This is mostly right. I agree that western high-level AAA-productions are also unlikely in the future. But mid-tier and smaller games are possible. And Switch is targeted by games usually not on console. It gets a lot of mobile ports. Also a lot of stuff usually on PC makes it's way to Switch, because of the possible mobility the game gains and because of multiple input-methods. The input-methods are the reason for Civilization as a bigger example of one such game. I think Switch can and will thrive on these games, different genres and games than the usual western mostly action and shooter AAA-games.

Well honestly what other options for physical games are there for a device with a portable aspect?

Who says a device needs to have physical games, especially if they're going to be prohibitively expensive? If the Switch never contained a cartridge slot, or a touch screen (because it's practically unused by most developers), and had an internal capacity of, say 256 GB then *poof* this problem doesn't exist. If you don't like a lack of physical media, create a "cartridge" that contains a unique identifier that needs to be scanned by the system in order to be downloaded and played, and allow players to tie these codes to their account. Any time the "cartridge" is scanned and linked to another switch, the game becomes disabled on your Switch until it's scanned again to prevent piracy.

That's just one solution, and I'm not even coming close to saying it's what Nintendo should have done. There are dozens of others that Nintendo could have done, but again, chose this one. It's not like Nintendo didn't know a game like GTA V would probably require a 32 GB cartridge. This was always going to be an issue Nintendo knew about from day 1, and they did it anyways.

Physical distribution and representation in shops is still big.

And your idea with the id is basically pretty similar to the games releasing with additional downloads needed, which already happens. But still there is an upside to be offline and play the game. I bought the Switch on release for one reason only: I didn't wanted to wait to play Zelda, because it built up as an extraordinary game (and it was) and I was away for that weekend, so I picked up my Switch on friday and later in the train I started up Zelda for the first time. Impossible, if I had to download the game first.

Swear? Look at price point of Switch, PS4, XB1, PS3, 360, Wii U, Wii...you will see that highest price point is $60 for any platform, expect of special edition, steal books and similar.

General rule sure. But we have had games costing over 60 USD (standard edition) since at least SNES.

https://www.gamestop.com/wii-u/games/hello-kitty-kruisers/114210 (regular price 69.99)

It may not be common anymore to launch over 60 for regular editions, but it's hardly a prohibition.

Yes you could, buy maybe game is more than 40GB with all updates, we dont know thats a point. All Wii U games could fit on Wii U disks and Wii U disks were not expansive, so totally different situation compared to Switch.

Yes, Switch situation is even worse, agreed. And if you at any point need 50GB updates (As I said we already have had 100GB day one patch) then the size of the cart discussion will become null and void.

Hinted by those same insider they were very accurate about previous Switch rumours or generally rumors and insiders information.

Ow ok, rumour.

We still talking about rumours, but when rumours come from multiply very credible insiders that were very accurate before, than those rumours are definitely much more believable.

You may believe how many rumours you want. They may still be wrong on any given situation. Can you show all of them having 100% accuracy exaustively? Because I prize reason over rumors, and letting money stopped isn't a smart thing. Nor is avoiding to get money. Could your justification be true? Sure it could, it just doesn't seem like it. As other said, they would know the price of the cartridge before hand, they would know the targeted size as well.

But point is that every company wants maximum profit in any case, so they will work to achieve that in any case, and $10 less profit per game is huge problem for any dev including R*, thats why no one using 32GB Switch carts yet. Again, we dont know details, maybe from start was plan to release game on 64GB carts but delay of them delayed game also, or maybe 32GB carts ended much more expensive than they thought so they waiting for cheaper price point of 32GB carts, on maybe from start was plan to release game in 2019. alongside cheaper 32GB carts or 64GB carts, maybe game is canceld and maybe they never even planed to release game on Switch (less likly). Again, we can only speculate for now what could be with GTAV, but fact is that we talking about real problem when we talk about size and cost of Switch carts that definitely affecting 3rd party devs espacily when we talking about big games.

Sure every company wants to maximize profits... Still Sony doesn't go and make games as cheap as Nintendo to increase their profit, each company have their own study on how to do their business. And if as I showed you, waiting two years to release a finished game may end up giving less profit than eating up the immediate cost. Sony and MS have paid several dozen millions on marketing exclusivity itself, so I fail to see how a deal would be impossible for R* and Nintendo.

So you think it is less likely that they decided not to make a Switch version than they didn't had a firm price and release date from Nintendo and that they have no contract for the release of the game or that they will postpone for couple years due to it? Just look how much sales Rise of Tomb Raider lost due to postponing PS4 release and calculate how much it must have costed MS to buy the timed exclusivity and you may guess the cost of standing still. But I like that you just crossed all the revenue analysis and will hold strong on losing all revenue from the sales.

What @Mnementh post, also proves that, what that dev said is totally in line with what insiders from Resetera also said.

Here Abstraction Games about the port of Ark Survival to the Switch: "Performance is not really the issue. The issue instead is in the size of carts. The 32GB carts are expensive, you shouldn't be wanting to do that. So we need to fit everything on 16GB, whereas the standard game on PS4 is much, much larger. It's a crazy ratio we're talking about."

Are we comparing ARK Survival with GTA V? Sure, we can say that God of War is totally feasible on Switch besides the small issue of cartdrige, must also be the reason RE7 launched without even having a cartridge, but owww wait streamed.

Yeah, I forget about that, it very obvious we talking about real problem when comes to size and cost of Switch carts, and that effecting most on big games.

Yes actual developers and porters, not one of them being R*

So if I pick another developer we prove the point that cartridge size isn't the issue? http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=224964&page=1#

RE7 can't run on Switch and that wasn't due to size file.

I disagree. Any game that is able to run in 90 fps on a base PS4 (even in sub-native PSVR resolution) should also be able to run on Switch.