By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Super Mario Odyssey file size

TheBraveGallade on 18 September 2017
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

No, most of that was an excuse to take a dig at me with a bit of a strawman thrown in then you said that nintendo is too good for 3rd party games and that nintendo will be successful regardless (I didn't say shit about it being successful or not in this thread). Don't conflate threads. 

1. Whatever it takes for the NS to able to play any third party game without needing a mirco SD just to install the rest of the game, download all updates/DLC or being able to save. Of, course, I'm only talking about 3rd party games capable of playing on the NS in the first.

2. $350 to 400. Just any other SKU that's a upgrade in some way. 

There's no need for an excuse to take a dig at you for your lack of common sense. It's an observable truth.

1. The first two realistic options for increased storage are a 64GB model and a 128GB model. That's pretty much the industry standard for how storage capacities evolve. While 64GB should be enough for virtually any third party, we'll go with 128GB in order to leave not the smallest bit of doubt that any third party game can fulfill your conditions.

2. You say that an SKU with more storage will have to cost more than the current SKU. That is a sensible statement. We take that 128GB model from above and assign a $350 retail price to it. That's the lower end of your suggested price range, so you should consider this fair.

So $350 for a Switch SKU with 128GB. That's what Nintendo should do.

I'd actually go out and say that a 400$ 256GB option would sell better. maybe 450$ bundled with a pro controler and maybe 1-2 switch just because they can.



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 18 September 2017
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

No, most of that was an excuse to take a dig at me with a bit of a strawman thrown in then you said that nintendo is too good for 3rd party games and that nintendo will be successful regardless (I didn't say shit about it being successful or not in this thread). Don't conflate threads. 

1. Whatever it takes for the NS to able to play any third party game without needing a mirco SD just to install the rest of the game, download all updates/DLC or being able to save. Of, course, I'm only talking about 3rd party games capable of playing on the NS in the first.

2. $350 to 400. Just any other SKU that's a upgrade in some way. 

There's no need for an excuse to take a dig at you for your lack of common sense. It's an observable truth.

1. The first two realistic options for increased storage are a 64GB model and a 128GB model. That's pretty much the industry standard for how storage capacities evolve. While 64GB should be enough for virtually any third party, we'll go with 128GB in order to leave not the smallest bit of doubt that any third party game can fulfill your conditions.

2. You say that an SKU with more storage will have to cost more than the current SKU. That is a sensible statement. We take that 128GB model from above and assign a $350 retail price to it. That's the lower end of your suggested price range, so you should consider this fair.

So $350 for a Switch SKU with 128GB. That's what Nintendo should do.

On other hand you can just buy 128GB MicroSD for less than $40 and you would theoretically had more memory (32GB internal plus 128GB from MicroSD) for less money than 128GB Switch SKU for $350. :)



Aeolus451 on 18 September 2017
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

No, most of that was an excuse to take a dig at me with a bit of a strawman thrown in then you said that nintendo is too good for 3rd party games and that nintendo will be successful regardless (I didn't say shit about it being successful or not in this thread). Don't conflate threads. 

1. Whatever it takes for the NS to able to play any third party game without needing a mirco SD just to install the rest of the game, download all updates/DLC or being able to save. Of, course, I'm only talking about 3rd party games capable of playing on the NS in the first.

2. $350 to 400. Just any other SKU that's a upgrade in some way. 

There's no need for an excuse to take a dig at you for your lack of common sense. It's an observable truth.

1. The first two realistic options for increased storage are a 64GB model and a 128GB model. That's pretty much the industry standard for how storage capacities evolve. While 64GB should be enough for virtually any third party, we'll go with 128GB in order to leave not the smallest bit of doubt that any third party game can fulfill your conditions.

2. You say that an SKU with more storage will have to cost more than the current SKU. That is a sensible statement. We take that 128GB model from above and assign a $350 retail price to it. That's the lower end of your suggested price range, so you should consider this fair.

So $350 for a Switch SKU with 128GB. That's what Nintendo should do.

You bitch and moan about kerotan stealth trolling when he's not even trolling (his words wouldn't even bother a 8 year old) yet here you are skirting the rules to actually insult me over and over. If you're done being a hypocrite, could you stop with the petty jabs and let's stick to the points? If not, then leave me the fuck alone.



irstupid on 18 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Wyrdness said:

The break down of the Switch shows the is no space in the device, you've offered no alternative way to increase storage with out significantly increasing costs yet still harp on about they can do it. Here's a news flash for you they've given owners an option for more storage it's called micro SD cards and they're cheaper than adding internal flash storage to the point you can buy one and the Switch for cheaper than if the Switch had more internal flash storage.

Fact is it's not being against more storage it's realizing the trade off for it you've refused to answer whether you'd pay 100-110 quid more for a Switch because you know you and most consumers wouldn't as it would be at an obscene price.

