DonFerrari said:
So you swear there is no game on Nintendo platforms that have retailed for over 60 USD since Wii? And that it's impossible anyone would launch it for over 60? If i'm not wrong you can have memory card to expand your memory and also 25GB is enough to download a 20GB game (Did you complain on WiiU for all those games that were bigger in size than the full HD of some WiiU versions - and that not even being a portable?) And you really can manage your drive and only keep the game you are playing (but I'm sure some people will claim they like to have 10 games installed or played at the same time for whatever reason). The fact is, if you need to download you can't really just insert the game and play so whatever the side of the download (and it was again Nintendo decision on the size of their internal drive, so are you going to blame Nintendo for it or reason out why they had to do this and shift the problem to developers?). Game was hinted by who? Do we have any announcement made by Nintendo or R*? Sure I'm not claiming they are facts. But you are the one trying to pass what "credible insiders" said as some type of fact even by indirect association of what they said. The blowing is about you trying to cover all the holes with suppositions. Let's suppose GTAV could sell 5M units on Switch, and use your figure of 10USD additional cost for the cartridge (50M cost). So instead of the regular 27 USD per copy the publisher would get https://kotaku.com/5479698/what-your-60-really-buys they are only getting 17USD per copy or 85M revenue (which is much more than 0). "And that's a sea change in our business, and recurrent consumer spending is 42% of our net bookings in the quarter," he continued. "It's been transformative for us and the only reason it's transformative for us is because it's transformative to our consumers. (source: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-11-08-take-two-wants-recurrent-consumer-spending-from-every-title-wont-always-be-microtransactions ). And that is of a $443.6 million revenue quarter. With GTAV being the biggest bringer. So let's say that makes 170M on ingame purchase and that only half of it are for GTA V giving 85M (I believe is more). With GTA having about 100M owners we could say that each 1M owner brings in 0.85M in revenue per quarter. So delaying a game for 2 years would mean about 6.8M per 1M user missed or on 5M users that would mean 34M. Also considering the longer they take to release the game the closer GTA VI will be to launch, so it could take 1, 2 or even more millions from sale. Plus if we take in count the money they already invested on the porting (unfortunately we don't know how much was expend) and like 5% interest ratio per year (probably more on cost of opportunity). So we can easily see the "loss" of 50M in profit for selling on lower margin (let's pretend they aren't selling for much less on the platforms, for more than 10USD difference) would be either covered on other revenues or the loses on sales (total volume or ingame) and interest ratio would actually make a situation that it doesn't make much sense to hold the game. |
Swear? Look at price point of Switch, PS4, XB1, PS3, 360, Wii U, Wii...you will see that highest price point is $60 for any platform, expect of special edition, steal books and similar.
Yes you could, buy maybe game is more than 40GB with all updates, we dont know thats a point. All Wii U games could fit on Wii U disks and Wii U disks were not expansive, so totally different situation compared to Switch.
Hinted by those same insider they were very accurate about previous Switch rumours or generally rumors and insiders information.
We still talking about rumours, but when rumours come from multiply very credible insiders that were very accurate before, than those rumours are definitely much more believable.
But point is that every company wants maximum profit in any case, so they will work to achieve that in any case, and $10 less profit per game is huge problem for any dev including R*, thats why no one using 32GB Switch carts yet. Again, we dont know details, maybe from start was plan to release game on 64GB carts but delay of them delayed game also, or maybe 32GB carts ended much more expensive than they thought so they waiting for cheaper price point of 32GB carts, on maybe from start was plan to release game in 2019. alongside cheaper 32GB carts or 64GB carts, maybe game is canceld and maybe they never even planed to release game on Switch (less likly). Again, we can only speculate for now what could be with GTAV, but fact is that we talking about real problem when we talk about size and cost of Switch carts that definitely affecting 3rd party devs espacily when we talking about big games.
What @Mnementh post, also proves that, what that dev said is totally in line with what insiders from Resetera also said.
Here Abstraction Games about the port of Ark Survival to the Switch: "Performance is not really the issue. The issue instead is in the size of carts. The 32GB carts are expensive, you shouldn't be wanting to do that. So we need to fit everything on 16GB, whereas the standard game on PS4 is much, much larger. It's a crazy ratio we're talking about."
Mnementh said:
Dunno who said that. But actual developers and porters talk about the cartridges as problem. Here Abstraction Games about the port of Ark Survival to the Switch: He continues: "Performance is not really the issue. The issue instead is in the size of carts. The 32GB carts are expensive, you shouldn't be wanting to do that. So we need to fit everything on 16GB, whereas the standard game on PS4 is much, much larger. It's a crazy ratio we're talking about." |
Yeah, I forget about that, it very obvious we talking about real problem when comes to size and cost of Switch carts, and that effecting most on big games.
Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 26 October 2018
