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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Physical version of LA Noire on Switch require a 14GB download

KLXVER said:
DonFerrari said:

PSP Go already gone there and failed... but there will be a time when it'll be totally acceptable by the masses.

In the way future, sure. Humans are material beings. Some more than others, but people like to own what they buy. I mean CDs and LPs are still around FFS.

I just buy digital when they are severely discounted and value my midia (even when having all in the HDD and not needing the disc is kinda practical). But I can see soon enough we not having physical midia for games =[



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
KLXVER said:

In the way future, sure. Humans are material beings. Some more than others, but people like to own what they buy. I mean CDs and LPs are still around FFS.

I just buy digital when they are severely discounted and value my midia (even when having all in the HDD and not needing the disc is kinda practical). But I can see soon enough we not having physical midia for games =[

Maybe in like 30 years. Dont worry about it.



KLXVER said:
DonFerrari said:

I just buy digital when they are severely discounted and value my midia (even when having all in the HDD and not needing the disc is kinda practical). But I can see soon enough we not having physical midia for games =[

Maybe in like 30 years. Dont worry about it.

Well, when I'm over 60 year old I think I'll be ready to let go of my gaming cases =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

To all those saying it's Nintendo's fault for such a small HDD or saying we need to buy it or lose support, ect. I hate that line of thinking. It's that line of thinking that is bringing all these insane MIcrotransactions in games. You guys continue to let companies do as they please and continue to buy their games in whatever condition they release it in.

I like seeing that most all people in this thread are now refusing to buy this game. I doubt I would have gotten it. Not as much time to game anymore, but it looked like one I might have enjoyed. But I will refuse to buy it for the one reason alone.

1. They are charging $10 more for the switch version, yet not using a big enough cart for the game? WTF is the extra $10 for.

Then there is the whole I want the plug and play aspect. I want the days back of you grab a disc or cartridge and stick it in the system and you are playing instantly. No more of this "mandatory" installs. If one wants an optional one, sure go ahead, whatever. I shouldn't need a mandatory install to just play the damn game. I shouldn't need a day 1 patch to be able play through the game from start to finish.

All of you guys acceptance of "Well games are big now, they all have installs, ect" is what is letting them do it. The same as with micros. Since people keep buying micro's they are not going away. You can hate them all you want, but if you don't talk with your wallet, the companies won't listen. So no, I'm not buying a gimped version of a game on the Switch, just so I can hope for a non gimped version of third parties later. I'm actually making a stand, instead of buying the game anyway and complaining. Hell I woudl love to buy Battlefront 2, but I refuse to due to their Micro situation.



DonFerrari said:
KLXVER said:

Maybe in like 30 years. Dont worry about it.

Well, when I'm over 60 year old I think I'll be ready to let go of my gaming cases =p

Me too...I hope.



Around the Network
irstupid said:

To all those saying it's Nintendo's fault for such a small HDD or saying we need to buy it or lose support, ect. I hate that line of thinking. It's that line of thinking that is bringing all these insane MIcrotransactions in games. You guys continue to let companies do as they please and continue to buy their games in whatever condition they release it in.

I like seeing that most all people in this thread are now refusing to buy this game. I doubt I would have gotten it. Not as much time to game anymore, but it looked like one I might have enjoyed. But I will refuse to buy it for the one reason alone.

1. They are charging $10 more for the switch version, yet not using a big enough cart for the game? WTF is the extra $10 for.

Then there is the whole I want the plug and play aspect. I want the days back of you grab a disc or cartridge and stick it in the system and you are playing instantly. No more of this "mandatory" installs. If one wants an optional one, sure go ahead, whatever. I shouldn't need a mandatory install to just play the damn game. I shouldn't need a day 1 patch to be able play through the game from start to finish.

All of you guys acceptance of "Well games are big now, they all have installs, ect" is what is letting them do it. The same as with micros. Since people keep buying micro's they are not going away. You can hate them all you want, but if you don't talk with your wallet, the companies won't listen. So no, I'm not buying a gimped version of a game on the Switch, just so I can hope for a non gimped version of third parties later. I'm actually making a stand, instead of buying the game anyway and complaining. Hell I woudl love to buy Battlefront 2, but I refuse to due to their Micro situation.

