Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

I would be shocked to see any publishers use a 64GB cart but yeah it would mean that price of the 32GB carts would drop so publishers would jump on that which is great for the consumer.

Considering the amount of stick third parties get for not using 32GB carts it's pretty hilarious to see Nintendo not use a 32GB cart for bayonetta 1&2

The 64gb carts need to happen. It'll only drive prices down for the 32gb carts, which we desperately need.

I started buying digital in addition to physical, so it makes no difference to me now anyways. But I can't bear to think about how many quality, quality games have released running full 720p in handheld mode with special features for the system... The people have skipped over such a trivial reason as the cartridge it's being sold on.

I was playing LA Noire this morning on the handheld and I was just in awe of how good it looked. And when you touch the screen it causes this amazing ripple effact, and you can play the entire game on the touchscreen if you wanted to I think. Turning the camera and selecting options... all that. And then I think how many people haven't experienced this fantastic port... it saddens me.

So yeah they need to get on this as soon as possible. If they made the 32gb carts cheaper, I think the majority of games would no longer have an issue. Because very few of them would need downloads beyond 30 gigs. And maybe a few of them would, but it wouldn't be much.

I think the developers who need the 64GB cart would probably be like Rockstar (e.g. GTAV, RDR2) and Bethesda (e.g. Fallout 4). We know the LA Noire mess was not because of Switch carts because the same thing happened for the other platforms so if something like GTAV came to Switch there may not be a large download.

Tbh the only developer I would see using all the space honestly without passing the cost onto the consumer would be monolith and any future switch game they make. Nintendo themselves are so good at compression they probably won't ever need more than 32gigs I'd say

Valkyria Chronicles 4 looking good. This is the first gameplay that's been shown.

I don't think releasing the 64GB cart would necessarily drive down prices of smaller carts. It's just another size to consider when porting or creating games for the system. Thing is, even Nintendo themselves don't use 32GB carts so it's probably not in their interest to bother with bigger ones any time soon. Bayonetta 1 & 2 should be on the same cart but only in Japan is that happening.

I'm looking forward to footage of VC4 playing on the Switch. If it runs well, the game will be PERFECT for portable play.

@FragRed It's not on the same cart in Japan either, they have 2 carts (1 for each game).

Yea, I have to think that 64gig carts aren't necessary if the dev is willing to put in time to compress (USUALLY - not always). 32gigs is still more than enough for even AAA games if the time is taken with maybe a few exceptions.

Nintendo's great at it as are Blizzard. Overwatch shows as under 13 gigs on my PC, and even World of Warcraft after 10+ years of expansions is sitting around 45 gigs. 45 gigs! That's insane, and if that's not a signal of how a dedicated dev can really shave file bloat, I don't know what is.

(Heck, even Destiny 2 is "only" 42 gigs on PC, and I believe it launched under 32gigs on Xbox.)

But going back to my first paragraph, it's really time vs. money for the dev and publisher. Sure, most games can be compressed, but that can take a looooong time to do and possibly create issues along the way.

Odd that some western devs want 64gb cards to use....but wont use 32gb anyway instead opting for the cheap option...or seemingly the most expensive? What logic is that?

On that note "western partners" well thats not EA, Activision or WB so...

Who says they're the same devs? And they only said they need the storage, that doesn't mean they agree the pricing of the cards. In fact, the very same Tweet also mentions that they're hoping the prices drop for the smaller storage cards.

@Octane If they "need" the storage then that means they will be uding 64gb cards.

Need indicates a necessity. As in "without this it wont happen".

That means they are going to pay for it.

They dont want 32gb because it costs too much and wont use it. But their games could do with it couldnt they? Now we have 64gb cards becoming a point...suddenly all that money is worth spending?

And really how big are these damn Switch games? Like really. Rarely do you see a PS4 game over 50GB so on what earth would a game with Switch quality assets be that size

And the reason its kinda obvious its the same devs is because what western third parties do we have?

Bethesda, 2K, Ubisoft.

No EA, no Activision, no WB.

Which companies cut costs on the cards (and blurays on other systems) - 2K.

Mystery solved.

@YummyHappyPills Where did they say it's only about western publishers?

And no. Let's say a game is 50GB, and for whatever reason they don't have the time or want to spend the resources to trim the game down. They need the 64GB cards to release the game on Switch. But if we assume a ridiculous price of $100 per 64GB card[1], that doesn't mean they're going to do it. So you're right in the sense that ''without [the 64GB card] it won't happen'', but that doesn't mean they will. It only makes it possible for them to release the game on Switch. So you need the 64GB card to create the possibility of releasing the game.

[1] Note that this isn't based on reality, just an exaggeration to get the point across.

@Octane

And assuming they dont downgrade the assets at all...the game wont run. Thats just how it is. If they dont have the time or resources to downgrade, it wont come to the system, because if they just straight port a PS4 game, itll run like crap. There isnt enough RAM to stream assets like that and I doubt the GPU could handle all the effects and higher resolution textures.

A game ported from PS4 where its filesize is that big would most likely require a downgrade to even function.

That hypothetical about them just not bothering to change assets and bring a 60gb game doesnt work.

@YummyHappyPills

And especially ≠ exclusively, which means it's not just the U.S.-based publishers.

@Octane your point didnt go over my head.

You said if a game is 50gb and a developer doesnt want to cut the game down, they need a 64gb card.

Now on a hypothetical level this true.

On a realistic level, a game of that size with assets that bloat to that size, will not run on the system anyway. For instance DOOM is 50gb on PS4. Want to get that exact experience on Switch without adjusting anything? Not gonna happen. Assets have to be downgraded.

Therefore I ask you, what games would require 64gb or come in at 50gb on Switch? Even NBA isnt that big despite being relatively close to PS4 quality.

If a game was that big on Switch, lets say it could happen, it wouldnt be because of asset quality but rather due to sheer volume of content. Im talking 200 hours of VA size content, because I doubt for a very long time we will see visual assets of that kind of quality.

On that note why arent MS and PS using UHD Blurays now? You cant get a 4k asset game on a standard bluray

@YummyHappyPills My point wasn't to argue the specifics, it was, like you already said, a hypothetical example.

I don't know why a game would be 50GB on Switch, but we're talking about anything that's above 32GB, and that's not too unrealistic. Anyway, I think the most important part is the fact that 64GB cards could affect the pricing of the other cards, since a lot of publishers are already avoiding the 32GB cards to begin with.

@Octane Perhaps.

At the same time looknat 2K. LA Noire isnt all on the disc on a PS4. Why? Cheap.

Honestly I see the big players not bothering with 32gb until its as cheap as 8GB.

If they can cut corners they will, even on cheap mediums.

I'm still waiting on my Bioshock collection. I want all the games on one cart please!!

@Spoony_Tech As awesome as that would be, it is a 2K published game... so expect half of the first game on cart and the rest as a massive download.