It's not like they're going to be sticking around...
WSJ reporter : Standard capacity of Switch game card is around 16GB
- Thread starter Chobel
- Start date
It's not like they're going to be sticking around...
OrbitalBeard
Member
Yeah, lots of AAA games in general are close to 50 gigs.
If a western team wants to publish a AAA game on Switch (doubtful), they'll have the option to use a larger game card, going by previous Nintendo systems that utilized carts.
LordRaptor
Member
The non-remaster versions of those games each fitted on a single DVD.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I hope some of you guys weren't expecting Andromeda or Final Fantasy XV...
The cost of those 32 GB and 64 GB cards isn't going to make such a port desirable unless Nintendo subsidises (which they won't), let alone practical technically.
Returning to solid-state is a good thing, but larger capacity cards are noticeably more expensive per unit relative to discs.
The cost of those 32 GB and 64 GB cards isn't going to make such a port desirable unless Nintendo subsidises (which they won't), let alone practical technically.
Returning to solid-state is a good thing, but larger capacity cards are noticeably more expensive per unit relative to discs.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Sure, but people aren't buying this console for a 360/PS3 quality experience.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I wasn't, but I am interested in a full-fledged version of Madden, NHL, or WWE 2K. Would those fit?
Any games could fit. I don't really know the file size of these games but unless there are some 100GB+ madness, no reason it couldn't technically work.
Since the advent of blue ray, game developers started putting uncompressed audio into their games since they had so much extra space. Sometimes higher bit rate video for pre rendered cutscenes.
For most people, compressing or reducing the quality of audio slightly (where there's no discernable difference to non audiophiles), gives great reductions in size. Going from like 100+ MB to like ~3MB.
I wouldn't be surprised if a typical modern game wasn't around 16gb with compressed audio, real time cut scenes and textures suitable for the console.
It should be abundantly clear now that they arent building a system expecting long term third party support. Expect the random half assed port and shovelware.
Every body that keep bringing up DS, 3DS but those were handhelds.
Nintendo wants this to be seen as a home console.
So which is it? Are we to look at the Switch as hand held or home console?
I really think it might be an issue with bigger games. Either price or not fitting everything on the card.
Nintendo wants this to be seen as a home console.
So which is it? Are we to look at the Switch as hand held or home console?
I really think it might be an issue with bigger games. Either price or not fitting everything on the card.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Well Madden 17 is 21 GB but it should be doable, whether it's possible to compress to 16 GB (without sacrificing quality) or by putting it on a 32 GB card.
I think an NBA game by EA was shown in the Switch teaser too.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Size is almost irrelevant, additional data can be downloaded, bigger games can come in bigger carts, and most of all NX is not competing directly against Xbox One and PS4 or PS4 Pro level visuals and thus would not need the same assets and thus storage requirements. This would also apply to the multiple GB patches and additional DLC's for modern games which let the games baloon to a hundred of GB or so on disk.
Heavily compressed data is possible, but would make executing games directly from the card more convoluted as you need to decompress data into local storage or an in memory buffer, but then again the LZMA enabled DMA engines in the modern consoles exist to stream compressed assets from disk to RAM. If they compress data on the card and they still want to execute it without an install process to SD or internal storage you cannot compare NX card games sizes to the download size of modern HD games, but you compare them to the size of those games on disc post install instead.
I would be interested in the cost per card for publishers, minimum order quantities, order to card delivery delay, time required to manufacture repeated orders... essentially the problems that dirt cheap and super fast to manufacture plastic discs solved way back then. How much better is the situation now?
I don't see how a low internal storage has anything to do with the third-party support. I mean, if you're planning to go digital-only, you should just grab a huge SD card and you're done.
I don't think you can say that is true.
If I were Nintendo I would be desperate to win back 3rd parties.
They can't keep the Switch afloat single handedly.
SinCityAssassin
Member
I would suspect either the dev kits include efficient compression tools or devs will have to put in hat extra effort not to try and drain everyone's goddamn HDDs in general.
Foldedpencil
Banned
Sounds a bit high for a minimum speck, have you seen the size of Nintendo's first party games? I know this is just a shaky rumor, but keeping the cart size down is one way to handle unwieldy download sizes on a system that cannot use a cheap conventional hard drive.
TyMiles2012
Member
I think that's fine. Carts cost so much less now, and I'm hoping devs finally start compressing stuff. A lot of games are very bloated because of that. I still worry about digital only users. It'd I can't get BoTW physically at launch, I'm getting it digital regardless.
That too. Plus, I can guarantee games won't be force installed, and I hope to god the emphasize that in January.
That too. Plus, I can guarantee games won't be force installed, and I hope to god the emphasize that in January.
Standard means cheapest, which means games that need more will earn less profit per unit. Back when NES/SNES were around, that sometimes meant more expensive MSRP -- gamers don't seem to have an appetite for that anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if publishers do the math and don't think it's worth it to port a particular game because they'd have to sell more copies to make the same profit. Maybe Nintendo can subsidize these games by trimming their rev percent or eating the upgrade costs themselves.
This basically reinforces the idea that third party parity won't be a thing, again. But because it's portable, it might attract a third party market specifically for that reason -- though as fidelity increases, the increased costs make exclusive third party games less likely because they usually try to go multiplatform when they're spending that much. As much as it annoyed me, 3DS' low fidelity kept dev costs lower and made third party exclusives more viable.
This basically reinforces the idea that third party parity won't be a thing, again. But because it's portable, it might attract a third party market specifically for that reason -- though as fidelity increases, the increased costs make exclusive third party games less likely because they usually try to go multiplatform when they're spending that much. As much as it annoyed me, 3DS' low fidelity kept dev costs lower and made third party exclusives more viable.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
Are you serious? Even 128GB+32GB are enough to store many big games and patches. If someone really has more storage needs he/she could... delete an old game? Or buy the game cards.
