• 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

D

Distresssss

Member
Alright let's go ahead and put a mechanical 5400rpm or 7200rpm drive in the Switch and see how fast the OS is then.


Nintendo went with flash memory for a variety of reasons and that's one of them. The console being an on the go machine is another. HDDs would wear out so fast and they go bad faster.


They could (and should have) had the base model at 64GB but I don't make those decisions. MicroSD isn't super expensive if you need a little more storage.


Physical games are a better value proposition for anything above 6GB in size due to load times, reselling ability and being able to share games with friends.


That's really about all I have for this topic.

I guess Mario Kart is bigger on the Switch due to the battle mode stuff and possible texture improvements. Who knows.
 
S

scamander

Banned
Shiggy said:
But Switch isn't a phone/tablet, Nintendo fans on here always say.
Click to expand...

Are you that daft or do you only like to troll? No, it isn't a tablet. It's a home console with the form factor of a tablet. So it operates, of course, under the same constraints regarding the internal storage as a tablet. A fact that's apparently hard to grasp for some here.
 
N

Nightbird

Member
outunderthestars said:
People shitted up every Vita thread about storage as well. People just seem obsessed with the idea that systems should come with huge amounts of on board storage. I really don't get the co plaint when you can add a ton of space for very little money.
Click to expand...

Well, in case of the Vita, it was much more convenient to buy everything digitally since there were not many retail vita games, and even those that exist are much cheaper on the PSN.

So you end up buying much more digital than retail. But even the revision has only 1 GB of internal memory. that is not enough for vita games, which are between 1.5 and 3 GB in size (on average).

So, the smallest acceptable size is 8GB, but even this is annoying because you have to constantly delete and (re)install games. Thats something that gets especially troublesome after big sales.

Now, starting with 16 GB, the memory card prices become unreasonably high (they were before, but it hits really hard when you realize that you're paying the equivalent of a new retail release to expand your storage to 14.something GB.


My point is, even though it may have been annoying, the complaints about storage on the Vita are completely justified. We still have to see how the 32 GB of the Switch will end up affecting users, but assuming that Nintendo's sales stay as shifty as they were before, and knowing that Nintendo didn't create their own storage format in order to get additional cash out of our pockets, I think the situation is not as bad as it is with the Vita.
 
S

Shiggy

Member
scamander said:
Are you that daft or do you only like to troll? No, it isn't a tablet. It's a home console with the form factor of a tablet. So it operates, of course, under the same constraints regarding the internal storage as a tablet. A fact that's apparently hard to grasp for some here.
Click to expand...

Huh? What exactly is your problem? 64GB or 128GB aren't much more expensive, and yet would've helped a bit. Why bring up phones only when it fits your narrative?
 
O

Orin GA

I wish I could hat you to death
Jesus Christ people. Stop feeding the trolls. If the switch came with more space then the same people would be complaining about the price.

Just be glad you aren't paying up the ass for proprietary shit that's prone to failure.
 
R

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
Ninja Dom said:
You've paid no attention to the Switch teardown thread have you? You haven't read any of the replies in this thread either.

You think that if the Switch had 64GB that would last you for potentially the next 4 or 5 years with digital downloads? You'd still have to buy a Micro SD.
Click to expand...
Sure, but at least it'd be enough to store any game. With only 25 GB or so, you're unable to store the biggest titles.

I'd buy an SD card anyway because 64 GB wouldn't be enough either, but it'd be nice to have the option not to, at least at first. And going physical isn't an option in the third world country I live in, because they are more expensive than their digital counterparts. Of course, big SD cards are also very expensive here, so it's gonna suck either way.
 
L

LordOcidax

Member
Orin GA said:
Jesus Christ people. Stop feeding the trolls. If the switch came with more space then the same people would be complain about the price.

Just be glad you aren't paying up the ass for proprietary shit.
Click to expand...
This.. Also the majority of people complaining are never going to buy a Switch...
 
D

Distresssss

Member
RionaaM said:
Sure, but at least it'd be enough to store any game. With only 25 GB or so, you're unable to store the biggest titles.

I'd buy an SD card anyway because 64 GB wouldn't be enough either, but it'd be nice to have the option not to, at least at first. And going physical isn't an option in the third world country I live in, because they are more expensive than their digital counterparts. Of course, big SD cards are also very expensive here, so it's gonna suck either way.
Click to expand...

