Support NeoGAF

[Xando]

This is assuming that 32GBs is the max card size. I have doubts that it is.

It isn't but will pubs bother with the higher card size if that means the product will be more expensive than other versions?

Why should i buy the switch version if it's 5-10€ more expensive than the PS4 version

I guess what I'm saying is, if you really really want the convenience of digitally owning your games or that you are aware ahead of time it will be a common way you'll purchase games, you are free to expand the memory at your own cost. Perhaps more could have been included in the system? 64GB? But then 2 30GB games wouldn't fit. 256GB? But then those 100GB AAA games with 10GB+ patches would fill the system in 2 games again. 2TBs? Are we still talking about portable system anymore?

Nintendo calls it a home console so i guess it's fair to compare it to other home consoles

 

[Team Filler]

Historically, these smaller indie games have always been more expensive at retail. On Switch, they are just even more expensive due to the cards.

I've only seen speculation to the cards being the reason games like RIME and Puyo Puyo were charging more for physical, has there been any definitive statements to that since then?

Also: wasn't aware you were only interested in discussing indies.

 

[Minsc]

Historically, these smaller indie games have always been more expensive at retail. On Switch, they are just even more expensive due to the cards.

But now you're changing your point, smaller indie games can be bought digitally and you can fit a couple dozen on the 32GB memory included in the Switch, for the most part, and a 64GB memory would be the price of one of these games and allow you to fit another couple dozen more.

So what you're saying is AAA switch games will come on 50-60GB memory cards?

I'll tell you exactly what will happen with AAA games:

1) They won't be feature complete compared to other versions to save storage

2) They'll come on a 32GB card and you have to download the rest.

3) Even worse for us switch owners they won't bother with it.

4) They'll be expensive as fuck and come on huge cards.

I expect mainly 3. Switch is not receiving a AAA library comparable to the PS4 or Xbox, better accept that now, because if you think it will you're going to be disappointed I feel. As for the AAA games that do make it there, not that it's a AAA game, but that LEGO one has shown it's sometimes possible to compress the game from around 20GBs to 8GBs, so I expect it to be mainly size cuts. Down the road, I do think we could see 64GB cards being used, but I don't think it will be normal.

Nintendo calls it a home console so i guess it's fair to compare it to other home consoles

Yeah, let's compare it to the other home consoles that you can rip out of the wall while they're running and leave the house without skipping a beat, because that's what it is and what they show people doing, essentially.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I remember a bunch of posters wishing final fantasy xiv would come to the switch. Imagine that might be even more of a silly dream now.

 

[ramparter]

Blaming the devs without knowing the details is embarrassing imo. They specifically mentioned the size, they didnt say Nintendo js slow with patches in general.

 

[Chauzu]

I remember a bunch of posters wishing final fantasy xiv would come to the switch. Imagine that might be even more of a silly dream now.

Yeah, two indie devs releasing unfinished games claiming they have some issues is the nail in the coffin for me. I've given up on any kind of 3rd party support going forward.

 

[Shiggy]

Are they more expensive, or just more expensive initially? Whether it be a later sale, or the money returned from selling back the game used after you complete it. I know for me it's more expensive to buy digitally (MK8D was $60+ vs $48 or something if I had gone with a retail copy), so using price as an argument would be a bit misleading too, since it goes both ways. Also, since the system is region free, as long as a retail copy exists anywhere, you could purchase it and play it, so it's not the strongest argument either.

That assumes that you sell your games after completing it, which a lot of people probably don't do. Also, a lot of indie games only get a small print run, thus they aren't going on sale. So your points are a bit misleading here. And while retail copies might exist elsewhere, costs of international shipping and customs add to the price, making the digital version cheaper again in most cases, so that's not the strongest argument either.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you really really want the convenience of digitally owning your games or that you are aware ahead of time it will be a common way you'll purchase games, you are free to expand the memory at your own cost. Perhaps more could have been included in the system? 64GB? But then 2 30GB games wouldn't fit. 256GB? But then those 100GB AAA games with 10GB+ patches would fill the system in 2 games again. 2TBs? Are we still talking a portable system anymore?

If the games are available at retail, that's an option. If they are cheaper digitally, or not available at retail, people may want to buy the games on eShop and are thus facing the limitations of the small internal space.

But now you're changing your point, smaller indie games can be bought digitally and you can fit a couple dozen on the 32GB memory included in the Switch, for the most part, and a 64GB memory would be the price of one of these games and allow you to fit another couple dozen more.