I don't need to offer any suggestions because that has nothing to do with my points and I never gave the impression that I would offer any suggestion. That's a just distraction. I only said that 32 gb of storage is not good enough for a 9th gen console when it can't play 7th gen games without needing a micro SD card just to play games. You don't know what it would cost for an SKU with better storage so stop pretending that you know specific costs. You don't lose shit with SKUs being available with better hardware so please stop being stubborn for the sake of it. Some of you said the same sort of thing when people said that the wii u lacked HD space and that it should offer SKUs with more storage. It's amazing the amount of resistance some of ya give over common sense features being suggested on a nintendo console.

Unless you are completely new to eletronics, you would know that the company in charge of bigger harddrives is bad for us.

I can buy a 128gig for like $50 or less. I can get 256gb micro for like $125 or something.

Here is what would happen if Nintendo or insert company were in charge.

32gb Switch = $300.00

64gb Switch = $400.00

128gb Switch = $500.00

Insane price gouging for higher HD. ALWAYS happens when the company inserts more storage. It's basically like a store selling you their "insurance" on a game. It's basically pure profit for them.

Ka-pi96 said:
Surprised by the people saying buy an SD Card for NS, when having to buy a card for the Vita was one of the systems biggest criticisms

Beyond their insane prices, Vita had propriatary cards, so you could not buy anything else. 

SvennoJ said:
curl-6 said:

I'd have to disagree there, I think it looks comfortably better than anything on PS3/360, it just looks more polished with higher quality lighting, effects, etc. That's more to do with the system's GPU/RAM than file size though.

After looking at some screenshots and footage, nah it doesn't look as good as Racthet and Clank on the ps3.




The game looks like a lot of fun but it's no contender in the graphical department. It doesn't have to be. Nintendo always makes great use of stylized assets. But there's not a lot of complex texture work or geometry going on.


Can't wait to play it anyway, just hoping they didn't sacrifice load time for file size. Instant restarts is what makes and breaks platformers for me

If there is one thing I woudl think people would know by now is that Nintnedo game NEVER look as good in pictures. I see lots of other games pics and can sometimes think they are real. When in motion, the game looks nowhere NEAR close to real. It's almost like there is some sort of photoshopping going on with the pics. Meanwhile, Nintendo pics never do their games justice. You need to see it in motion to see its beauty.



Aeolus451 on 18 September 2017
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

You bitch and moan about kerotan stealth trolling when he's not even trolling (his words wouldn't even bother a 8 year old) yet here you are skirting the rules to actually insult me over and over. If you're done being a hypocrite, could you stop with the petty jabs and let's stick to the points? If not, then leave me the fuck alone.

Where are the insults in my posts? I made the claims that you lack common sense and that it is an observable truth. I can understand that that offends you, but my claims are true and there's enough evidence in this thread alone. I demonstrated your lack of common sense by sticking to the points.

It's just your opinion. You've always been confused between truth/fact and your opinion. You have a penchant for calling people stupid or an idiot. What's the opposite of common sense, Rol? If you keep describing a person in a way that fits the definition of your favorite insult, you're pretty much calling them that. You even explained this in the mod thread. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8559974

As I said before, stop being a hypocrite or leave me alone.



Around the Network
Hynad on 18 September 2017
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

No, most of that was an excuse to take a dig at me with a bit of a strawman thrown in then you said that nintendo is too good for 3rd party games and that nintendo will be successful regardless (I didn't say shit about it being successful or not in this thread). Don't conflate threads. 

1. Whatever it takes for the NS to able to play any third party game without needing a mirco SD just to install the rest of the game, download all updates/DLC or being able to save. Of, course, I'm only talking about 3rd party games capable of playing on the NS in the first.

2. $350 to 400. Just any other SKU that's a upgrade in some way. 

There's no need for an excuse to take a dig at you for your lack of common sense. It's an observable truth.

1. The first two realistic options for increased storage are a 64GB model and a 128GB model. That's pretty much the industry standard for how storage capacities evolve. While 64GB should be enough for virtually any third party, we'll go with 128GB in order to leave not the smallest bit of doubt that any third party game can fulfill your conditions.

2. You say that an SKU with more storage will have to cost more than the current SKU. That is a sensible statement. We take that 128GB model from above and assign a $350 retail price to it. That's the lower end of your suggested price range, so you should consider this fair.

So $350 for a Switch SKU with 128GB. That's what Nintendo should do.

Can you reply to people you clash with without resorting to petty insults and question their intelligence all the time?

You annoy the crap out of me (and probably many others) when you do that.



Aeolus451 on 18 September 2017
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

It's just your opinion. You've always been confused between truth/fact and your opinion. You have a penchant for calling people stupid or an idiot. What's the opposite of common sense, Rol? If you keep describing a person in a way that fits the definition of your favorite insult, you're pretty much calling them that. You even explained this in the mod thread. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8559974

As I said before, stop being a hypocrite or leave me alone.

