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

If I have the option of buying the same game on another platform for less money, then I don't see any reason to pay extra for the game on Switch.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #14: A Moment of Calm

2. Gods and Superheroes: The Story of Clover Studio

3. Video Game Music Spotlight #13: Winter and Cold

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

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.

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.

I do agree that they should probably introduce a model with higher storage capacity (I mostly think having an SKU like this would be better for less tech savy people that want more storage out of the box). With that being said though, I am on my 7th smartphone right now and I mostly just purchase the smallest storage capacity SKU available (typically 32 GB-64 GB on most of the more premium smartphones today) and expand it with an SD card; this is because I have found I can get a bigger SD card for the same price or sometimes even lower than having to pay for larger storage SKU for a phone. 

In your comment you mentioned that Switch should have at least 64 GB because most smartphones offer that storage at the Switch's and those there are ones that offer 128 GB at $50 higher prices. Having done some brief research on the internet, I have not found a single phone that has a 64 GB option at $300 or 128 GB option for $350. In a market filled with smartphones, I do not doubt that you will inevitably find a phone at that price and with the storage options you mentioned but you have to take into consideration that those are low spec phones (heck all of the phones I could find at 32 GB at $300, which is the Switch's price, were all using chips that were considerably weaker than the chip inside the Switch) that are much less powerful than the switch. If Nintendo wanted to offer a 64 GB or 128 GB option at the same price as the current Switch then other things would have to be sacrificed on the system to make it happen. Of course, there will come a time when mass production of 64 GB and even 128 GB chips will reduce cost to the point where it is feasible to put in a $300 device like Switch (I suspect that will happen sooner rather than later for the 64 GB variant) but judging by the $300 smartphones I have seen now is still not the time.

I don't think expecting Switch to have the same storage capacity as PS4 and Xbox One is reasonable, considering those systems have mechanical hard drives which are cheaper whereas Switch has to rely on more expensive flash storage. Putting, even a smaller 1.8" hard drive, would increase the size, weight, speed (hard drives for portable systems have mechanisms that stop the drive from spinning upon detecting motion to prevent damage to the drive; this mechanism works but it makes the unit slower), exhibit higher power consumption, and finally it is far less durable. For a device that meant to be moved around a lot, having a mechanical hard drive is simply not practical. In addition, it is also important to mention that all PS4 and Xbox One games have mandatory game installs with their physical copies; while there are a number of physical Switch games where you need to install half of the content on the system, most games right now do not require that and you can run the games right off of the cartridge.

It is the same issue with the cartridges. Yes they are more expensive than a similar sized blu-ray disk, but you don't really have any other options if you want physical media on the Switch.

The reality is that Nintendo can only use what is on the market in their products. Unfortunately, we are at the point where flash storage is still more costly than hard drives (you get less space per dollar), and a similar case can be made with flash ROM cartridges compared to blu-ray disks. However, with Switch being a portable, I cannot see Nintendo being able to fit a Blu-ray drive or a mechanical hard drive in the device without making huge compromises to the portability.

Last edited by nemo37 - on 21 May 2018

Darashiva said:
If I have the option of buying the same game on another platform for less money, then I don't see any reason to pay extra for the game on Switch.

Portability. I sometime double dip if I like the game.



 

 

Not every system can get every game. Switch is a great platform for games from Nintendo and its partners, from Japanese AA developers, and from small indie studios. If you liked the WiiU, 3DS, and Vita, then here is your perfect system.

It's not a great platform, however, for AAA games. It was never designed to be. So, if you really want to play Resident Evil 7 and Monster Hunter World go out and buy a PS4 or XOne. Sony and Microsoft fans have to suck it up if they want to play Nintendo games, and Switch-only owners are going to have to suck it up if they desire a wide variety of AAA games.



nemo37 said:
 

I do agree that they should probably introduce a model with higher storage capacity (I mostly think having an SKU like this would be better for less tech savy people that want more storage out of the box). With that being said though, I am on my 7th smartphone right now and I mostly just purchase the smallest storage capacity SKU available (typically 32 GB-64 GB on most of the more premium smartphones today) and expand it with an SD card; this is because I have found I can get a bigger SD card for the same price or sometimes even lower than having to pay for larger storage SKU for a phone. 

