Ah that's not good. Might limit triple AAA western third party titles from coming to the Swi..
Oh thanks Matt. Everything is fine now!
WSJ reporter : Standard capacity of Switch game card is around 16GB
- Thread starter Chobel
- Start date
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Blu-Ray/PSN size or post install + day one patch size?
PHOENIXZERO
Member
How much space reserved for patches and DLC?
Standard Blu-Ray size is 25 GB. PS4 and Xbox One can't run those games?😱😱😱
That stuff will be stored on the system's internal memory card. The 16GB is only for the game itself. Patches, DLC and the like should be stored on the system.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Since Switch has a 720p screen and is likely considerably weaker than PS4 / Xbone, I would not expect much in ways of 1080p. This would have the added advantage of not needing as high resolution textures.
Duel layer Blu Rays are 50 GB.
Also some of those games did have large (10+ GB) patches people had to download to get all the content.
Delusibeta
Banned
Nintendo's blatantly lying through their teeth to try to get people to continue to buy 3DSes.
King of Cups
Member
My hope is that Nintendo will push for double capacity cards that would allow for rewritable allocation (base game is 18GB, game ships on 32GB to account for possible DLC) and a certain small amount of system storage is used for cache as it rewrites the card data in chunks.
So use a 64 GB cart. Standard != Maximum card size
I tried some obvious joking. Guess I failed.
The standard size on the DS was 128 MB, and yet we had Ni No Kuni DS at 512 MB
The standard size on the 3DS was 2GB, and yet we had huge games like Xenoblade or graphically intense ones like Resident Evil clocking in at 3 GB with the maximum allowed gamecard size being 8GB
The standard size on the Switch is 16GB, and suddenly you expect that this is going to be the maximum?
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Come again?
If 16 GB is the MINIMUM size that's actually pretty good. There will be 32 GB and 64 GB cards for sure. 64 GB is already more space than a PS4 / XB1 disc. I doubt we'll ever see a 128 GB card but it would be theoretically possible. Just like DS games ranged from... 16 MB? to up to 512 MB
Consider this:
I'd say there is nothing to worry about. The increase of card sizes beyond the so-called 'standard' size is an industry standard, so no reason it wouldn't happen for the Switch.
cbrotherson
Member
As a person who works for a first party this thread hurts my brain.
Matt, you're one of the few voices of reason in this and are actully in the know, yet your words are almost lost in the white noise of fear and fact revisionism, which is sad. Don't give up, some of us are listening.
Matt, you're one of the few voices of reason in this and are actully in the know, yet your words are almost lost in the white noise of fear and fact revisionism, which is sad. Don't give up, some of us are listening.
FalsettoVibe
Member
I didn't want to say anything but this entire thread reminds me of an argument about N64 cartridge sizes back in the day.....on IGN message boards. lol
Skittzo0413
Member
This and the resolution thread ("720p screen, what is this, the bronze age???") are really showing either the massive biases of some of these posters towards Nintendo or their general tech illiteracy.
You and Matt are doing good work, keep it up guys.
Edit: Since it needs to be said again, standard does not mean maximum. We'll likely see cards up to 64GB or more.
Autocorrect striking without me noticing -.-
We need to quote this every two post
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Ah. Thought it was a meme I was missing, or something.
That is an issue, but it is a different one from the available sizes on the shipping physical medium. Any game shipping on XBO/PS4 would fit fine onto a 64GB cartridge w/o patches, DLC, ect.
Also, aren't PS4/XBO limited to 50GB dual layer blu-ray discs? I don't know if they support more than two layers.
Regarding the size of games in total. There is a thread on the reports that official 128GB micros sd cards are supported and. . . yeah, thats going to be a big limitation that I hope gets addressed.
It doesn't seem to be helping that standard size != maximum size is in the OP. So you might be right on that. Storage space for patches and updates is a far bigger issue to me. They've essentially passed the cost of storage onto the consumer as the rumors say it ships with a tiny amount of internal storage.
This bears repeating but 128GB won't be the max sized usable microSD card. Anything up to 2TB will be compatible given the format spec, although 256GB or 512GB will likely be the largest available cards when Switch launches.
cbrotherson
Member
Who do you work for?
