RolStoppable said:
But Nintendo doesn't need to release a Switch SKU with more storage if all physical games are true physical games. We are looking at cases where third parties are verifiably messing up and you somehow use this to put the blame on Nintendo. As for the production costs of cards, ZhugeEX made it known that an 8GB card is equal to a Blu-ray for third party publishers. There are no huge costs involved with Switch game cards. Third parties could use 32GB cards, charge $10 extra and make some extra profit because 32GB don't cost $10 more than 8GB. In the case of L.A. Noire, the publisher is charging $10 extra despite not even using a 32GB card. |
If you are going to play only phisical and do no patches and DLC sure there is little use for the internal HDD, but how many players are going to keep at that?
equal to a Blu-ray in what sense? Sure both Nintendo and Sony charge royalties that are probably similar. But I don't see any reason for a 8GB to cost pennies like the BD cost. Now if the game should be launched on 32GB, I'm certainly in favor of that, but not sure if the profit would be the same just with the extra 10 USD. And certainly Nintendo could have talked to them to make viable a 32GB version for the 70USD, either by showing the obvious difference in cost is enough to cover for it, or diminishing their royalty fee a little to keep the same profit.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







