Support NeoGAF

[Inferno313]

Digital purchasing is an incredibly popular form of purchase for many people, and it is just as valid as people buying physical.

Forcing the consumer to buy external storage to fit a downloaded launch title is anti consumer because it requires them to spend more money on something that should be included in the original purchase.

As someone who does intend to purchase a majority of my games digitally, I'd rather be able to supply my own SD card of a size and price-point of my choosing, than be forced to pay an extra $50-$100 for additional internal storage that I still might feel isn't enough.

I can probably get more storage, for a better price, with SD card support than I could if the console was $100 more with 256 GB of internal storage.

 

[outunderthestars]

Digital purchasing is an incredibly popular form of purchase for many people, and it is just as valid as people buying physical.

Forcing the consumer to buy external storage to fit a downloaded launch title is anti consumer because it requires them to spend more money on something that should be included in the original purchase.

OK I'll bite. How much storage do you think should have been included before it stops being "anti-consumer"?

 

[darkazcura]

It's crazy how different the perception of allowing expandable storage is viewed here compared to phone owners. Buying a 16-32GB phone with options for expandable storage is typically viewed as incredibly pro-consumer in that market. I get that phones generally don't need as much storage if you plan on being a digital owner, but some of the digital gamers here have to understand that majority of us still buy retail. I don't want to eat that additional storage cost if I feel I don't have to.

OK I'll bite. How much storage do you think should have been included before it stops being "anti-consumer"?

And then he should let us know the cost of that increased storage being forced on everyone who wants to go physical.

 

[asagami_]

Digital purchasing is an incredibly popular form of purchase for many people, and it is just as valid as people buying physical.

Forcing the consumer to buy external storage to fit a downloaded launch title is anti consumer because it requires them to spend more money on something that should be included in the original purchase.

I'm sure people have more microSD collecting dust that a HDD. Well, in fact, I would expect that the numbers of such HDD's to be zero. People will find a way if are just microSD.

 

[BlitzKeeg]

No. Retail is still the most common way of buying games. Increasing storage and then increasing the price of the console is anti-consumer if anything. You and a few people in this thread have it completely opposite.

Just because retail is the most common way doesn't mean that digital downloads aren't a valid way of consuming media.

By making the Switch's internal storage less that what is required for a downloaded launch title eliminates the consumer's choice to purchase games digitally without also buying an external storage device.

Removing purchasing options because you refused to include more space in your base machine (space that is incredibly cheap to include btw), is anti-consumer.

People shouldn't have to buy more to make the basic functions of their product work.

OK I'll bite. How much storage do you think should have been included before it stops being "anti-consumer"?

64gb would be acceptable. It allows people to download a game or two, and also purchase external storage if they want more games installed. It's the best of both worlds.

 

[Bazry]

Lets be real, these people complaining about the system memory being too small to fit 1 game, would still be complaining that it could only fit 2 if they put 64GB in there.

 

[Soph]

I'm happy Nintendo gives me the option of going digital if I would be inclined to do so. I'm also happy I don't have to pay extra up front just to enjoy that prospect.

Gee. Options. Utterly pathetic right?

 

[Slayven]

Since Nintendo is using cards, will the cards have some onboard storage? Like they could store patches at least on them.

 

[FSLink]

As someone who does intend to purchase a majority of my games digitally, I'd rather be able to supply my own SD card of a size and price-point of my choosing, than be forced to pay an extra $50-$100 for additional internal storage that I still might feel isn't enough.

I can probably get more storage, for a better price, with SD card support than I could if the console was $100 more with 256 GB of internal storage.

Yup. And sure, Nintendo probably could have upgraded the internal storage to 64 or 128GB , but I'm not going to pretend to know what their profit margins are. Even if it costs them like $5 for the increase, that's still a lot of money if they have to sell so many Switches...they probably felt the 32GB is satisfactory for most people (most phones start at this nowadays), and that the increase in storage would start pushing that $300 price range.

I do think 32GB is a bit disappointing, but I do like that they're allowing micro SD support.

Just because retail is the most common way doesn't mean that digital downloads aren't a valid way of consuming media.

By making the Switch's internal storage less that what is required for a downloaded launch title eliminates the consumer's choice to purchase games digitally without also buying an external storage device.

Removing purchasing options because you refused to include more space in your base machine (space that is incredibly cheap to include btw), is anti-consumer.

People shouldn't have to buy more to make the basic functions of their product work.

