I thought the whole claim why Nintendo games are suddenly $70/$80 for physical now is because the new faster Switch 2 cards (a quick internet search suggests S2 cards are 5-10x faster than S1 cards) are much more expensive and therefore physical games have to go up $10-$20 to offset that.
But according to the info in the OP's post, they are still significantly slower than that internal storage. Considering Nintendo's choice to have key cards, and pretty much all third parties using them, seems like Nintendo should have just gone with slower cheaper cards so then physical games should still only cost $60. But wait, third parties are charging $70 even for game cards, and as for Nintendo, well this is Nintendo v.2025 where they overcharge for everything so cheaper cards wouldn't have stopped them from $70/$80 price point anyways. Or Nintendo should have put in like 1TB of internals storage and just adopted the "physical games require big system downloads" approach like the consoles do.
Whole thing is ridiculous. None of these video game companies are honest anymore, it's all about fleecing consumers. If it's digital it should never cost more than $60. If it's a key card which means it literally has nothing on it it should never cost more than $60. If the physical cards to have high speeds are expensive then they should have enough speed to run games well. If a game isn't a huge AAA hyper realistic game then it doesn't require super fast speeds and can either be an actual physical card (at $60 since that means it shouldn't have crazy dev costs) or should be key card at $60. If doing the console thing of downloads for most physical games is how they want to go then Nintendo is certainly charging enough for the S2 to have put in a TB of storage so they should have done that.
Maybe there is no perfect single solution, but these companies sure seem to specifically find the worst solutions.