MicroSD cards fall in price all the time. Most of the good cards people are buying (like the SanDisk 128GB with 80-90MB read speed) used to cost over a hundred dollars and now sell for around 40$. In time the current great 200GB cards will be at that price.


Especially with the console being new and most games coming out physical is the way to go at least for now. Smaller games should be fine for the time being and then when the library grows enough better MicroSD cards will be far cheaper.
 
D

darkazcura

Member
Shiggy said:
Huh? What exactly is your problem? 64GB or 128GB aren't much more expensive, and yet would've helped a bit. Why bring up phones only when it fits your narrative?
Click to expand...

It may not be much more expensive, but it's more expensive still. The console probably wouldn't be $300 if they went 64GB or 128GB. That alone doesn't make it worth it for those who plan on going physical. SD storage is there for people who want to go digital.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
RionaaM said:
Sure, but at least it'd be enough to store any game. With only 25 GB or so, you're unable to store the biggest titles.

I'd buy an SD card anyway because 64 GB wouldn't be enough either, but it'd be nice to have the option not to, at least at first. And going physical isn't an option in the third world country I live in, because they are more expensive than their digital counterparts. Of course, big SD cards are also very expensive here, so it's gonna suck either way.
Click to expand...

Right. It's mad that in 2017 there will be games too big to download to the Switch without adding additional storage. And right out of the gate too.

If people can't see that as justification that they should have doubled up the internal memory, that doesn't make those of us who take issue with it trolls. I'm a Nintendo fan. I'm excited about the switch. I've got it pre-ordered. I've defended the price of the joycons.

But the storage situation is dumb.
 
S

scamander

Banned
Shiggy said:
Huh? What exactly is your problem? 64GB or 128GB aren't much more expensive, and yet would've helped a bit. Why bring up phones only when it fits your narrative?
Click to expand...

I don't have a narrative and I don't have anything against valid criticism. The problem is, that in every Switch thread there is an increasing amount of people that are not interested in that, but instead are just here to shitpost. It's annoying.

As of the rest of your post; we don't know how large the profit margin is for Nintendo. Honestly, for $300 you are getting a lot of modern tech in a tiny console, imo. So maybe it just wasn't possible for them to include more storage at the same price point.
 
K

King of Cups

Member
Orin GA said:
Jesus Christ people. Stop feeding the trolls. If the switch came with more space then the same people would be complain about the price.

Just be glad you aren't paying up the ass for proprietary shit thats prone to failure.
Click to expand...

This is where I've decided to rest my head. It's an unending battle against random thought and idiocy. There's no point to reasoning with them.

Just let them cry it out until they finally go the fuck to sleep. Then we can talk reasonably.
 
R

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
Distresssss said:
MicroSD cards fall in price all the time. Most of the good cards people are buying (like the SanDisk 128GB with 80-90MB read speed) used to cost over a hundred dollars and now sell for around 40$. In time the current great 200GB cards will be at that price.

Especially with the console being new and most games coming out physical is the way to go at least for now. Smaller games should be fine for the time being and then when the library grows enough better MicroSD cards will be far cheaper.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the bolded. With this being mostly a portable, I'd say digital is much more convenient, as you won't have to carry your carts and switch them around. Plus what you said about the prices may be true in the US, but it certainly isn't the case here. I'd have to import one (with the costs that process brings) or find one locally for a ridiculous price.

Oh well, here's hoping that by the time I finally get a Switch, 256 GB cards are affordable and I'm able to import one.
 
Resistance100

Resistance100

Member
Surly if you happy to pay the £10-15 extra on each game to go digital the cost to buy a new card shouldn't really be an issue.

If the cost is an issue why would you choose to go digital over physical to begin with.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
subtlesaysigh said:
This is where I've decided to rest my head. It's an unending battle against random thought and idiocy. There's no point to reasoning with them.

Just let them cry it out until they finally go the fuck to sleep. Then we can talk reasonably.
Click to expand...

Branding people who disagree with you as trolls is hardly 'reasonable'.
 
K

King of Cups

Member
plagiarize said:
Right. It's mad that in 2017 there will be games too big to download to the Switch without adding additional storage. And right out of the gate too.

If people can't see that as justification that they should have doubled up the internal memory, that doesn't make those of us who take issue with it trolls. I'm a Nintendo fan. I'm excited about the switch. I've got it pre-ordered. I've defended the price of the joycons.

But the storage situation is dumb.
Click to expand...

That's not a good argument when there are options: buy physical or buy an SD card. This is not the iPhone situation where buying one SKU completely limits your storage capability.

