PS4 and XBO force game installs, that's why they have to ship with 500GB+. We've been over this.
-
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.
Nintendo details how physical games bigger than 32GB will work on Switch
- Thread starter Atheerios
- Start date
Gamezone
Gold Member
I don't see the issue with people calling them out over this. I also don't get why this should be allowed by Nintendo, as it ruins the point of having physical media.
This isn't a really a big deal anyway. IGN with all their knowledge are basing their information on a physical box with a digital code inside it. They should really have contacted the publisher before spreading flase rumors. It's well known that the cartridge release got delayed.
There's no information on a digital code in a physical box SKU. No such version has been announced or listed at retailers.
Why is so much people okay with that ? It's horrible ! They shouldn't have the option to have games bigger than 32 GB if it's the alternative ! Why should i take another micro SD card to be able to play all games ? I don't care if "later" more than 32 GB games is available on card, i only care about what's happening right now.
People still are so understandable of Nintendo that i really don't understand. And i thought i was the hardcore fan with the Wii U....
Edit : AND that game in the OP isn't EVEN 32 GB. So we already have editor using the system for bad ends..... Outch.
Edit 2 : And a good Micro SD with 128 Go is like 60$ right now, it's NOT "dirt cheap" either.
People still are so understandable of Nintendo that i really don't understand. And i thought i was the hardcore fan with the Wii U....
Edit : AND that game in the OP isn't EVEN 32 GB. So we already have editor using the system for bad ends..... Outch.
Edit 2 : And a good Micro SD with 128 Go is like 60$ right now, it's NOT "dirt cheap" either.
frankie_baby
Member
Then just get a 32gb card to give your system a bit of a top up if you want that certainly is dirt cheap, its all about options
And maybe not having enough place for everything at the end of the day ? I don't like your options...
It's so strange to see everyone so understandable for everything related to the Switch... Not Nintendo, just the Switch.
Look, I have nearly all of the Switch games installed on my SD card and theres still like 50GB left, I don't remember paying more than $30 for it either. You need an SD card. 64GB should be fine, especially if you already have a sum of physical games.
Well i HOPE so, the Switch isn't even one year old ! It would be an incredible shame to not see all of your Switch games not being held by a 64 GB SD Card !
The point being, if you have a large collection of physical games, you should have the storage already available.
The point is that we shouldn't have to download game data to complete the game. When I open a physical copy of a game, put it in, I want to be able to play it. I don't want to have to download MORE of the game just to have a complete game. It's not a storage issue at all.
Why did developers remove the ability to store games on the cartridge instead of the system? When you pay $300 for a console why are you expected to get SD cards considering they are limited on space, even moreso than a hard drive. Store the data on the cartridge and work on actually compressing DLC that's shoveled onto systems.
It is an issue, primarily because if you own more than 20 games on your Switch in the future and each one downloads information on your SD card (say, for example 5GB per game), you have to have an SD card that's larger than 100GB. The more games you own, the more space you need to have.
And don't start with the "delete older games on your system." That is not the responsibility of the consumer.
It is an issue, primarily because if you own more than 20 games on your Switch in the future and each one downloads information on your SD card (say, for example 5GB per game), you have to have an SD card that's larger than 100GB. The more games you own, the more space you need to have.
And don't start with the "delete older games on your system." That is not the responsibility of the consumer.
frankie_baby
Member
And there's the keyword "maybe" well it either is or isnt, if it is go witg a small card if it isnt go with a big one, we live in a digital world, devices fill up
EventHorizon
Member
The Switch requires you to buy extra storage just to play a single game. That is a big difference than needing to buy extra storage if you want a selection of more than 6-7 games at one time.
Here is the fundamental problem for the Switch. If the Switch wants to even be in the running for modern popular versions of 3rd party games that run on the PS4/XB1, it is going to need this extra storage. That is one more barrier for the adoption of those games on the platform. Note that the issue isn't just one of base game size, but it also affects games that get sizable updates and patches.
This requirement will hurt sales of the games that require it. If those sales aren't sufficient, 3rd parties will conclude, like they did with the Wii, that their games aren't a good fit for the Switch and stop supporting it. Once that mindset becomes the norm, it will be all but impossible to reverse it even if larger cart sizes later become available.
The real troubling thing for the Switch is that there isn't a good solution to the problem. Requiring larger card sizes moves that barrier for larger games elsewhere, but it will still exist. The problem is fundamental to the base hardware.
A key part of the problem is that the game isn't actually bigger than 32GB. It's on a 16GB card, and it would have fit on 32GB, but the devs chose to use a cheaper card and force you to download the rest.
