This is what you get from publicly traded companies. It's all about that bottom line. No way in hell Nintendo could ever just give us 128GB without a massive price increase because that's the standard practice in consumer tech. Storage is sold as a massive profit margin. Were they to do so the share holders would be calling for the heads of everyone involved as that's millions and millions in lost revenue just from the $3 price increase and magnitudes more lost from potential revenue from a price hike for larger internal storage. And Nintendo especially is already at odds with their investors who a large portion would rather they go 3rd party and mobile.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Various eShop software download sizes for Nintendo Switch games
- Thread starter Vic
- Start date
This is what you get from publicly traded companies. It's all about that bottom line. No way in hell Nintendo could ever just give us 128GB without a massive price increase because that's the standard practice in consumer tech. Storage is sold as a massive profit margin. Were they to do so the share holders would be calling for the heads of everyone involved as that's millions and millions in lost revenue just from the $3 price increase and magnitudes more lost from potential revenue from a price hike for larger internal storage. And Nintendo especially is already at odds with their investors who a large portion would rather they go 3rd party and mobile.
Malick[AI];230661743 said:
I misread the product code, the THGBMHG7C1LBAIL a 128Gbit/16GByte chip. Switch uses THGBMHG8C2LBAIL, which is a 256Gbit/32Gbyte module. Also it seems I failed basic arithmetic (128/8=16, not 32).
Inferno313
Banned
Haha.
Yeah, Nintendo made the 3DS spit out a warning message when you changed SD cards but it never caused any issues for me ever. Of course, they then put the card behind a screwed cover for the latest iteration so it's mostly moot...
UnemployedVillain
Member
edit: Now I'm just confused by everything
demosthenes
Member
Yup, it's like having to buy the memory card to save your game...
Broken Hope
Member
Nintendo games don't have a ton of audio for speech or high resolution textures so expect them to stay small.
outunderthestars
Banned
Thank you, I appreciate it
I apologize if I got too intense there. I get pretty heated when economics get involved lol
.
No worries at all. I just enjoy a good lively debate.
Okami Haundo
Member
Nope! It works with just two Joy-Con for basic co-op. It does however support 4 players total.
outunderthestars
Banned
This is the issue that I want to learn more about.
Megalosaro
Banned
What kind of sd card do I need
Malick[AI]
Member
Yeah, the official P/N they don't stock. This was just more of a point that wholesale IC Flash is very inexpensive, especially going from 32GB to 128GB. From a hardware design standpoint 32GB and 128GB occupy the same footprint on a PCB and the heat difference is negligible.
I am buying a Switch and have my 200GB MicroSD ready to go, but from a hardware engineering and parts sourcing perspective it seems silly to go with 32GB onboard in 2017.
I initially was going to put Nintendo on blast for this one(supposed lack of external hard drive option), even though I'm not the type to complain a lot. But after much thought, weighting pros & cons, etc, perhaps there's a bigger picture to be seen.
I'm a bit disappointed(or was) at the lack of external HDD option right now, but I'm also well aware that the whole hard drive storage concept(which would be via the dock) could potentially conflict with the messaging and main attribute of the Switch - being able to immediately switch* playing styles and environments.
This will result in Nintendo taking that option of (affordable) external storage away, but it comes with the territory, and proposition of a device such as this. Our home consoles are quite powerful, but we can't lug then around everywhere we go. But we understand that this tradeoff comes with the territory. It's no surprise that we are seeing some things we may have to adjust to, with a system that's made with portability in mind.
I also can't be hypothetical about this matter. One the one hand, I hate how Nintendo screwed up the marketing & messaging with Wii U beyond repair, but yet I do kinda want a feature that would have the same effect on the Switch? What?!
"Sorry, you can't really just grab it and go like in the commercials, cause, umm...all your Hard drive data needs to be transferred...so,yeah".
I'm sure we'd be back here making thread after thread about how Nintendo screwed up again.
As long as devs don't get too crazy with DLC sizes on the Switch, this won't be a major problem. I'd imaging that developers would see portability of their game as a big selling point anyway. *For example*; Activision would have more incentive to ensure that CoD DLC on Switch isn't too bloated, potentially hampering the concept of playing on the go. Also, are we so certain that Switch developers actually want their game potentially limited to the home use only?