Sony - but I keep a keen personal interest on all games industry people/news and have worked with and for MS and Nintendo in the past as both a games journo and games producer. But to be clear, anything I type on here is personal opinion yadda yadda.
To be fair, Skittzo, you're one of the few posters in threads like these who provide a balanced, informative and fascinating viewpoint, so thank you.
Good news, you're going to get that lossless audio, since thats been in Nintendo systems since the N64.
80 minutes of audio can be losslessly compressed (FLAC) to about 350MB.
WhiteWaterM00se
Member
Well then based on what you have seen this far about Switch, are you more inclined to believe it will be a success, less inclined?
A fair point that I didn't elaborate on since its probably covered in the other thread.
Right now the larger shipping size seems to be 200gb from Sandisk. Not a lot of breathing room for lots of beefy games.
Lossless audio isn't needed, at all. Ever. The only times you may hear a difference between compressed 320kbps MP3 for example and a lossless recording is very well recorded orchestral piece which makes heavy use of the overtone series. E.g. Spectralism. And even then, it's extremely debatable on whether there actually is a difference. I don't think 99.99999% of people would hear the difference and even if you can, it may very well be placebo. Most audio engineers I've worked with/have spoken to, think the same of lossless audio on a consumer level. The quality of a recording, mastering and your speakers/player matter more than lossless audio. It's good to work with in a mastering environment, but not much else.
Candescence
Member
Poking in on the question of how well the Switch might do, I personally don't think the Switch will be a failure by any stretch. It's not hobbled by having a feature that few consumers will care about, and if the price is right and the library is appealing enough, I imagine it could do as well as the 3DS at least. Plus, Pokemon is inevitably coming to the Switch, and the lack of BC makes me think we'll get Sun & Moon ports (or the inevitable third version). And the marketing so far is absolutely on point.
Plus, I think Nintendo's route of presenting the Switch as a multi-use-case device might also make the Switch more appealing as a dedicated device in the face of the mobile device market. Easy built-in local multiplayer with just one device or multiple, being able to play games on a TV, etc, stuff that you can't do with phones or tablets. Just a thought, I suppose.
So... Lossless audio is essentially a placebo for audiophiles much like vinyls are, then?
Plus, I think Nintendo's route of presenting the Switch as a multi-use-case device might also make the Switch more appealing as a dedicated device in the face of the mobile device market. Easy built-in local multiplayer with just one device or multiple, being able to play games on a TV, etc, stuff that you can't do with phones or tablets. Just a thought, I suppose.
So... Lossless audio is essentially a placebo for audiophiles much like vinyls are, then?
{insert code here}
Member
I've got plenty of PS3 games that wouldn't fit on a 16gb cart. Don't current gen games routinely have 40gb+ install sizes? Maybe this system isn't intended for those kinds of AAA blockbuster games. Although Nintendo games and indies would fit on these 16gb disks.
I guess what I'm hearing isn't real then because I always prefer WAV (or FLAC/ALAC) when given the choice and it always sounds richer and clearer (better).
I guess what I'm hearing isn't real then because I always prefer WAV (or FLAC/ALAC) when given the choice and it always sounds richer and clearer (better).
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Those are collections of 2 and 3 games respectively too, right? That's one of the more likely situations I can imagine an especially high capacity card being needed.Gamezone said:
If 16 GB is the norm for launch games and some games will probably be 32, then it's a sure thing the next step up of 64 GB will happen eventually, and at that point they've already surpassed double-layer Blu. As to the other part I think you misunderstand what I meant--it's that the CPU is even less of a problem, because if it's better it will be so from launch day and regardless of specific game. Things like GPU and RAM are probably much bigger concerns for keeping up with the PS4/Xbone Joneses.Sub Boss said:
Mmm, I wouldn't bet either way on that. People bring up example of Nintendo games with surprisingly small sizes, but Zelda is a game of pretty big scope, and 16GB would only be 4x the size of Skyward Sword.MDave said:
This is kind of like asking if larger PS4 games would be on multiple single-layer discs. It's impractical and would cost more.ProtomanNeo said:
For $80 they could give you a $60 Blu-ray game and a $20 64 GB microSD card they bought retail with the same ROM copied to it if they wanted to.Typicalrik said:
For games where Switch is the main target? Perhaps this will be a consideration to increase profit margins. For multiplatform games already designed for 50GB discs, if it really comes down to "We pay $2 more for a larger card or can't sell it at all", that doesn't seem like a hard choice either if they think it will sell at all.eighty(one) said:
Most ranged from 0.5 MB early on to 4 MB late in life. Tales was a special freak.MrT-Tar said:
Even if 16 GB was the one and only size of game card available, this would be a hell of a lot better than the N64 situation. Being a third of what a Blu-ray on the competition can hold, it would be like if all N64 games were over 200 MB, instead of the norms of 8-32.kayzai said:
If the master is well produced/the same for both vinyl and CD, then yes. It's placebo.