A game such as NBA Playgrounds is 8 GB large, so you could fit less than 4 games of that size on the internal memory.

I've only seen speculation to the cards being the reason games like RIME and Puyo Puyo were charging more for physical, has there been any definitive statements to that since then?

Also: wasn't aware you were only interested in discussing indies.

Cards are more expensive and different sources have acknowledged that. The Axiom Verge dev/publisher was the latest to say so.

 

[Honey Bunny]

Embarrassing title change

 

[Kovacs]

You act like they are taking some moral stance here. They aren't. It centers around their design decision.

I can understand why'd you think that, but I don't prescribe morals or emotions to companies, everything they do is for their own bottom line but occasionally that also results in a net positive for both company and customer.

If that design 'limitation' makes publishers pause to give consideration to things like patch size optimisation or other ways to get around and meet those limitations then I will still well welcome it because that will be of benefit to users.

 

[Chauzu]

Embarrassing title change

Changing the title to accurately reflect the facts we know is embarrassing? Feel free to keep bashing Nintendo if it makes you happier.

 

[Minsc]

A game such as NBA Playgrounds is 8 GB large, so you could fit less than 4 games of that size on the internal memory.

It says right in the OP it could have been / should have been 3.5GBs, I don't think using this rushed game is a really good example. And yes, there are some indie games that are 8Gbs or so, even outside of Playgrounds.

But are there also not indie games that are 100MBs or so, and you could fit 100s of those on the included memory, so again, you're only looking at one side to make your arguments, which is not too fair.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Yeah, two indie devs releasing unfinished games claiming they have some issues is the nail in the coffin for me. I've given up on any kind of 3rd party support going forward.

You can delude yourself to think otherwise if that is your desire.

 

[Minsc]

You can delude yourself to think otherwise if that is your desire.

Embarrassing title change

Please provide more examples, if you're convinced it's a widespread issue. Otherwise refrain from making such claims.

 

[Drackhorn]

Embarrassing title change

I expect all thirdparty developers now to have "rushed" games on Switch.

 

[cw_sasuke]

So if someone were to actually list every game that's gotten patches it'd be a pretty huge list right?

Most Nintendo releases have, even the NeoGeo emulated games have been patched a few times. VOEZ has been, Fast RMX has been, we all know Bomberman has been (a few times). Basically like almost every game on the Switch has been patched, a few multiple times, right?

Nintendo has said they intend to have ARMS almost follow a games as a service plan and receive patches over the years updating its content, adding fighters/story, etc.

Zen Pinball should be releasing on the platform, and that'll receive regular patches / updates in the form of new tables every month or two, etc.

So do we have a everyone in the world vs. this developer situation, or is there more to it than that? Because it just seems weird even with my limited library and knowledge of the platform, there's been quite a number of patches.

Pretty much this, Switch games get updated and patched all the time. Seems like the dev in this case didn't completely understand what they signed up for and now have trouble dealing with the situation and bad PR.

Everyone else seem to be able to handle their patches just right, but some people love to overreact about stuff like this.

 

[Shiggy]

It says right in the OP it could have been / should have been 3.5GBs, I don't think using this rushed game is a really good example. And yes, there are some indie games that are 8Gbs or so, even outside of Playgrounds.

But are there also not indie games that are 100MBs or so, and you could fit 100s of those on the included memory, so again, you're only looking at one side to make your arguments, which is not too fair.

I feel like you are just trying to move the goalposts now. The initial post was about a user who stated that Android smartphones also typically don't have more internal memory than the Switch, where another user argued that Android phones, unlike the Switch, also don't have apps which are larger than the internal memory.

Your reply simply was that you do not have to buy digitally, which simply isn't always the most viable option - either because the games aren't available at retail or because the games are more expensive.

And to this discussion, it is rather irrelevant whether some games are just 100 MBs large.

 

[lwilliams3]

Embarrassing title change

What was embarrassing was a number of posts made that obviously didn't read through the OP. Perhaps now, more people will take that time.

 

[show me your skeleton]

Exactly.

I'm so tired of patches, DLC and more. I want plug and play, nothing more nothing less.
If something is not ready, release the game when it is.

i'm really glad i had to send my copy of no mercy back to THQ for it to be replaced with an inferior version when that game was released.

 

[odhiex]

What is the common understanding of rushed games?

 

[Fiendcode]

Cards are more expensive and different sources have acknowledged that. The Axiom Verge dev/publisher was the latest to say so.

