I'm sorry there are so many Nintendo Switch topics on this forum, I really am, but I didn't see one addressing what is to me a very important point. The Nintendo Switch has what many call "Low Storage Capacity" and in a sense you are right, compared to current gen consoles the storage capacity IS low. But now consider this, the current gen also has to copy games to the harddrive on the system in order to even play the game using a DISC, so there are often 50-60 gb games that are saved on our current gen consoles eating up space. The storage on the Switch is 32 gb, yes but it is not the typical storage that you get with an XBox One and a PS4.

The main and most important difference is the fact that the Switch uses cartridges for its games. This makes it possible to have save data store in small capacities right on the gamecard, but also makes it a very fast read/write system and it runs right from the cartridge itself. No writing elsewhere and reading from there, so the 50 gb games that may pop up (I don't know what the official capacity is on the game cards) will not need to be written on the system, that would be used for game updates, and maybe some save file stuff.

The problem with the 32 gb storage really arises for download only gamers, but again this is easily rectified with a micro SD card. Nobody really WANTS to have to buy separate storage and everyone thinks that it is cheesy to have a system release with insufficient storage, but I have had to purchase an external harddrive for my XBox One as well, so really it's the same idea. The nice thing is the storage is super fast-reading, even in the expandable form, much faster than a harddrive on an XBox One or PS4. Download only gamers will definitely need to expand, but it is not a huge price wall or anything to purchase a new SD card.

The next misunderstanding that I noticed is the paywall idea for online play. YES, Nintendo has been free for years for online play, but honestly this NEEDED to change. I love Nintendo, I love playing their games online, but let's be honest, their online systems currently SUCK. Like, they are some of the worst to play games on ever, like even worse than an original XBox online architecture and that stuff is OLD. Playing Smash online is terrible unless you're in 1v1s and it's really not sending all that much data, it's just their architecture is so slow and inept it ruins the whole experience. OK, back on track, they need to upgrade. It costs money to upgrade obviously, and this is part of the reason for their partnership with DeNa. They are going to help rebuild the online from the bottom up so that it is smooth and works well and I bet they will even get dedicated servers (yay!), at least that's the plan.

Nintendo needs to make up this money somehow, and they need money to maintain and update as time goes by as well. In order to afford and keep a sustainable business model they NEED to charge for this, plus they are adding extra value with a free monthly game or two as well. Also, we don't even know what the pricing model for online looks like, so I can't complain about it at all, to me it seems like a huge step in the right direction. We pay for XBox Live and Playstation Plus for the same reasons, there is no reason Nintendo should not be able to charge for their hard work and effort to clean up their online services.

I may add to this as I see more things crop up, but for now I just wanted to touch on these couple of things and say please stop whining, they are not only trying, they have a REAL plan in place this time around and personally I think they are going the right direction with all of it. I still can't wait to see what the actual OS looks like, and I don't think that presentation was quite everything, there is still a lot to look forward to.

C'mon. Stop defending the indefensible. In the age of downloadable games you simply should not give someone 32GB of storage on a $300 system and say go and buy your own, especially when the competition gives you MUCH more for less.

It is not a mobile phone, my phone has 64GB. It is suppose to be a home console. Yes, a home console as confirmed from the horse's mouth.

As for the rest I agree but let's wait and see before we judge if paying for online is really worth it.

I think the storage issue is very minor given that SD cards are very cheap and is a lot easier to get than an external harddrive like what you had to do with Wii U.

If SD cards are so cheap then for $300 they should have damn well thrown one in.

My stance on this is matter will not change and probably neither will yours so let's respectfully agree to disagree.

The fact that I consider the thing grossly overpriced doesn't help.

Yes stop being over dramatic, Sd cards are cheap as hell.

well, lets first see the actual size of the games.

In xbox a fucking rare replay(just a hub for other games) spends 11Gb, not counting the games inside. Whyyyyyyy?
Games on xbox and ps4 seems not compromissed with storage size at all, as long it fits the disk.

I hope the switch games are much smaller.

They probably could have, but I think for it to really be worth it, it would need to be more than 32GB lol.

I'm not saying it's not an issue, I'm just saying it's a small issue especially compared to the Wii U's situation.

It's really not indefensible. The storage is not necessary unless as I said you are a download only gamer. Personally, I would prefer to keep the system price down rather than them sinking more money into it to add some more storage when not all customers will need it. Now that they are switching back to cartridges I honestly may be switching as well from digital because it's actually a better medium anyways. That's my thoughts, and that's for real how I feel, not just a defense of Nintendo because I'm in love with them.

There is no misunderstanding at all. There is a misunderstanding that you think people have a misunderstanding.

The internal storage capacity is needed especially for 3Rd parties when they patch games. The patches can go from 100mb to 10gb.

Then there is the OS that will take up storage as well as possible dlc and expansions, especially 3rd party stuff.

Paying for online isn't an issue for me. You pick one system you game with it money is tight and you get your free games too. The difference here is that Sony and MS have both been transparent about what you pay for age what you get in return:

1) mp
2) shareplay (Ps4)
3) online save storage
4) number of games and across what devices
5) discounts
6) free themes

Both Sony and MS offer around 3-4 free games, some via BC age some via cross platform. Nintendo on the otherhand has mentioned nothing. The system isn't ready and won't be ready for launch. From their wording, cross party chat will be through your smart device I.e. Like whatsapp call or Facetime audio not through the system. Their free games will come from their NES / SNES library she only 1 game per month.

Now if this paid service is £10 a year, then it's okay. You essentially get less than 1/3 of what your competitors are offering. You could even argue you get about 1/4 of that of Sony and MS. However, there is a good chance Nintendo will charge £30+ and no one in their right mind can justify that.

Nintendo has been building this console for a while. They set the date and they've had over a decade to invest in their online services as well as build a infrastructure for it and here we are in 2017 and they are still playing catch up.

The consoles seems to be rushed. The online isn't ready, the games aren't ready, third parties aren't ready and yet everyone has to pay in full.

32GB! This confirms that third parties are unlikely to support the Switch. How else can they release an unfinished game and patch it later if Switch doesnt have the storage space.