I can see the disadvantages, while from you and some other fans I can only see complains and "certain" that it would be a good port and easily done. Because still 180 days is quite enough to finish a 10h game and paying 1/3 the cost. Also there are at least 3 other platforms where you can play it.

https://www.amazon.com/Verbatim-BD-R-Blu-ray-Recordable-Media/dp/B003EE08S8/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_lp_tr_t_2/140-8550675-3705451?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=WKT3R03CX5JD2MG5G7N7

So does a 4GB cart cost less than 1 USD? Because a regular costumer can buy a BR disc for like that.

We know that putting an 8GB cart Switch game on the shelf in mid 2017 was equal more or less to the cost of putting a PS4 game on the shelf.

4GB carts are obviously cheaper, that's why Nintendo has them to save costs for games that don't need 8GB or more.

Do the math, it's not hard to comprehend.

I mean, think it through: if 4GB carts cost more than a BR, then 16GB would be a massive increase, probably 4x or more the cost.  Which would chop off a big chunk of profit.  But we know that's BS because multiple devs have used thr 16GB and we already know a 32GB cart is only 2x a BR.  

We've had this data for a year but a bunch of revisionists desperately trying to defend Capcom's cheapskate behavior have been trying to sweep it under the rug.  But these are the facts: Capcom is taking advantage of incorrect presuppositions about cartridge costs born mostly out of decades old experiences in order to get away with being obscenely cheap in order to pad their bottom line at the expense of consumers.

And people are livid about this latest bit because not only is it consumer hostile, it also more or less confirms Capcom has no intentions of putting any effort or any resources of note towards the Switch.  Every game so far has been minimal effort.  The MMLCs are both ancient game collections, the RE:Rev ports are old games built with weaker hardware in mind and just slapped on the system, USFII is just the 360 SFII remake with a $40 price tag.  The closest thing to "effort" is MonHun Gen Ultimate since they did retexture it but it still looks like a GCN remaster, still runs at 30fps, and is being localized over a year after the fact.  And all of these were branded as "tests" (which is always contemptuous as it is basically them holding their bigger games to ransom to try and pressure people to buy their stuff) implying the big sruff was right around the corner if people buy these low effprt games.  The only untarnished game and the only current gen home console game coming to Switch is Mega Man 11.  But don't be shocked if that game come with asterisks to.

And then they do this.  They show that they are willing to stoop to any measure to get money for basically doing nothing.  Showing they don't see the Switch as a console to support, but as a cash grab they can exploit.  

Not that any of these arguments or facts matter to you.  You and a few others have adamantly defended every crappy practice, every anticonsumer decision, every bad decision made with regards to Switch.  I'm fairly positive if Capcom canceled Mega Man 11 for Switch and instead offered it as a stream game for $15 a month, you would defend that.  Hell, you would probably defend them deleting all their games from the eshop for no reason at all.  Cause you've made it abundantly clear that in your opinion Switch owners aren't allowed to complain, ever, about anything from 3rd parties.  And thats just bull.

Putting a 8GB cart on shelf versus a PS4 BR in shelf is completely different than 4GB cart cost less than a BR. And still, please provide source (link perhaps).

Carts cost don't scale linearly, so no a 32GB doesn't cost 2x 16, 4x8, 16x2...

If the cartridges is cheap, them Capcom itself isn't cheapskates or would need to be when using it. Your reasoning doesn't make much sense.

All products are released as tests if you don't know. Any product that doesn't sell good can and probably will be taken back and successor may not be made.

All companies do calculate the minimum investment and maximum profit. The thing is for they to get the minimum in one platform is different than in another.

Nope not even defending Capcom. I'm discussing the need to bash at 3rd parties at most times as if there is a universal scheme to screw Nintendo that comes in VGC since Wii. And that will be kept for any company for who no one have the right data but makes speculations to see perceived damage. As the obnoxious "Sony paid Capcom to leave MHW away from just Switch". You may not like it, but the responsible for relationship with Capcom, to negotiate the best interest of its userbase is Nintendo. So if Capcom is in your perception mistreating Nintendo fanbase, Nintendo is the one that needs to go there and talk. 

We know that putting an 8GB cart Switch game on the shelf in mid 2017 was equal more or less to the cost of putting a PS4 game on the shelf.

4GB carts are obviously cheaper, that's why Nintendo has them to save costs for games that don't need 8GB or more.