LRG said they're comparable to Vita cards cost wise, unless you go for the higher capacities.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Blaming the devs without knowing the details is embarrassing imo. They specifically mentioned the size, they didnt say Nintendo js slow with patches in general.

Is the size restraint a new restriction that wasn't the case when they signed to be Switch developers? Otherwise I don't know why they would be surprised about this.

I would assume that they are updating their policies over the time... But as a dev they should make sure from the beginning that software/patches they work on follow the guidelines. Reminds me of Super Meat Boy where the devs just expected Nintendo to just increase the WiiWare size limit for them. Even if changes are happening... It can take some time and would limited the ability to provide fast updates for your specific software patch.

 

[Shiggy]

LRG said they're comparable to Vita cards cost wise, unless you go for the higher capacities.

Thomas Happ/Badland say the Switch card for Axiom Verge is more expensive than the card for Vita

https://twitter.com/AxiomVerge/status/872884811341410305.


Anyway, both are more expensive than discs. Most games releasing on Switch aren't releasing on Vita cards, more often they release on X1/PS4.

 

[JaseC]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with their policy. Devs have been releasing these insanely sized patches for a long time now and they need to cut that down. If it means more manageable patch sizes, then I'm all for it.

The problem is that, regardless of the intention, imposing a limit will result in some games not being patched -- something we've seen happen on the X360. There's no magic button that'll compress an update to a size that fits within the threshold.

 

[Minsc]

I feel like you are just trying to move the goalposts now. The initial post was about a user who stated that Android smartphones also typically don't have more internal memory than the Switch, where another user argued that Android phones, unlike the Switch, also don't have apps which are larger than the internal memory.

Your reply simply was that you do not have to buy digitally, which simply isn't always the most viable option - either because the games aren't available at retail or because the games are more expensive.

And to this discussion, it is rather irrelevant whether some games are just 100 MBs large.

There is no most viable option. But you seem intent on always focusing on the least viable one to suit your argument.

So what exactly is your point now? I'm totally lost.

It was argued the 32GB wasn't large enough to fit some games. This is a poor argument because unlike Android, you can run games without installing them on the internal memory (or expanded memory). That is what I pointed out, then you decided to bring in price and availability of indies, which really aren't typically 32GB games or 8GB games, so in essence your whole argument is not even really relevant to the 32GB initial discussion. Furthermore, you claimed it is more expensive to buy games physically, which isn't absolute either, many times it's cheaper to buy physically. So there's really no black and white arguments to be made in this discussion, and the initial comparison to Android was flawed imo, which I was pointing out.

 

[gingerbeardman]

It seems that it is because of how the patching is done.

Sounds like the original unmodified game sits alongside the patch, which is applied at run time. In this situation it makes since to limit the size of the patch. Otherwise you're multiplying the storage requirements for a patched game.

They seem to be saying that when true patching arrives on Switch, where the patch is applied to the original game at install time, then they'll be able to reduce the size of the game and/or have larger patches.

 

[RichiRamjag]

Embarrassing title change

Heck out of here, the original was hardly accurate.

 

[klaushm]

Okay. Reading what the devs said and the comments here makes me really confused.
I think I'm misinterpreting something.

What I read the dev said:

1) They launched the full game on other platforms, but rushed the Switch version due to Nintendo policies (no ports allowed).

2) They couldn't update their game due to the patch size been way to big according to Nintendo policies.

3) They said they could make the files smaller, but the Nintendo Switch doesn't support the technique/technology they used to do so.

I'm honestly asking. Sometimes I have a hard time with interpretation.

 

[Fiendcode]

Thomas Happ/Badland say the Switch card for Axiom Verge is more expensive than the card for Vita

https://twitter.com/AxiomVerge/status/872884811341410305.


Anyway, both are more expensive than discs. Most games releasing on Switch aren't releasing on Vita cards, more often they release on X1/PS4.

Looks like we have potentially conflicting sources then, although it sounds like Happ is speaking second hand in regards to prices and in LRG's case comparable doesn't necessairily mean equal. Doubtful it's a $10 difference though.

 

[Shifty]

"We can't do it because the system is too new"

a.k.a.

"We still haven't modernized our infrastructure"

I do have to wonder whether this stuff was laid out to the developers while they were working on their games. It sounds like the sort of thing that they should have been aware of, but could well have ended up being hidden away among novel-length TRCs I suppose.

And this is not the first time this happened, as the dev of Shifty has also complained that his patch wasn't approved by Nintendo because of the size.

Father was not pleased.

