| Soundwave said: The 64GB cartridge costs $16 which is likely significantly more expensive than the slow ass Switch 1 carts, the people crying about this can go pay that extra surcharge themselves, game companies aren't a charity entitled to take a $16 less per copy versus a PS5 or XBS version of a game because purists need a curated copy of a game on Switch 2. You want that, then you pay the difference, and for 128GB carts that would amount to probably $25+ more per game. Lots of 3rd party games won't fit on a 64GB cart. Now you're getting into N64 territory of like $90+ games, happy now? Then lets see how bad these people crying for physical actually will put their money where their mouth is. The dumbest thing about this is cartridge push is it's still literally the worst way to play a Switch 2 game even with speeds better than Switch 1 carts. Switch 2 cartridges are still significantly slower than both internal storage and flash storage, so these people are clamouring for the most expensive way they can to play games in the shittiest format available. It's ridiculous. (video) Sorry but I don't want to have compromised ports where devs are forced to find a way to fit games into 64GB. I pay for games too and I'm not interested in having devs resorting to do things like put lower res textures into Switch 2 versions of games so they can be squeezed into 64GB just so edge lord 38-year-old collector/"gaming purist" can have more plastic shit on their shelf. Nor do I want 3rd parties disadvantaged in the Nintendo ecosystem by having to take $16 less per copy vs a PS5/XBS version, that makes the platform significantly less appealing to developers and puts Nintendo at a massive disadvantage versus the Sony and MS ecosystems. $16/game is a massive difference, if your margin on a game is $30, that's damn well half your retail margin gone versus a PS5 or XBox sale. |
You keep whining about imagined people, but the thing is that the people who want physical games would pay for them. If faced with $70 digital vs. $80 physical, they'd go for it, just like all the times that $20 indie games received $30 physical versions on Switch 1. It's game ownership vs. buying a license to use a game.
Loading times that are a few seconds longer aren't going to kill anyone. Donkey Kong Bananza has shorter loading times than MKW, so giving up game ownership in exchange for 1-2 seconds saved per loading screen (which don't occur often to begin with) is a terrible trade-off.
Third parties don't get disadvantaged by technological specifications, they get disadvantaged by their own decisions. The refusal to release physical versions reduces the sales potential of their games by at least 50%. Also, why are you even still talking about a Microsoft ecosystem? Desperate much?
As for costs for gamers, you apparently don't realize how stupid your argument is. You fantasize about 100 GB games to make your point, but "owning" them in digital format means that you'll need multiple micro SD express cards over the course of Switch 2's lifetime. Taking the full digital route won't save you money as opposed to buying physical games, even in the case that physical games should cost more than their digital counterpart.
Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.