That IS a problem, because one day you will put the cart in the slot, try to play and the download servers won't be online any more, and the physical cart will be useless - and all because the devs cheaped out on the cart.
That IS a problem, because it isn't caused by the Switch having a small memory. It's caused by devs cheaping out on cart costs and forcing you to deal with the consequences. If the game was actually larger than 32GB, then yeah, fair enough (although that still wouldn't be ideal for the same reasons as above, but at least it wouldn't be being caused by cheap ass devs).
soldierblue
Member
Which is exactly the point dawg. If you're gonna have Switch games forcing installs...
Not that this couldn't end up being a problem for other games in the future, but can you honestly tell me that there will be people in 2030-2035 who will want to play a copy of NBA 2K17 and be upset that some unknown portion of the game won't work because servers are down?
I think you have more faith in corporations than most do. I personally don't trust them to keep the downloads up for more than 2-3 years. I agree that with sports games it is less of an issue, but I think a lot of people are more concerned about the precedent it sets.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Nintendo's fault. They should never have allowed this, and it simply makes me not wanting to buy their console.
Other than that I'm curious what is missing. When games like Halo MCC, Doom and Halo 5 have 25-50 GB patches, that's obviously multiplayer stuff that is missing, and that's completely fine as long as the full offline portion is there.
Other than that I'm curious what is missing. When games like Halo MCC, Doom and Halo 5 have 25-50 GB patches, that's obviously multiplayer stuff that is missing, and that's completely fine as long as the full offline portion is there.
The downloads for software updates which is probably how this will be handled are done on Nintendo's servers, they still have Wii updates and allow you to make software purchases on Wii and offer discounts on Wii software from time to time, and that's been like over 10 years.
As to the precedent, as the hardware spends more time on the market the price of the cartridges will go down allowing developers to have more space available to them. I think that few will go this route, and if they do it probably will be mostly limited to games with large online components.
StereoVsn
Member
No, it's a problem caused by Nintendo utilizing expensive storage format. Publishers aren't going to just give up extra profit compared to PS4/Xbone (which they kind of already are giving up due to cart cost). They are a business and not a charity organization.
People here would have been first to scream of the game cost say $64.99 or $69.999. Something got to give in this case. Situation kind of sucks but it's a tough issue to resolve.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Just like Sony and Microsoft allows Telltale to sell their physical discs with only one episode on the disc. Just horrible.
I can play a dozen games if not more without a micro sd card. The idea that a game can ask for more like extra storage is neither new or novel.
sechsterangriff
Member
I don't mind having to get a bigger sd card and have more data installed which otherwise wouldn't be played directly from the game cart because it's heavily compressed.
But fu** this if it means you have to download the rest of the game from the internet. At that point there's not much of a difference to a full digital download.
But fu** this if it means you have to download the rest of the game from the internet. At that point there's not much of a difference to a full digital download.
I mean, it's a helluva lot cheaper than it use to be that's for sure. Here in Australia, the land of overpriced technology I can get a 128GB SD card for $74, so I'm pretty certain in the US it'll be much cheaper. That isn't to say the low HDD on the Switch is okay, just that extending the storage is cheaper than you've stated.
I know many that have had to extend their PS4/XB1 storage capacity but at the very least they came/come with higher than 32GB storage so the issue wasn't as immediate. Hopefully with the success of the Switch and the general trajectory components have in pricing we will see much higher storage for either future revisions or the Switch 2.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Being forced to download parts of the base game in order to play single player it is kinds new...
Not even remotely true.
Switch doesn't force any install. It's reading from the game cards, not installing from a 50GB disc.
EventHorizon
Member
That totally ignores my point. If you want to play these larger games, you will have to buy extra storage. That is for a single game.
That is an extra barrier for those games. Either you must pay extra money or get reduced functionality. Any extra barrier will necessarily reduce sales. Now combine that with the fact that this will disproportionately hit ports of 3rd party XB1/PS4 games, and Switch's problems become clear. This will depress sales exactly where Nintendo consoles have historically been weak. It is not going to take many stories noting poor 3rd party games sale on the Switch for 3rd party developers to call it quits.
I say this to counter the point some are trying to make that future cheaper memory prices will solve this issue. By the time that happens, the games that would make use of them will have already dried up.
To make matters worse, I don't think cheaper prices totally solves the problem. Large patch sizes are here to stay. A large ROM cartridge does nothing to help with this. If you want to play 3rd party desktop quality games, you have to have large amounts of updatable memory. 3rd party games could try to get around the problem by including an extra memory card with the game, but that is kludgy. Once again, these games have traditionally had problems selling on Nintendo consoles. They can't afford any extra hassle.