Launch titles. DQ Heroes is two games in one. And nobody is saying that digital downloads aren't a valid way of consuming media.

Lets be real, these people complaining about the system memory being too small to fit 1 game, would still be complaining that it could only fit 2 if they put 64GB in there.

I also don't think they're the same people who'd buy Dragon Quest Heroes, it's a pretty niche title as is and it's two games in one. I don't expect most titles to be around that size, and by the time more titles come out that are that big, they'll probably have a 64GB or higher Switch available and microSD cards will be cheaper.

 

[ArcaneFreeze]

Lets be real, these people complaining about the system memory being too small to fit 1 game, would still be complaining that it could only fit 2 if they put 64GB in there.

Spot on right here.

 

[outunderthestars]

Lets be real, these people complaining about the system memory being too small to fit 1 game, would still be complaining that it could only fit 2 if they put 64GB in there.

Exactly. They could bump the storage to 128GB and sell it for $400 and people would still complain that only 5-6 large games would fit.

I sincerely don't understand how people can be this upset about a company using the cheapest and readily available portable media format for memory expansion.

 

[Diablohead]

I can see myself only using the internal space for the smaller games, zelda and DQ size I would prefer to own the carts.

 

[P90]

As someone who does intend to purchase a majority of my games digitally, I'd rather be able to supply my own SD card of a size and price-point of my choosing, than be forced to pay an extra $50-$100 for additional internal storage that I still might feel isn't enough.

I can probably get more storage, for a better price, with SD card support than I could if the console was $100 more with 256 GB of internal storage.

I agree with you. I would rather have the option to purchase standard memory cards that are pretty much guaranteed to have more storage space and less cost over time. I purchased a 64 GB card for the Switch. In a year or two, 1TB cards could feasibly be common place and at a very reasonable price.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

If Zelda is 13gb it seems like my 128gb card should be more than enough to have a bunch of games installed at any given time.

 

[ScaryShark]

Digital purchasing is an incredibly popular form of purchase for many people, and it is just as valid as people buying physical.

Forcing the consumer to buy external storage to fit a downloaded launch title is anti consumer because it requires them to spend more money on something that should be included in the original purchase.

As someone who is 100% digital now and in the future I realize my choice entails getting separate storage. It's no shock to me and I doubt it is for anyone else who wants to be digital on this system as well.

Since the Switch is going to have cards, its lack of storage space is actually less egregious to me than the paltry HDD in the PS4 and X1's that require massive amounts of disk space regardless if you are buying digital or physical media.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Digital purchasing is an incredibly popular form of purchase for many people, and it is just as valid as people buying physical.

Forcing the consumer to buy external storage to fit a downloaded launch title is anti consumer because it requires them to spend more money on something that should be included in the original purchase.

Come on man. Either you want Nintendo to release multiple SKU's with various onboard storage sizes, or you just go out and buy a fucking SD Card for $40-$70, depending on what you need.

The latter is cheaper for everyone, retailers, Nintendo, consumer.

If Zelda is 13gb it seems like my 128gb card should be more than enough to have a bunch of games installed at any given time.

I look forward to see how easy it is to remove/reinstall software from the eshop. Here's hoping you can keep downloading as you play, like on the Vita.

 

[darkazcura]

Just because retail is the most common way doesn't mean that digital downloads aren't a valid way of consuming media.

By making the Switch's internal storage less that what is required for a downloaded launch title eliminates the consumer's choice to purchase games digitally without also buying an external storage device.

Removing purchasing options because you refused to include more space in your base machine (space that is incredibly cheap to include btw), is anti-consumer.

People shouldn't have to buy more to make the basic functions of their product work.

No one is saying it is less valid. You are basically saying those who play physical games should suck it up and pay extra for a $350 Switch with 64 or 128GB storage just because some people refuse to buy a retail version of the game or expand their storage themselves.

You have this completely twisted. Allowing people to update their own storage is viewed as incredibly pro-consumer (see the smartphone and tablet market) because it gives the greatest amount of flexibility for everyone involved.

You haven't answered anyone's question about how much storage you would have liked to see and at what cost. Did you expect Nintendo to make it 64GB at $300? Seems unrealistic considering the Shield TV offers only 16GB at $200 and that doesn't come with a screen, battery, and two controllers. A 64GB Switch would have cost over $300 most likely, and that storage upgrade is not even worth it. Digital gamers will buy SD storage regardless. Now THAT would have been anti-consumer because it lessens flexibility for physical owners and still forces digital owners to upgrade anyway. Let's be real, you would still be complaining if they offered 64GB, and you could only fit like 2 games. So tell me, what is the appropriate amount of storage and at what cost?