The case that audiophiles have is that, with a lot of pop releases, the vinyl master is far and above way better than the CD/digital master. But this has nothing to do with the format itself. Just that pop record companies know vinyl listeners are more likely to listen to their audio on Hi-Fi equipment, while CD/digital is a noisy/traffic environment. So they produce different masters for each format.
A label that largely deals in Western Art music however, will use the same master for all formats, which will be very well done, hopefully and the difference will be nonexistent.
I'm a composer. If there's anyone on the planet that would advocate for a better listening experience, it would be me. But, I can't hear it, none of my friends/people I've worked with in the industry can hear it either. For reference; I have pretty close to perfect hearing and absolute pitch. It's a placebo you're hearing, either that or your recordings have been tampered with. If you're listening to a recording with the same master one format shouldn't sound brighter than the other, differences in audio equipment is what would produce a brighter image among the same recording.
Given the trajectory of game card sizes since the DS, 64GB cards will almost certainly be offered immediately, and there shouldn't be anything technically stopping them from providing 128GB or higher cards if necessary. When that happens, will you be asking whether the small size of 50GB Blu-Rays will impact third parties bringing their titles to PS4/XBO?
{insert code here}
Member
Doesn't an internal HDD mitigate this issue entirely?
DLC will be installed to dedicated console storage.
Semantics, but it's likely flash based as it's portable.
Silent Chief
Member
I'm more worried about the price of the games than the side of the card.
I'm not paying $60 for portable games.
I'm not paying $60 for portable games.
Largest massmarket cards now are 256GB from Sandisk and Samsung coming in between $150-200.
It was a rhetorical question. Switch will almost certainly have larger capacity media than PS4 and XBO, with the capability to grow even further over the course of its life cycle, so claiming it's going to be held back by media capacity but PS4/XBO aren't is just silly.
LordRaptor
Member
Why would / should - hypothetical example - a Switch version of Shadows Of Mordor 2: The Mordoring cost less than the X1 / PS4 version if it is the exact same feature complete game?
cbrotherson
Member
Personally? I think it will do well - we (as a gaming culture) are too binary when it comes to this sort of thing; we're too quick to say that something has either "succeeded" or "failed" based on metrics that exist outside of our personal desires. I love my Vita and it's my favourite machine (and has been for the past few years) as it fills the exact gaming slot required for my life in terms of accessibility, software and hardware. No matter what people will say, nothing will change that. Doesn't mean it was perfect but no one system is all things to all people.
That said, so far, Nintendo is doing things 'right'. Measured and focused marketing backed with good looking hardware. It showed off the right type of software for a 3 minute teaser (Nintendo games, sports game, big-name western third party title), got the idea of the machine across effectively and efficiently without being distracted by other things (of course it's got a touch screen and some form of motion sensing! But why confuse the messaging and show that this early in the reveal when it's standard for devices?). As I've said on my Twitter feed, this is as confident and focused as I've seen Nintendo in ages. Everything you're seeing and hearing has been mostly planned - although I don't think even the company was prepared for how popular the video would be.