I have to tell you the hard truth that the past doesn't come back, you either get with the times or get out. Once that became a standard it won't revert



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

RolStoppable said:
DonFerrari said:
Funny to see so many people demanding higher size carts but shunning Nintendo making higher size HDD.
So we want all games to have higher size carts and cost isn't a problem, but Nintendo putting more HDD space is preposterous because it will cost more.

It's factual that the games would fit on a card. It's also a perfectly reasonable stance to expect a physical version of a game to be a physical version, not half-physical and half-digital.

Once again you are taking your defense for third parties why too far.

For my personal leisure I could live with all 3rd parties not releasing on PS4.

And sure it would be better to have the full game on the disc.

But I'm just thinking it is funny to demand that all games that take more than 16GB (on the case of PS4X1 and that is what Switch is asking for, all games take more than that) go for bigger cart buy thinking it is unnaceptable to ask Nintendo for bigger HDD. And in the case of the HDD the cost would be only once, and if the person use downloadble games or want DLC or patches most games will install on the HDD.

For all I care Nintendo can have only 1st party with no DLC and patches, with all games releasing fully on the disc. But then again I'm not complaining of most 3rd parties practices on Nintendo and saying I won't support it and then complaining of the lack of support.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
irstupid said:

To all those saying it's Nintendo's fault for such a small HDD or saying we need to buy it or lose support, ect. I hate that line of thinking. It's that line of thinking that is bringing all these insane MIcrotransactions in games. You guys continue to let companies do as they please and continue to buy their games in whatever condition they release it in.

I like seeing that most all people in this thread are now refusing to buy this game. I doubt I would have gotten it. Not as much time to game anymore, but it looked like one I might have enjoyed. But I will refuse to buy it for the one reason alone.

1. They are charging $10 more for the switch version, yet not using a big enough cart for the game? WTF is the extra $10 for.

Then there is the whole I want the plug and play aspect. I want the days back of you grab a disc or cartridge and stick it in the system and you are playing instantly. No more of this "mandatory" installs. If one wants an optional one, sure go ahead, whatever. I shouldn't need a mandatory install to just play the damn game. I shouldn't need a day 1 patch to be able play through the game from start to finish.

All of you guys acceptance of "Well games are big now, they all have installs, ect" is what is letting them do it. The same as with micros. Since people keep buying micro's they are not going away. You can hate them all you want, but if you don't talk with your wallet, the companies won't listen. So no, I'm not buying a gimped version of a game on the Switch, just so I can hope for a non gimped version of third parties later. I'm actually making a stand, instead of buying the game anyway and complaining. Hell I woudl love to buy Battlefront 2, but I refuse to due to their Micro situation.

I have to tell you the hard truth that the past doesn't come back, you either get with the times or get out. Once that became a standard it won't revert

And that is the attitude that lead us to these giant madatory installs and microtransactions.

DonFerrari said:
RolStoppable said:

It's factual that the games would fit on a card. It's also a perfectly reasonable stance to expect a physical version of a game to be a physical version, not half-physical and half-digital.

Once again you are taking your defense for third parties why too far.

For my personal leisure I could live with all 3rd parties not releasing on PS4.

And sure it would be better to have the full game on the disc.

But I'm just thinking it is funny to demand that all games that take more than 16GB (on the case of PS4X1 and that is what Switch is asking for, all games take more than that) go for bigger cart buy thinking it is unnaceptable to ask Nintendo for bigger HDD. And in the case of the HDD the cost would be only once, and if the person use downloadble games or want DLC or patches most games will install on the HDD.

For all I care Nintendo can have only 1st party with no DLC and patches, with all games releasing fully on the disc. But then again I'm not complaining of most 3rd parties practices on Nintendo and saying I won't support it and then complaining of the lack of support.

It's not an unreasonable demand when the company is charging $10 more for their game on the Switch than on other consoles saying it's due to the cartridges costing more. The price difference between the smallest cartridge and the 32 gb cartridge is not more than $10, so if we are forced to pay and extra $10 then why is the game not on the biggest cartridge?