Do the math, it's not hard to comprehend.

I mean, think it through: if 4GB carts cost more than a BR, then 16GB would be a massive increase, probably 4x or more the cost.  Which would chop off a big chunk of profit.  But we know that's BS because multiple devs have used thr 16GB and we already know a 32GB cart is only 2x a BR.  

We've had this data for a year but a bunch of revisionists desperately trying to defend Capcom's cheapskate behavior have been trying to sweep it under the rug.  But these are the facts: Capcom is taking advantage of incorrect presuppositions about cartridge costs born mostly out of decades old experiences in order to get away with being obscenely cheap in order to pad their bottom line at the expense of consumers.

And people are livid about this latest bit because not only is it consumer hostile, it also more or less confirms Capcom has no intentions of putting any effort or any resources of note towards the Switch.  Every game so far has been minimal effort.  The MMLCs are both ancient game collections, the RE:Rev ports are old games built with weaker hardware in mind and just slapped on the system, USFII is just the 360 SFII remake with a $40 price tag.  The closest thing to "effort" is MonHun Gen Ultimate since they did retexture it but it still looks like a GCN remaster, still runs at 30fps, and is being localized over a year after the fact.  And all of these were branded as "tests" (which is always contemptuous as it is basically them holding their bigger games to ransom to try and pressure people to buy their stuff) implying the big sruff was right around the corner if people buy these low effprt games.  The only untarnished game and the only current gen home console game coming to Switch is Mega Man 11.  But don't be shocked if that game come with asterisks to.

And then they do this.  They show that they are willing to stoop to any measure to get money for basically doing nothing.  Showing they don't see the Switch as a console to support, but as a cash grab they can exploit.  

Not that any of these arguments or facts matter to you.  You and a few others have adamantly defended every crappy practice, every anticonsumer decision, every bad decision made with regards to Switch.  I'm fairly positive if Capcom canceled Mega Man 11 for Switch and instead offered it as a stream game for $15 a month, you would defend that.  Hell, you would probably defend them deleting all their games from the eshop for no reason at all.  Cause you've made it abundantly clear that in your opinion Switch owners aren't allowed to complain, ever, about anything from 3rd parties.  And thats just bull.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/905945947078885377

There's your source.  Oh and I was wrong.  It's not 2x.  Its 60%.

Imho, the moment you spend less on one platform by using methods that have an adverse effect on consumers, you are being a cheapskate.  They already would make a higher margin with MMLC 1+2 on Switch with a 4GB cart that would hold both collections (only like $0.25 more but still), but instead they went with a 1GB cart, the cheapest one, and forced consumers to download it.  That is being a cheapskate.

Of course all products are on some level a test.  But there's a difference between launching games with effort behind them and queitly watching their performance and launching low effort games that are publicly declared to be tests.  One lets the market naturally make up its mind, the other tries to manipulate customers.

Yes, all companies want profit.  Doesn't mean all methods to get it are reasonable or acceptable.  Also, this is an option they could easily use on PS4 and Xbone too, btw.  And would make more sense there given their built in Ethernet port (Switch doesn't have one, another reason this idea is shit) and home console only nature.  It's just they can't get away with it there.  And that's what Capcom's support for Switch feels like, a prolonged experiment to see what Capcom can get away with.  Every release has a catch, and this is the biggest of them all.

There's a difference between bashing randomly and legitimate outrage over legitimately poor conduct.  I will be right there with you telling people to shut up if they bash CD Projekt for not porting Witcher 3 or EA for not bringing Anthem.  I'm plenty realistic.  I just expect effort.  Capcom has shown none in any release.  

And no, wrong.  It is NOT Nintendo's, Sony's, or Microsoft's job to wipe Capcom or any developer's ass.  It's not Sony's job to keep EA from being greedy bastards.  It's not Microsoft's job to keep Activision from screwing with Destiny 2's players.  And it's not Nintendo's job to run Capcom's business on the Switch.  Capcom's being crappy, it's on Capcom to fix that.  And until they do, all the complaints regarding Capcom's conduct should fall squarely on Capcom, end of discussion.

And we've heard near unanimous praise from devs and insiders with regards to Nintendo working with third parties.  Bethesda openly mocked Nintendo and the Wii U in 2012 but showed up strong for the Switch and have lots of positive things to say.  This isn't the 90s anymore, this isn't a Nintendo being meanies, this is third parties looking to cynically cash in.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/905945947078885377

There's your source.  Oh and I was wrong.  It's not 2x.  Its 60%.

