Just making the overall point more clear. Digital games still have distribution costs, they just go to the platform holder, not to stores and shipping companies.
Lego City Undercover Switch cover mentions 13GB download [Up3: Full game on card]
- Thread starter shiyrley
- Start date
I think it's more likely that there'll be a required 13GB extra download whether one gets the game on cartridge or the eShop. So eShop people will get the game in ~8.3GB, start it up, then download the rest afterward.
Colonel Mustard
Banned
Family-oriented titles by and large sell way more on Nintendo platforms. I'm gonna guess that the same thing happens here. 13GB patch or not.
The only limiting factor I see here is early adopters already owning the game on Wii U...where it's available for twenty bucks.
But that makes no sense at all. If you need all 20GB to play the game, why not just upload the whole thing all at once?
Its not PAR though. All other major platforms (and WiiU) that require installs have enough space or support affordable solutions. (EXternal HDs)
To require Switch users to fully install and uninstall 13GB or so that must be downloaded every time they want to play a different 3rd party game is just wrong and completely unjustifiable as a buisness practice.
Oh, I wasn't defending that idea.
But WB put themselves in the situation where they can't win. It's a horrible solution to the problem they faced, and it's a failure from both Nintendo and WB to not foresee and deal with this in a consumer-friendly way.
When the best defense people have come up wth in this thread is the Master Chief Collection and it STILL doesn't stack up favorably...
Because it's easier for them to just make one executable.
Because both versions are running the same game code, like it's been on the 3DS and Wii U. Whether running on cartridge or from the eShop, the game is likely going to look for that "extra" data and download it if it's not found.
Ninja Scooter
Member
That's more Nintendo's problem and the amount of space they built into the console (32 GB in 2017 is pitiful, lets be honest). Third parties aren't going to go out of their way to cater their business practices and profit margins in order to work around Nintendo's mistake. That's something Nintendo is going to have to answer for.
E_Darkness
Member
Probably something to do with the physical edition. Like it has to be the same version you buy off the shelf, visa versa. So if they only shipped 7GBs on the cart, they have sell the game the exact same on the digital store front.
This is ridiculous and incredibly cheap on Warner Brothers part.
It's a handheld. That's how much handheld devices tend to have. Google and Apple charge an extra $150 to go from 32GB to 128GB.
And that's why I think Nintendo should be subsidizing the bigger carts. Eat the cost.
We see Nintendo putting themselves in situations that end up making the decisions of publishers harder, and then we wonder why they are dropped.
Nintendo should be proactive in eating the costs. They can't count on the good graces of publishers to not pull shitty moves like this that actively degrade the customer experience.
When was the last time an iphone had 32GB memory? Like 3 years ago?
edit: lol I'm wrong
Still, smarthphones aren't designed for gaming and their internal memory being low isn't excusable on a gaming system. Apps are only a few megs, games are several gigs.
This is as plausible as it is stupefying to read out loud.
So, this is potentially an MMO client without the MMO.
The problem with this is, then there becomes absolutely no incentive for publishers to take even simple measures to keep their file sizes smaller.
Guess how many games in the app store are bigger than 10GB?
Fair. They can subsidize at, say, an 80% or 90% rate to align incentives, then.
I don't know if they are or not, although I am working under the assumption that they aren't, since I suspect that WB would also prefer a fully self-contained cart if it added no cost.
Ninja Scooter
Member
It's a handheld that they are touting as providing console like game experiences. Console games, in 2017, are fucking huge.
eighty(one)
Member
Or what Nintendo need to do, since you know they chose a cart medium:
Eliminate all lesser Game carts sizes, except 32GB and no extra charge for this. No charge for developers, publishers or consumers.
Nintendo needs to make a standard and if it ends up costing Nintendo more, so be it - they should eat the cost, since they mandate carts.
I agree. Its 100% Nintendos fault. However buisness' never accept responsibility for something when they can make someone else pay for it. In this case its either 3rd party publishers or Nintendo's own consumers.
Given how poor Nintendo's 3rd party relationships are, they have little reason to screw over their customerbase to appease companies that dont like them and are looking to screw them over at every opportunity.
Yes, they are fucking huge. So, unlike iPhone, you can expand the storage.
You saw how irate people were when the $300 price was announced. Now imagine it was $350 or $400 to include more storage.
I'm not excusing WB's shitty practice here. Shipping on a smaller cart to punt the cost to consumers in other ways is a terrible business practice, even by WB's standards. If that's really how things are going to be from 3rd parties, then, yeah, Nintendo should have included more storage and increased the price of the system.
stan423321
Member
Because the cartridge version of the game doesn't get on-cartridge updates, game update has to have at least an option of being separate from the game bulk, and at that point it is way easier to implement it the same way for digital titles. PS4 and XB1 are able to avoid this since physical titles are installed to HDD anyway so update can be "mixes into old files" for physical based installs too.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I'm not saying they should have packed in more storage though. I'm saying that issue is Nintendo's. I'm also saying that I don't think it will become that huge of a problem. If the Switch is compelling enough, most consumers will work around it somehow, whether it's expanding the storage or just deleting games as they finish them.
If consumers really felt this was an issue, it would have come up (and been addressed) in the last 3 years of the PS4/Xbone generation when having to download massive day one patches has become common place.
I mean, yeah, I'll work around it when I have to, but at some point I'll have a full 256GB fridge and a bunch of this nonsense to deal with.
Or, I could go next door, give up portability, and just get a better version of the game elsewhere.
The problem is that this is yet another potential notch against Switch games that they should have seen coming and taken measures to avoid. I was sold on the idea of the Switch's storage based on the concept that we could, as before, count on physical to keep storage issues in check.