Sorry, I just take issue when people state blankly "in 2017," as if these are the worst issues in the world that require immediate attention. Any individual's plan to go digital only does not mean it has be Nintendo's plan. Fair enough. For all we know, they collect a better rate from their packaging of physical goods, being able to centralize a large portion of their manufacturing with the cards, which allows them to turn more of a profit.

I'm not advocating against anyone's wishes, but...All of this just seems so silly when you're not REALLY limited.

Inconvenience? Yes. Dumb? Well...
 
H

HotHamBoy

Member
Orin GA said:
Jesus Christ people. Stop feeding the trolls. If the switch came with more space then the same people would be complaining about the price.

Just be glad you aren't paying up the ass for proprietary shit that's prone to failure.
Click to expand...

Considering the markup margin they probably still could have made a profit at $300 and offered more space.

I'm all-digital for a handheld and if I'm going to buy an SD card it's going to have to be pretty big to be worthwhile.

As for people who insist on physical, don't forget that plenty of eShop games will not have physical distribution. Then there's patches, DLC, apps, etc.
 
S

Shiggy

Member
scamander said:
I don't have a narrative and I don't have anything against valid criticism. The problem is, that in every Switch thread there is an increasing amount of people that are not interested in that, but instead are just here to shitpost. It's annoying.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need some time off the internet if you are getting that upset here. I still don't see what your problem was with my post. Nintendo fans are always very eager to point out that Switch is not tablet or smartphone, and thus it doesn't need a browser for example. But when it's about internal storage, it's suddenly a great comparison? Very odd. It seems to me as if you simply did not really follow the post that I quoted initially or read my initial post in this thread. What you are describing here as "shitposting" and "annoying" seems to relate even more to your post, especially with your aggressive undertone ("Are you that daft or do you only like to troll?").


scamander said:
As of the rest of your post; we don't know how large the profit margin is for Nintendo. Honestly, for $300 you are getting a lot of modern tech in a tiny console, imo. So maybe it just wasn't possible for them to include more storage at the same price point.
Click to expand...

Well, we do know that 64GB or 128GB aren't much more expensive than 32GB, even at a customer level. At high volumes you can guess that prices are even lower.
 
S

ShadowKingpin

Member
If Nintendo would have included a 64GB SD card with every system, this wouldn't be a major deal, as if you want more, you can purchase better memory cards yourself.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
subtlesaysigh said:
That's not a good argument when there are options: buy physical or buy an SD card. This is not the iPhone situation where buying one SKU completely limits your storage capability.

Sorry, I just take issue when people state blankly "in 2017," as if these are the worst issues in the world that require immediate attention. Any individual's plan to go digital only does not mean it has be Nintendo's plan. Fair enough. For all we know, they collect a better rate from their packaging of physical goods, being able to centralize a large portion of their manufacturing with the cards, which allows them to turn more of a profit.

I'm not advocating against anyone's wishes, but...All of this just seems so silly when you're not REALLY limited.

Inconvenience? Yes. Dumb? Well...
Click to expand...
I went fully digital on 3DS. It made sense for a portable. It *wasn't* a huge issue to be fully physical on DS, as game cartridges are a lot smaller.

It's a clear negative compared to the system's competition that the internal storage isn't large enough to hold certain games. When I say '2017' that's all I'm referring to. Yes, this wouldn't have been a problem a few years ago, but now it's not uncommon at all for games to be bigger than the 20 or so gigabytes of usable data the system comes with.

We can discuss margins, and we can talk about pros and cons of doing it. I'm more than happy to engage with people. There's no need to make out those of us who feel 32 gigabytes is too small are trolls or can't have discussions.

You've got people giving you valid reasons why it's an issue for them (physical more expensive than digital) right here.

A 32 Gig Deluxe Wii U could store any launch game. The 32 gig Switch cannot. Because game sizes get bigger. It's far from a deal breaker, but in a thread where we find out the download size of a game is bigger than the internal memory of the system, you've got to expect that people might be talking about that, and that some of us might think it highlights that this is a specific area where Nintendo were a little too price conscious.
 
S

scamander

Banned
Shiggy said:
Maybe you need some time off the internet if you are getting that upset here. I still don't see what your problem was with my post. Nintendo fans are always very eager to point out that Switch is not tablet or smartphone, and thus it doesn't need a browser for example. But when it's about internal storage, it's suddenly a great comparison? Very odd.
Click to expand...

