By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - L.A. Noire will cost more on Switch than Ps4 and Xbox One

Nautilus said:
Aeolus451 said:

"According to Eurogamer, Switch cards come in a wide range of capacities - 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB and 32GB - and as you might imagine, the larger the size, the more the card costs to physically make."

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/03/heres_why_nintendo_switch_games_cost_more_than_those_for_other_consoles

Here's is the article he was referring to. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-03-10-why-nintendo-switch-games-are-ending-up-more-expensive

At least I have some sort of source on this. Most on here are just lowballing the costs to $2 to 3 instead of the full difference because they rather try to paint 3rd party devs as being greedy so they jacked up the price for profit increases instead of the asisinine format just making the games cost more. 

I am not arguing over if carts are more expensive.They are.I am asking if you have something that indicates that this price difference will result in a bump of 10 dollars in the final product.Mind you, I also think that people throwing around random numbers is a moot point, because they are not precise(even though in most cases those numbers are just to exemplify, not to be hard facts), but accusing people of not having proof, when you yourself have no proof either is hypocrite in my opinion.

You guys are assuming that 3rd party devs/pubs are being greedy and charging more for profit instead of balancing out the costs with no proof. I sourced at least something that explains that there is definitely a higher cost to put a game on NS because of the format. If you're gonna assume the cost at least go with something in the middle that's sensible.



Around the Network

Carts are definitely a factor.

It seems CD based platforms always got good support because producing physical games was simply cheaper.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Nuvendil said:

The biggest difference is speed.  The Switch Game Card is a touch slower than the internal NAND on Switch, so just a bit bellow a 5200 RPM hard drive that is found in the PS4 and Xbone.  Not slow, but not particularly fast either.  The N64 Game Pak on the other hand was exceptionally fast relative to its day.  They were so fast, data could be streamed from the Game Pak in real-time as if it were simply normal RAM.  That's a ludicrous notion and something the Game Card comes nowhere near to.  So one is using run of the mill flash memory, the other was  leading edge. 

Second difference is added components for writable storage.  The Game Card format just has an extra little chip for that.  But Switch game cards don't even have that, only DS and 3DS do.  The Game Pak had EEPROM, another Flash chip, or in numerous instances battery backed up RAM.  And the size of the Game Pak further increases its costs in materials.

There's always going to be trade-offs in engineering ... (what N64 game paks did to optimize for speed and capacity is different to what Swtch game cards did to optimize for density and cost efficiency) 

Devs are not on the same page as you are when it comes to the cost of bigger Switch game card sizes ... 

DQH 1&2 - ~80USD

RE:RC - ~40USD and the rest of the collection has to be downloaded which is bigger than what's stored in the game card itself ...

Lastly we have L. A. Noire ... 

It seems like every time that a Switch game uses 16GB game cards there's always compromises abound ...



NawaiNey said:
Cobretti2 said:

The thing is not all regions are impacted the same way with price as I shown examples in previous posts. I do agree with you that ehy do cot more then a BluRay disc but not $10+ range more.

This is why I think the local Nintendo in each region plays some part is the price becaue they get allocated money based on sales for promotios in their regions from what I was told by the Nintendo rep in Australia. Now this wa a few years ago when Wii was at it's peak and I was getting a replacement disc. If it happens now who knows? in my opion i think it does a it would make no sense to have price partiy in some regions and not in other. Even in some cases the Switch version is $10 cheaper than PS4/ONE here.

Essentially we are arguign about oen game in one region instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Knowing how much it costs to produce a cartridge is not enough, we also don't know how much Nintendo is charging for the lisence fee.

Blu-ray for example has a $0.11 lisencing fee aside from the cost of the disc itself. Nintendo could very well be charging a few dollars for it on top of the cost of the cartidge. 

License fees is what I am talking about. I think it is somewhat region based and not a fixed cost, hence why this game in some regions is exactly the same cost as the PS4/ONE version and in Europe it is not.



 

 

Aeolus451 said:
Nautilus said:

I am not arguing over if carts are more expensive.They are.I am asking if you have something that indicates that this price difference will result in a bump of 10 dollars in the final product.Mind you, I also think that people throwing around random numbers is a moot point, because they are not precise(even though in most cases those numbers are just to exemplify, not to be hard facts), but accusing people of not having proof, when you yourself have no proof either is hypocrite in my opinion.

You guys are assuming that 3rd party devs/pubs are being greedy and charging more for profit instead of balancing out the costs with no proof. I sourced at least something that explains that there is definitely a higher cost to put a game on NS because of the format. If you're gonna assume the cost at least go with something in the middle that's sensible.

Proof saying that 3rd party devs are being greedy was just posted a few posts ago.From an actual guy who handles these things.(Zhuge Ex).It could have been guess before, but its not anymore.Read Nuvendil posts for a more detailed analisys.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Nuvendil said:

The biggest difference is speed.  The Switch Game Card is a touch slower than the internal NAND on Switch, so just a bit bellow a 5200 RPM hard drive that is found in the PS4 and Xbone.  Not slow, but not particularly fast either.  The N64 Game Pak on the other hand was exceptionally fast relative to its day.  They were so fast, data could be streamed from the Game Pak in real-time as if it were simply normal RAM.  That's a ludicrous notion and something the Game Card comes nowhere near to.  So one is using run of the mill flash memory, the other was  leading edge. 

