zippy said: some of this this falls on Nintendo I'm afraid for giving us a paltry 32gb internal. 64gb would have been acceptable, its my only gripe with the excellent Switch. |
Why do people keep repeating this fallacy.
Internal storage has nothing to do with companies not putting a finished game on the cartridge.
I'm still gonna pick this up like I planned to, since a 14GB download won't stop me from being able to play on Switch; and my principles don't stretch so far that I'd avoid a game based on one shady business practice, and some inconvenience with having to manage an extra download.
This isn't gonna help my argument much, but I already own the complete/whatever-it's-called edition on PS3, which I haven't got around to playing yet.
The reason I'm now gonna pick it up and play it first on Switch, is because I want the extra portability, and to give Rockstar a reason to make more games available for that purpose in the future.
(I could also get the game on PC, PS4, Xbone, 360 even)
Gamers who only play on Nintendo systems can't just complain about lack of third party support, then when a completely playable version of an unexpected game releases, choose to avoid it on principle because one d*** decision by Rockstar.
They have no reason to make any ports for Switch; I'm not sure you noticed, but Rockstar are pretty successful without the Nintendo crowd.
If you want future big third party games on your system, then you just have to put up with s*** like this for a while, until you prove there's a worthwhile market on Switch for these games, and you actually have the leverage to demand proper quality.
(Doesn't mean you buy broken or outright incomplete games at launch, you obviously shouldn't go that far. Nor should you buy games you don't actually want to play.)