I am not too young. I am probably older than you.  I am very well aware that is a digital interpretation of Block Buster, or Hollywood Video. I am wondering why people are bitching about not being able to buy a rented product. I dont think they understand there is no Switch Version. You are simply streaming the PC version. 

So you are playing on the switch with switch controls a pc game. I dont see anything wrong with it

They are at all time highs with little to no Nintendo titles, they are fine, statements like what you said are so far from the truth.

I hope this ends the whole capcom need Nintendo debate. Their main aim I presume is ps4 and mobile market. After that it will be xbox and pc. They've never done better then they are right now. People have been calling them capgods this year for a reason. 

VR mode requires more processing power than standard non-VR/TV mode.

I haven't seem anything that shows that simply by being VR it drains more processing power (although our basis of comparison is minimal since not many AAA games are made VR), but yes they need 60fps to run fine.
Let's say they tried VR mode with no change to the visuals. And instead of 60fps, it ran at 20-25fps. Sony said that 60fps is a minimum for VR, and it may not drop below 60fps at all. So in order to reach a steady 60fps for VR mode, they lower the visual quality to the point where it never drops below 60fps in VR mode.

That is a high assumption since from what I seem after you pointed first PS4 already got 60fps almost ever, and the cuts weren't so severe that it would double the framerates. I suspect it was more to completely avoid drops sub 60fps on more demanding sections and the fact that perhaps as you said it rendering in VR (which possible have higher FOV) demanded enough more that they had to cut in other portions. Although from what I saw as I said, the cuts aren't that significant and most of the complains are more likely pixel density that the person didn't quite understood.

That's seemingly why they reduced the visual quality in VR, unless you have a more plausible theory?

Also, I originally thought it was running at a rocksteady 60f on both PS4 and XBO, but I now read that it had framedrops on XBO. I don't know for sure, but if you're really curious I'm sure Digital Foundry have a video on it.

I have read the DF analysis, with PS4 and PS4Pro being rock solid, X1 dropping to 50 something in some areas but X1X being solid besides a single portion that goes to mid 50.

Then what exactly were you disagreeing with me on, based on what I said? And why?

I was disputing the level of the cutdown, first because that would show how much space was for also put on Switch and how much some complained about it even on VR.

And yeah, VR mode requires more processing power mainly because of the additional output towards two separate screens. (Your character's body is also gone in VR mode, and you only have two floating arms.)

Each of the screems is somewhat half fullHD so I don't think that is a major draw (although I can believe it takes a hit).
All I said was basically that Resident Evil 7 is designed to scale down the graphics pretty heavily. Because we see it do this in VR mode. Meaning it's not a question of whether or not it can be done. Which is often a question when it comes to the possibility of a Switch port. (At least with acceptable results)
That is the point of dispute the "scale down the graphics pretty heavily", I didn't see any indication of it being heavy and when I played on PS4Pro it was quite acceptable for ME.
And on the note of what's acceptable, at least Capcom found it acceptable for it to look like that in VR. What consumers think is acceptable can vary from person to person. Capcom may be able to make it look better on Switch than it does in VR for all I know. All Im saying is, this game was designed to be scaled down significantly. Not all games are like that on console. When they work on a game for say PS4 and XBO, they have two sets of specifications to work with. They may create a car chase with 6 cars and 2 trains colliding, and make it work on both systems.
But then they get a request to port the game to a significantly weaker device, and find that for this particular scene, they'd have to downscale the graphics so much that it wouldn't look acceptable. So they have to actually reduce the amount of cars in the car chase scene instead.
Yes there are many ways to fit the processing budget, the point is we don't really know how much scalability there is in it, and how much would cost them. I'm not ready to assume Capcom is run by morons who wouldn't see - OW we have the game already made on the assets for PSVR, just cut the fps to half and we are almost set for Switch and just decide not to do it and instead make a stream.
Just an example, but that's a plausible scenario that developers can face when porting games that weren't designed to be scaled down from the get go. For some games they can work it out. But it's not a given that it's not problematic or costly. Some people think that as long as something runs on an engine like Unreal Engine 4 that's scale-friendly, it's always a straight forward task, but it's not. It depends on how they designed the game to work.

I know, and the game runs at the highest common resolution on PS4, 1080p. Which means there's room for performance saving there as well for a potential Switch version by lowering it.

Basically, if a game runs at 60f and high resolution on PS4, chances of a Switch port are greater than say if it struggles to reach 30f on PS4 and already runs at 720p.

On that I would say we both agree. That if something runs 1080p60fps there is a possibility for a 720p30fps port (which may or may not be feasible case by case)

I often use the term "presumably" or "seemingly" as to not confuse my opinions or presumptions with fact, as if I work for Capcom.
It is an assumption, but I presented my reasoning behind it. I don't know what "that" easy means exactly, but what the port will cost isn't always related to technical difficulties but more about logistics. As in if they already have their teams working on other games, such as Resident Evil 2 Remake and/or RE8, then they may have to offload this work on a team that is already trying to meet the deadline for another game, or outsource it. Either way could cost them more money or problems than it may be worth at this particular time.
It's also possible that they want to test this cloud infrastructure for other possible games in the future, and find that RE7 would be a good choice.

Fair enough. Cost of opportunity is something most gamers don't consider, and as you said perhaps on their calculations the amount of resources needed and the revenue they would get is less than keeping their teams on current projects or even hiring extra staff.

I see. Yeah, I'm aware that people are split about these sort of things. Some accept visual downgrades, others do not. Some think the cloud solution is worse than nothing at all, others find it interesting, or better than nothing, etc.

I know everyone can't be pleased. I was just trying to look at this from Capcom's point of view, and what they may want to do, or what they possibly could do.

Fair enough. I think it's safe to assume Capcom wants to make money and expending as less as possible as any company does, and if they came to this solution they probably think this have the highest revenue or at least profit between available options.

I didn't know you hadn't seen what RE7 looked like in VR mode. I thought you were specifically asking if it ran at 120fps, and after I said that I didn't quite understand a portion of your comment, you replied with "I'm still waiting for an answer" even though I tried to give you an answer based on what I thought you were asking for. So saying "I'm still waiting for the link" even though you knew I was confused about what you were asking for came off as snarky. I usually only say that to someone after they intentionally avoid even acknowledging a question I've asked several times. And not because of confusion, but rather because they don't want to answer.
I had seem, I played a little of it (borrowed to play more). But I didn't see any comparisons. I didn't notice you were confused about what I was asking about.
Anyway, there's nothing specifically quantifyable. But knowing that the game is designed to be scaled down pretty noticeably, and there is a frame rate and resolution they save performance on significantly, makes a port look more plausible than most PS4 games that are usually the focus of discussion where we don't know the scalability, and the game already struggles to hit 30f.

But anyway I agree that if Capcom wanted they could make a 720p30fps, just needing to know how much more they would need to cut is what we don't know and it is safe to assume it could look similar to PSVR assets but in 720p.

For 1/3 of what others paid for the release on the other platforms.