That's my point. The only option left is Nintendo has to change to make it feasible. Developer won't want to loose money if they an make more on the PS4/ONE as an example  

TBH I am surprised how many people are saying $0 considering PS4/ONE games jumped $10 or $20 (in some regions) at launch during the launch period compared to their PS3/360 counterparts. There was some complaints but overall majority was happy to pay it which I found odd considering that most were not technically better other than some rending and a bump in resolution. i.e. not like the game was remade considering their was a PC version to use assets from.

Surely portability and the use of a more stable medium (i.e. won't scratch or break in half as easily) is worth an extra $5?

Which model and how much did it cost?

nintendo - the power of the cloud!!! watch out MS!

i wouldnt be happy about this if i was wanting this on switch.

Mine was quite expensive, I bought a Huawei Mate 9 Pro at launch, but both Huawei and other manufacturers now sport at least 64GB of storage in their models that fall into the same price range as a Switch. Even phones with 128GB of storage can be found at around 50$ above the Switch price.

Digital is growing, especially for consoles, its been huge among PC gamers for years already (which you know, of course, since you game on PC quite a bit). As such, Nintendo need to adapt to the market, if adapting to the market in this case simply means adding more storage; then just do it. If the gain is better support and more software sales, it's easily worth it. Their failure to approach tech and engineering solutions that the market craves or even demands has been their achilles heel since the N64 days. The old argument that one can simply purchase storage one self doesn't really help, like I've mentioned, I find it unfair to expect the consumer to pay for basic functionality that should come out of the box in a modern gaming console, especially when they charge so much for controllers and peripherals as is (my Pro controller cost around 100$ and the base unit itself cost 400$). Even a pair of Joy-con's cost around 100$ here. Not to mention the fact that both Sony and MS offer SKU's of their consoles at the same price as a Switch that houses a 1TB drive.

In the golden age of digital media, skimping on storage space is simply a bad choice. They were forced to cut away the basic SKU of the Wii U as well after a short while, due to the limitations in its storage capacity and the severe limitations this put on the machine itself. If consumers and developers want a slightly more streamlined experience, this is hardly an outrageous wish.

And in most cases where you can chose between 32 GB and 128 GB for the same model you have to pay $50 to $100 for the additional 96 GB... why should it be any different for a Switch revision with 128 GB internal flash memory?

It is much cheaper to buy a 128 - 200 GB microSD-card instead. The difference in loading times between playing from internal memory, microSD and cartridge is also neglible on Switch.

The Switch is already more expensive than a PS4 Slim or Xbox One S, the price gap would only widen with "switching" to 128 GB internal flash memory for the entry model.

They already adapted: microSDXC compatibility up to (for now theoretical) 2 TB

You also don't have to decide in advance how much storage you need years ahead (and most of that storage remains free the first year) while paying todays prices for it, you just buy additional storage when you need it / when bigger cards got cheaper.

You can start with a small and cheap microSD card (I'm currently using a 64 GB card which was laying around from other devices, otherwise 32 GB would still suffice for this year) and later just copy the data to a bigger microSD card.

It is a pretty easy process to transfer and/or backup the data on the microSD card: http://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/27595/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNTI2OTA0MDI1L3NpZC9mVWEzdXkzdkR5S2JZQTlFemwybUJ2WjljYWt5aWxGTExzYnRqbDFNN2w4RGNycTdTSUJnNkpZenpXcDFwQTVTRW8lN0VKU1ZzaTg0Q1ZTTFVjUzE5eFhEanB5d1NPQlhveTVjdWFuYzFPdk16WllvM0RZV3F0MlZpUSUyMSUyMQ%3D%3D

I totally agree. Nintendo chose to go the hybrid way... with ALL advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage of higher prices of cartridges compared to blu-ray discs should have been factored in even in the concept phase.

If they want a good presence of bigger third party games for the Switch they should pay the extra costs instead of shifting these additional expenses to the third parties and the customers. They can afford it.

I don't want RE7 on either Switch or PS4. And there is nothing special about this game. I mean this for all games. If they aren't going to put the full game on a Switch cart, then I don't want the game on either Switch or PS4. The whole company can go to hell.

10$, couldn't afford more than that. But that only counts for 32GiB cartridges. For 16GiB cartridges I'd say maybe 5$ and nothing for 8GiB cartridges.

Edit: And that's just now, in the future when the prices for memory chips drop I won't accept such an excuse anymore

I'm sort of a tech head, so I can use the tech just fine, that's not my point. My point is that 32GB internal storage is tiny in a product aimed at a market where the digital products easily take up 10GB and up towards even 40 and 50GB, and that basic functionality should be a minimal demand to satisfy in a gaming console. It just so happens that basic functionality today includes the option of digital copies out of the box, without the need to go out and resort to 3rd party solutions. It doesn't matter if consumers are forced to either buy more storage right away because the internal drive is tiny, or if they're forced to pay more for games due to developers/publishers being forced to take certain measures to make it work from a technical standpoint; it's an unreasonable and unfair assumption that the end user take this cost.