I wonder if Nintendo would be willing to take a loss on high capacity memory cards 32GB+

I'm addressing the troll. Do you consider yourself the troll?

Do all of those 50GB+ games really need to be that big or are many of these developers just not compressing their games?

The reason I ask is because PS3 disks could hold 25GB while 360 discs could hold under 10GB and I never heard much complaining from developers about lack of space.

Besides, I dont really expect Switch to get the massive AAA games anyway. It will most likely get solid indie, Japanese & kid/family friendly support with mainstream western support be similar to what Wii or Wii U's first year got.

32 GB cards are not THAT expensive, not to require taking a loss anyway. Specially it they are mass produced.

He sun has risen, has he turned to stone? Does he live under a bridge?

Is he fishing for bait?

Wow, such a misleading title and content. The OP is ready to apply for political journalism and click-bait articles. He has graduated from the school of lies and propaganda.

Of course not.

Nothing's stopping them from setting the limit higher sometime in the future. Until then, I guess devs on Switch will finally have to worry about compression again. I mean, it's getting ridiculous. I bought 2 games yesterday on steam and had to download friggin 98 Gigabytes! That's insane and I am absolutely certain the games could be fitted into less space. Devs just don't care anymore about it.

As usual, bigger memory storage costs more. 4 GB SD card costs less than 8 GB and so on. So games probably will use the least available storage to save costs.

But the question is, if 16GB is really a limit, because that would be set by the cartridge interface and protocol. Maybe it is only what is produced as cartridge so far.

Based on the tweet in the article, 16 GB is the standard size, not the maximum size.