KBG29 said: Time to go digital. No one in the industry is fighting for physical anymore. Nintendo has to let this happen, they can not afford to loose 3rd party support. Microsoft and Sony have no problem blowing past Blu-rays limits, and PC is basically all digital. The publishers are going to continue to push until the physical version is nothing more than a download key. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo grab the retail cut on sales from thier digital store front, so they have huge insentive to move people to digital. Honestly at the end of the day they are trying to do people a favor by massively increasing the value, versatility, and reliability of their game library, while also adding a bit more to their bottom line in the process. I went all digital nearly a decade ago, and had the oppertunity to play my games across PSP, PS Vita, PS3, and PS4 in some cases. I know some people will never be sold, but it is inevitable.

Maybe. I just feel sorry for the one that goes all digital first. Its going to fail. Be it Nintendo, Sony or MS.

Shaunodon said: 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.)

 

unfortunately modern, ambitious 3rd party games require more and more space these days, and Sony/Microsoft compensate for this by including sufficient internal storage. I will be getting LA Noir for my Switch, as well as any other multiplat that interests me due to portability, however being able to play them will now require me to purchase a micro SD card. Not a massive issue, but another cost I believe could have been avoided, its not entirely the fault of he third parties and I can see why as a business they will go for the cheaper card option when they are not guaranteed big sales. This is a scenario where, because these games will require external space to play them it will hamper sales and low sales will make third parties chose a cheaper option and thus the cycle continues. Sufficient internal storage would have gone some way to bridge that gap in my opinion.

If I get a switch, it definitely will not be until they release another version with much more internal memory. They should have known better.

zippy said: Shaunodon said: 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.)   unfortunately modern, ambitious 3rd party games require more and more space these days, and Sony/Microsoft compensate for this by including sufficient internal storage. I will be getting LA Noir for my Switch, as well as any other multiplat that interests me due to portability, however being able to play them will now require me to purchase a micro SD card. Not a massive issue, but another cost I believe could have been avoided, its not entirely the fault of he third parties and I can see why as a business they will go for the cheaper card option when they are not guaranteed big sales. This is a scenario where, because these games will require external space to play them it will hamper sales and low sales will make third parties chose a cheaper option and thus the cycle continues. Sufficient internal storage would have gone some way to bridge that gap in my opinion.

This sentence doesn't make sense. The only reason it requires external space is because they chose the cheaper cartridge in the first place; if they wanted to see the true sales potential, they could have put the whole game on a 32GB cart and eaten the cost (they're already charging $10(US) extra anyway).

FragileSurface said: If I get a switch, it definitely will not be until they release another version with much more internal memory. They should have known better.

Just buy a big SD card. I mean the price of a Switch with a huge memory would probably be more expensive anyway...

Nintendo has to fix this Switch cart situation. It's getting out of control.

It's nonsense to make this a stick to beat Nintendo with.

A: Discs don't work with the Switch's concept. So cartridges are the only logical solution anyway.
B: More storage space means higher price.

Cartridges and microsd cards (at least not proprietary) are the solution that we have to work with. It's pointless to discuss it further.

KLXVER said: FragileSurface said: If I get a switch, it definitely will not be until they release another version with much more internal memory. They should have known better. Just buy a big SD card. I mean the price of a Switch with a huge memory would probably be more expensive anyway...

If six year old games require that much extra storage then I'd hate to see what the future looks like.  I'd rather spend more money and get the extra internal  storage.  

This is just dirty on Rockstar's part. I can understand a partial download. We should expect that as far as third parties go, buying physical just means that you can use less SD card space to play the game.

I can even understand why bigger games may cost 10 bucks more for a physical copy due to higher capacity cards. Fine, I can deal with that as long as digital remains the same price as the other platforms.

What is unacceptable though is using a smaller card (32 gig can fit this game) and STILL requiring a partial download/install and STILL charging 10 more for physical despite using the cheaper cards anyway. This is UNACCEPTABLE! If you want to charge ten more, use the correctly sized cart!

I had no plans for buying this game as I already beat it on PS3, so the mystery aspect has already been spoiled for me. If I were to buy it though, I would go digital as eventually getting an SD card for 3rd party games will pay for itself down the line. I would show RS that I support their games on Switch, but not support their physical release strategy until they do it right (either partial install same price as competing platforms or use a bigger cart).

Like I said however, I have no plans to buy this game anyway. I just hope those that do go digital so they can feel the sting of their poor physical release strategy.

FragileSurface said: KLXVER said: Just buy a big SD card. I mean the price of a Switch with a huge memory would probably be more expensive anyway... If six year old games require that much extra storage then I'd hate to see what the future looks like.  I'd rather spend more money and get the extra internal  storage.

^That doesn’t make sense

Other systems have been filling up huge amounts of storage on mandatory downloads for years,  Switch has the flexibility to add mobile storage whenever you want