That shit went downhill in less than a month!
Edit: seeing your edit to the post: no, no, no. Massive day one patches and large file sizes HAVE been an issue for three years. It has been adressed in multiple ways, including adding new storage options, increasing the base storage, and more.
Nintendo's proposed solution was cartridges and treating physical games like a handheld, and it was great.
Then it wasn't.
These workarounds shouldnt need to happen on the customer end. Why should a customer have to pay 50-100 dollars for a 128GB or 200GB SD card to fit a full sized 3rd party game (Destiny is 110GB on PS4 right now) when it will cost the publisher only a few dollars to upgrade the game's Cart size thanks to economy of scale/wholesale discounts.
Why should Nintendo insist their customers bear this cost over 3rd parties? Especially since 90% of people will buy this console for Nintendo first party games.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Because they can? these companies are going to get away with as much as consumers let them. It's callous, but it's the truth.
Yup.
Not saying you....but some vehemently wanna call it a home console first. Its looking more n more like a handheld first every week. This reminds me of Vita situations downloading games on all these different expensive ass memory cards. At least on the Switch it isnt proprietary.
Wasnt it similar on 3DS? Putting eShop games on SD Cards? I cant remember now.
Yup.
Why didnt Nintendo just mandate 3rd parties use the biggest carts available? Kinda like how Sony has a mandate for PS4 Pro support. Not the same thing but its close enough.
I predict Nintendo will quietly start switching marketing and focus more on the handheld aspects if it doesnt sell well.
NeptunePirate
Member
Wait, so if someone buys the physical game and does not have internet access, they don't get the full game?
Scofield94941
Member
damn I really wanted this game on WiiU...waited 4 years for a pricedrop to 20 bucks. Then announced for switch and thought "hmm could finally pick it up and play on a new system w/ better loadtimes etc". Now I feel like waiting for another price drop to buy. Guess I'll pick it up in 2021
So what? Nintendo can buy larger amounts flash memory. Most apps on phones and tablets are a few hundred MB at most. Many games on the Switch, including download only games are going to be much larger than that.
Flash memory isn't nearly as expensive as the mark up given to it by phone/tablet manufacturers and Nintendo should of eaten the cost of adding more flash memory to the Switch.
Schnozberry
Member
I'd like to see it become standard that anyone who wants uncompressed audio, FMV, and foreign language packs can download it separately, and let everyone else save their bandwidth.
Call it what you want:
If it's a handheld device first, it shouldn't have 13TB patches that take half of the basic storage to work.
If it's a home console first, it shouldn't have 32GB storage in the first place.
People run freely between handheld and home console to abstain from criticism. Doesn't work here -- both look bad.
If it's a handheld device first, it shouldn't have 13TB patches that take half of the basic storage to work.
If it's a home console first, it shouldn't have 32GB storage in the first place.
People run freely between handheld and home console to abstain from criticism. Doesn't work here -- both look bad.
Lord of Ostia
Member
This has nothing to do with the problem at hand. This decision was made entirely by WB. The cartridge size to include the full game exists, WB chose not to use it.
MisterR
Member
The excuse "it's a handheld" that Nintendo fans Troy out every time a flaw is pointed out gets old. Per Nintendo it's not just a handheld so it will be compared to its peers. In some instances that's a plus. The fact that it's portable comes to mind. Other times, weak power wise and terrible internal storage, it's gonna come up short.
Narpas Sword0
Member
It absolutely does. Nintendo designed the console and put forth the policies for publishing.
This is on both of them.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
No it isn't. When I buy a PS4/X1 game the content is on the disc and installs off the disc, here the game isn't on the cartridge you have to download it. Even Zelda which had a mandatory install on Wii U had everything on the disc.
Yeah but the whole game is on disk (Patches aside of course). Isn't this a case of you have to download to get the actual game?
Colonel Mustard
Banned
You can buy a 128GB micro SD card for less than $40. "Expensive ass" and "Vita like" aren't descriptors I would use as a comparable Vita card would around 2-3x as much.
I didnt believe you, then I searched...lol.
Key difference between Switch vs other home consoles?
We knew damn near from day one it had mandatory installs and major downloads. This is like blindsiding folks today.
Like stated before other home consoles came with waaaaaay more internal storage. And the internal can be expanded on.
I mean I guess the bigger SD Cards is an option but the size of games is gonna be an issue.
Some of us just said a few weeks ago ...lets see how it handles bigger size games first before declaring others need to get on the cart bandwagon.
Sniffynose
Member
If this pans out to be true I won't be buying it. I had the WiiU version way back and it was a good game, I was going to double dip so my kids could play it, but frig that if they are making the cart act as an authorized purchase card and you get stuck downloading the whole game.
Lord of Ostia
Member
The 32 GB of internal storage isn't why this is a problem though. It's a problem because the cart doesn't contain the whole game, meaning it's completely useless without servers hosting the download, and it's an offline game requiring online to set up no matter which version you buy. The mandatory download doesn't even take half the storage on the system, if you otherwise buy physical storage isn't a problem...and if you need more, micro SD cards are cheap.
Yeah, and the 8GB vita memory card will be enough to play hundreds of Vita game cards.
With the 128GB microSD you can fit 9 Lego City Undercovers.
When the point of comparison you need to defend a storage situation is the frickin' Vita....
Nintendo can not mandate, that developers happily eat a significant hit to their profit per sale, versus what they'll make on the other consoles.
Since only 25GB is available, the 13GB requirement actually does use over half of the available internal storage.
Yes, only about third of the game's data is actually on the cartridge. Given that it's an open world game, I don't think the game will be playable at all without the download.
Way bad...