 

[Shiggy]

There is no most viable option. But you seem intent on always focusing on the least viable one to suit your argument.

So what exactly is your point now? I'm totally lost.

It was argued the 32GB wasn't large enough to fit some games. This is a poor argument because unlike Android, you can run games without installing them on the internal memory (or expanded memory). That is what I pointed out, then you decided to bring in price and availability of indies, which really aren't typically 32GB games or 8GB games, so in essence your whole argument is not even really relevant to the 32GB initial discussion. Furthermore, you claimed it is more expensive to buy games physically, which isn't absolute either, many times it's cheaper to buy physically. So there's really no black and white arguments to be made in this discussion, and the initial comparison to Android was flawed imo, which I was pointing out.

I agree, you seem indeed a bit lost here. So let's go back:

People make this argument, but could you not simply buy this 32GB game on a tiny memory card, and have it not occupy any space at all practically, on the Switch? Pretty sure you can't purchase Android apps on memory cards in stores and play them directly without occupying space.

It's great you can purchase games digitally on the Switch, but it's not a requirement is it? If it were one, you'd have a real argument I suppose. As it stands now, you have an argument that is convenient to you. It's a fair stance to take, but it's painting a skewed picture.

So in essence you were saying:
- Android comparison is not fair because
-> you can just buy large games at retail
-> you cannot buy Android apps at retail

That's where I pointed out that buying at retail isn't always viable because of price and availability.

Thus an internal memory of 32GB is an issue after all, whereas it's not really an issue on Android. If retail titles were always available or never more expensive, then your argument would obviously be absolutely right. But as that is not the case, I'd argue that justifying the size of Switch's internal memory with that Android systems have a similar storage size is not really suitable.

Expanded memory is available on both Android and Switch, and I cannot quite see how that affects the size of internal storage. If you want to buy 200GB SD cards, you will not have any issue in the next few months on either Android or Switch.

Looks like we have potentially conflicting sources then, although it sounds like Happ is speaking second hand in regards to prices and in LRG's case comparable doesn't necessairily mean equal. Doubtful it's a $10 difference though.

Vita games are often cheaper due to the traditional belief that handheld games should be cheaper. That is despite Vita cards being more expensive than blu-ray media. So if you see Vita games being sold for less than the same game on PS4, then that's because the producer takes a smaller margin.

 

[Bluth54]

People make this argument, but could you not simply buy this 32GB game on a tiny memory card, and have it not occupy any space at all practically, on the Switch? Pretty sure you can't purchase Android apps on memory cards in stores and play them directly without occupying space.

It's great you can purchase games digitally on the Switch, but it's not a requirement is it? If it were one, you'd have a real argument I suppose. As it stands now, you have an argument that is convenient to you. It's a fair stance to take, but it's painting a skewed picture.

Even if you want to take out the fact that a game was released at launch that's too big for the internal storage you still need to take into account that if purchase some of Nintendo's games as a service like Arms and Splatoon, some DLC for games like Breath of the Wild and some download exclusive titles the Switch's 26 GB of free space is going to fill up very quickly.

 

[Minsc]

That's where I pointed out that buying at retail isn't always viable because of price and availability.

Ok, maybe I just need some concrete examples, please go ahead and list the Switch games that are 32GBs and aren't viable to be purchased at retail (I'm presuming you'd consider a viable price difference to be a rather significant amount, not like $1 or $5).

Even if you want to take out the fact that a game was released at launch that's too big for the internal storage you still need to take into account that if purchase some of Nintendo's games as a service like Arms and Splatoon, some DLC for games like Breath of the Wild and some download exclusive titles the Switch's 26 GB of free space is going to fill up very quickly.

How big are we expecting the DLC for Arms and Splatoon and BotW to be? It could amount to a few GBs a piece I think, but significantly more? Possible, but I'm not yet aware of it.

 

[Chauzu]

Since we're talking size... We know a few stuff:

1) NAND memory isn't cheap
2) Profit margins for Switch aren't as high as usual for Nintendo
3) Switch price seems to have hit a sweetspot
4) More NAND memory would probably require a price increase

So would say a 64 GB Switch for 329.99$ for example, really be worth it? It will likely still not be enough for most people, and make bigger models and prices will get more absurd. At least with 32 GB everybody has a decent starting point and then they can make the decision to expand storage as they see fit.

I know I appreciated getting the Switch for as cheap as possible while buying my 200 GB SD card, instead of having to pay more for measly extra storage and still have to buy a 200 GB card.

 

[killatopak]

Title claims it was the devs fault but the post says otherwise.

