Forums

Topic: Deal-breaking Things That Would Prevent Switch Purchase?

Posts 41 to 60 of 153

Grumblevolcano

@Octane I'm pretty sure @BlueSkies is counting the Metroid Prime series as FPS.

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

FragRed

@BlueSkies What are you referring to by only having 8 GB and less than 8 GB? Are you referring to RAM?

NEW WEBSITE LAUNCHED! Regular opinion articles, retro game reviews and impression pieces on new games! ENGAGE VG: EngageVG.com

CanisWolfred

@FragRed I hope he means RAM, because Nintendo almost immediately regretted that 8 GB flash storage option for the first year of the Wii U. 500 GB for the PS4 has actually come off as rediculous and short-sighted, I can't see the NX going much lower unless it's some cloud storage pipedream, or is heavily relying on external memory the way the Wii U ultimately did.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

Emperor-Palpsy

ntdojoe wrote:

Emperor-Palpsy wrote:

Deal breakers for me:

  • Less than 128GB of storage (Knowing Nintendo's efficiency, they'll almost certainly go with SSD)
  • Lousy online services
  • If it costs more than £200.

1) They will almost certainly not go with SSD, as its still a lot more expensive than a HDD, especially with higher capacities (btw, below 500GB would be a buzz killer for me)
2) $200? You won't buy NX then. They have to make it good and also profitable, no way it'll be below $299.

SSD memory is not expensive to the point that Nintendo wouldn't use it. You're probably thinking of PCI-based flash, or other drive formats that would mount the logic board. Those are moderately more expensive, but the cheapest option is to simply solder the chips directly to the logic board, which the Wii U presently does. Chips purchased in bulk are susceptible to greater discounts from the original manufacturer. Apple, for example, will charge the customer £100+ for a phone with more storage, despite the fact that their latest models storage chips are estimated to cost $8 for the lower end and $16 for the higher end.

One of the reasons Sony and Microsoft use HDDs is because they already purchase them for other product categories. That, and the fact they're making the trade off of speed for capacity. But if Nintendo are (allegedly) pushing card-based games, then there is one less reason to download games to the console anyway, because the speed differences will be negligible.

Also, I said £200, not $200. There are many more costs involved than simply the hardware, which is why the Playstation/Xbox are normally sold at a discounted rate later in their life; because they've already capitalised on the strongest number of sales within a given timeframe, which equals more profit. In the case of Sony and Microsoft, R&D costs are substantially higher. They pay royalties for features that Nintendo have never worried about. The manufacturing of their consoles is also far more complex; Nintendo has a good habit of simplifying its industrial design for maximum efficiency.

The £200 ballpark is perfectly reasonable - don't let the overused reference of 'power' cloud your thinking.

Edited on by Emperor-Palpsy

cackle

CanisWolfred

@Emperor-Palpsy - An SSD is definitely expensive enough that they wouldn't use it. Because if they can get twice the capacity for half the cost using a Hard drive vs. an SSD, why would they bother using the latter? The money they'd save could go towards other components, or a lower base price (or at least more profits). I'm pretty sure the last time Nintendo went with "efficiency" over cost effectiveness was when they stuck to a cartridge format for the N64, which they spent at least 4 years regretting as the PSOne and other disk formats quickly dominated the market. I highly doubt they'll make the same mistake twice.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

Emperor-Palpsy

@CanisWolfred

The reason they would pick SSD over a HDD is because the HDD would create a bottleneck. Again you're over-thinking the user experience - cartridge-based games would negate the requirement for a high capacity console, because the performance would be almost identical.

Also, N64 cartridges (and those from formats beforehand) were not based on the SSD technology that we know of today. The circuitry was profoundly different; those PCBs were akin to miniature logic boards - for lack of better comparison - that took the responsibility of processing much of the game data. SSDs on the other hand are just that - storage.

cackle

ntdojoe

Emperor-Palpsy wrote:

cartridge-based games would negate the requirement for a high capacity console, because the performance would be almost identical.

It isn't just about performance. In fact, performance isn't why, I think, manufacturers -and ultimately consumers- choose a 500GB HDD console over a 128GB SSD one. It's probably because more and more people like to download their games instead of going the extra mile and buy it retail (there are more reasons why people/I prefer downloads to discs) and therefore need more storage, not a faster one.