In your comment you mentioned that Switch should have at least 64 GB because most smartphones offer that storage at the Switch's and those there are ones that offer 128 GB at $50 higher prices. Having done some brief research on the internet, I have not found a single phone that has a 64 GB option at $300 or 128 GB option for $350. In a market filled with smartphones, I do not doubt that you will inevitably find a phone at that price and with the storage options you mentioned but you have to take into consideration that those are low spec phones (heck all of the phones I could find at 32 GB at $300, which is the Switch's price, were all using chips that were considerably weaker than the chip inside the Switch) that are much less powerful than the switch. If Nintendo wanted to offer a 64 GB or 128 GB option at the same price as the current Switch then other things would have to be sacrificed on the system to make it happen. Of course, there will come a time when mass production of 64 GB and even 128 GB chips will reduce cost to the point where it is feasible to put in a $300 device like Switch (I suspect that will happen sooner rather than later for the 64 GB variant) but judging by the $300 smartphones I have seen now is still not the time.

I don't think expecting Switch to have the same storage capacity as PS4 and Xbox One is reasonable, considering those systems have mechanical hard drives which are cheaper whereas Switch has to rely on more expensive flash storage. Putting, even a smaller 1.8" hard drive, would increase the size, weight, speed (hard drives for portable systems have mechanisms that stop the drive from spinning upon detecting motion to prevent damage to the drive; this mechanism works but it makes the unit slower), exhibit higher power consumption, and finally it is far less durable. For a device that meant to be moved around a lot, having a mechanical hard drive is simply not practical. In addition, it is also important to mention that all PS4 and Xbox One games have mandatory game installs with their physical copies; while there are a number of physical Switch games where you need to install half of the content on the system, most games right now do not require that and you can run the games right off of the cartridge.

It is the same issue with the cartridges. Yes they are more expensive than a similar sized blu-ray disk, but you don't really have any other options if you want physical media on the Switch.

The reality is that Nintendo can only use what is on the market in their products. Unfortunately, we are at the point where flash storage is still more costly than hard drives (you get less space per dollar), and a similar case can be made with flash ROM cartridges compared to blu-ray disks. However, with Switch being a portable, I cannot see Nintendo being able to fit a Blu-ray drive or a mechanical hard drive in the device without making huge compromises to the portability.

I see you live in Canada, I do not. Prices here are quite different. The cheapest I can possibly get the Switch here right now is about 382$ (3299SEK), you can find a Huawei P20 Lite for the same exact price. Yes, the rest of the hardware is quite different, the Huawei sports a weaker CPU (it has a decent CPU though, not too far off on some benchmarks compared to a Tegra X1) and GPU, which is a given seeing as how it's not really a gaming device. But it has twice the storage, and the need for storage on a smartphone is certainly a lot smaller than on a console, pictures and simple documents and movies don't take up that much space at all (I have almost 90GB left of my 128 total, for instance).

I've not claimed that the Switch should have 1TB of storage either, I merely pointed out that the two main competitors sport this size at roughly the same total prize, with better memory, CPU and GPU on top, so that's not really an argument either. All I'm saying is that 32GB, minus the space the OS requires is tiny in any gaming console today, when we know that digital is growing and growing and games aren't getting smaller either.

As far as differences between SSD and HDD, I'm fully aware of these, any PC nerd would be butchered if he didn't... So; I know they are different technologies, that's still not a good argument for having a paltry 32GB of internal storage out of the box. Spinning drives would indeed cause issues in a device meant to be a hybrid and thus portable, and in terms of both spin and sheer size, physical discs are out of the question as well. One of the issues with Nintendo opting to use cartridges and SSD drives and citing transfer speed as a huge plus is the fact that the other, technical limitations of the hardware more or less nullifies this advantage, the limited RAM more so than most. Especially in Zelda: BotW, it becomes evident that you're playing on a device with a very limited work memory in comparison with the tasks its meant to perform, there is severe pop-in all over the place, and all the speedy transfer rates of internal storage or physical media in the world won't change that.

Yes, they are indeed limited by the market, but this is a choice they made, and it's only fair to alleviate some of the cost and hassle from potential customers by adding more storage, ordering in bulk for a device that sells well, and using parts that are present in the most sold media devices in the world, the costs of bigger SSD units would be significantly smaller for Nintendo internally than they would be for customers, but the added benefit of a much more capable machine would be huge, both from a developer and consumers perspective.

