ElectricBlanketFire
Member
My Galaxy S8, released in 2017, has 64 gigs standard.
-
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.
A couple devs claim Switch patch sizes can be sometimes limited & other hurdles occur
- Thread starter Atheerios
- Start date
My Galaxy S8, released in 2017, has 64 gigs standard.
Thanks for the insight. Many people here talk about this stuff without actual knowledge of how it works
Your Galaxy S8 also retails for $900 unlocked.
and it costs how much?
RyougaSaotome
Member
Quoting this because it feels like nobody is reading it despite it coming from a dev's mouth (in this case, Lab Zero *SG/Indivisible*).
Jubenhimer
Member
I think Nintendo should add in the ability to save game data to an SD card in the future, or release future Switch models with slightly bigger on board memory (Not 500GB, but 64GB would be better). Either way, we're still not sure if this is true, so hopefully Nintendo can loosen up if that's the case.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Didn't Mr Shifty receive an update that basically cut the game's size from 3GB to 1GB? I'm guessing the Switch must support this in some way, like there are two types of updates, similar to 3DS:
1) The Switch downloads the entire app again, the new app is smaller (Shovel Knight on 3DS did this)
2) The Switch downloads a patch whose data is added to the existing app
Is this something to do with Unreal 4 then? Mr Shifty was Unity
Even if the Switch came with 64GB standard people would still be complaining because 64 < 500. If Nintendo ever does release an SKU with more storage I'd want 128GB minimum anyway (of UHS storage)
1) The Switch downloads the entire app again, the new app is smaller (Shovel Knight on 3DS did this)
2) The Switch downloads a patch whose data is added to the existing app
Is this something to do with Unreal 4 then? Mr Shifty was Unity
Even if the Switch came with 64GB standard people would still be complaining because 64 < 500. If Nintendo ever does release an SKU with more storage I'd want 128GB minimum anyway (of UHS storage)
My iPhone is 128GB and I have cloud storage through half a dozen apps ☺️
The dev quotes themselves say that it's presently incompatible with the system and that Nintendo is working to change that.
No one except the OP has accused Nintendo of implementing arbitrary blocks.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
Shitposting at maximum
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Would adding 32 GB of storage cause the Switch to increase $600 in price?
If you want third party support you should be expecting parity with at least base PS4 and XB1. It's pretty simple. If Nintendo makes things inconvenient for devs they're not porting to Switch.
Heh, I have 128GB on my phone, too...but it also cost me $900.
How is not cutting down the patch size not convenient for the player? I would imagine forcing them to release smaller patches overall would be extremely beneficials for us, especially those with hard caps on their internet connections. 20-100GB patches is just insanity, man.
They did state that support for external hard drive could come down later down the line, they would need to figure how the system would handle it in portable mode.
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
My take as well. Patch sizes are absolutely insane and devs should be more mindful about that.
maybe, there is a NAND shortage after all
Sword Of Doom
Member
720p @ 6" = 245ppi which is very high for gaming.
That's much higher than a 4K 27" screen. Out of context 720p sounds bad but in this case it was a smart decision.
Would that have made an actual difference or would we be sitting in this same thread arguing about how acceptable it is to release a gaming device with 64GB of onboard storage in 2017?
It's significantly more useful than any other electronic device you own...
It also costs $750
you mean the phone costing the double than a switch?
TheMagician
Member
How much did it cost?
Editing this post for context. Of course the iPhone is more expensive than the Switch. It's more useful in day to day life.
You can't excuse the Switch's piss poor storage because of its price.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Deep breaths, OrbitalBeard. Must resist.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
I personally don't care that the Switch only has 32 GB of storage. I was responding to the poster who said "lulz look at your phones."
I have a 128 GB SD card, and I'm not happy that NBA Playgrounds (in its unpatched state) takes up about the same space as MK8 Deluxe, or half of BotW storage requirements. NBA Playgrounds isn't a big AAA game.
On the Wii U, I had a 1 TB SSD (so that wasn't an issue). SD cards are very expensive compared to SSDs drives.
Possibly depending on component demand and being able to fit it into the form factor.
QuantumBro
Banned
The dev said they reduced the game size, not the patch size. Even with that Nintendo is still giving them trouble.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
I'm happy to admit not understanding how it works. Again, would adding 32GB cause the price to increase $600?
The poster said to look at your phone when it comes to portable storage. It was never an apples to apples comparison to begin with.
Who cares how useful something is. A raspberry pi is one of the most useful devices on the planet and it's cheap as shit.
ShockingAlberto
Member
A $700 Switch is a good idea, yeah.
I'm confused. I've seen plenty of patches for non-Nintendo games I own on my Switch. And Nintendo has clearly approved the new Minecraft update which I imagine is large since it's changing the whole engine. What makes this one so different?
