By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 15 September 2023
Edit Thread
burninmylight said:
Soundwave said:

lol no one is going to stuff full games onto a cartridge. You're going to have to download data and that's just how it's going to be. Even PS5/XSX games don't come fully on discs these days.

No one is going to want to pay the premium on extra cartridge space unless Nintendo subsidizes the cost IMO. Why should I as a publisher pay for a 64GB card for example when 32GB costs me less? You can download the rest. I'm not having my art staff redo the textures at some super low resolution either. Download it and tough shit if you don't like to do that. If anything what I think will happen is physical releases will become more and more of a limited print run type of thing made only for people who really, really, really won't buy anything but. They're going to want most people to buy digital because they make a lot more money per sale with digital. 

Apple iPhones are going to be PS4 quality maybe starting in like a week. Future iPhones will then go above that year after year. iPads and Macbooks will be beyond that. An M2 chip is closer to an XBox Series S. Don't think it's too smart for Nintendo to rest on their laurels here. They're not just going to be competing against more niche products like a Steam Deck any more and even those types of bulky handhelds are starting to get more of a mainstream push, walking into a Best Buy last week they had a giant "ROG Ally Is Here" promo sign outside the front door. 

You don't even realize that you're kind of making my point.

Why should I as a publisher pay for a 64GB card for example when 32GB costs me less?

Yeah, exactly. So if you can, as a publisher, squeeze your game onto a 16 or 32GB card by using lower quality assets and having DLSS polish that turd into a 1080p/30 fps diamond, then why wouldn't you? Within this same thread, you made the argument about how the cost of memory lowers year-by-year and a 32GB card in 2017 won't cost what it will in 2025, so what makes you think no publisher will ever eat that cost?

Yes, the game industry absolutely salivates over an all-digital future, and we have BS like Capcom making the Megaman Legacy Collection, aka eight fucking NES ROMS, a partial download on all consoles (which they then acknowledged and didn't do again with subsequent MM collections), but we also have many examples of publishers footing the bill on "impossible ports" of full physical retail games on a single cart: Witcher 3, Dying Light, Subnautica Collection off the top of my head.

All I'm saying is that if DLSS can make HD games even HD-ee-er, then it can let publishers cheap out on costs and allow for the existence of more full games and collections on a single cart. And I'm OK with that, because I'd rather have a full card of a less pretty game/collection than a prettier game/collection that makes me shell out for and shuffle between more SD cards. There will absolutely be publishers that will still do the code in a box or "one game here, the rest you gotta download" BS, but if it helps more of them not go that route or move the needle to more consumer-friendly physical options, then we should acknowledge that.

Nobody really does your hypothetical even on the current Switch though. Having to redo your entire texture set is not that easy either, it's more work and zero gain for the publisher.

They're just going to do what they already do ... you get some small portion of the game on a small cartridge to start and you have to download the rest. 

Some people will cry and whine about it and then get over it. Buy a larger SD Card or whatever external storage the Switch 2 will have (proprietary?) and you may have to "clear the fridge" to get a game onto the faster internal flash storage, but that is what it is for everyone, even PS5 owners who only have the 825GB base SSD ... well when it fills up that just means they have to delete an older game to make room for the new one they want to play.