Finally the more I think about it; perhaps our perspective are a bit off. Rather than hoping for an external hard drive option that only complicate the serviceability of the Switch, we should rather hope that large capacity SD cards to see a significant drop in cost. That's the real perfect situation right there, if we're honest. If Switch does good business, and SD sales & competition see a spike, that could happen a lot sooner than we think.
Tldr; Nintendo Switch storage option, while expensive now, is quite forward-thinking. External HDD storage, while affordable, would contradict the Switch & play instantly message. Nintendo not repeating another console messaging failure here! SD card prices will drop even faster if Switch is successful.
I'm a bit disappointed(or was) at the lack of external HDD option right now, but I'm also well aware that the whole hard drive storage concept(which would be via the dock) could potentially conflict with the messaging and main attribute of the Switch - being able to immediately switch* playing styles and environments.
This will result in Nintendo taking that option of (affordable) external storage away, but it comes with the territory, and proposition of a device such as this. Our home consoles are quite powerful, but we can't lug then around everywhere we go. But we understand that this tradeoff comes with the territory. It's no surprise that we are seeing some things we may have to adjust to, with a system that's made with portability in mind.
I also can't be hypothetical about this matter. One the one hand, I hate how Nintendo screwed up the marketing & messaging with Wii U beyond repair, but yet I do kinda want a feature that would have the same effect on the Switch? What?!
"Sorry, you can't really just grab it and go like in the commercials, cause, umm...all your Hard drive data needs to be transferred...so,yeah".
I'm sure we'd be back here making thread after thread about how Nintendo screwed up again.
As long as devs don't get too crazy with DLC sizes on the Switch, this won't be a major problem. I'd imaging that developers would see portability of their game as a big selling point anyway. *For example*; Activision would have more incentive to ensure that CoD DLC on Switch isn't too bloated, potentially hampering the concept of playing on the go. Also, are we so certain that Switch developers actually want their game potentially limited to the home use only?
Finally the more I think about it; perhaps our perspective are a bit off. Rather than hoping for an external hard drive option that only complicate the serviceability of the Switch, we should rather hope that large capacity SD cards to see a significant drop in cost. That's the real perfect situation right there, if we're honest. If Switch does good business, and SD sales & competition see a spike, that could happen a lot sooner than we think.
Tldr; Nintendo Switch storage option, while expensive now, is quite forward-thinking. External HDD storage, while affordable, would contradict the Switch & play instantly message. Nintendo not repeating another console messaging failure here! SD card prices will drop even faster if Switch is successful.
Gotdatmoney
Member
It definitely sucks about the storage but given it's expandable I am not too bummed out. 128gb cards run you about $60 in Canada and you can shop around for better deals as always so I while the initial memory is meh I don't mind. Just have ro be more conscious about what us getting downloaded and what is getting physically bought.
gregor7777
Banned
"Already overpriced" based on what exactly?
wonderful103
Member
Malick[AI];230664981 said:
Whoosh. Bits vs bytes buddy. It ain't 2 dollars more when you're talking bytes.
micro
Stick with reputable sources and San Disk or Samsung and you'll be fine. 128 GB cards currently have the best price per GB ratio.
Edit: or you could wait until the Switch launches and within the first week you'll see comparisons of particular microSD cards vs Gamecards, vs internal storage.
It's shinen so expect it to be small. I think the WiiU version with all the DLC still came in at under a gig.
Edit: checked wiiu version....830 megs!
What The Forest Taught Me
Member
I'm of the mind that Nintendo should be taking the short-term financial hit and providing more value for money than they have been in recent times for the sake of long-term gain (in the form of winning back consumer mindshare and goodwill). If they have to eat several million dollars through economies of scale in the short term to provide more adequate onboard storage, for example, so be it. If they have to initially sell the Nintendo Switch at less of a profit initially, or take a slight loss per sale for the first several months of the console's life in the name of increased user adoption rates against the context of time-sensitive milestones, so be it.
