Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch Owner - How much extra would you pay?

How much extra would you pay ?

$0 21 67.74%
 
$5 3 9.68%
 
$10 4 12.90%
 
$15 0 0.00%
 
Other, explain in comments 3 9.68%
 
Total:31
AlfredoTurkey said:
Cobretti2 said:

I do agree with you in principle but we are in kind of a stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand if we want the games to be full and Nintendo is not willing to do better prices on the carts than we suffer.

If sales suffer because we refuse to by half games than we also suffer cause they stop releasing games on Nintendo.

 

I looked at some of the releases and it is actually quite hard to compare things because everything has been a late release or port.

In future if we get simultaneous launches I would be wiling to pay an extra $5-10 compared to the PS4 version simply because i can play the game when I am away.

 

If it's between you and I and a company worth more than forty billion dollars, I'm gonna go with the forty billion dollar company to foot the bill, not us. We should not be expected to pay for the something that SHOULD exist in the first place. 

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  



 

 

Around the Network

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?



 

 

Mummelmann said:
Why would I pay more for a Switch version? I simply wouldn't. Nintendo need to release a SKU with more internal storage, and quickly. A whole lot of smartphones have 2-4 times as much storage today than the Switch does. Mine has 128 GB, for instance

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.



 

Conina said:
Mummelmann said:
Why would I pay more for a Switch version? I simply wouldn't. Nintendo need to release a SKU with more internal storage, and quickly. A whole lot of smartphones have 2-4 times as much storage today than the Switch does. Mine has 128 GB, for instance

Which model and how much did it cost?

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.



Around the Network
Mummelmann said:
Conina said:

Which model and how much did it cost?

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.

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.

Mummelmann said:

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.

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

Last edited by Conina - on 21 May 2018

AlfredoTurkey said:

If it's between you and I and a company worth more than forty billion dollars, I'm gonna go with the forty billion dollar company to foot the bill, not us. We should not be expected to pay for the something that SHOULD exist in the first place. 

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

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 21 May 2018

Conina said:
Mummelmann said:

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.

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.

Mummelmann said:

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.

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'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.