Clickbaity.

 

[Skyfireblaze]

Honestly I'm all for calling Nintendo and any other company out for something when it's due but here I can't really see it. Yes the Switch has very limited storage, yes it paints not the best picture for third-party support but honestly patch sizes and reasons for these along with install sizes went a bit out of control.

I'm talking more about all gaming platforms now and not specifically the Switch but first of all, why are games still installing/downloading all languages instead of asking me which ones I wish to install? As soon as you insert or start a game a dialog that asks about the languages you wish to install should pop up. Same dialog should ask about uncompressed audio and 4k textures. While it can be of course argued that both of these actually still benefit the user at 1080p and with a TV-speaker audio setup I think making these opt-in would actually benefit the user more than otherwise given how storage constrained even the PS4 and XBOX One can become without hooking up additional storage to them.

Second, I'm all for meaningful patches, post-launch support and DLC if it expands the game down the line. But if a game gets shipped without what was obviously meant to be there at launch only for it to be shipped in a day 1 or day 2 patch the problem isn't the patching system but rather rushed and misjudged deadlines. I won't even think to blame developers for this because I know game-development is harsh enough and it mostly ends up being the publishers fault but seriously a game delayed for 1-2 weeks is better than a game that makes it on time with a 50gb day one patch in my eyes. Fast internet still isn't as ubiquitous as many people seem to think.

I myself "only" have 6mb/sec downspeed which was already fairly expensive, the maximum physically possible I could go for is 12mb/sec where I live and that would be for a price I'm not willing to pay. Meanwhile a friend who lives a few streets further can only get 750kb/sec. And then there are people in other countries with data-caps and worse.

But back to the Switch, I can't see any realistic "solution" Nintendo could have went with to have more storage. They could have maybe eaten the cost and put 64gb in there only to get more production problems and on the long run a 64gb Switch wouldn't have been much different. The only kind of cheap mass-storage we have is mechanical harddrives and these are not viable for a hybrid system like the Switch.

Bulky HDDs can go up to, I don't know, 8tb nowadays? But even a small 2.5" 500gb HDD like in the PS4 or XBOX One wouldn't work. HDDs operate with a motor and a mechanical read-head on metal plate. First, a motor is a absolute disaster for battery-life (see the PSP's UMD drive) and second, in a portable system that moves or can fall down while in use you really don't want to have a mechanical HDD because every sudden, powerful movement can hinder read/write operations and in the worst case lead to the HDD being damaged. It's the reason Sony Diskman had anti-shock features, old HDD based iPod's often had HDD failures and older HDD-based laptops had to employ a handful of tricks with acceleration sensors to prevent all this from happening. And this is all disregarding that even a 2.5" drive wouldn't fit anywhere in a device like the Switch.

So where does it leave it? Well I'm not well versed in memory manufacturing but I'm sure there's a reason why SD-cards get unproportionally expensive beyond 128gb and full-on SDD storage isn't cheap either, especially not at sizes many people wish for. I'm sure nobody would want to see the price the Switch would cost equipped with a 500gb SSD.

And lastly because I've seen a few "lol the Switch is a device that ships with a 720p screen in 2017 while my phone has 4k!" Phones can get away with it because they aren't gaming devices. Run a game like BotW in actual 4k rending on your average smartphone and the performance will be horrible, the phone will drain its battery in probably 30 minutes and it will become hot as hell. The Switch is already mostly battery and people complain about its battery-life, not to mention that 1080p wouldn't really change much in terms of fidelity in handheld-mode, only cause the battery to drain faster and worsen performance for little perceivable gain at the PPI and screen-size.

EDIT: Mind you, I still don't like that Nintendo limits patch-sizes and I think they shouldn't do it because ultimately it won't help anyone but without knowing the full argument from both sides I say both Nintendo and the game are somewhat at fault here.

 

[MisterR]

This thread is another example of how Nintendo's fans are frequently their worst enemies. Just a few posts in the rush to defend this stupidity from Nintendo begins. Behavior like this from Nintendo, going all the way back to the NES, is a main reason they get almost no 3rd party support, and yet, they are cheered on by the fanboys. The fanboys would have also complained if the game had released later than the other consoles as well. This isn't going to stop devs from releasing "broken games", it's going to encourage the to not bother releasing games on the Switch. Blind defense of stupid Nintendo policy does them no favors.

 

[Shantom]

What a terrible thread title change. Whether a port is rushed or not has no affect on Nintendo's policies, and shouldn't excuse how out of date they are.

