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

Forums - Nintendo - Switch 2 should have used PS5 strategy regarding physical media

RolStoppable said:

The easiest and best solution would be that third parties compress the data and put the whole game on a proper game card.

What annoys me the most about this recurring discussion is that so many of you start with the premise that third parties cannot possibly do the above 

There are 3 separate issues to be adressed here:

1) Some games simply don't need the current only card option which is a expensive 64GB unit. A game that only has 12GB compressed has no reason to be on a 64GB card. In this case we are simply paying more money to use a unnecessary media. This is the case for Nintendo own first party games as well, in fact for the majority of their first parties 

2) Nintendo decision for not allow installing games inside the storage is simply strange. Instead of letting consumers put more money on storage when we feel fit we need to instead put more money on every true physical game purchase (even the ones we don't need as per point 1). If I buy 20 physical games (true physical games not GCK), and each is 10 USD more expensive it's already 200 USD 

This is the price of 1TB SSD express card, which can store up to 16 64 GB games (actually more since most of those games are smaller than 64 GB)

3) Compression do not work by magic. Some games can be compressed to work on 64GB, but it won't work forever. Cyberpunk could be compressed to 59 GB (it's the size of Xbox edition), compared to its 102 GB from PS4 version. But FF VII Rebirth is 88 GB on Steam Deck (already reduced from the original 145GB+) so unless they really reduce game quality I can't see how they could fit. 



Around the Network
curl-6 said:

If this was an option, you'd still have third parties cheaping out and deciding that even the $6 it would cost them for a MicroSD card was a corner they could cut.

It's the publisher's call how a game is delivered and many have shown that even when presented with options they will choose the cheapest one even if it's bad for the consumer, as we saw in the myriad of code-in-a-box releases or games only half on the card on Switch 1.

Rol is correct; this is on third parties.

6 USD would be for 128 GB cards, no games on Switch 2 currently would need it except maybe the upcoming RE Village

Micro SD card options for storage would cost less than 6 USD. Smaller SD cards (16 GB, 32 GB) that can fit smaller games would cost just a bit more than Blue Rays

In 2017, a 32 GB Switch was reportedly 60% more expensive than a standard PS4 Blue Ray. It was more expensive, but not a point of being prohibitive that's why 92% of Switch 1 games are in fact on cards 

The issue here is third parties don't have options other than 64GB cards they don't need, hence this GCK galore we are seeing early this gen



IcaroRibeiro said:

6 USD would be for 128 GB cards, no games on Switch 2 currently would need it except maybe the upcoming RE Village

Why RE Village? 

My PC-Version including DLCs is only 37 GB.



Conina said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

6 USD would be for 128 GB cards, no games on Switch 2 currently would need it except maybe the upcoming RE Village

Why RE Village? 

My PC-Version including DLCs is only 37 GB.

I meant Requiem*, sorry



I am curious as to why CD Project can optimize and compress Cyberpunk 2077 and its expansion onto the 64GB cart for Switch 2 but yet SE can't do the same for FF7 Intergrade version?



Around the Network
Blood_Tears said:

I am curious as to why CD Project can optimize and compress Cyberpunk 2077 and its expansion onto the 64GB cart for Switch 2 but yet SE can't do the same for FF7 Intergrade version?

My 2 cents is Cyberpunk was trimmed down because it's a late release, they had more time to work here. On PS4 it requires mandatory patch, in fact it's one of my few games that need to be downloaded because the version on the disc is unplayable

As for FF, Square simply prefer GCK to cut costs, the game is 40 USD already. Rebirth was sized down to 88 GB, so I'm sure Remake could be sized to fill the 60 GB, even if they needed to make the Intergade DLC an additional download  



HoloDust said:
RolStoppable said:

Not really. Game-key cards aren't selling well, so you merely need to have patience.

This is similar to how the narrative has been that digital is the future and then more and more indie game developers looked into releasing physical versions of their games on Switch 1. Eventually the bigger third party publishers will realize that having a physical version on its own will already generate a lot of positive interest in their games. They are going to hamfist the game-key card for Switch 2's first year, but it's not going to work.

GKCs are Nintendo's doing, not 3rd party publisher's.

Wouldn't be much better that if instead of them there was slower "game install required" cards on much cheaper media, so that there is actual choice between (something like) premium Game Cartridge (current game cards), Game Cart (install required) and Digital, instead of current Game Cart, GKC (which is glorified Digital) and Digital?

Each publisher is making their own decisions whether to use game-key cards. As such, it's the responsibility of the respective publisher and never Nintendo's. The same logic holds true for code-in-a-box packaging.