Don't get me wrong, I'd gladly take a 512 or 768GB SSD at any time, but like I said, I assume they won't pay the extra penny for a better storage, if more storage is what the consumer wants.

I would have already gone fully digital on Wii U, but 32GB is no start. With game file sizes increasing, 250GB is the absolute minimum, I think, for a modern, digital-ready console. In 2017, I would have to consider buying a <500GB console two times however.

Check out my big NX concept on http://ntdojoe.wordpress.com.
Concept includes Nintendo Portable, Nintendo Ultimate, NintendOS, Miitopia, RePlay, N Cam and more.

Twitter:

Grumblevolcano

@ntdojoe I think 500GB is the absolute minimum as 250GB only fits like 2-3 retail games like say for example Halo 5, Halo Master Chief Collection and Black Ops 3 wouldn't fit on a 250GB HDD. We're also seeing an increase in the free post launch content approach, for example Halo 5 is 87GB but that's because nearly every single month since launch has had a significant game update containing new free content with more updates coming in the future.

Edited on by Grumblevolcano

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

ntdojoe

@GrumbleVolcano I wouldn't take these games as a metric for a Nintendo console though. I suggest that these games are first and foremost PS/XBox games, aiming to deliver the most cinematic experience possible with no care about game file sizes or whatsoever. As a matter of fact, series like CoD, NfS, Halo have always been doing abysmal on Nintendo consoles, which I couldn't mind, given that they're simply better on PS/XBox due to better specs. I suggest the main incentive to buy a Nintendo console is still to play Nintendo's games – because those can't be found elsewhere.

So the best way to determine how much storage would be adequate for NX is, I think, to look at the game sizes of Wii U games, then take that number, lets say, x2 to incorporate the naturally higher game size for a NX game and multiply that with the average amount of games a player buys for his or her console.

Most Wii U games I know of are actually well under 10GB. There's Smash which is 15.6GB and Xenoblade X which is 22.7GB, but the vast majority is super small compared to your examples. So I think, all in all, 10GB can be seen as average, that x2, and we could assume a 20GB average size for a NX title. With a 250GB HDD, that would be at least 10 games,, which should be enough for most people.

It's very theoretically, but I think, many people could deal with 250GB. Serious gamers might not however and therefore I agree that 500GB would be welcomed, but nothing's against a 250GB Lite model, isn't it?

Edited on by ntdojoe

Check out my big NX concept on http://ntdojoe.wordpress.com.
Concept includes Nintendo Portable, Nintendo Ultimate, NintendOS, Miitopia, RePlay, N Cam and more.

Twitter:

Grumblevolcano

@ntdojoe Well the base download for those were around 40-50GB, what I'm getting at is that the updates/DLC are what makes these games so large in terms of memory. DLC and/or many post launch updates was for the most part a brand new thing for Nintendo this generation and I anticipate they will use it more on the NX so say if MK9 happens there being instead of the 2 MK8 DLC packs Wii U got, like 6-8 MK9 DLC packs for NX that will keep the game supported throughout the NX's lifespan.

Edited on by Grumblevolcano

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

Octane

@ntdojoe That's assuming the NX will be another primary Nintendo box that won't get much third party support or attention from other gamers. I do want to see a competitive Nintendo console and therefore 500GB is the absolute minimum, provided that there's a 1TB option as well. Preferably a 2TB option too.

Octane

skywake

@ntdojoe @CanisWolfred @Emperor-Palpsy
The talk about flash being too expensive to use might have been true a couple of years ago. But we're at the point now where there isn't the same sort of cost that there was. Not to the extent where it's an insane idea at least. They could very easily give us a 240GB SSD based console with USB expansion for about the same cost as a 1TB HDD option. Which wouldn't be too bad at all IMO.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

kkslider5552000

-A lack of games I would buy
-Being as horrible as Microsoft in 2013

otherwise, idunno

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Megaman Legends 2 Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy MEGAMAN LEGENDS 2 < Link to LP

CanisWolfred

skywake wrote:

@ntdojoe @CanisWolfred @Emperor-Palpsy
The talk about flash being too expensive to use might have been true a couple of years ago. But we're at the point now where there isn't the same sort of cost that there was. Not to the extent where it's an insane idea at least. They could very easily give us a 240GB SSD based console with USB expansion for about the same cost as a 1TB HDD option. Which wouldn't be too bad at all IMO.

