Would Nintendo offering to pay the difference in cost for 32 GB cards for third party releases a plausible solution

[greencactaur]

RolStoppable said:

Ka-pi96 said:
It would be better if Nintendo just released a Switch with a much larger hard drive. Then no extra costs for them and there's no issue with having to download game files.

That doesn't address the problem. At the end of the day you need to expect that the people who buy physical versions of games do so because they want a physical version. A real one, not half-physical and half-digital.

The logical solution to this problem is that third parties have to man up and act consumer-friendly. There are three parties in this discussion: Nintendo as the platform holder, third parties as the game makers and consumers. There is only one party that has to shoulder the responsibility and that is third parties. The widespread attitude that it's somehow Nintendo or consumers who have to go an extra mile because of the shit that third parties pull off is outright sick at its core.

Hmm I can't agree with that. Third parties don't lose out much on not releasing on Nintendo platforms. They're not a charity, they're a business. If the costs are higher for them due to the SD cards, than that's Nintendos fault for not looking into the situation before hand. This isn't the first time Nintendo's done this either. They did it with the N64, The GC, and now the Switch. It's unfair for third parties to simply shell out money for a system that will sell less software units than the PS4. Something that sells 1million on PS4, might do 500k on Switch. So why would any third party shell out the extra money? They don't lose anything by not releasing on a platform, the platform holders lose out.