 

[BlitzKeeg]

Launch titles. DQ Heroes is two games in one. And nobody is saying that digital downloads aren't a valid way of consuming media.

It's being sold as a singular game, so it should be treated as one. The fact that it's only 32gigs is lucky honestly. Imagine if this console had a port of DOOM.

People are acting as if digital doesn't matter and those that buy digital should get shafted storage-wise because retail is a "more popular" form of purchase.

 

[ArcaneFreeze]

This guy is just ignoring everyone who has a counter argument huh.

 

[darkazcura]

This guy is just ignoring everyone who has a counter argument huh.

Pretty much. He's completely ignoring everyone's point and pretending that people some how think digital owners are lesser.

I buy only digital. I don't see the issue. Just spend $70 on a 200GB SD card. What is the deal? If Nintendo had a 200GB SKU, you would be paying more than $70 for the additional storage.

Severel people have pointed this out to him now.

 

[Trago]

On one hand, there are a few more advantages for going physical with Switch over the other consoles, on the other, I've gone all digital with my gaming platforms. It seems like a tough situation either way on Nintendo's part.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

It's being sold as a singular game, so it should be treated as one. The fact that it's only 32gigs is lucky honestly. Imagine if this console had a port of DOOM.

People are acting as if digital doesn't matter and those that buy digital should get shafted storage-wise because retail is a "more popular" form of purchase.

I buy only digital. I don't see the issue. Just spend $70 on a 200GB SD card. What is the deal? If Nintendo had a 200GB SKU, you would be paying more than $70 for the additional storage.

On one hand, there are a few more advantages for going physical with Switch over the other consoles, on the other, I've gone all digital with my gaming platforms. It seems like a tough situation either way on Nintendo's part.

There's never an advantage over digital, except for the inevitable digital apocalypse where all networks will go down. And maybe if you love your plastic.

It would be neat if DQ Heroes would allow you to download 1 and 2 as separate executables. I think that's been done before?

 

[FSLink]

It's being sold as a singular game, so it should be treated as one. The fact that it's only 32gigs is lucky honestly. Imagine if this console had a port of DOOM.

People are acting as if digital doesn't matter and those that buy digital should get shafted storage-wise because retail is a "more popular" form of purchase.

That's ignoring the fact that it's still two titles regardless of SKU. Should I be mad that the Halo collection took a shit ton of space on my Xbox One hard drive? No, it's more than one game on there.

And games that take a bunch of space would likely not be the norm in the near future. How many announced Switch titles do you expect to be over 32GB?

 

[P90]

I buy only digital. I don't see the issue. Just spend $70 on a 200GB SD card. What is the deal? If Nintendo had a 200GB SKU, you would be paying more than $70 for the additional storage.



There's never an advantage over digital, except for the inevitable digital apocalypse where all networks will go down. And maybe if you love your plastic.

If you intend to trade in the game, then physical is the only way to go.

 

[mingo]

Those that are saying Nintendo should put more flash memory in the switch, well guess what? That extra cost would get passed onto the consumer. Its already expensive as it is. Going by mobile increment's,I've seen 64gb phones £100 more expensive then a 32gb of the same phone. So a 64gb switch will be well north of £320.00 I reckon. And what about those that only buy physical? We would have to spend more on memory that we don't need?

 

[BlitzKeeg]

I did answer the "how much would I want" question:

64gb would be acceptable. It allows people to download a game or two, and also purchase external storage if they want more games installed. It's the best of both worlds.

I just find it ridiculous that a console can come out in 2017 and not have enough space to hold a launch game if bought digitally.

I understand the arguments for consumer choice, but that argument makes the most sense in the smartphone and tablet market where you will be hard pressed to find a single app that will take up the entirety of the space on your device. At worst you will have an app that allows you to store things like songs or videos locally based on your choice and not a giant chunk of immovable memory.

The Switch is not a smartphone, so that logic does not apply.

Reguardless, I'm going to dip out of this conversation because I can't contribute anything more outside of what I've already stated.

 

[darkazcura]

I buy only digital. I don't see the issue. Just spend $70 on a 200GB SD card. What is the deal? If Nintendo had a 200GB SKU, you would be paying more than $70 for the additional storage.



There's never an advantage over digital, except for the inevitable digital apocalypse where all networks will go down. And maybe if you love your plastic.

