii U. One would think that the next console should have better performance and capabilities than its predecessor tho.

milohighclub662d ago

@etseix it runs b.o.t.w portable.
I'd say that's an upgrade in performance.

If you compair it to home consoles then its lacking in terms of raw power. The way I see it is the switch is a next gen DS that can also be wired into a tv.

If you think of it like that, its an impressive unit.

ChickeyCantor662d ago (Edited 662d ago )

>Breath of the Wild runs on the Wii U

you're point? I got a portable Wii U with some power to spare for other things ( as it performs better on switch too).

You guys are deliberately ignoring the portability.

Godmars290663d ago


The game's being streamed onto the Switch, which is an especially major thing if its being done on the go.

Putting overpowered gamed on underpowered systems the true power of streaming, not what MS was promising with enhancing elements on installed titles.

TheDriz663d ago

Who said that? I sources please and thank you.

milohighclub662d ago (Edited 662d ago )

I'm a ps player first and foremost and have been with no exception since the ps1 the ps4 may have shiny graphics and a wicked lineup but some of the games lately have just been ridiculously slow in terms of pacing. What I'm trying to say is graphics are not the be all and end all.
The great thing about switch is I can pull it out whereever I am, jump into a game and get my fix on some quality titles. They may not look as shiny as ps4 but on a tiny screen it doesn't really matter.
I see the switch as an evolotion to the ds, not a competitor for the home space, although it does what it needs to for a in tendon console in that area too.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 662d ago
FallenAngel1984663d ago

Oh lord this concept really is spreading

The 10th Rider663d ago

Eh, in Japan it's not that bad of an idea. The Switch is going to easily sell double any home console there. Since they have good internet there, putting games up for streaming on a handheld is probably the best way for a game that can't run on the handheld to tap into the market.

Ricegum663d ago

Shh. Don't use logic here. People don't like it.

663d ago
The 10th Rider662d ago


What does it have to do with Nintendo fanboys? Almost no one is advocating that the concept leaves Japan in the near future.

FinalFantasyFanatic663d ago

Fiber optics is practically everywhere over there, it's not really practical in most other countries.

rainslacker663d ago

Japanese ISP's provide internet for something like 90% of the population. They also have a pretty widespread wi-fi network that can be used anywhere from what I understand. one ISP has internet which is faster than google fiber.

It'll be interesting to see how well this game does through streaming. Could be a make or break concept for streaming services, but I don't see it being viable to do everywhere...although it's certainly possible that it could be made an option everywhere.

kitano1947662d ago

yep, $31 a month for my connection. 200Mbps down and 200Mbps up, no bandwidth limits

milohighclub662d ago (Edited 662d ago )

I'm in the UK got 300mps down with 9ms ping. It's my upload that's naff, 20mbs still plenty enough to stream games. I was on psnow for a while, whilst there was some input lag, it was pretty much none existent. No more so than playing on a tv with slight input lag...(most tv's)
I think it's mainly America where the internets crap.

As for streaming games, I welcome it as long as the price is right and its there as an option, not a requirement. Nothing wrong with more options.

People saying it's not good, its probably your internet, the more people embrace it the more pressure it puts on isps to increase bandwidth.

Saying there's no point in it is like saying there's no need for 4k. Yeah its not essential and It may not be suitable for your household, doesn't mean it isn't suitable for another.

The 10th Rider662d ago


The thing about the US is that it's absolutely huge. The average state is twice the area of the UK, and there's 50 states. It's literally 100 times the size of the UK. One day streaming may be feasible in the big cities over here, but it will be a long time before such a thing is viable in rural areas, if at all.

So yeah, it's definitely mainly the US . . . But they make up like 25-30% of the console gaming market so it has a huge impact on the industry.

kneon662d ago

You don't need fiber to the home for fast internet, they just need to run fiber to the street level.

I can get 1Gbps over cable, but that's mostly for marketing. I downgraded to 300Mbps after a few months as I found the increased speed was pretty pointless and not worth the extra cost. A 5GB game update downloads in under 5 minutes, my PS4 downloads a firmware update, installs and reboots in about the same time, I really don't need to pay extra just to save a couple of minutes.

FinalFantasyFanatic662d ago (Edited 662d ago )


Lucky, most Australians can't get anywhere close to that, I have 12mb connection over wireless and it's pretty great (most people here can't get even close), that's fast enough for me to enjoy online games and watch Netflix with little buffering. Although it's more problematic when I have to share the internet with other people and it does cost $74 a month.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 662d ago
wonderfulmonkeyman663d ago

Honestly, I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea of streaming becoming a bigger part of game consoles as a whole.
Not even in the Switch's case, despite the fact that it might allow it to run certain games that it would normally not be capable of running.
It just feels like it will turn into a slippery slope, with more problems than benefits, eventually...

TekoIie663d ago (Edited 663d ago )

I don't thinkitll catch on as fast as some are saying. As soon as Tlou was on PS Now I tried it on my PC and good Lord the input lag is horrible. It's not so much that streaming isn't possible it's more that internet providers aren't offering a service that allows it to be done to a consistently good standard.

Even with remote play I have input lag so it's not an ideal way to play currently. Maybe in 5-10 years things will be better but I seriously doubt any time before that.

SegaGamer663d ago

It's not just input lag that is horrible, it's picture quality too, it's noticeably poor. It's like watching a compressed video on Youtube.

I used my PSNow trial and I wasn't impressed. If it's the future of gaming, then It needs massive improvements. There are too many things holding it back from being anywhere near as enjoyable as gaming as it is today.

bloop663d ago

I think some games worked pretty well when I tried the PS now trial, others, not so much. I played a few if the DMC games and they worked a lot better than I thought they would, then I tried RDR. I've got a pretty good connection, but it was practically unplayable due to the input lag.

paintedgamer1984663d ago

While i agree with what you said about ps now, if there really is an update to download the game first and have no imput lag and possibly run in higher res and fps im totally down with that. Just depends how long it takes to download... i have pretty fast internet so even if it downloaded over night id be totally fine with that verses the state of crap ps now is in streaming the game...

kneon662d ago

I've never had a problem with PsNow, but there are still plenty of people with internet access unsuitable for game streaming. One day we'll get there, but it's still a long way off for many people.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 662d ago
rainslacker663d ago

It's not a bad option to have though. If it becomes the only option for a lot of games though, it could be bad for those that prefer digital downloads or physical formats.

It does allow for games that demand more power to be played on the system though, and considering that it wouldn't cost much for publishers to offer up games on the switch in this format since they're likely to use a universal player from nintendo, and whatever streaming service they would use for other services that do the same thing on other systems.

That being said, it'll be a long road for this to be adopted as a mainstream thing. Japan may adopt it faster than western audiences given the status of the internet in japan.

Muzikguy663d ago

I don't see it going many places outside Japan. Sure there may be a few other countries as well, but I can't see even the US getting something this robust. Our system is so far behind. Even if it catches up with time, the prices are already high so just imagine. I don't want streaming anyway for my gaming

sazselesbon663d ago

I suspect Microsoft will push the same concept with Xbox next gen, since they have this 'no one left behind philosophy'. They probably will offer some kind of cloud based streaming version of more intensive games as an option to og Xbox one and Xbox one S consoles.

Kribwalker663d ago

i believe that’s what they are going to do as well

InTheZoneAC663d ago

Streaming, where you feel like you're playing on potato internet without any thumbs

Show all comments (62)
The story is too old to be commented.