Support NeoGAF

[Mibu no ookami]

Their current cartridges are reportedly quite expensive to produce, which is why you basically never see the 64 GB carts used and very rarely see the 32GB ones, so you could still see a storage solution that is larger *and* cheaper than the current carts while still being markedly more expensive than bluray discs.

Also, if you, as a consumer, are paying $10 on average for a 128 GB micro SD card, manufacturers are paying way, way less, so there's no reason to believe Nintendo would be paying anywhere close to $10/cart when they're producing tens of millions of them.

Manufacturers aren't paying way less. I think there is this world where people think companies get this MASSIVE bulk discount on things like this, but there comes a time where you have minimal margins in the first place.

No matter how many carts they produce it won't be nearly as many as SD Cards have been produced. Their cards are marketedly more expensive than SD Cards. They use a proprietary card to limit piracy, but it comes at a higher cost.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So it's not 64GB. Got it.

What does pushing 64gb means? If it was more than 64 gb it wouldn't fit on a 64 gb card. Anything more than 32gb has to go on a 64gb card.

You don't like reading... Got it.

 

[Salmon]

Then it's the end of Nintendo for me. It would be really really stupid. I want to OWN my games, not rent them and be able to play them as long as Nintendo wants me to.

 

[blacktout]

Manufacturers aren't paying way less. I think there is this world where people think companies get this MASSIVE bulk discount on things like this, but there comes a time where you have minimal margins in the first place.

No matter how many carts they produce it won't be nearly as many as SD Cards have been produced. Their cards are marketedly more expensive than SD Cards. They use a proprietary card to limit piracy, but it comes at a higher cost.

It took me like five minutes of googling to find wholesalers selling 128 GB SD cards for like $1 to $2 per unit, and that's for purchasers buying only a few hundred units, rather than *millions*. I honestly think you're just making shit up that you think supports your claims with zero interest in whether what you're saying is true or not.

 

[Chuck Berry]

I keep misreading the thread title as "Will Smith 2"

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

NBA 2K23 is 55gb on Switch AND you have to buy an sd card to play it... It's not the only game that requires one.

At the point of requiring mandatory downloads, there isn't a ton of value in producing a cartridge at all.

Your argument is to ignore that PS4-like ports of PS5 and XSX games won't require significantly more expensive carts, or that they'll have carts and be digital in all but name.

Similar to current games that are not fully included on the cartridge, you still get to enjoy the advantages of physical media, such as sharing it with a friend, trading it in or selling it. These qualities don't disappear simply because the game requires additional download onto an SD card or the console itself. Instances like NBA 2K23 are exceptions rather than the norm on the Switch, but it appears you chose the first example that popped up on Google (attached screenshot).

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It took me like five minutes of googling to find wholesalers selling 128 GB SD cards for like $1 to $2 per unit, and that's for purchasers buying only a few hundred units, rather than *millions*. I honestly think you're just making shit up that you think supports your claims with zero interest in whether what you're saying is true or not.

Please link me to these wholesalers selling non-knock off brand 128 GB SD cards for 1 or 2 dollars.

Similar to current games that are not fully included on the cartridge, you still get to enjoy the advantages of physical media, such as sharing it with a friend, trading it in or selling it. These qualities don't disappear simply because the game requires additional download onto an SD card or the console itself. Instances like NBA 2K23 are exceptions rather than the norm on the Switch, but it appears you chose the first example that popped up on Google (attached screenshot).

I used the best example of a game that is somewhat recent and has a port from other 3rd parties (there aren't a ton of 3rd party games on Switch that are good examples of modern ports.

The commonality among them is that they have to take extreme measures to get the games on Switch. Nintendo knows that to get better support for Switch 2 that can't be the case.

The exceptions to the norm are going to become more than norm with Switch 2, but I see you're struggling to see that. Ultimately the point of the topic is whether Nintendo cares more about getting more 3rd party support and competing for the sale of these games or people being able to share their games with friends.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

I used the best example of a game that is somewhat recent and has a port from other 3rd parties (there aren't a ton of 3rd party games on Switch that are good examples of modern ports.

The commonality among them is that they have to take extreme measures to get the games on Switch. Nintendo knows that to get better support for Switch 2 that can't be the case.

The exceptions to the norm are going to become more than norm with Switch 2, but I see you're struggling to see that. Ultimately the point of the topic is whether Nintendo cares more about getting more 3rd party support and competing for the sale of these games or people being able to share their games with friends.

Alright, let's consider your perspective in this discussion where game cartridges are either too expensive for third-party developers or lack sufficient capacity to hold the entire game. In such cases, a set of guidelines could be established for AAA games, requiring them to be fully installed on the console's storage medium, similar to physical games on the PS5 and XSX.

Nintendo can continue releasing their games as they have been, complete and playable directly from the cartridge, while third-party developers adopt a model that has been used in the past, such as with GTA V on the Xbox 360 which required for the game to be installed on the HDD in order to be playable. Personally, I don't see any issues with this approach, and the average end-user shouldn't either since they have the ability to do with their physical games as they fit (share, trade, sell). Furthermore, this strategy helps keep costs low for 3rd party developers and publishers, as the size of the cartridge becomes more of a licensing matter than a limitation.

