I see where you're coming from and I think it's just that its easier to defend someone's mistakes when they also do alot of positive things vs someone who almost exclusively does shitty practices.

Tropical Freeze being $60, Bayonetta 1 not being on disc & number of late ports are totally valid criticisms but they are easier to overlook when Nintendo is also pumping out new good or great games at a pretty steady pace.

On the other hand pretty much every Capcom game on Switch has some form of controversy. They either require a download for physical version, are digital only in Europe or more expensive compared to other consoles. These are hard to defend because it's with basically all of their games and they have shown no interest in releasing any current games for the platform.

Just a random analogy, its easier to defend or overlook an employees mistakes when they work hard and put effort into their job compared to the person who takes no pride in their job and just shows up for the paycheck.

Well the fact that you even see where I'm coming from is a much appreciated start ...  

I agree that Capcom has consistently shown bad practices on the Switch, and they are way more consistent at that then Nintendo. I just do not think it warrants what we see in almost every thread relating to a Capcom game. It is repetitive, tiresome, immature, and it often feels out of touch. It is almost surreal seeing someone think that the company is "Crapcom" just because their platform of choice doesn't get a game they want, even though almost all of their recent output benefits greatly from powerful hardware. Especially when you consider how many Switch owners in the West own another platform ... I get preferences but c'mon now. And it would be one thing if people were just being critical, but often times you get comments that imply the literal downfall of Capcom based on not supporting Switch. I have seen the "putting eggs in one basket" comment more than once now, and to me it just seems like putting a hilarious over-importance on Switch. Focusing on PC, Xbox, and PS is the literal opposite of putting eggs into one basket, and it tends to come with great benefits on the software development side. Being a Monster Hunter fan I know full well that Switch fans often times do want Capcom to fail out of spite ... I remember very clearly people predicting, wanting, and hoping Monster Hunter World would fail. Sometimes it was more direct than others, sometimes it was passively so, yet obvious. (Obviously most people were skeptical of the games performance, I'm not putting everyone in that camp)

I also admit I am jaded of others negative attitudes because I remember a time where basically every Japanese publisher was getting shit from Switch fans. When people were really overly negative about Switch after the January Presentation, one of the only positive things that was consistently said was "Well ... at least it will have good Japanese third party support". I think people just expected Japanese publishers to fall into the palm of Switch's hands, and when that didn't happen people looked at it as if something they were guaranteed and inherited was stolen from them. Betrayed in a way. To me it seemed kind of obvious that Japanese companies were going to move into a direction that appeases consoles like the PS4 and Xbox One, the handheld market was shrinking and software sales kept increasing on those consoles. So I don't hold a grudge for these companies taking forever, honestly. To some extent I think this negative attitude is still prevalent or at least the after affect of it is in the Switch community. 

Obviously by now companies like Square or Bandai have gotten a lot better, Japanese publishers are stepping up, but even then it took time. Octopath released a year and a half after it was first shown, and while that was a game still in development, that was a 2.5D game. Dragon Quest 11 isn't even out yet. The only game they got out in a timely fashion was the Tokyo RPG games which are known for being pretty bleh. Square Enix did get some criticism, that isn't the point, the point is even if Capcom listened to feedback it could take a long time for it to show up. And when it finally shows, you would just get a ton of comments about how "late the port is" and that the games are no longer relevant. Even small games sometimes take up to a year to port. Tales of Vesperia took quite a while iirc. And I see no real hate or vitriol around Atlus, a company which literally gets a Smash rep even though they won't port a two year old game which is not graphically intensive, has been asked by the Switch audience for a long time, and was developed around Playstation 3 level specifications ... lol. I see criticism, maybe the occasional hateful comment, but nowhere near the outrage. This is a company that's literally supported the 3DS better after Switch's launch then the Switch itself. I doubt Sega is to blame either. That's one thing I can say about Capcom - they aren't not porting games in order to keep them tied to one platform, or console manufacturer. No, two teaser trailers for an exclusive do not make up for a much worse practice. 

More options is always better and ports would be great. But it's not always feasible, practical, timely, or worth it (yes, even with Switch's amazing third party sales). That's just a reality. What is a lot worse is that the games they do port often get terrible treatment - and that isn't excusable. Still, I've seen it from other companies including Nintendo, and I just don't think this stuff is such a big deal as to ruin the entire image of a company (especially because you can dismantle the "storage concerns" argument pretty easily - though the fact that not all the data is on a cartridge is a valid point). And in general this judgement is so inconsistently applied - people talk about wanting ports all the time and how great they are, a lot of the times ALL people expect from companies is ports. But not Capcom. People talk about how ports aren't great support or don't count as support, but then get mad when a port they want isn't sold or released in a manner they want it to be. I'm not sure that is really "ironic" ... one statement doesn't necessarily conflict with the other ... but it is kind of funny. Especially because a consistent defense for Switch's weaker months is the ports of old (often rather irrelevant) games ... I guess you can pull that card when it's for a purpose you like, and then take it away when you want to. I should mention that when I bring up Nintendo, part of the problem is not that they are getting defense or leeway because of their great games, but often people don't even think they're doing anything wrong to begin with. They don't acknowledge it at all. It often feels like a case of the critical eye being unevenly distributed. 

Overall the biggest problem is just that Capcom has a big fanbase on Nintendo platforms, mainly due to the SNES, Gamecube and 3DS. So they get rammed much harder when they don't play ball (or fuck up ports). And that's understandable because criticism is fine, but the extent at which people go is too far or often feels illogical. This is true for many companies. I will admit that switching (heh) between points about "new games" and points about already released anti-consumer releases did make this conversation a bit more confusing then it probably needed to be. But I do feel as if I needed to express this because I am the type of person where whether I do or don't like a company or game, if I keep seeing a similar trend pop up that doesn't make sense to me it really grates. It's not really about Capcom specifically, had Square not gotten some brownie points early on with Octopath I'd be saying the same thing despite not caring about their games at all. It's more about feeling a trend is just wrong. This is about all I could say on the matter ... so obviously I don't think I should need to clarify much more. If whoever is reading this thinks its stupid, you will probably always feel that way. 

That Resident Evil Origins Collection price is absolutely criminal, though. 

Im not familiar with MS's service, can you download the game onto your system and play it without having to connect to the internet?  Or will the only way to use it is for me to keep finding free wifi or hotspot my phone?

The idea is basically that it would be games designed around X1 power so it won't run on Switch with download, you'll need constant internet.

If you look at PSNow it is similar. For PS4 games on PS4 you can download and play during the time you payed for, otherwise you stream.

Ah that was my concern.  I doubt anybody would get the feel of playing XB1 on the go if you're constantly needing internet (and probably a really good connection too)

Probably best to only use MS streaming service on your Switch only when you're home.

Yep, a very small number of people would probably benefit to do streaming outside of home... Capcom had RE7 streaming in Japan and seemed to work fine even outside because of good 4G network.

Perhaps MS will work on a very decent emulator that would allow Switch to run with download on a "degraded" mode.

I think for the time being that's probably best for MS if they want to be a huge impact on the Switch.

They are a big SW company, have made good evolution on their emulation for the "BC" on X1. So perhaps with the support of Nintendo on their architeture they can make something that would allow this. I don't there is a huge chance, but well we can hope they manage to do it.

I don't like the idea of stream and not owning, but when it is the only option and you can save your datacap then It is a pretty satisfactory solution if made.

Guess you weren't on the The Last of Us Remastered thread and how much shitty Sony got for it. And it certainly isn't the case of Sony only making old ports for full price and this was a less than 1 year old and launched for 40 USD if I remember right.

I'm not sure how that's relevant