We can forward the exchange to the mod team and get a verdict whether you lack common sense or not, and whose behavior is out of line here.

Additionally, you have to remember your own post:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8560550

Aeolus451 said:

All I was saying that 32 gb of storage wasn't enough hd space for playing even 7th gen 3rd party games without needing to buy a micro SD card to even play a game and that nintendo needs to offer SKUs with better storage then some of them started to get defensive over common sense saying they don't better SKUs. 

You mocked people for allegedly lacking common sense.

I go after other's opinions and not them as a person. I call an idea foolish or lacking of common sense and explain my thinking of why. Sometimes, i took take a jab or two but it's rare. You are insulting me as a person because you disagree with me. The audacity of you to complain about the so called epidemic of stealth trolling when you go insult me and show by example the points of my posiition on when people skirt the rules to insult others being a bigger problem to this community than stealth trolling. You're being a huge hypocrite, just like the whole bet thing blew up in your face. You still haven't changed your pic to a crow.



pokoko on 18 September 2017
Hynad said:
RolStoppable said:

There's no need for an excuse to take a dig at you for your lack of common sense. It's an observable truth.

1. The first two realistic options for increased storage are a 64GB model and a 128GB model. That's pretty much the industry standard for how storage capacities evolve. While 64GB should be enough for virtually any third party, we'll go with 128GB in order to leave not the smallest bit of doubt that any third party game can fulfill your conditions.

2. You say that an SKU with more storage will have to cost more than the current SKU. That is a sensible statement. We take that 128GB model from above and assign a $350 retail price to it. That's the lower end of your suggested price range, so you should consider this fair.

So $350 for a Switch SKU with 128GB. That's what Nintendo should do.

Can you reply to people you clash with without resorting to petty insults and question their intelligence all the time?

You annoy the crap out of me (and probably many others) when you do that.

Some people on these forums have a very "badgering the witness" style and care more about "winning" arguments by turning the discussion into a back-and-forth contest of jab and counter-jab.  It's more like a political debate than a discussion and really goes nowhere.  Worse, some people are allowed to go further than others, though I'm not sure why (hm).  It certainly is annoying when you're trying to have an honest exchange of opinions.

On topic, I very much agree with Zekkyou.  Compression and file size are mostly matters of choice, type of content, or time limitations rather than one video-game company supposedly having technology no one else can touch.  That's not to say Nintendo doesn't have great techniques for reusing assets, which is the foundation of compression, but rather that they also prioritize compression, their content often lends itself well to smaller files, and they're a large and wealthy company without the worry of rushing a game out the door to pay the bills or meet a deadline.  



The_Yoda on 18 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
flashfire926 said:

What do you mean "no space in the device"?

Micro SD fit ridiculous amounts of gigabytes, now approaching 512 gb, and you say the Switch flash storage can't be 64gb because of "no space"? And there is no way it adds more than $50 to the cost. Heck, by next year they can phase out 32 gb and sell 64 gb for $300. 

And unlike us, Nintendo mass buys the flash storage, so they get it at a much lower cost than us. Same goes for many other electronics companies.

All I was saying that 32 gb of storage wasn't enough hd space for playing even 7th gen 3rd party games without needing to buy a micro SD card to even play a game and that nintendo needs to offer SKUs with better storage then some of them started to get defensive over common sense saying they don't better SKUs.

I can totally see your point that 32GB may not be enough for even one game.  I would very much support you and be dissatisfied as well if Nintendo went proprietary on their expanded memory (see PS2, Vita, Gamecube, ect).  I personally think that offering up memory expansion via a very common format gives the consumer the most options available.  You can expand however you want or not at all. 

This is more important in this stage of the game since the one and only SKU is already supply constrained.  I'd be pissed at Nintendo if I were the average consumer that bought almost all my games physically and bought very little digitally but i had to pay $50 more for something I felt I didn't need (more internal storage) because that was the only SKU sitting on the store shelf. Coming off the WiiU (which I also felt handled storage just fine) I'd try to keep my MSRP as low as possible too i.e let the consumer decide if they need more storage.

 

edit: I'll even go one further I would likely suspect Nintendo intentionally kept the supply low on the base model so they could sell the more expensive SKU if I had to pay more for something I felt i didn't need. I know it may be hard for some to imagine, people accusing Nintendo of using scarcity to their advantage, but it does sometimes happen.  Imagine some of the outrage if the cost was on par with Apple and they charged $100 more for 64GB vs 32GB or $150-$200 more for 128 GB and the 128GB model was the only one that was normally on a retailer's shelf.



Player2 on 18 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
 

All I was saying that 32 gb of storage wasn't enough hd space for playing even 7th gen 3rd party games without needing to buy a micro SD card to even play a game and that nintendo needs to offer SKUs with better storage then some of them started to get defensive over common sense saying they don't better SKUs.

Prove your point. Name a few PS3 games with a mandatory install above 32 GBs.