Prediction: "Cartridges" will return for the Nintendo home console

[DanneSandin]

archer9234 said:

DanneSandin said:

archer9234 said:

DanneSandin said:

Why? Do you have to divide the space in even halfs? 64GB for the game and 64GB free space?

Patches, save data, + DLC how big the card needs to be. Because than load times aren't going to improve. If a HDD is needed for the other things.

I have no idea how SD-cards work, I just assumed you could reserv 64GB for the actual game and then have the rest free to add DLC, patches and more on, but you're saying that if that's the case, load time will be just as bad as on optical media?

Load times will be resticted to to the slowest compoent. A HDD would be that. And you're missing what I'm trying to explain. You want sections of flash for each part. However, that is asking you to have multiple flash cards in one. So in total. You would have 100 or 200GB reserved for games like Halo MCC. GTA v. Granted those are not common, now. But later. Or if DLC in total adds up more than that. Than you're buying a 200GB SD card. We're back to the reason why this isn't done still.

I'll try to explain it this way. a BD season of say Star Trek is 6 discs. That is reality 300GB's in total. See the price of a 300GB SSD drive. Or 300GB in SD cards. That's why we don't use them for movies/shows/games. IF flash media was at the same price per GB. From a disc. DVD would of been replaced by SD cards. PS3 360 and Wii would all do the same thing.

Oh ok! Now I see what you're getting at! Well, that complicates things a bit then I guess... So with my way of thinking that would be ONE SD-card with 64GB and ANOTHER with 64GB. The positive thing is that you could easily vary the sizes of each card then; a 32GB card for the actual game and a 16GB card for additional DLC and whatnot... But that would ramp up the costs...

I'm guessing you're not a fan of this idea then, if the SD-card prizes are so much more expansive than optical media?