 

[ggx2ac]

This thread is another example of how Nintendo's fans are frequently their worst enemies. Just a few posts in the rush to defend this stupidity from Nintendo begins. Behavior like this from Nintendo, going all the way back to the NES, is a main reason they get almost no 3rd party support, and yet, they are cheered on by the fanboys. The fanboys would have also complained if the game had released later than the other consoles as well. This isn't going to stop devs from releasing "broken games", it's going to encourage the to not bother releasing games on the Switch. Blind defense of stupid Nintendo policy does them no favors.

Wasn't it that Nintendo had the 'Seal of Quality' to prevent third parties from flooding the NES with rushed games to market because of the Atari 2600?

 

[Minsc]

I think people getting worked up over the Switch's memory should read this thread for some real examples of Switch owners and their free space.

Here's some highlights:

I first bought a 64GB microSD but even before opening I regretted the decision and decided to return it to Amazon, so I could buy a 128GB instead. Well, Amazon refunded me told me to keep it, so I didn't buy a 128GB after all. Postponed that to when I really need it.

So, this is how my Switch's memory looks like after all this content (all games mentioned are digital):

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (internal memory for faster loading)
Snake Pass
ARMS
ARMS Global Testpunch (dunno why I didn't delete it yet)
Minecraft
1-2-Switch
FAST RMX
Snipperclips
Puyo Puyo demo
Content updates, save data and screenshots



So yeah, I'm pretty sure internal memory + 64GB will last me a long ass time. Especially with the option to archive software, and relatively fast downloads (games are not huge).

Memory will naturally become cheaper over time, so my plan is to just wait until I run out of space and then buy the best value/biggest card that is within my price range.

Your buying habits sound just like mine i.e. mostly physical with the odd digital indie title here and there. I've had the switch since launch and am nowhere near the point with the internal memory where I would need to buy a memory card.

My current games list is:

• Zelda (physical)
• Mario Kart (physical)
• ARMS (physical)
• Has-Been Heroes (physical)
• Snake Pass (digital)
• Thumper (digital)
• Kamiko (digital)
• Human Resource Machine (digital)

Space available is still 20GB

I got a SanDisk 128 GB micro SDXC card a month or so ago when Amazon put it on sale. Right now, here's what I have on my Switch...

• The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (physical)
• Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (physical)
• Just Dance 2017 (physical)
• LEGO City Undercover (physical)
• Puyo Puyo Tetris (physical)
• Super Bomberman R (physical)
• Shovel Knight: Treasure Trove
• Shantae: 1/2 Genie Hero
• Blaster Master 0 (and all DLC)
• World of Goo
• Little Inferno
• I am Setsuna
• Disgaea 5 Complete Demo

All digital games are on the micro SDXC card, and physical game saves are mixed between the SDXC card and internal memory...but I have 24.7 GB free on physical, and 113 GB free on the SDXC card.

I've got

- NBA Playgrounds
- ARMS Global Testpunch
- Snipperclips
- VOEZ
- Thumper
- Puyo Puyo Tetris Demo
- Splatoon 2 Global Testfire
- Graceful Explosion Machine
- Blaster Master Zero
- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (updates for physical version + DLC)
- KAMIKO
- Puyo Puyo Tetris (save data for physical version)

and I don't need a card yet; I have 12.4 GB free and the biggest reason is NBA Playgrounds (which is supposed to get an update to halve its 7.4 GB size at some point in the near future.)

Obviously I'm buying some games physical here, but why not just wait to get the microSD until you need it?

They'll always be available, and they only go down in price/up in capacity.

This thread is another example of how Nintendo's fans are frequently their worst enemies. Just a few posts in the rush to defend this stupidity from Nintendo begins. Behavior like this from Nintendo, going all the way back to the NES, is a main reason they get almost no 3rd party support, and yet, they are cheered on by the fanboys. The fanboys would have also complained if the game had released later than the other consoles as well. This isn't going to stop devs from releasing "broken games", it's going to encourage the to not bother releasing games on the Switch. Blind defense of stupid Nintendo policy does them no favors.

The vast majority of games on the Switch have received multiple patches... so...?

 

[Skittzo0413]

Just to reiterate, the patch size is no longer preventing them from releasing the patch. They explicitly say this in the OP. They don't say what is currently holding up the process. But I have a question for those that might know:

Sony and MS also have restrictions (certifications) for getting patches out on their systems. Does anyone know what those are? Not even talking about file size, though I wouldn't be surprised if they have limits for patch size as well.