Not being willing to sacrifice in the short term for the sake of long-term rewards has been one of Nintendo's greatest flaws, and has contributed to the penny pinching behaviors they've been known for. Such penny pinching played a role in the decision-making that resulted in the company losing over $1 billion in between 2011-2015. Costly indeed.
With that said, however, I believe Nintendo has showed signs of changing in that regard with the Switch, such as their inclusion of the largest battery that would fit within the form factor, using a quality IPS screen from a respected manufacturer, and going away from proprietary chargers. Here's hoping the trend continues, and that such behaviors eventually spread across more and more aspects of their hardware over time.
Not being willing to sacrifice in the short term for the sake of long-term rewards has been one of Nintendo's greatest flaws, and has contributed to the penny pinching behaviors they've been known for. Such penny pinching played a role in the decision-making that resulted in the company losing over $1 billion in between 2011-2015. Costly indeed.
With that said, however, I believe Nintendo has showed signs of changing in that regard with the Switch, such as their inclusion of the largest battery that would fit within the form factor, using a quality IPS screen from a respected manufacturer, and going away from proprietary chargers. Here's hoping the trend continues, and that such behaviors eventually spread across more and more aspects of their hardware over time.
Living the Dream
Member
The ultimate problem is a mixture of a few things - small on board storage ~ 25 GB and high digital pricing. Nintendo is effectively making users who purchase digital to spend more money on games and then spending more money to be able to store such games on their system.
Fanboys will respond with - you don't have to buy digital. And sure that is correct, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that Nintendo over charges on their eshop.
I understand why Nintendo went with 32 GB as most users won't buy digital at all. However, overtime that onboard storage gets filled up with patches, updates, DLC etc. What Nintendo should do is to cut the MSRP by 20% for digital games. But we know they won't do this.
When/IF I ever get a Switch will be when Nintendo fixes a ton of their current issues and if the system is hacked, so that I can buy physical games and store them digitally.
Fanboys will respond with - you don't have to buy digital. And sure that is correct, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that Nintendo over charges on their eshop.
I understand why Nintendo went with 32 GB as most users won't buy digital at all. However, overtime that onboard storage gets filled up with patches, updates, DLC etc. What Nintendo should do is to cut the MSRP by 20% for digital games. But we know they won't do this.
When/IF I ever get a Switch will be when Nintendo fixes a ton of their current issues and if the system is hacked, so that I can buy physical games and store them digitally.
So at the end of the life system? Ok.
Living the Dream
Member
I've got a huge backlog with my 3DS, Wii U, PS4, and XB1; i'm in no rush.
Its a Japan only release
I was under the impression that they lost money recently from taking a financial sacrifice on the 3DS price cut and the Wii U initial sales, which they both took losses on to sustain those consoles.
Malick[AI]
Member
You are correct. I was looking at the wrong chip. 32Gigabytes costs $12, 128Gigabytes costs about $22. And that is non-preferred supplier pricing.
What The Forest Taught Me
Member
That certainly played a role as well, in that they weren't willing to make the short-term sacrifice(s) involved in pricing the system more fairly, which contributed to the slow initial consumer adoption that eventually put them into a panic mode of sorts. That initial adoption period can be critical, due in part to the fact that manufacturing (and likely other) costs are typically at their highest for a platform holder at that point. In other words, it can very much be a case of "Pay me now, or pay me later," and in that particular case, Nintendo had to "pay later," and were worse off for it.
While I'd imagine a loss leader strategy is rarely ever a company's preference, if one's looking to gain market traction/take back marketshare, there are worse options.
LoveCake
Member
The storage on the WiiU was in a similar situation and I got a 250GB external HD when I got my WiiU, I also got a 32GB SD-card for my 3DS when I got that, the games on the 3DS were never going to be a huge size, the WiiU issue was slightly different because it was a full home console so it wasn't really an issue to have a external HD attached, they are also not that expensive.
The issue on the Switch is more like the one with the Vita and it's propriety cards, and there is only one real choice the hugely expensive 64GB card which I also got when I got my Vita and here in-lies the problem, this storage cost has to be added to the cost of the console and it is no good having loads of SD cards laying about, you have to get the maximum card you can get from the start or one that you think you won't have to replace/upgrade and this is the issue with third party software and what could end up causing problems especially with DLC content and GB sized patches.
