That demo was done in 64 kilobytes or 0.064 Megabytes.

*****

Nintendo typically achieves what it does because it's not spending untold Gigabytes on full 1080P video, 7.1 lossless audio.

1080p does not increase file size (1080p cutscene files can but most cutscenes these days occurr in real time and are not pre-recorded) and the difference between audio quality between the absurdly bloated files in games like Titanfall 2 (a game with very limited spoken lines and a limited sound track and clocked in at 50gigs) and the much more reasonable file size games like Skyrim (a game with thousands of spoken lines and over 40 music tracks and clocked in at under 12gigs) and Zelda (a game with rich sound effects, voiced cutscenes and lines (not as many as Skyrim but more than Titanfall) and a soundtrack smaller than Skyrim's but bigger than Titanfalls and clocked in at 13 gigs) is very minimal, almost imperceptible, especially when played through a sound system and not super high end headphones.  So no, that's not the reason.  

Thats pretty good but still going physical for 2 reasons.
1. $62 vs $79 at launch
2. I have no other physical games that I need to keep in my Switch right now. It has a whole month before anything else replaces it.

The reason Switch games are smaller is necessity. It has an expensive cartridge medium and limited flash memory space. Same reason N64 games were much smaller than ps1 games, gamecube games were smaller than ps2 and original xbox games and xbox 360 games were smaller than ps3 because less storage was available. Assets will be more heavily compressed or reduced in quality, video reduced or removed etc. It's like Vita vs PS2, Vita is much more powerful but ps2 had some huge games with 5.1 sound and pre-rendered video that you wouldn't ever see on Vita because they were shoehorning the game into 512MB on Vita cartridge but ps2 could be a DVD with close to 5GB. Some ps3 games were over 40GB using a dual layer blu-ray disc.

1080P video does increase file sizes. Note: I am not talking about in-engine cutscenes.
Games like Halo have moved away from in-engine cutscenes and gone pre-rendered.

7.1 Lossless Audio apply's to more than just spoken lines. It's also very space intensive verses compressed alternatives that have historically been used.

So no. I cannot agree with your counter argument.

Some games have drifted away from pre-rendered cutscenes, but I would say there has been a major move TOWARDS in-engine cutscenes since there's no reason to pre-render as the assets in most games are more than sufficient.  Shoot, Square Enix, the KING of the prerendered cutscene bonanza, has abandoned the practice.  And I addressed this, you are the one who failed to specify that you meant 1080p cutscenes.  

And my argument over audio is that there is no appreciable difference to 99.9% of users between the compressed file types found in last gen games like Skyrim (which had a metric crap ton of audio assets) vs something like Titanfall.  Titanfall had 30gigs of sound files for it's very limited audio assets.  That is carless, lazy, accomplishes nothing, and a complete waste of space.  You could remove that by 70% with no appreciable loss of quality.  Games are this big because mandatory installs has given devs and publishers an excuse to save money by cutting out the compression and file size optimization steps they had to go through when they had to have their full unpacked game playable off the physical media.  

Don't make excuses for what ammounts to laziness the overwhelming majority of time.  

Game sizes do grow over time, yes, but the massive spike in file size this gen is not indicative of this.  It is indicative of developers or publishers slacking off in several areas.  

I like the way they can compress those games!

Few games can be 100% linearly compared, so all of them are bad examples depending which criteria you're looking at. While EAD do usually end up with the smallest file sizes, that's in large part because of the type and/or way they make their games. If they were replicating XCX (which uses the opposite strategy to Zelda; it's a WiiU asset bonanza), i wouldn't expect the core game to get much smaller. XCX's patches exist in part because of how heavily compressed the game already is. WiiU disks have a capacity limit of 25GB, so they had to get pretty aggressive with the file.

It does make you wonder how big a PS4/X1/PC equivalent would be though. Some of the overall fat could but cut by them not needing to compress as aggressively and then giving players the option to patch, but it'd still have been a really tight squeeze. I can't think of a game on anyone of them which is as large, and utilises the sames resources balancing. 

I'm not sure exactly how large MK8 is with the DLC. The original is just under 5GB, but Nintendo's website only says "Both packs require more than 2.0 GB of storage space". It's not very specific :p 

Indeed I didn't specify "pre-rendered custscenes" because I thought my point was absolutely blatantly obvious when I said "1080P Video".
And I shall quote myself:

There is a difference between 1080P video and actual in-game sequences you know.

The difference to users is irrellevant. It's the fact that they are using higher quality audio that's the contentious point.

I'm not arguing that.

I'm not making excuses. I never said I agreed or disagreed with any practice.

Oh wow! Not only it is quite small but also it is smaller than the Wii U version!