i prefer cartridges especially for collection. Optical discs are prone to scratches, especially if you have kids. :)

I don't really see an advantage towards disks these days exept for the collecting factor (and the technicality that you don't own a game if its digital) casue of the fact that you have to install stuff. carts bring back the full advantage of a phisical realese, just pop it in and it'll work, no evtra memory required.

http://nintendoenthusiast.com/blog/2017/08/31/nba-2k18-switch-will-require-microsd-card-internet-download/

Not always the case at all though.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/643145-final-fantasy-x-hd-remaster/68848801

NBA on the Switch only has part of the game on the card you buy and FFX remaster on the Vita has both FFX and X2 in what you buy... but if you buy it at retail the card you get for the Vita just has FFX on it, FFX2 has to be downloaded from the Store onto the memory card of the console via single use code.

It was just simulating the smell of a car's tires burning as you make the sharp turns!

I know, love my original GT2 disc's still. When the PSone had been on for an endurance race those disc's would start to emit the smell... a lot hah.

I've never had that problem myself, not sure if it's because I didn't experience it, or if it was due to my poor sense of smell.

Correct.
But that was a given anyway.

Also depends on the type of 5400rpm HDD's. Older 2.5" 5400RPM drives struggled to hit and maintain 50MB/s.
But where the Switch's cart does come out ahead (And is generally a massive advantage for all solid state storage) is random reads/writes.

Which is why when SSD's first came out (I was an early adopter) their Read/Write speeds weren't significantly better than mechanical disks... But were still worth the upgrade as it made a system feel extremely snappy.

That's generally a Nintendo limitation.
NAND/ROM can scale by adding more chips. Sometimes you might need a better controller though.

That is a limitation/choice from the developer, not a limitation of the technology itself. They aren't required to choose a smaller cart capacity size.
With that, there are already games that are exceeding the capacity for Dual-Layer Blu-Ray Disks that the Xbox One and Playstation 4 utilize, thus requiring compression as well. Or even additional downloads. (Halo: Master Chief Collection being an example.)

Well. You aren't wrong. But also not an issue for someone like me who looks after their shiznit.
With that... The only carts I own are a few Nintendo 64 carts and a single DS cart.
But I have hundreds of games on Disk, I'll buy whatever the platform offers rather than buy a platform just for the media it uses.

The memory markets are extremely volatile, but the general trend is towards larger capacities for a lower price.

Stacked memory has made massive inroads in that aspect... Whilst individual chip costs are higher, their price-per-gigabyte is lower.

Just because I respect your opinion doesn't mean I am not allowed to think it is incorrect and thus challenge it.
Again, if you do not wish for people to challenge your assertions and reply to your posts. -Then a forum is probably not the best avenue for you.

Cartridges are prone to falling behind the tv cabinet, especially if you have kids. :)

Yes, prices are going down while card sizes keep growing. 8 years ago I paid $80 for an 8GB class 10 card, 16GB class 10 cards are $15 nowadays. Perhaps next gen cards will be able to match 4K UHD discs in price/capacity. Although I still think pressing a disk is a lot less complicated than creating a memory card. This gen blu-ray still outperforms cards in cost per GB.

Nintendo kept it cheap by limiting max capacity and read speed, cheaper reader I assume and cheaper cards. It would have been nice if the Switch could actually make full use of a 275 MB/s sd card but I guess that requires a more expensive reader? Nintendo said it will support upto 2TB SD cards, storage space for downloads won't be a problem.

Another notch against cartridges
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-rayman-legends-definitive-edition-isnt-definitive

Longest loading times of all versions

For some stages we're looking at upwards of 16 seconds, and although others can load faster, the reality is that the Wii U - a system notorious for extending loading times - manages to load up the same levels 50 per cent faster than the Switch - and that's from the disc version of the game. Meanwhile, PS4 and Xbox One have no loading screens whatsoever. The PS Vita version was the previous record holder for the longest loads, but the Switch version manages to surpass it.


It seems the devs have compressed the game as much as possible to fit on a cheaper card

We can't say for certain why this is happening, but one theory suggests that it is tied to file sizes and compression. On Wii U, the game weighs in at 6.7GB, but on Switch it's been reduced to just 2.9GB. It's even larger on PS4 and Xbox One, clocking in at around 9GB, as those versions make use of uncompressed art assets. Switch's reduced storage footprint is great for saving space but that extra compression might be connected to the extra loading - it may be the case that the CPU is kept busy unpacking the data.

The extra compression also results in a very subtle degradation in asset quality too, which would make sense considering the reduction in file size. The experience isn't impacted much at all, but when the camera zooms in during certain scenes, you can spot the difference. Is it really an issue? Possibly not, but should the problem manifest at all in a game dubbed the Definitive Edition?


I'll stick to the WiiU version, 5 player goodness.

None, both are obsolete. Steam + a huge hard drive is what matter nowadays.