That'd be a gamble, I guess. I know for my comp, I'd live to be able stick in a small (I'm thinking either ~120 GB or ~250 GB) SSD to use for a lot of system-related stuff (and some games that load a lot, if I get the higher-end one), but even then, it's so expensive. A 2 TB regular internal hard drive would cost me less than most of the 240 SSD's I'm looking at on Amazon, so I could just save the money and get a 4TB HDD instead, or at least a 2 TB and have more to put towards a graphics card...

Basically, I still think it's a little too early to go with an SSD, unless it's they do multiple SKU's at launch again (which they might do anyways), and use it for a higher-end model. I just think that they'll definitely be able to maximize their profits with minimal drawbacks if they stick to a standard Hard Drive. I know more file space right off the bat is way more appealing to me than a smaller capacity that'll load a little quicker.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

Grumblevolcano

Regarding the HDD vs. SSD situation we could use the Xbox One Elite console as a basis for comparison. That has a 1 TB SSD and was $500 at launch but now is $350, don't know how much the SSD improves if at all for the XB1.

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

Bread-Not-Toast

Ports of old games

PSN- Crossword-Man
3DS Friend Code- 3067-6402-2163
Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeKk-kKUlvYeZSW2XbVrsqQ
Latest Review: Star Wars Battlefront Beta
Please add me as I need more friends.

Nintendo Network ID: Da-Banker

CanisWolfred

@Project_Dolphin With that logic the PS4 wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

Though, that does remind me of one important thing Ninty needs to push hard for: Maintaining a steady stream of noteworthy games. A platform is like a plane, if it doesn't maintain a minimum speed, it'll stall out and quickly lose altitude. And for even the best pilots, it's usually really hard to recover from a nosedive...

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

CanisWolfred

True, we already saw plenty of evidence for that with the Wii U. But then again, we also saw with the Wii that it had a lot of the most popular games, but enough of them were either spead out, or appealing to people who only buy a handful of games as it is. It did great for a while, but when the fad was over, it crashed hard, and a lot of 3rd parties got burned in the process. At the very least, the popularity of the games is only part of the equation.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

ntdojoe

Octane wrote:

@ntdojoe That's assuming the NX will be another primary Nintendo box that won't get much third party support or attention from other gamers. I do want to see a competitive Nintendo console and therefore 500GB is the absolute minimum, provided that there's a 1TB option as well. Preferably a 2TB option too.

To be honest, I view Nintendo consoles as just that – consoles to play Nintendo games. Why would anyone play CoD, NfS, Halo etc. on a Nintendo console when they're much better on PS/XBox? As a matter of fact, these series have always been doing abysmal on Nintendo consoles which strengthens my theory that most people buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games. There might be people who're still looking for that one console that does it all, but as long as Nintendo makes inferior consoles, their exclusive games will be their main incentive. Third-party support is mostly a marketing gig to me.

Check out my big NX concept on http://ntdojoe.wordpress.com.
Concept includes Nintendo Portable, Nintendo Ultimate, NintendOS, Miitopia, RePlay, N Cam and more.

Twitter:

Octane

@ntdojoe Halo is a MS exclusive franchise..

Anyway, if it's just another Nintendo box, that begs the question; Why even bother to upgrade at all when the Wii U does already do all of that? It's already an exclusive Nintendo box. Why drop the support 3.5 years in a console's lifespan to release a similar system a year after?

We've seen how much a Nintendo-only box sells, not a lot. There aren't that many Nintendo fans left that are willing to spend $300/400 on a home console. I don't think it's a choice for Nintendo, they have to change. It has to be more than just a Nintendo box and I want them to be competitive again, because that's when companies tend to make the best games.

The problem with multiplat games on Nintendo systems is that Sony or Microsoft always offered a superior product to play those games on. Nobody's going to buy a Nintendo system for third party games when the games look better on other consoles. And again, that has to change. Just because it has been like this in the past, doesn't mean the NX can't be something different. Maybe I'm just hopeful, but if they want to sell me another system, they have to show that they're more than what they're now.

Octane

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.