It would be neat if DQ Heroes would allow you to download 1 and 2 as separate executables. I think that's been done before?

I mean cost would be an advantage, but I do agree there isn't some type of functional advantage of physical.

I did answer the "how much would I want" question:



I just find it ridiculous that a console can come out in 2017 and not have enough space to hold a launch game if bought digitally.

I understand the arguments for consumer choice, but that argument makes the most sense in the smartphone and tablet market where you will be hard pressed to find a single app that will take up the entirety of the space on your device. At worst you will have an app that allows you to store things like songs or videos locally based on your choice and not a giant chunk of immovable memory.

The Switch is not a smartphone, so that logic does not apply.

Reguardless, I'm going to dip out of this conversation because I can't contribute anything more outside of what I've already stated.

What you aren't seeing is that I doubt a 64GB version goes for $300. Nintendo set their price at $300 for the 32GB version..no company is eating that cost to offer double the storage when they have expandable memory on board to offer. It's just unrealistic unfortunately.

You are saying it is more anti-consumer to ask digital gamers to spend an additional $10-15 on a 32GB SD card than it is to force everyone to pay an additional $25-50 for additional built in storage. That isn't really fair.

 

[FSLink]

Those that are saying Nintendo should put more flash memory in the switch, well guess what? That extra cost would get passed onto the consumer. Its already expensive as it is. Going by mobile increment's,I've seen 64gb phones £100 more expensive then a 32gb of the same phone. So a 64gb switch will be well north of £320.00 I reckon. And what about those that only buy physical? We would have to spend more on memory that we don't need?

Yup. Just because it may theoretically cost Nintendo $5 more or whatever it is, doesn't mean it'd get passed to the consumer. They still have to make a profit. They probably figured most people wouldn't complain especially since they're allowing microSD cards.

I understand the arguments for consumer choice, but that argument makes the most sense in the smartphone and tablet market where you will be hard pressed to find a single app that will take up the entirety of the space on your device. At worst you will have an app that allows you to store things like songs or videos locally based on your choice and not a giant chunk of immovable memory.

The Switch is not a smartphone, so that logic does not apply.

It does apply since it uses similar technologies to the mobile market. We can argue all day if Nintendo should have just made a traditional console with like 500GB / 1TB HD options, but that isn't the situation we have here.

 

[RampagingSoul]

Digital purchasing is an incredibly popular form of purchase for many people, and it is just as valid as people buying physical.

Forcing the consumer to buy external storage to fit a downloaded launch title is anti consumer because it requires them to spend more money on something that should be included in the original purchase.

I mean, it was just like how everyone originally was forced to buy a memory card for the Vita regardless of physical because almost every Vita game requires a memory card for saves and such. The prices on the Vita memory cards are worse than microSD when you go by GB per dollar amount. I believe even the 3DS came with an SD card, but it was only 4 GB. I get sick of deleting stuff off my Vita, because I don't want to shell out $40 for 16 GB or $70-80 for a 32 GB. With games installing onto PS4, I have to manage my games on there too. I'm glad that they are provide external hard drive support in the next update, because that will help me out since I didn't want to swap internals when I had some externals I could use.

Either way, more storage than 32 GBs would be preferable to even me, someone mostly buying physical. It sucks that there isn't and that external hard drives are not supported out of the gate, but they said it could be possible in an update and the main reason it's not supported is how the external is attached to the dock and it could mess up the system if they take the system out of the dock when playing a game that is downloaded onto the external hard drive.

 

[outunderthestars]

Just because retail is the most common way doesn't mean that digital downloads aren't a valid way of consuming media.

By making the Switch's internal storage less that what is required for a downloaded launch title eliminates the consumer's choice to purchase games digitally without also buying an external storage device.

Removing purchasing options because you refused to include more space in your base machine (space that is incredibly cheap to include btw), is anti-consumer.

People shouldn't have to buy more to make the basic functions of their product work.


64gb would be acceptable. It allows people to download a game or two, and also purchase external storage if they want more games installed. It's the best of both worlds.

OK, let's go.

1. Nobody is arguing that digital downloads aren't a valid way to game. Hell, I am 100% digital across every platform I own.

2. Basic functionality often requires additional purchases. Every system now requires a paid membership for online play for example.

3. They are not removing a purchasing option from you. Period. Stop using this phrase as it simply is not true. You have the option to download any game digitally, you will just need to buy a memory card. That is what makes it optional.