Okay. Reading what the devs said and the comments here makes me really confused.
I think I'm misinterpreting something.

What I read the dev said:

1) They launched the full game on other platforms, but rushed the Switch version due to Nintendo policies (no ports allowed).

2) They couldn't update their game due to the patch size been way to big according to Nintendo policies.

3) They said they could make the files smaller, but the Nintendo Switch doesn't support the technique/technology they used to do so.

I'm honestly asking. Sometimes I have a hard time with interpretation.

You're probably misreading.

1) There is no such policy (no ports allowed) that we know of. There were 2-3 indie devs who said Nintendo was discouraging straight ports, but we know of no such policy.

2) They got an exception weeks ago for the file size of their patch, so NO the patch size is not an issue anymore.

3) They want to reduce the game's overall file size via the patch, but say the system can't do that for some reason. Apparently the Mr. Shifty devs were able to do this exact thing, so it might not be the Switch itself that's causing the problem, but possibly UE4 (Mr. Shifty was Unity).


EDIT: And before anyone accuses me of fanboyism, I'm not trying to take any sides here except for the side that waits for all of the information to be known before it gets outraged. Currently we know very little about this situation, like what the patch size requirement is (my guess is it's some function of the base game size, like it can't be more than 50% of the size of the base game) or how easy it is to get an exception. Or what other restrictions there may be.

 

[Minsc]

What a terrible thread title change. Whether a port is rushed or not has no affect on Nintendo's policies, and shouldn't excuse how out of date they are.

Can you please provide examples beyond those two in the OP that suggest otherwise? I'd be happy to adjust the title further.

It's just the way it looks to me is the majority of Switch software has been patched, and even patched multiple times at that. So if the title is now less accurate than before, please provide me links to show your reasoning.

 

[Shiggy]

Ok, maybe I just need some concrete examples, please go ahead and list the Switch games that are 32GBs and aren't viable to be purchased at retail (I'm presuming you'd consider a viable price difference to be a rather significant amount, not like $1 or $5).

If you were strictly speaking about 32GB games, we have nothing to discuss. I thought it was more about the general idea, which has been brought up repeatedly, that the internal memory size of Switch is justified as Android smartphones often have a similar size. My post was made taking your post like that, thinking it's not just about 32GB games. Having four titles with a file size of 8GB each is already an issue in that case.

But as I was mistaken and your remark was just about 32GB games, then that obviously ends this discussion. Buying the single game, which is that large right now, at retail is no problem. If it will be an issue in future has to be seen. That would be a hypothetical discussion right now due to the lack of such third party titles on the system right now and in the foreseeable future.

For the wider discussion about comparisons between the Switch internal memory size and the memory size of Android phones, saying that buying at retail solves all Switch storage issues isn't necessarily suitable nonetheless.

 

[Shantom]

Can you please provide examples beyond those two in the OP that suggest otherwise? I'd be happy to adjust the title further.

It's just the way it looks to me is the majority of Switch software has been patched, and even patched multiple times at that. So if the title is now less accurate than before, please provide me links to show your reasoning.

I don't have any other examples. I feel that specifically calling out two games that are having issues with Nintendo's patching policies as 'rushed' is detrimental to the conversation, because it implies the devs are to blame.

 

[bomblord1]

Actually kind of glad Nintendo has a limit on patch sizes. Imagine a dev pushing out a Halo Anniversary Style 20GB patch to your Switches 25.9GB of internal memory. Now imagine multiple games you have installed doing that.Also before someone says it flash memory is not cheap putting in more was not economically viable at the price point they were targeting.

Random musing, would not be possible to put out the online mode as free DLC to bypass the size requirements and roll out the bug fixes as a separate patch?

 

[MisterR]

I think people getting worked up over the Switch's memory should read this thread for some real examples of Switch owners and their free space.

Here's some highlights:















The vast majority of games on the Switch have received multiple patches... so...?

Oh I see. Since people have found a work around for the measly storage on Switch it's not really an issue? It basically just takes away the option of really going digital on this console. As for the most games have been patched stuff, most 3rd parties on Switch so far are tiny Indy games, lots of them ports of long ago games. Let's see what happens when and if they get big AAA third party games, where larger patches and post launch support is much more likely and the thread title change reeks of thin skinned defensiveness. If you think these are the only two games this will ever effect, I would have to highly disagree.

 

[AColdDay]

Release full featured games, don't expect a day one patch thats half the size of the game to fix tour rushed timelines. The system by default has limited space.