LordRaptor
Member
Those games (and other quick port remasters like sleeping dogs) offer very marginal / arguable benefits to the 'remasters' to the extent that the Return To Arkham collection isn't even available on PC because the original PC versions already look next gen enough on a decent rig.
Ditto the reason Bioshock Infinite didn't get a remaster on PC - the original game is already a looker.
It has a built in screen, self contained hardware and runs on a battery.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
- "additional data can be downloaded" sounds like the original Xbox One and isn't really practical even in parts of developed countries like Australia or Canada. Nobody wants non-functional games on card that require 30 GB downloads.
-"bigger games can come in bigger carts" which will be more expensive and discourage them. Unfortunately, this was the one real downside to returning to solid state.
dacuk
Member
Because all Single-layer BR games use those 25GB completely...
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
The way it was worded was wrong though....
Lots of single-layer Blu-ray games are over 16 GB but below the 25 GB limit (and dual-layer BD is quite cheap).
Wrong. Nintendo wouldn't have said this if that was correct and you knew what you were talking about. 16 GB has now become cost-effective for games.
To be fair, GTA5 is a bad example as it required just over 8 gigs of installation just to run at all. But yeah, Skyrim was some voodoo shit.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
GTA V was 2 DVD's, one an install disc, and it was about 16 GB total even on 360.
Some games, even on Wii U and PS3, are larger.
Just don't expect huge third-party titles and you'll be fine. I'm sure there'll be plenty of 32 GB games, especially later on.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Sure, but come on. Wasn't FIFA 17 44 GB modern consoles? How are you going to fit that on a 16 GB card?
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
How much do they cost?
...a quick search on amazon shows microSD 16GB for around $5, 32GB for $10, 64GB for $20, 128GB for $40. Those won't be 1:1 for wholesale Switch carts, but chances are they're using similar tech so I don't see why you can assume bigger carts are somehow negligibly more expensive. Spending 2-8x on memory will absolutely affect bottom line.
edit: to clarify, I didn't mean all publishers 100% of the time -- just acknowledging that it might be a deciding factor for some potential games.
I have the feeling this whole thing will end up being totally irrelevant. People think this is a big issue but I doubt it will be.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Ok, then think of the size of the cart as less relevant than the other points I bolded
.Did they ever commit to that? I was under the impression that they were parroting the same thing that Nintendo did when they said that the 3DS could accept 8GB cards for retail games. Sony decided to use a 4GB card as their only media for games, regardless of how small most games wound up being.
That did run into its own issues, though, since it had a hard ~3.2GB limit for space, which led to some interesting solutions for multi-game releases.
Astral Dog
Member
i think at first its going to be a mix of 32GB and 16, that makes sense
At least card sizes are variable. 16 GB is small for lots of AAA games these days. 32, 64, hell 128 all possible just more expensive to produce.
I do wonder if AAA will even bother, though, with the price to manufacture Switch games higher as the cart capacity goes up. It'll be an interesting sell, that's for sure.
EDIT: To people making Skyrim copmarisons or whatever, AAA is so damn big because texture sizes have gotten enormously large. Nintendo games are notable for being more minimalistic with their textures using lots of solid colors instead, hence a lower size on disk. So porting from AAA may be an issue on the switch, considering PS4/XBO games can be upwards of 50 GB at this point in time. We shall see.
I do wonder if AAA will even bother, though, with the price to manufacture Switch games higher as the cart capacity goes up. It'll be an interesting sell, that's for sure.
EDIT: To people making Skyrim copmarisons or whatever, AAA is so damn big because texture sizes have gotten enormously large. Nintendo games are notable for being more minimalistic with their textures using lots of solid colors instead, hence a lower size on disk. So porting from AAA may be an issue on the switch, considering PS4/XBO games can be upwards of 50 GB at this point in time. We shall see.
In terms of the game library it eventually gets, I think the Switch is going to mostly be a successor to the 3DS and possibly Vita. You're looking at mostly low-to-mid-budget Japanese games really, with a few super-mainstream games. Like Skyrim or Just Dance.
That said, judging by the last-gen versions of GTAV, if they really worked some magic I don't think it would be unreasonable to get that game under 32GB. It would just look more like the 360 version than the PS4 version.
LordRaptor
Member
Ok, then think of the size of the cart as less relevant than the other points I bolded
When the Nx being cart based rumours first appeared, people did some napkin maths to calculate retail feasibility
ProtomanNeo
Member
So for larger games I wonder do developers opt for a larger card or put the game
on multiple 16gb cards?
on multiple 16gb cards?
The answer is simple. Big AAA games won't be available for the Switch. Or a severely downgraded version of it will make an appearance, in which case, why bother? A game like Doom is 43GB digitally. Of course the reason why 16GB is the initial standard is most likely due to cost and is pretty telling what the hardware is going to be like.
Astral Dog
Member
Why? i dont understand neither game cards being the lesser problem or the CPU being inadequate when its rumored to be at least comparable to PS4 one.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
True. But what about third parties that want more?
Doh, forgot about the install disk for GTA5. Still, 16GB total on 360 = could fit that on a minimum size Switch 16GB game card? Pretty impressive size for those games still.
Zelda Breath of the Wild will be a good benchmark for what the Switch can do I believe. Will that be on a 16GB game card?
It will be completely irrelevant for third-party. But some people just refuse to see it, they absolutely want to seek for every reason to blame Nintendo about supposed bad decisions, because they are smarter than them.