4. 64GB would add costs to a system to add slightly more space while forcing consumers who don't need to pay for that increase in price. If the added 32 GB of space are that big of a deal for you, buy that extra space for $11. Let that sink in for a moment. You are out here fighting windmills over consumers being asked to spend $11 to reach your threshold for no longer being anti-consumer.

 

[manueldelalas]

I can buy 20 or more Switch games physical and I don't need to upgrade storage. Ever.

I can't do the same with a PS4 or Xbox ONE, unless I go to the laborious task of cleaning the fridge and redownloading data.

 

[Trago]

There's never an advantage over digital, except for the inevitable digital apocalypse where all networks will go down. And maybe if you love your plastic.

It would be neat if DQ Heroes would allow you to download 1 and 2 as separate executables. I think that's been done before?

I said going physical compared to the other consoles, not compared to digital in general. Carts are smaller, will last longer, and you can take them with you in bunches very easily. And if I'm not mistaken, patches can be saved to the carts as well. Going physical with the Switch is overall better when compared to the other consoles.

But like I said, I've moved on from physical games, so the lack on on board storage is annoying. At the same time, there's only so much they space they can add before the price gets stupid.

Again, a seemingly tough situation.

 

[The perfect Dark]

This is a handheld. 32 GB is more than enough for indie games and updates or DLC. If you want to buy all games digital you need a better SD card. I don't see any problems here.

 

[Malick[AI]]

Source? Because every other device that comes with internal storage of that type sees a $50 per 32GB increase in price.

The DigiKey catalog I have on my desk.

Toshiba Manufacturer Part Number
THGBMHG7C1LBAIL
Description IC FLASH 128GBIT 52MHZ 153BGA

Costs 11.98 for a single unit. The 32GB version was 9.09.

Internal Storage markup is Electronics Sales 101.

 

[foltzie1]

I am a little surprised that Nintendo didn't offer a second SKU level with more internal storage and 1, 2, Switch as a pack in title for $50 or $100 more.

However, given that the OS will default to using internal storage for saves and SD card storage for games when an SD card is present, I kinda like the decision to stick with one SKU.

I am curious to see what loading times off of SD are compared to the Gamecards.

 

[Gaspard]

I am a little surprised that Nintendo didn't offer a second SKU level with more internal storage and 1, 2, Switch as a pack in title for $50 or $100 more.

However, given that the OS will default to using internal storage for saves and SD card storage for games when an SD card is present, I kinda like the decision to stick with one SKU.

I am curious to see what loading times off of SD are compared to the Gamecards.

If there was a deluxe SKU it would likely only increase the internal memory to 64GB.

That's paying $50 more for $10 worth of SD card.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

64gb would be acceptable. It allows people to download a game or two, and also purchase external storage if they want more games installed. It's the best of both worlds.

You picked a completely arbitrary number and marked it as the point of not being anti-consumerist. I mean, did you stop to look back and read your post?

 

[BlitzKeeg]

OK, let's go.

1. Nobody is arguing that digital downloads aren't a valid way to game. Hell, I am 100% digital across every platform I own.

2. Basic functionality often requires additional purchases. Every system now requires a paid membership for online play for example.

3. They are not removing a purchasing option from you. Period. Stop using this phrase as it simply is not true. You have the option to download any game digitally, you will just need to buy a memory card. That is what makes it optional.

4. 64GB would add costs to a system to add slightly more space while forcing consumers who don't need to pay for that increase in price. If the added 32 GB of space are that big of a deal for you, buy that extra space for $11. Let that sink in for a moment. You are out here fighting windmills over consumers being asked to spend $11 to reach your threshold for no longer being anti-consumer.

1) When people argue that retail is more popular and as a result console storage sizes should be smaller deligitimizes digitial purchases. However, this is arguable, so I'm not going to die on this molehill.

2) Just because something is popular among other platforms doesn't mean it's okay and everyone should start doing it. For an example see the surge of microtransactions and predatory fee-to-play tactics in premium games.

3) If the option is locked behind a paywall it is no longer simply an option that comes with your original console purchase. Yes, it is still an "option", but it is no longer included.

4) I'm "fighting windmills" over customers being able to use the functions of their console without having to put in extra money. However, I see your argument and if more people want it that way then I will back down. That doesn't mean I still don't think it's right.

Like I said, I don't have anything more to add, so I'll stop bothering you guys.

 

[Okami Haundo]

So we basically have the same scenario that we did on the Wii-U. You'll want more storage from day one if you plan to go digital.