 

[64bitmodels]

Bro is just fishing for reactions at this point

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

If Switch 2 games are more in line with current-gen games, we're looking at significantly larger file sizes than what we're seeing with the current Switch.

I could see the Switch 2 being digital only, with codes sold in cases at retail. I think that is really the only true solution unless we're going to see games that are still very cut down like Hogwarts Legacy on the current switch which is a ten the size as the next-gen variants.

Otherwise, I think they would need 128gb cartridges as a general standard. I wonder if docked the next Switch will maintain a cap of 1080p rather than 4K.

Regarding your original point, I fail to see why Nintendo would sacrifice physical sales and their significant presence in retail solely to appease third-party publishers. Physical game sales, particularly first-party titles, are thriving on the Switch, both in Europe and in Japan (their home market). Adopting a digital-only ecosystem would only alienate a substantial portion of the user base. What would be the purpose of such a move? If we were discussing the Xbox ecosystem, where the digital market share is trending towards 80-90%, I could understand the shift to a digital-only approach. However, for the successor of the Switch, it simply doesn't make sense when digital to physical split is around 50%. It's perfectly fine if you don't share this view. We can agree to disagree and will leave at that. Ofc, I know you always want to have the last word so have at it, don't really care one way or another. XD

 

[blacktout]

Bro is just fishing for reactions at this point

Yep, it's abundantly clear that he's arguing in bad faith, so I'm done.

 

[Kings Field]

I’ll get one eventually if there’s no BC after I finish my backlog.

 

[Happosai]

Regarding your original point, I fail to see why Nintendo would sacrifice physical sales and their significant presence in retail solely to appease third-party publishers. Physical game sales, particularly first-party titles, are thriving on the Switch, both in Europe and in Japan (their home market). Adopting a digital-only ecosystem would only alienate a substantial portion of the user base. What would be the purpose of such a move? If we were discussing the Xbox ecosystem, where the digital market share is trending towards 80-90%, I could understand the shift to a digital-only approach. However, for the successor of the Switch, it simply doesn't make sense. It's perfectly fine if you don't share this view. We can agree to disagree and will leave at that. Ofc, I know you always want to have the last word so have at it. XD

This is why Nintendo invests millions into marketing. They not only keep their own game sales in check (which could go another two gens physical if we still have consoles 2 gens from now) but have been around long enough to observe those who failed to understand their targets from previously successful gens. Said it a last time but if OPs out to prove a point, just run a poll. I'll even type it out or someone else can create the thread in

Gaming. Thread: Nintendo Switch 2: Stay physical or Full Digital (Poll)?

You'd have numbers to go with the feedback loop rather than anecdotes.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Regarding your original point, I fail to see why Nintendo would sacrifice physical sales and their significant presence in retail solely to appease third-party publishers. Physical game sales, particularly first-party titles, are thriving on the Switch, both in Europe and in Japan (their home market). Adopting a digital-only ecosystem would only alienate a substantial portion of the user base. What would be the purpose of such a move? If we were discussing the Xbox ecosystem, where the digital market share is trending towards 80-90%, I could understand the shift to a digital-only approach. However, for the successor of the Switch, it simply doesn't make sense when digital to physical split is around 50%. It's perfectly fine if you don't share this view. We can agree to disagree and will leave at that. Ofc, I know you always want to have the last word so have at it, don't really care one way or another. XD

Retailers don't care if there is a cartridge in the box or not as long as they can sell a box in the store. They're making the same money regardless.

Retailers are more concerned about not having access to digital sales at all.

I was about to give you last word on your last post, but you keep pushing a narrative here that isn't consistent.

 

[Holammer]

It should be, but that's considered hate speech for some people.
The cost of carts, packaging (99.7% empty space!) and distribution must be eating into Nintendo's profits something fierce, so that alone is a reason to drop physical. Plus there's been a lot of normalization for digital among console gamers, even on Switch.

 

[FoxMcChief]

lol

No

 

[Happosai]

By the way, the poll is posted in Gaming. Not to burst your bubble OP but, there's high favor for physical but the both option is still popular too. Digital only. Nope. Not even if Nintendo went back to the route of having a separate console and handheld like 7th gen.

Edit: Thick Thighs Save Lives sorry to tag you but I accidentally quoted the wrong post.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

By the way, the poll is posted in Gaming. Not to burst your bubble OP but, there's high favor for physical but the both option is still popular too. Digital only. Nope. Not even if Nintendo went back to the route of having a separate console and handheld like 7th gen.

Edit: Thick Thighs Save Lives sorry to tag you but I accidentally quoted the wrong post.

As I told you, the question isn't "SHOULD THEY" they question is "WILL THEY".

Should Sony come out with SOCOM in their push for GAAS? Obviously. Will they? Who knows.

 

[Happosai]

"WILL THEY"

Nope. Plenty have posted why (myself included).

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

Best not be.