I'm not sure if my wording is causing the issue here, or perhaps my point just isn't clear to others, but I never stated that you can't fix it yourself by using SD cards, nor have I suggested that I have the right to a 1TB drive in a gaming device. What I'm saying is that 32GB is way too small to expect from a console in 2018, and that it is unreasonable and unfair to shove added cost onto the end user when the manufacturer themselves have chosen a path that limits the options for all parties involved, and that this goes double seeing as how Nintendo have always charged some fairly steep prices for their controllers, peripherals and even software. It's already costly enough to be a Ninty gamer, let's not make it worse, especially if the added cost is down to technical limitations caused by Nintendo not being up to date on certain features by making certain design choices.



Around the Network

I don’t see any reason why there can’t be price parity provided content is the same, so I guess $0.



Not a damn dollar more. These people are already profiting enough with these games.



Switch Friend Code = 5965 - 4586 - 6484

PSN: alejollorente10

Cobretti2 said:
Darashiva said:
If I have the option of buying the same game on another platform for less money, then I don't see any reason to pay extra for the game on Switch.

Portability. I sometime double dip if I like the game.

I can understand that. For me portability doesn't really mean anything, but I can see why that would make a difference to other people.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #14: A Moment of Calm

2. Gods and Superheroes: The Story of Clover Studio

3. Video Game Music Spotlight #13: Winter and Cold

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

10 for 32~64GB, 20 for 128.



nemo37 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.

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.

I do agree that they should probably introduce a model with higher storage capacity (I mostly think having an SKU like this would be better for less tech savy people that want more storage out of the box). With that being said though, I am on my 7th smartphone right now and I mostly just purchase the smallest storage capacity SKU available (typically 32 GB-64 GB on most of the more premium smartphones today) and expand it with an SD card; this is because I have found I can get a bigger SD card for the same price or sometimes even lower than having to pay for larger storage SKU for a phone. 

In your comment you mentioned that Switch should have at least 64 GB because most smartphones offer that storage at the Switch's and those there are ones that offer 128 GB at $50 higher prices. Having done some brief research on the internet, I have not found a single phone that has a 64 GB option at $300 or 128 GB option for $350. In a market filled with smartphones, I do not doubt that you will inevitably find a phone at that price and with the storage options you mentioned but you have to take into consideration that those are low spec phones (heck all of the phones I could find at 32 GB at $300, which is the Switch's price, were all using chips that were considerably weaker than the chip inside the Switch) that are much less powerful than the switch. If Nintendo wanted to offer a 64 GB or 128 GB option at the same price as the current Switch then other things would have to be sacrificed on the system to make it happen. Of course, there will come a time when mass production of 64 GB and even 128 GB chips will reduce cost to the point where it is feasible to put in a $300 device like Switch (I suspect that will happen sooner rather than later for the 64 GB variant) but judging by the $300 smartphones I have seen now is still not the time.

I don't think expecting Switch to have the same storage capacity as PS4 and Xbox One is reasonable, considering those systems have mechanical hard drives which are cheaper whereas Switch has to rely on more expensive flash storage. Putting, even a smaller 1.8" hard drive, would increase the size, weight, speed (hard drives for portable systems have mechanisms that stop the drive from spinning upon detecting motion to prevent damage to the drive; this mechanism works but it makes the unit slower), exhibit higher power consumption, and finally it is far less durable. For a device that meant to be moved around a lot, having a mechanical hard drive is simply not practical. In addition, it is also important to mention that all PS4 and Xbox One games have mandatory game installs with their physical copies; while there are a number of physical Switch games where you need to install half of the content on the system, most games right now do not require that and you can run the games right off of the cartridge.

It is the same issue with the cartridges. Yes they are more expensive than a similar sized blu-ray disk, but you don't really have any other options if you want physical media on the Switch.

The reality is that Nintendo can only use what is on the market in their products. Unfortunately, we are at the point where flash storage is still more costly than hard drives (you get less space per dollar), and a similar case can be made with flash ROM cartridges compared to blu-ray disks. However, with Switch being a portable, I cannot see Nintendo being able to fit a Blu-ray drive or a mechanical hard drive in the device without making huge compromises to the portability.

Agree on everything here

Just wanted to add that later models probably will come with more storage capacity. But for that to happen the prices for the memory chips need to go down first. By 2020 I could very well see Switch models with 64-128 GiB

Oh, and adding a HDD is pretty much impossible. The reading/writing heads are hovering just fractions of a Millimeter above the discs, any heavy vibrations from the player/Joycons/vehicle/etc... could cause a head crash, trashing the HDD and possibly the whole Switch with it's shrapnel in the process.