That's how I feel about it. If this policy does something to stop the trend of developers releasing games before they are finished then that is a good thing.

 

[Minsc]

I don't have any other examples. I feel that specifically calling out two games that are having issues with Nintendo's patching policies as 'rushed' is detrimental to the conversation, because it implies the devs are to blame.

But they were rushed, right? NBA Playgrounds was released in a horrible unoptimzed state, and with features missing. The other game I know less about, but I believe it was also quite optimized and later improved via patches. Is that not correct? Do you feel NBA Playgrounds or Mr. Shifty were not rushed to be released on the Switch? I'm not against removing that aspect of the title if it is incorrect.

Oh I see. Since people have found a work around for the measly storage on Switch it's not really an issue? It basically just takes away the option of really going digital on this console. As for the most games have been patched stuff, most 3rd parties on Switch so far are tiny Indy games, lots of them ports of long ago games. Let's see what happens when and if they get big AAA third party games, where larger patches and post launch support is much more likely.

There's not a "workaround," so much as there are people just enjoying the system and pointing out that the worrying is quite often for naught. And there really won't be an influx of big AAA third party games like the PS4 and Xbox, sorry, you'll probably never get to see what happens in your unlikely scenario. The ones that do make it will take in to account the hardware's limitations, exceptions being online only multiplayer type games, which will expect their users to have expanded storage I imagine.

 

[Skittzo0413]

Actually kind of glad Nintendo has a limit on patch sizes. Imagine a dev pushing out a Halo Anniversary Style 20GB patch to your Switches 25.9GB of internal memory. Now imagine multiple games you have installed doing that.Also before someone says it flash memory is not cheap putting in more was not economically viable at the price point they were targeting.

Random musing, would not be possible to put out the online mode as free DLC to bypass the size requirements and roll out the bug fixes as a separate patch?

The patch size is no longer an issue- they got an exception for the size of their patch. There are some other issues with the patch that they haven't shared with us.

EDIT:

But they were rushed, right? NBA Playgrounds was released in a horrible unoptimzed state, and with features missing. The other game I know less about, but I believe it was also quite optimized and later improved via patches. Is that not correct? Do you feel NBA Playgrounds or Mr. Shifty were not rushed to be released on the Switch? I'm not against removing that aspect of the title if it is incorrect.

There is a belief that Nintendo has a policy where games must be released at the same time as other platforms or else have exclusive content, due to some comments from some indie devs several months ago. This clearly isn't a blanket policy because there have been plenty of games that are exceptions to the rule (Shantae comes to mind) but the theory is that Nintendo is basically causing these developers to rush their games to release, because if they miss the target date they'll have to get an exception or exclusive content.

I don't know how much I buy the theory, but I do understand a developer rushing to get their game released at the same time as other platforms to avoid missed sales at the very least. But with rushing the game comes bugs and missing features, and that's to be expected. Whose fault it is, I don't know. But there is clearly more to the story regarding the patch for NBA Playgrounds because the developers have explicitly said the patch file size is no longer a problem.

 

[Sony]

Not sure why Switch gets called out for the low storage. I honestly can't have more than 4 games + patches on my Xbone / PS4.

 

[Nairume]

I think people getting worked up over the Switch's memory should read this thread for some real examples of Switch owners and their free space.

I'd also like to add in that larger storage spaces on the other consoles might look nicer in pure numbers, but dimenishes a lot when you have to install every single game to the harddrive.

I went with the 500gb xbone because I was intended to focus on just getting physical copies due to my data cap making it a little dicier to do too many digital games in a given month (and also because I admittedly had not done my research to learn that even disc games have to be installed to the system). Within three months of owning it, I had already filled up my harddrive between physical games and the few large digital titles I had downloaded and was already having to clear the fridge to play newer stuff. Even after buying an external HDD for it, I'm still looking at games on my shelf that I can't play right now unless I delete other stuff and then wait for them to install and patch.

Meanwhile, despite buying a bunch of Switch games over the past three months, I'm not even close to filling up the internal memory because I'm not having to install as much shit to it by default. I'm sure I'll eventually need to expand it, but I'm much happier having to do that knowing that it isn't the difference between being able to play my physical games or not.

Not sure why Switch gets called out for the low storage. I honestly can't have more than 4 games + patches on my Xbone / PS4.

Exactly.

Halo 5 alone eats up more than a quarter of my xbone's internal hdd. I even passed up on GoW4 simply because I didn't want to bother with clearing out that much space (and I'll likely be passing on Forza for the same reason).