The issue on the Switch is more like the one with the Vita and it's propriety cards, and there is only one real choice the hugely expensive 64GB card which I also got when I got my Vita and here in-lies the problem, this storage cost has to be added to the cost of the console and it is no good having loads of SD cards laying about, you have to get the maximum card you can get from the start or one that you think you won't have to replace/upgrade and this is the issue with third party software and what could end up causing problems especially with DLC content and GB sized patches.
And PSN says 6.6 for PS4 though that wouldn't include the DLC... Still, enough space that maybe it's just better compression methods and not needing to compress some of the audio again. Nevermind if it blows up a gig due to English VA.
Sigh.
Marty Chinn
Member
It amazes me the people whining over the cost of the additional Micro SD card when they've already conceded that price isn't the highest point for them over convenience by going digital. Games already are more expensive by going digital. As much as 40% higher in price. Plus, increasing the storage of the system means the price of the system likely goes up so you're still paying a higher price. On top of that, whatever increase in storage is likely going to mean you STILL have to buy a Micro SD card so all you did was raise your starting cost of the system for everyone to just push back a little your eventual purchase of a Micro SD Card anyway. Again, the second you pick digital over physical, you've already said you're okay with spending more money to play the same games. The cost of additional storage is included with that.
This is flat out wrong. With physical you can:
- Lend games to someone
- Borrow games from someone
- Use across multiple systems easily
- You can trade or sell the game
- They're cheaper
Plus all networks don't need to go down. If Nintendo ever exited the hardware business, you think they're going to keep up the Nintendo eShop service when they no longer deal with hardware? All it takes is the service you use to go down.
This is flat out wrong. With physical you can:
- Lend games to someone
- Borrow games from someone
- Use across multiple systems easily
- You can trade or sell the game
- They're cheaper
Plus all networks don't need to go down. If Nintendo ever exited the hardware business, you think they're going to keep up the Nintendo eShop service when they no longer deal with hardware? All it takes is the service you use to go down.
Maintenance
Member
That's just your anecdotal evidence.
Marty Chinn
Member
Umm, no, it's factually accurate.
Maintenance
Member
Sure, give me the reports then. As far as Nintendo is concerned I can count on one hand the times I found a retail game cheaper than digital here (this time, my anecdotal evidence).
Marty Chinn
Member
So did you just miss everyone buying Zelda, Mario Kart, Arms, Splatoon 2, and Mario Odyssey for $36 over the last several days? What's the cheapest price on those digitally? At a bare minimum they can be had any day of the year for $48, which is 20% off. If you try to dispute that physical is cheaper than digital, then you really don't pay attention to game pricing.
Seriously?
You'd have to try pretty hard to not see how much cheaper physical is. Unless you actually buy all your games at full price, which is just dumb these days.
With the recent Bestbuy promo, for example, I was able to preorder every Switch game I want for 2017 for about $35 each. And I'll maintain full ability to lend, trade or resell them.
Maintenance
Member
Jonneh3003
Banned
Tablet storage just doesn't go much higher than 64gb, 32gb is the industry standard.
Sure. And you do realize the US _is_ a country here, right?
Obviously we all reference the deals where we live. If your country doesnt have good retail deals, well that sucks for you.
Vital Tundra
Member
Your right, but honestly regardless of other countries and what they offer in discount services, buying physical for Nintendo games is always the cheaper/more profitable bet.
App sizes are generally smaller than what will be the average Switch title, I'd imagine.
Maintenance
Member
No, it isn't if you don't sell your games.
When is it not cheaper? I'm buying most Nintendo-published games for 50% or less than what they cost on the eShop. Just today I bought Chibi-Robo with an Amiibo for 10EUR, on the eShop it's 30EUR.
If you live in Europe, or even the US, it's cheaper in the vast majority of cases.
JosephManderley
Member
Apologies if this is daft question, but do saves go on the game card (assuming you bought a physical copy), or do they use the storage on the Switch?