Honestly, I'm normally all-in on digital games but I don't plan to do so for Switch. I'll buy physical versions of just about everything until Micro SD cards get cheaper.

 

[calc84maniac]

I said going physical compared to the other consoles, not compared to digital in general. Carts are smaller, will last longer, and you can take them with you in bunches very easily. And if I'm not mistaken, patches can be saved to the carts as well. Going physical with the Switch is overall better when compared to the other consoles.

But like I said, I've moved on from physical games, so the lack on on board storage is annoying. At the same time, there's only so much they space they can add before the price gets stupid.

Again, a seemingly tough situation.

You are mistaken, patches and DLC are not saved to the carts. I kind of wish that was possible, but it would probably increase cartridge prices for publishers as well as loading times, so I guess it is what it is.

 

[Bluth54]

The DigiKey catalog I have on my desk.

Toshiba Manufacturer Part Number
THGBMHG7C1LBAIL
Description IC FLASH 128GBIT 52MHZ 153BGA

Costs 11.98 for a single unit. The 32GB version was 9.09.

Internal Storage markup is Electronics Sales 101.

I knew that flash memory was cheap and going up to 64 or 128 GB wouldn't be that much higher but $3? Nintendo is really screwing over their customers here. I know through the economics of scale it would cost them millions eventually but can anyone here really still support not getting 128GB over $3?
Nintendo would be buying in bulk and could probably even negotiate a lower price than that.

 

[Trago]

You are mistaken, patches and DLC are not saved to the carts. I kind of wish that was possible, but it would probably increase cartridge prices for publishers as well as loading times, so I guess it is what it is.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Lorcain]

Just like I did for my family's n3DS's, I've already purchased a micro SD card for the Switch. They're not expensive. I figure 200GB will be plenty, considering I'll buy some games digital and some physical.

I don't understand the outrage since this isn't anything new for any console or portable that isn't closed architecture. I love my PS4, but damn the storage out-of-the box is pathetic too. Some of you are either trolling, or disconnected from the reality of current gen consoles.

 

[TankRizzo]

1) When people argue that retail is more popular and as a result console storage sizes should be smaller deligitimizes digitial purchases. However, this is arguable, so I'm not going to die on this molehill.

2) Just because something is popular among other platforms doesn't mean it's okay and everyone should start doing it. For an example see the surge of microtransactions and predatory fee-to-play tactics in premium games.

3) If the option is locked behind a paywall it is no longer simply an option that comes with your original console purchase. Yes, it is still an "option", but it is no longer included.

4) I'm "fighting windmills" over customers being able to use the functions of their console without having to put in extra money. However, I see your argument and if more people want it that way then I will back down. That doesn't mean I still don't think it's right.

Like I said, I don't have anything more to add, so I'll stop bothering you guys.

Finally. Thank God.

 

[outunderthestars]

Finally. Thank God.

There is no need to be rude. He simply has different viewpoints.

 

[Makonero]

I am a little surprised that Nintendo didn't offer a second SKU level with more internal storage and 1, 2, Switch as a pack in title for $50 or $100 more.

However, given that the OS will default to using internal storage for saves and SD card storage for games when an SD card is present, I kinda like the decision to stick with one SKU.

I am curious to see what loading times off of SD are compared to the Gamecards.

If they offered a second, more expensive SKU people would complain just like they did about the Wii U that it was too expensive and hell no they weren't going to buy a "gimped" version of the console.

 

[TankRizzo]

There is no need to be rude. He simply has different viewpoints.

Just imagine if it were 128GB or even 256 with no option of adding storage, then what would his point be? Yeah, 32gb is low, but shit, I bought a 64gb card on amazon for $15!

 

[BlitzKeeg]

There is no need to be rude. He simply has different viewpoints.

Thank you, I appreciate it

I apologize if I got too intense there. I get pretty heated when economics get involved lol

Just imagine if it were 128GB or even 256 with no option of adding storage, then what would his point be? Yeah, 32gb is low, but shit, I bought a 64gb card on amazon for $15!

I would be arguing that it's ridiculous that there is a console coming out in 2017 with no upgradable storage.

I only want what I believe is the best for the average consumer.

 

[Steph_E.]

How big was Mario Kart 8 on Wii U?

4.9GB without the DLCs: I was doing some housekeeping a...and at £11 for both packs that was a bargain.

 

[ironcreed]

This is one of the things that put me off the system. I am all digital and in order to have proper storage the already overpriced system becomes even more expensive straight out of the gate. No thanks.