If that's the case then RIP third-party support on Nintendo Switch.
Most third-party games are 20GB+ nowadays.
| Eagle367 said: Yeah click bait. Damn you troll you got us |
Don't shoot the messenger. It was Nintendo Life that made the misleading headline.
| Dr.Vita said: If that's the case then RIP third-party support on Nintendo Switch. Most third-party games are 20GB+ nowadays. |
It's most likely not the case because the tweet says that 16 GB is the standard size, not the maximum size. Whoever wrote the article messed up.
Mr.GameCrazy said:
It's most likely not the case because the tweet says that 16 GB is the standard size, not the maximum size. Whoever wrote the article messed up. |
Oh ok, sounds alright then. Thank you.
Makes no sense when Macronix, the supplier of Nintendos 3ds carts has publicly said that they can now produce 32GB carts at BD price.
Not buying this.
Mr.GameCrazy said:
Don't shoot the messenger. It was Nintendo Life that made the misleading headline. |
Yeah, but given TRIVIAL perusal of the entire article including the tweet referenced would reveal the error in headline,
it is hardly a service to the community for the OP to post such a misleading headline, and even repeat it in the body of post.
If he wanted to post the link, but explain the actual background re: tweet mentioning "standard" (not max), that would be good.
He didn't.
And to be honest, given the atrocious level of reporting in the article, there is no reason to reference article itself.
Given that they failed horribly, there is no reason to refer to them as source, because they are not source of information, they are disinformation.
Refer to the tweet itself as the source, and accurately explain it's reference to "standard" (not max).
| shikamaru317 said: If this is true, don't expect many 3rd party ports. Most XB1/PS4 games are 40gb+, lower res textures and compression might not be enough to fit them on a 16 GB cart. |
The tweet in the article said that 16 GB is the standard size, not the maximum size.
Illiteracy has to be the biggest problem ailing today's gamers!
I don't understand how people can read things, not comprehend what they read, but continue to spread misinformation as fact...
Can the thread title/ first post seriously be FIXED now? It's clearly continuing to mislead people.
Seriously, the entire premise is absurd, how CAN Nintendo impose a restriction on card size?
All they can do is set the parameters of the interface, which might restrict transfer rate.
But if card manufacturers can fit more data storage inside same profile, then they can and will.
Even differences like volume formats are a software implementation that can be updated.
The earliest SD readers came out before such large card sizes existed, yet can read larger sizes now.
Nintendo's own history shows purported "max supported size" being trivially surpassed.
post wont post. sorry.
- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