Nintendo fans don't have a hive mind. The Switch not having a browser or streaming apps is very odd in my opinion and a valid point to criticise. The amount of internal storage on the other hand is on par with similar, more expensive hardware of other companies. So, of course you can still think there should be more, but the polemic way many here compared the amount of internal storage on Switch with that of stationary home consoles is the definition of troll behaviour. Because no one can honestly think it is a reasonable expectation to get a vulnerable and huge hard disc on a portable.

It seems to me as if you simply did not really follow the post that I quoted initially or read my initial post in this thread. What you are describing here as "shitposting" and "annoying" seems to relate even more to your post, especially with your aggressive undertone ("Are you that daft or do you only like to troll?").
Click to expand...

I've read your post and the post you were replying to and to me your answer sounded incredible sardonically. I admit that my response was a bit over the top, so I apologise for that. But the way you dismissed the form factor of the Switch in your comment, which is an important part of this discussion, still seems rather trollish to me.
 
A

AtomicShroom

Member
I don't understand the criticism in this thread.

It seems as though the only way the whiners could have been satisfied is if the Switch came with an imbedded 1TB harddrive or something, which would cost a fortune. Let's face it, for most of them, no amount of included storage would be enough. Many are saying it should have been 64GB, but then they'd be the first to complain that you can only fit two games the size of DQ on there. Unacceptable.

Micro storage isn't cheap. Especially when embedded. Why do you think there is a $50 difference between a 32GB and 64GB iPhone, for example? Imagine how much a Switch would cost if it came with 64GB or more? For users who want to go physical, that would be an unfair price to pay.

Nintendo is giving users the sensible choice. Why would you want more embedded storage when SD cards are less expensive, more flexible, removeable, replaceable, etc? Face it: you're going to have to pay for that storage either way. Why do you want this additional price to be forced onto the console's price tag? Why is giving you the ultimate flexibility in how you tackle this a bad thing? Why would you want to pay $50 for 32 more GBs of internal storage when that same $50 gets you a 128GB micro SD card instead?
 
ThatStupidLion

ThatStupidLion

Member
This is going to prevent some third parties from porting larger games i bet. Theyll see that their game is requires an extra sd card and think it wont be worth putting the game out in fear of losing sales due to people not wanting to buy more space

Edit - good news folks. Skyrim remaster is only 22.75 gb on Xbox
 
U

unbiasedgamer

Neo Member
It's really simple. Physical releases will be cheaper than digital if preordered from Amazon, and in most cases a few months after release. I would like to go digital but I don't see it worth the extra money. Yes I have to carry cartridge's, but every single case I've seen either has slots for them or a separate little case for them.

I went digital with the Vita. I spent close to $100 on a 64gb card from Amazon.jp. I am happy that I can get a 200gb micro sd card for $70 on Amazon. People who are complaining have a right to Thier opinion. My opinion, on a Nintendo platform physical will always be cheaper, with the money saved over the digital prices, get a big SD card.
 
K

King of Cups

Member
plagiarize said:
I went fully digital on 3DS. It made sense for a portable. It *wasn't* a huge issue to be fully physical on DS, as game cartridges are a lot smaller.

It's a clear negative compared to the system's competition that the internal storage isn't large enough to hold certain games. When I say '2017' that's all I'm referring to. Yes, this wouldn't have been a problem a few years ago, but now it's not uncommon at all for games to be bigger than the 20 or so gigabytes of usable data the system comes with.

We can discuss margins, and we can talk about pros and cons of doing it. I'm more than happy to engage with people. There's no need to make out those of us who feel 32 gigabytes is too small are trolls or can't have discussions.

You've got people giving you valid reasons why it's an issue for them (physical more expensive than digital) right here.

A 32 Gig Deluxe Wii U could store any launch game. The 32 gig Switch cannot. Because game sizes get bigger. It's far from a deal breaker, but in a thread where we find out the download size of a game is bigger than the internal memory of the system, you've got to expect that people might be talking about that, and that some of us might think it highlights that this is a specific area where Nintendo were a little too price conscious.
Click to expand...

That's fair, and I do apologise if I came across rather harshly. There's just been a lot of "lol fart" posts coming out. I mostly only post around console launches so everything is intensified for me...Hehe.

That being said, I've rarely experienced digital being cheaper than physical with the exception of PC gaming.
 