Read it and he doesn't say a 8GB cart cost the same as BR, it says that they would see similar margins (and as I said that also have to do with the storage and transportation cost) it doesn't mean the cart itself cost the same. If it meant that you would be buying pendrives for 1 USD.

Imho, the moment you spend less on one platform by using methods that have an adverse effect on consumers, you are being a cheapskate.  They already would make a higher margin with MMLC 1+2 on Switch with a 4GB cart that would hold both collections (only like $0.25 more but still), but instead they went with a 1GB cart, the cheapest one, and forced consumers to download it.  That is being a cheapskate.

I haven't see this occurrence, but sure I can understand why that was a silly move looking at only the cart size. But seeing as how fast Switch was piracy broken I guess the need to download makes it harder to pirate (or don't)?

Of course all products are on some level a test.  But there's a difference between launching games with effort behind them and queitly watching their performance and launching low effort games that are publicly declared to be tests.  One lets the market naturally make up its mind, the other tries to manipulate customers.

I do agree, but I wouldn't bother if Capcom said SFV or RE7 were a test to either keep the franchise or put VR in more titles.

Yes, all companies want profit.  Doesn't mean all methods to get it are reasonable or acceptable.  Also, this is an option they could easily use on PS4 and Xbone too, btw.  And would make more sense there given their built in Ethernet port (Switch doesn't have one, another reason this idea is shit) and home console only nature.  It's just they can't get away with it there.  And that's what Capcom's support for Switch feels like, a prolonged experiment to see what Capcom can get away with.  Every release has a catch, and this is the biggest of them all.

I wouldn't get RE streamed but that is because I don't buy digital unless it is under 10USD because I like media, but considering the 50% digital share we are seeing at this moment I don't think there would be much backlash (as X1 did at reveal).

There's a difference between bashing randomly and legitimate outrage over legitimately poor conduct.  I will be right there with you telling people to shut up if they bash CD Projekt for not porting Witcher 3 or EA for not bringing Anthem.  I'm plenty realistic.  I just expect effort.  Capcom has shown none in any release.  

Fair enough.

And no, wrong.  It is NOT Nintendo's, Sony's, or Microsoft's job to wipe Capcom or any developer's ass.  It's not Sony's job to keep EA from being greedy bastards.  It's not Microsoft's job to keep Activision from screwing with Destiny 2's players.  And it's not Nintendo's job to run Capcom's business on the Switch.  Capcom's being crappy, it's on Capcom to fix that.  And until they do, all the complaints regarding Capcom's conduct should fall squarely on Capcom, end of discussion.

Capcom or any of the others will only fix things themselves if the see profits drop. And on that they may either think it is the fault of the platform and leave it or as their practices and correct. That is why if platform holders see abusive behavior from a partner they have the responsibility of talking to them.

And we've heard near unanimous praise from devs and insiders with regards to Nintendo working with third parties.  Bethesda openly mocked Nintendo and the Wii U in 2012 but showed up strong for the Switch and have lots of positive things to say.  This isn't the 90s anymore, this isn't a Nintendo being meanies, this is third parties looking to cynically cash in.

Capcom have kept support for all Nintendo platforms in some level, so it is hardly something designed to harm Nintendo.

Only people with a good and stable internet connection will be able to play it at a decent level.

We know that putting an 8GB cart Switch game on the shelf in mid 2017 was equal more or less to the cost of putting a PS4 game on the shelf.

4GB carts are obviously cheaper, that's why Nintendo has them to save costs for games that don't need 8GB or more.

Do the math, it's not hard to comprehend.

I mean, think it through: if 4GB carts cost more than a BR, then 16GB would be a massive increase, probably 4x or more the cost.  Which would chop off a big chunk of profit.  But we know that's BS because multiple devs have used thr 16GB and we already know a 32GB cart is only 2x a BR.  

Not even nearly 4x the price of a 4GiB cartridge for a 16GiB one, it's twice at worst.

2 reasons for this:

1. the manufacturing of the cartridges themselves is invariable and for the 4 and 8GiB Versions about half the cost.

2. 4GiB is getting phased out by the memory producers, making these chips expensive compared to their capacity. There's actually not much reason anymore to produce them, they're about 10cent cheaper