Your point is purely hypothetical since this isn't actually the case.
Undead Fantasy
Member
EventHorizon
Member
Is this "say any untrue thing to pretend I have an argument" day? My point is not only not hypothetical, it is explicitly spelled out by Nintendo.
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
It's definitely a bummer you're technically not getting the full game on the cart, but tbf the only other game we know that launched on a 32GB cart also cost $90 at launch (whether that was all directly related to cart costs or because it was a double pack who knows).
If the choice was between a higher launch price, eating the cost of the cart, and an extra download that gamers are already used to on other platforms, it's easy to see why they chose this one.
If the choice was between a higher launch price, eating the cost of the cart, and an extra download that gamers are already used to on other platforms, it's easy to see why they chose this one.
You literally want the two experiences sold separately? Are you on crazy pills? It is a wonder that this hasn't already happened because if they did they would charge $60 for each. Not to mention this is only an issue because the switch is severely technically gimped.
D.Lo
Member
Lol at the concern trolling and false equivalences.
Even if you go 100% physical, a 500gb PS4 could be full with only 5 games due to mandatory installs. After 10 games the vast majority of people would need additional storage or to delete games.
If you go all 100% physical on a 32gb Switch, you could currently not need ANY additional storage even if you own every single currently released game!
Yes eventually you may need some additional storage if you have a few big 3rd party games like this one. But in most use-cases a physical game collection will not need extra storage or to delete games on Switch for years.
Even if you go 100% physical, a 500gb PS4 could be full with only 5 games due to mandatory installs. After 10 games the vast majority of people would need additional storage or to delete games.
If you go all 100% physical on a 32gb Switch, you could currently not need ANY additional storage even if you own every single currently released game!
Yes eventually you may need some additional storage if you have a few big 3rd party games like this one. But in most use-cases a physical game collection will not need extra storage or to delete games on Switch for years.
EventHorizon
Member
That makes some small sense to separate the two. People who want to play online by definition must have internet access. A person only interested in the single player could buy a game without any expectation of needing to connect to the internet.
None of that is to imply that it isn't a crappy solution. Online players might have internet access but also have data caps. They might have decent ping times, but crappy overall bandwidth. Finally there is the simple fact that it is bad publicity to relegate a portion of your playerbase to second class status. For many games the online mode is the most popular mode, so to require online players to do additional downloads to keep the single player content from needing it is extremely counterproductive.
ShadowFox08
Member
32GB card will make the game more expensive for publishers and gamers. FYI the game carts on switch are more expensive than ps4/xbone discs, which is why we are seeing some physical games cost $10 more for physical vs digital.
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
I don't think he meant that they should be sold separately. Devs have better tools than that to judge multiplayer engagement though.
That's probably the only logical way to the prioritize the data anyway.
They already kinda did that with the later multiplayer only CoDs, it was $40. Even if they did sell multiplayer and single players separately, there's no chance both would be $60.
There weren't really any other good choices of media for the Switch. This doesn't really have much to do with technical ability.
Gamezone
Gold Member
At least these consoles must stick to their 50 GB discs. Games like Bioshock and Batman collections was shipped on two discs. The thing with NBA2K18 could easily have been avoided, but the publishers deliberately decided to fuck up physical media on the Switch with Nintendo approving it.
I've had my PS4 for a year and my 500gb hard drive is full from the mandatory game installs. I don't have that issue of my Switch.
So can I bitch about Sony not adding 1TB out of the box since apparently I need it to play every game in the future?
Is the PS3 new?
Yeah because all that uncompressed sound really brings value to the file size compared to a portable device.
This is entirely game dependent though. My copy of bloodborne is maybe 20GB, and doom is around 60-80 (same with gta V), not to mention smaller stuff like shovel knight. Are the limitations annoying? Sure, but they severity of them pales in comparison. Dragon Quest Heroes already takes up the entire 32 gb of memory. I dare you to find a game that takes up 200.
You're also forgetting the fact that I can install a game that is over double the size of the switch's total memory size with next to no issues, because sony didn't skimp on hardware in such a way. My face will be very golden over the next few years.
Gamezone
Gold Member
When did the PS3 force this?
xxbrothawizxx63
Member
The extra disc cost the publisher pennies to manufacture, everything we've seen and heard so far about physical releases suggest that the situation is not the same on Switch. More storage is expensive. The only other title of this size cost $90. The backlash of the game being even $70 vs other versions would have been a much bigger shit show than this.