A

AtomicShroom

Member
heckmanimation said:
This is going to prevent some third parties from porting larger games i bet. Theyll see that their game is requires an extra sd card and think it wont be worth putting the game out in fear of losing sales due to people not wanting to buy more space

Edit - good news folks. Skyrim remaster is only 22.75 gb on Xbox
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people still buy physical. Not a single dev will bat an eye. Only gaffers could ever envision such a scenario.
 
T

Tunoku

Member
heckmanimation said:
This is going to prevent some third parties from porting larger games i bet. Theyll see that their game is requires an extra sd card and think it wont be worth putting the game out in fear of losing sales due to people not wanting to buy more space
Click to expand...

I think those games have a lower chance coming over to the Switch in general though. You won't see 1:1 ports of PS4/One games. In the case of Fifa 18 for instance, the file size is probably gonna be pretty large on those two platforms, but significantly lower on the Switch. I expect that game to be closer to the PS3 version and if you take a look at the PS Store you get around

40GB for the PS4 version
10GB for the PS3 version.
(this is for Fifa 17, so you can expect something around that size for its sequel)
 
M

Maintenance

Member
Zombegoast said:
We're close to that number though. Halo 5 is 100gb with games like Doom and GTA5 just behind it. That's like about half the HDD used up already.
Click to expand...

You had to bundle up three of the biggest games to even reach half the space, while one (double) game on the Switch is already over the limit.

Yeah, not even close.
 
M

Monty Mole

Member
Maintenance said:
Not even out and there's a game that can't fit. Great job.
Click to expand...

And it costs more than a 500GB PS4 to begin with. Obviously, it's completely understandable - it's a handheld. But for those looking for a console, this doesn't stack up so well. And this will always be Switch's challenge: its USP is also its biggest problem.
 
S

Shiggy

Member
scamander said:
I've read your post and the post you were replying to and to me your answer sounded incredible sardonically. I admit that my response was a bit over the top, so I apologise for that. But the way you dismissed the form factor of the Switch in your comment, which is an important part of this discussion, still seems rather trollish to me.
Click to expand...

Your response was simply very odd to me simply pointing out that it's very odd that the Switch is not a smartphone or tablet. And the form factor would cause no problems in terms of storage sizes of 64GB or 128GB, those would have been well possible with the current design (at a small cost to Nintendo). Nothing is trollish there.
 
A

Apparition

Member
Resistance100 said:
Surly if you happy to pay the £10-15 extra on each game to go digital the cost to buy a new card shouldn't really be an issue.

If the cost is an issue why would you choose to go digital over physical to begin with.
Click to expand...

I suppose the price difference isn't that great in Japan; at least for 1st party games (the only Switch games Amazon Japan sells digitally at the moment). Sure, the physical release is still 200-300yen cheaper but digital has its convenience.

Hopefully, 3rd party will list their digital games on Amazon sooner than later.
 
T

tsab

Member
ShadowKingpin said:
If Nintendo would have included a 64GB SD card with every system, this wouldn't be a major deal, as if you want more, you can purchase better memory cards yourself.
Click to expand...

there is 25.9GB space available, I don't see the reason to highjack the price even more by bundling SD cards.
This is something that is not needed for all users. For example a user that is not going full digital would not need to buy an SD card, at least early in the Switch's life because he would need to download DLC and patches only.
 
N

nubbe

Member
The only game I plan to download at the moment is Splatoon 2 and the WiiU game was 1.8 GB
So I guess No.2 should be around 3GB on Switch

Everything else on carts
 
A

AtomicShroom

Member
tsab said:
there is 25.9GB space available, I don't see the reason to highjack the price even more by bundling SD cards.
This is something that is not needed for all users. For example a user that is not going full digital would not need to buy an SD card, at least early in the Switch's life because he would need to download DLC and patches only.
Click to expand...

This. What sense would it make for Nintendo to sell a SKU that bundles an SD Card, when it's something you can buy separately, probably for cheaper than Nintendo would bundle one at?
 
PapaEmeritus

PapaEmeritus

Member
Thank you, was actually looking for something like this yesterday to see what size Micro SD I wanna get, I have a 64GB but thinking 128GB is probably safer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nintendo reveals the top 30 most-downloaded games on the Japanese Switch eShop for 2023
Sales-Age
16
2K
tkscz replied
Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom Has the Largest File Size of Any First Party Nintendo Switch Game (18.2GB)
News Hardware Platform 2
98
8K
Mozza replied
Nintendo details how physical games bigger than 32GB will work on Switch
11 12 13 14 15
728
120K
Gamezone replied
Top Bottom