Your suggestion is to replace glorified digital with glorified digital. Either way you quickly run into the need to purchase a large micro SD express card when one of the important points of physical games is that that isn't necessary.

IcaroRibeiro said:
RolStoppable said:

The easiest and best solution would be that third parties compress the data and put the whole game on a proper game card.

What annoys me the most about this recurring discussion is that so many of you start with the premise that third parties cannot possibly do the above 

There are 3 separate issues to be adressed here:

1) Some games simply don't need the current only card option which is a expensive 64GB unit. A game that only has 12GB compressed has no reason to be on a 64GB card. In this case we are simply paying more money to use a unnecessary media. This is the case for Nintendo own first party games as well, in fact for the majority of their first parties 

2) Nintendo decision for not allow installing games inside the storage is simply strange. Instead of letting consumers put more money on storage when we feel fit we need to instead put more money on every true physical game purchase (even the ones we don't need as per point 1). If I buy 20 physical games (true physical games not GCK), and each is 10 USD more expensive it's already 200 USD 

This is the price of 1TB SSD express card, which can store up to 16 64 GB games (actually more since most of those games are smaller than 64 GB)

3) Compression do not work by magic. Some games can be compressed to work on 64GB, but it won't work forever. Cyberpunk could be compressed to 59 GB (it's the size of Xbox edition), compared to its 102 GB from PS4 version. But FF VII Rebirth is 88 GB on Steam Deck (already reduced from the original 145GB+) so unless they really reduce game quality I can't see how they could fit. 

1. So far there's no public information for how much Switch 2 game cards would cost to produce if there were different sizes. The one-size-fits-all 64 GB approach may come down to achieving lower massproduction costs, just like it's common that low capacity SD cards from various manufacturers were eventually phased out because their production became more expensive than high capacity cards due to the volume of production.

Also, you pay $10 more for digital versions this generation. You don't pay more for a physical game because it uses only a fraction of the game card's capacity, so from a consumer's point of view, it makes no difference how much space of the game card is being used.

2. Entirely wrong because digital and physical versions of the same game cost the same in the USA. It's only in Europe where the MSRP for physical games is €10 higher than for its digital counterpart, but that was a Nintendo decision based on European retailers routinely undercutting digital prices in the past, making digital versions more expensive and a worse deal. So when European retailers now undercut the MSRP for physical Switch 2 games by €10 (and that's what they already do), then digital and physical cost the same.

3. Compression rates of less than 2:1 leave a lot of room for improvement. A 3:1 ratio is definitely doable.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.

You are forgetting that star wars outlaws dev said that the physical catridge was too slow to stream the game textures compared to the switch 2 internal SSD which is why they use gkc. It's not all about the game being too big cause star wars outlaws was only a 20gb game. 

Ff7 remake has already been compressed from he PS5 version which was over 100gb. To 89 for switch 2. The game has a lot fo CGI from memory and pre rendered cutscenes which is why the game is big in size.

RolStoppable said:

The easiest and best solution would be that third parties compress the data and put the whole game on a proper game card.

What annoys me the most about this recurring discussion is that so many of you start with the premise that third parties cannot possibly do the above and therefore we must think about multiple extra steps to arrive at a better solution than what third parties are doing now, yet this new solution is still tremendously inferior to doing it the right way.

Yes, a Switch 2 game card is more expensive to produce than a Switch 1 card , so this necessitates that Switch 2 owners are willing to pay more for games now. This may sound like a risky situation for third parties, but this potential problem was already solved before it could become a problem. Nintendo themselves raised their own game prices and set the new standard to accomodate for the higher production costs of Switch 2 game cards.



dane007 said:

You are forgetting that star wars outlaws dev said that the physical catridge was too slow to stream the game textures compared to the switch 2 internal SSD which is why they use gkc. It's not all about the game being too big cause star wars outlaws was only a 20gb game. 

Ff7 remake has already been compressed from he PS5 version which was over 100gb. To 89 for switch 2. The game has a lot fo CGI from memory and pre rendered cutscenes which is why the game is big in size.

The Star Wars developer lied.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.

One of the users here said the original size of the game was 145gb as it was on 2 blu ray on PS4. The PS5 version is 81 GB and steam is 90.gb and switch 2 is 89gb. They already compressed it by quite a bit. They can't reduce it any further without cutting the game 

Blood_Tears said:

I am curious as to why CD Project can optimize and compress Cyberpunk 2077 and its expansion onto the 64GB cart for Switch 2 but yet SE can't do the same for FF7 Intergrade version?