If cartridge costs are why the thing is $10 more, then why is digital not $10 less than physical? Rockstar is flat out ripping off Switch owners with teh pricing. They are using the cartridge as an excuse to price gouge some extra money. I have no issue with them charging $10 more for teh game due to cartridge costs, but when they use a smaller cartridge, then it is bullshit.



RolStoppable said:
DonFerrari said:

For my personal leisure I could live with all 3rd parties not releasing on PS4.

And sure it would be better to have the full game on the disc.

But I'm just thinking it is funny to demand that all games that take more than 16GB (on the case of PS4X1 and that is what Switch is asking for, all games take more than that) go for bigger cart buy thinking it is unnaceptable to ask Nintendo for bigger HDD. And in the case of the HDD the cost would be only once, and if the person use downloadble games or want DLC or patches most games will install on the HDD.

For all I care Nintendo can have only 1st party with no DLC and patches, with all games releasing fully on the disc. But then again I'm not complaining of most 3rd parties practices on Nintendo and saying I won't support it and then complaining of the lack of support.

What did I say about the expectation that a physical version of a game should be a physical version? It's reasonable. And because of that, the fault and blame rests entirely on the shoulders of third parties, because it's an irrefutable fact that physical versions are possible.

You constantly try to point out hypocritical and unreasonable behavior of other people, but you are slowly turning into the worst culprit of all of them.

No hypocrisy on saying if we are ok with asking 3rd parties to release on higher cartridges even if it will cost more then no problem with Nintendo releasing higher memory for Switch even if costing then more.

And I don't remember the last time a phisical game I bought in PS4 didn't need an install and download. I certainly don't like it, but if PS4 didn't had enough memory for even one or two games installed then it would be a big issue.

irstupid said:
DonFerrari said:

I have to tell you the hard truth that the past doesn't come back, you either get with the times or get out. Once that became a standard it won't revert

And that is the attitude that lead us to these giant madatory installs and microtransactions.

DonFerrari said:

For my personal leisure I could live with all 3rd parties not releasing on PS4.

And sure it would be better to have the full game on the disc.

But I'm just thinking it is funny to demand that all games that take more than 16GB (on the case of PS4X1 and that is what Switch is asking for, all games take more than that) go for bigger cart buy thinking it is unnaceptable to ask Nintendo for bigger HDD. And in the case of the HDD the cost would be only once, and if the person use downloadble games or want DLC or patches most games will install on the HDD.

For all I care Nintendo can have only 1st party with no DLC and patches, with all games releasing fully on the disc. But then again I'm not complaining of most 3rd parties practices on Nintendo and saying I won't support it and then complaining of the lack of support.

It's not an unreasonable demand when the company is charging $10 more for their game on the Switch than on other consoles saying it's due to the cartridges costing more. The price difference between the smallest cartridge and the 32 gb cartridge is not more than $10, so if we are forced to pay and extra $10 then why is the game not on the biggest cartridge?

If cartridge costs are why the thing is $10 more, then why is digital not $10 less than physical? Rockstar is flat out ripping off Switch owners with teh pricing. They are using the cartridge as an excuse to price gouge some extra money. I have no issue with them charging $10 more for teh game due to cartridge costs, but when they use a smaller cartridge, then it is bullshit.

A cartridge will already cost you more than a disc. So a penny for the disc versus 10 USD for the disc is already standard for the publisher to make the same per unit on both formats. The 32GB card would have to cost even more. So you would either ask they to profit less or charge more, both of which I suspect one of the two involved parties wouldn't like. You aren't forced, you can buy or not. And Nintendo choose the form to store the games. I know some wanted even Sony to go for 100GB cartridges for PS5, they would also certainly complain of games costing 80 USD or more.

The digital isn't less than the phisical for the same reason why they aren't on PS4 and X1, because that would make the retail stores pissed.

You said yourself, the difference between the 32 to 16 is 10 USD, but since the 16 doesn't cost 0, then it would need 10 extra charged.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I mean, it's not ideal, but who really cares?  Who doesnt have an SD card?