And wow at people okay with massive updates and getting mad at Nintendo for trying to tamp that shitty practice down. did the devs know the rules before launch? Cause if so, then I've no sympathy. If not, well then Nintendo needs to approve this fast.
And wow at people okay with massive updates and getting mad at Nintendo for trying to tamp that shitty practice down. did the devs know the rules before launch? Cause if so, then I've no sympathy. If not, well then Nintendo needs to approve this fast.
50 GB patches are a reality for AAA games. If Nintendo wants small patches they won't be getting AAA games. It's pretty obvious to me.
(And honestly Nintendo was never going to get AAA games, but this isn't helping their case. I expect they'll be getting a lot of late ports for games that no longer need patches)
OrbitalBeard
Member
Obviously not $600, as a smartphone does a lot more than a Nintendo Switch (which goes far beyond the amount of flash memory), but, given the current flash storage shortage, it would almost certainly cause some problems and definitely raise the system's price.
My computer is significantly more useful than your iPhone, so I don't see your point?
exactly, if nintendo didnt care about sizes, they would have left the game the same size. since there are restrictions they are working on being more efficient
The way Minecraft is being handled on Switch when it gets the "Realms" update sounds like anything substantially done to the game requires a new game listing. In the case of Minecraft, the new listing is a free download to previous owners of the Switch Edition.
The game's dropping the "Nintendo Switch Edition" from the title and updates are being handed over from 4J Studios back over to Mojang AB. Either Microsoft and Nintendo came to a special agreement to waive the costs or they went ahead with a new submission + cost.
I guess the same concept applies to developers wanting to push an entirely new version of the game. If you go into the Nintendo Switch's storage management, you can see the breakdown of what the base game install size is, updates, and DLC. Patches can add to the total size but I don't see how the core game can be reduced without the developer submitting an entirely new base game for certification.
The game's dropping the "Nintendo Switch Edition" from the title and updates are being handed over from 4J Studios back over to Mojang AB. Either Microsoft and Nintendo came to a special agreement to waive the costs or they went ahead with a new submission + cost.
I guess the same concept applies to developers wanting to push an entirely new version of the game. If you go into the Nintendo Switch's storage management, you can see the breakdown of what the base game install size is, updates, and DLC. Patches can add to the total size but I don't see how the core game can be reduced without the developer submitting an entirely new base game for certification.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Exactly. The same problem is plaguing apps right now and it's not good for the customer at the end of the day.
Bad App Citizens
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
Aren't Nintendo themselves causing this issue by offering little to no backing to multiplat titles that don't release the same time as other versions.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Once again, I was responding to the person saying that phones have limited storage so that explains why the Switch, as a portable, would have a similar amount.
you say it like if we should accept 50 gigs patches, holy shit
The switch was never intended to be a practical or useful device
Astral Dog
Member
Another ignorant comment about the screen we should be past this
I don't think they have to be a reality, but there are no real checks on the size of these things and they're out of control. Putting some caps on this when internet providers are putting hard caps on downloading (Comcast just did this in my area recently) is good for us...the consumer.
And even so, it says in the OP that Nintendo waived the size issue, there must be something else going on as to why the patch hasn't been released. I think we all need to keep that in mind, too.
In general, I like the idea of there being restrictions, limits and difficulties with patches. Patches seem to get abused these days to 'meet' deadlines by shipping incomplete products. In the case from the op, I'll preface that I'm not too informed, but they're saying that essential elements (online mode?) are missing from the initial release? The real issue seems to be their publisher giving the greenlight and forcing the game to release too early.
But, as much as I dislike patches (that aren't critical bugfixes), they're the reality we live in. Would be great if it encouraged creators to release products that were more complete. Given the landscape though, what it will actually do is prevent Switch players from getting game enhancements, and discourage third parties from even doing Switch ports. So in that sense, yeah, seems like a pretty dumb rule. But there are probably also tech aspects that deal with how the system handles games or something.
But, as much as I dislike patches (that aren't critical bugfixes), they're the reality we live in. Would be great if it encouraged creators to release products that were more complete. Given the landscape though, what it will actually do is prevent Switch players from getting game enhancements, and discourage third parties from even doing Switch ports. So in that sense, yeah, seems like a pretty dumb rule. But there are probably also tech aspects that deal with how the system handles games or something.
clarknova156
Member
Nintendo doing Nintendo. Making dumb choice after dumb choice. I love my Switch but seriously even the Wii U didn't have this issue. Now Nintendo is going to be stricter with patch approval? What fucking year is it?
Nintendo should just experiment with the idea of being reasonable at this point. But I guess that as usual doesn't matter to them.
Why are developers still surprised by Nintendo's overall attitude towards them is the part that baffles me. They've been doing this shit on and off forever.
Nintendo should just experiment with the idea of being reasonable at this point. But I guess that as usual doesn't matter to them.
Why are developers still surprised by Nintendo's overall attitude towards them is the part that baffles me. They've been doing this shit on and off forever.