Concerns over power are, by and large, not something Nintendo will be fussed about. Same with storage. This is probably the most developer focused machine the company has created in a while, so for most of the part third parties will have known about these factors for a while. It's not like Nintendo suddenly decided to go with relatively 'low storage carts' yesterday - as shown by how long the rumours have been floating around - and same with the Nvidia soc; the partners are working with Switch with this in mind already, and have been for a while. If the machine sells well enough, and the audience skew is wide enough, you'll see ports. If it doesn't sell well enough, and/or the audience is just your typical 'only buys Nintendo software' kind then you won't see many. Cart sizes and power concerns (neither of which are insurmountable) in today's market, won't be a massive factor for most (not all, but most) third parties.
And it's a smart move to market the first 'ad' to young adults and students, as it's the perfect machine for them (and travellers/commuters like me). Kids will naturally gravitate to this as they always do - you don't need to market directly to older children to get them interested, they go for whatever older influencers like, regardless, hence GTA and COD being so popular with that demographic, for ill or otherwise. Besides: Pokemon.
I honestly feel it will do well (price notwithstanding - although no way this will be more expensive than £/$300 RRP), but part of that will entirely depend on its os and how it approaches the mobile sector. If Nintendo has something which allows you to use Switch with your mobile device - make it an essential companion rather than a competing machine for space in your bag - then it's off to a winner.
You can't fight mobile. But work with it and you'll reap rewards. For example, if Nintendo creates a bluetooth app to mirror your mobile apps and screen on your Switch (like Samsung does with Sidesync between its phones and pcs) then you've created a games machine which doesn't require you to ignore your phone but have it work with it - gaming controls, larger screen, convenience, natural cross over/unlocks with its own mobile games. And so on. Given Nintendo's hush hush - and surprise/success - over its mobile plans with Switch, there's definitely something it has up its sleeve.
Essay over.
BrotherSeth
Neo Member
I think it sounds fine. Alot of small games don't need to waste bigger cards than 16gb.
If it's the standard = minimum, then they have options to expand for bigger games. Just don't hope it eats to much into the developers cut, because that could really drive away third party.
I'm a bit more concerned regarding the digital/patching precedure. Hopefully we get more info soon.
If it's the standard = minimum, then they have options to expand for bigger games. Just don't hope it eats to much into the developers cut, because that could really drive away third party.
I'm a bit more concerned regarding the digital/patching precedure. Hopefully we get more info soon.
Surprised if they fumble again? Hardly. I don't think anyone can be surprised if they mess it up again. What we can say definitively right now is that the reveal had clear, concise, messaging - something the Wii U never had, and whether or not you like the name, it's literally the polar opposite of the "Wii U" brand in that the same literally defines what the console does. It makes sense, even if it's not overly clever.
So, it's off to a solid start. They also quickly (within a week) unveiled when we would really learn all the magic about this sytem. So on the 12th, they absolutely must NAIL it. Continue what they started. They could easily mess it all up again and end the whole thing with a "Nintendo Land" like confusing message.
HOWEVER, your points were relevant back then, but today this storage medium has made rapid advances and 16gb is hardly going to be "it" for sizing. Hell, Breath of the Wild is probably launching using much bigger storage. Now, will that storage cost more? Sure, but it's been explained over and over again that this storage medium even at 32 or 64gb isn't overly expensive like it use to be. And as someone pointed out already, of 400 ps4 games, only 100 were over 16gb. So that seems like a really solid standard size with larger available for the minoirty of games that need it.
I don't think say, Dice would try to squeeze Battlefield 1 into a 16gb cart by restricting textures and things if the system itself can handle it. They would just use larger carts.
Midi files, yada yada - all of your concerns were just part of the era. Even a majority of PS1/2 games still used midis. It wasn't really until last generation when it became fully standard to stop using midis. Foggyness was more attributed to hardware than the carts, fyi.
Literally the only negative of carts is cost (for the larger carts). And even then, the cost difference isn't that great. All those other negatives you list are from a long gone era and mostly were choices of the developers/publishers.
There is no reason to have those concerns today. The cart medium has made huge advantages, to the point that basically what powers that stuff is now some of the very best storage that PC's can use (SSD). The other disadvantage of it is that constant writing to the cart could wear it out, but very few if any games will have any sort of constant write beyond a save file and that won't cause any weardown.