Second difference is added components for writable storage.  The Game Card format just has an extra little chip for that.  But Switch game cards don't even have that, only DS and 3DS do.  The Game Pak had EEPROM, another Flash chip, or in numerous instances battery backed up RAM.  And the size of the Game Pak further increases its costs in materials.

There's always going to be trade-offs in engineering ... (what N64 game paks did to optimize for speed and capacity is different to what Swtch game cards did to optimize for density and cost efficiency) 

Devs are not on the same page as you are when it comes to the cost of bigger Switch game card sizes ... 

DQH 1&2 - ~80USD

RE:RC - ~40USD and the rest of the collection has to be downloaded which is bigger than what's stored in the game card itself ...

Lastly we have L. A. Noire ... 

It seems like every time that a Switch game uses 16GB game cards there's always compromises abound ...

Flip back a few posts.  Industry analysts say it's about 60% more.  We are talking less than $10 - at most $6 - more than PS4 and Xbone. And more favorable relations and buying larger quantities will drive that down further to 5, 4, even 3.   So yes, they are raising prices to offset this small added cost.  No they are not raising it according to that increase.  They are raising it by "industry standard" increments and based on what they can get away with.  Unless you seriously believe they needed to charge that much for DQXI to make good margins and didn't do it to capitalize on the launch situation and the powerful DQ license.

Oh and all of that applies to the 32GB card.  16 will be lower, probaly 3 dollars more at the absolute worst if you plan a limited run.  Probably more like 1 or 2 dollars difference.  

Tl;dr:  the extra 10 does recoup costs but it also nets them extra margins abkve and beyond. And if you think PUBLISHERS (not devs, PUBLISHERS) - the same publishers that push absurd preorder bonuses, launch day DLC, content carving, season passes, numerous exorbitantly prjced collector's and limited editions, microtransactions - wouldn't do that, you're kidding yourself.



Oh and to be clear, the 5 and 6 dollar increases are worse case scenario. That's me applying that 60% to all costs to get it to the retailer. 60% more to Nintendo, 60% more for packaging, 60% more for components. That's highly unlikely. Packaging and shipping will be unaffected and the Nintendo cut will vary somewhat and buying larger quantities gains greater discounts. So 3 to 5 is probably the real range and games will run the gambit but 5 being the exception. And again, this is the 32 GB card.

Which BTW, further evidence that this is publisher end BS: Puyo Puyo Tetris was $10 more on Switch. Yet it is small enough to fit on a TWO GIG card. For reference, that same analyst said an 8 gig = a standard PS4 blue ray. So why is the version on the CHEAPEST medium more expensive? I'm telling you people, it's because they can. And if not, why does Sonic Forces have price parity when it is on a bigger card than Puyo Puyo Tetris?



SpokenTruth said:
Aeolus451 said:

"According to Eurogamer, Switch cards come in a wide range of capacities - 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB and 32GB - and as you might imagine, the larger the size, the more the card costs to physically make."

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/03/heres_why_nintendo_switch_games_cost_more_than_those_for_other_consoles

Here's is the article he was referring to. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-03-10-why-nintendo-switch-games-are-ending-up-more-expensive

At least I have some sort of source on this. Most on here are just lowballing the costs to $2 to 3 instead of the full difference because they rather try to paint 3rd party devs as being greedy so they jacked up the price for profit increases instead of the asisinine format just making the games cost more. 

http://www.trendforce.com/price/flash

Contract pricing for 32 Gb NAND flash is $2.80.  Even if a Blu-ray manufacturing cost $0.00, that's still not a $10 different and right in line with my $2-$3 difference. And that's with a 7.28% increase from 2 weeks ago.

Each Blu-ray disc cost ~$0.10. Do you really think a Blu-ray movie cost $5-$10 more to manufacture than a DVD movie?

From what I understand and what I could look up, NS game cards are custom proprietary flash media so the prices of typical mass produced NAND flash cards are not really comparible to it.  

I expected blu-ray discs costed more than regular dvds by a fair bit when they first hit the market. Aren't blue-ray and regular dvd movies cheaper now?



Nautilus said:
Aeolus451 said:

You guys are assuming that 3rd party devs/pubs are being greedy and charging more for profit instead of balancing out the costs with no proof. I sourced at least something that explains that there is definitely a higher cost to put a game on NS because of the format. If you're gonna assume the cost at least go with something in the middle that's sensible.

Proof saying that 3rd party devs are being greedy was just posted a few posts ago.From an actual guy who handles these things.(Zhuge Ex).It could have been guess before, but its not anymore.Read Nuvendil posts for a more detailed analisys.

I read back a couple of pages and saw nothing about proof.  



Aeolus451 said:
Nautilus said:

Proof saying that 3rd party devs are being greedy was just posted a few posts ago.From an actual guy who handles these things.(Zhuge Ex).It could have been guess before, but its not anymore.Read Nuvendil posts for a more detailed analisys.

I read back a couple of pages and saw nothing about proof.  

The Zhuge Ex tweet.Its maybe 20 or 30 posts back.Just look a bit further.And if you did find that, but dont accept that as being proof, a statement with an professional analist with close ties with the videogame industry, then there is no point to argue further with you.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1