CAGcast #488: Unready for Launch

trip1eX said:
That's a terrible comparison. Switch is portable. Impossible for it to have a 500gb hard drive. There are also no forced game installs from physical media on the Switch either unlike the PS4.
Click to expand...
If it's possible then why do so many other mobile devices have 128gb or now even 256gb? How was the Vita which cam out 5 years ago able to support 64gb? Of course it's possible. Nintendo just doesn't want to pay the cost to include it.

 
trip1eX said:
That's a terrible comparison. Switch is portable. Impossible for it to have a 500gb hard drive. There are also no forced game installs from physical media on the Switch either unlike the PS4.
Click to expand...
Switch is being marketed as a hybrid system. I never suggested a hard drive could be installed into a portable system, that's laughable. What I did say earlier is that at the very least 64GB would've been the minimum they should've gone with. As GOTA says above, 64/128/256 are all possible. If people want to make excuses for Nintendo being cheap, so be it. Isn't this the same company that didn't ship AC adapters with the 3DS assuming people could use their old adapters?

 
I agree that it is preposterous that Cheapy's maid would hook up his PSVR.  His House Steward would order his Butler to instruct one of his Footmen to do it.

 
urge26 said:
Switch is being marketed as a hybrid system. I never suggested a hard drive could be installed into a portable system, that's laughable. What I did say earlier is that at the very least 64GB would've been the minimum they should've gone with. As GOTA says above, 64/128/256 are all possible. If people want to make excuses for Nintendo being cheap, so be it. Isn't this the same company that didn't ship AC adapters with the 3DS assuming people could use their old adapters
Click to expand...
YOu're ignoring reality. Vast majority will play on carts. That shoots your entire argument out of the water because those vast majority of customers will eat up the 32gb storage space at the pace of a snail.

You're also ignoring the reality where every device on the market is sold with a minimal amt of storage that is not going to be enough for some customers. And that all those devices also have a way to expand the storage that will cost the customer more $$$$$. Some devices let you expand the storage yourself and some sell you options with more storage to begin with. Some do both. All these devices cost more for more storage. There is zero precedence for devices being as cheap as possible and supplying enough storage for every customer on the planet for their lifetime under every scenario.

The western 3rd party games that will be on the Switch are xbox 360-level games. MS sold the Xbox 360 with 4gb storage. Switch has 8x that storage. IF the customer wanted more storage on the 360 they paid another $100 for the the same thing with a hard drive or added a card. I don't think some games/modes were playable on the 4gb Xbox 360 without more storage.

Switch has the same amt of storage as a $650 iPhone. Every mobile device charges you $50-$100 to step up in storage and/or they have an SD card slot. EVery mobile device has an entry level model with a minimal amt of storage that is not enough for lots of customers.

Switch has the same amt of storage as the Wii U and the Switch is pretty much a portable Wii U. 32gb was fine for the Wii U's needs.

Anyway you're just arguing to argue. Saying they are being so cheap about the 32gb and that 32gb is a joke today etc doesn't make it so. You have to provide arguments why. Otherwise you're just trolling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GOTA said:
If it's possible then why do so many other mobile devices have 128gb or now even 256gb? How was the Vita which cam out 5 years ago able to support 64gb? Of course it's possible. Nintendo just doesn't want to pay the cost to include it.
Click to expand...
Show me where I said it's impossible for a mobile device to have 128gb or 256gb of storage.

Then, while you're at it, show me the pricepoints of the mobile devices with 128gb and 256gb of storage compared to the pricepoint of the same model with the minimum amt of storage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What was the site they've been getting the meals from? Y'all got a code for that still? Figure I'd give a week a try as I've been subscribing to a few different ones to see how they are.

 
As someone who is picking up a Switch on Friday, I do agree with the limited space being a issue. On one hand, I personally try to pick up physical copies of games typically due to Nintendo's eShop not having a lot of decent sales and (with the Wii U at least) the lack of storage. I also picked up a 128GB SD Card in preparation. However, when you are competing against Sony and Microsoft, which have 500GB of storage space out of the box via HDD, the LEAST you could do is offer higher capacity options when your games are going to go past 20-30GB (The internal storage after the operating system is 25GB, and that doesn't even count the fact that the Switch saves the game save data to the system and not the cartridge like the 3DS). You know there is going to be a game that is going to be eShop only eventually that is going to be huge and will be a pain for most people to install. 

As someone who was excited for the Switch, the launch is a mess. It feels like Nintendo needed to get this on the shelves to make up for the Wii U pretty much being bone-dry for the last year and no further games being developed for it. Its clear that the Wii U was supposed to go on longer and that they had to rush this thing out even though most of the functionality seems like it is coming late summer/fall. It also feels like a lot of stuff was very last minute, like they were unsure how they were going to proceed with the online functionality or VC stuff. And honestly, if BoTW wasn't coming out for it or at launch, I would have held off on the Switch until later like I did with the Wii U. 

Nintendo needs to also figure out cost. $300 for a portable when the 3DS/2DS can be found for $70-150 with a vast backlog of games, along with Sony and Microsoft offering the Slim/S for $200-250 with a bundle of games is worrying. It honestly sounds like the Joycons itself are the more expensive part of the system, and I wonder if adding stuff like motion controls or NFC capabilities are what drove the price up. They really should have offered a pack-in game if they were going to price it so high (I don't understand why they would not package 1-2 Switch when it looks like a tech demo to begin with to promote the Joycons. Or hell, do a third Wii Sports style game). I don't expect them to pack in Zelda or a main title, but SOMETHING to compete. I see the Switch launch doing well, then dropping off with spikes with certain games, and a holiday spike for when Mario (or maybe Pokemon) comes out and it mostly being flat in between until a price cut. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loboss said:
As someone who is picking up a Switch on Friday, I do agree with the limited space being a issue. On one hand, I personally try to pick up physical copies of games typically due to Nintendo's eShop not having a lot of decent sales and (with the Wii U at least) the lack of storage. I also picked up a 128GB SD Card in preparation. However, when you are competing against Sony and Microsoft, which have 500GB of storage space out of the box via HDD, the LEAST you could do is offer higher capacity options when your games are going to go past 20-30GB (The internal storage after the operating system is 25GB, and that doesn't even count the fact that the Switch saves the game save data to the system and not the cartridge like the 3DS). You know there is going to be a game that is going to be eShop only eventually that is going to be huge and will be a pain for most people to install.
Click to expand...
Your 128gb SD card is the Switch's higher capacity option.

The comparison to the 500gb of storage to the PS4 and X1 is apples to oranges on multiple levels.

Switch is a mobile device. IT can't have a hard drive inside it. And hard drives are economical storage. That's a reason every other mobile device doesn't provide as much storage as a PS4/X1 either. And it's why mobile devices tend to cost a $200 premium for the 256gb model compared to the typical ~32gb the base model offers.

Next, game installs are mandatory on the PS4/X1. So even if you buy physical media (which even on those systems most people still do) your game is installed to the hard drive and your using gobs of storage space. This doesn't happen on the Switch. Thus the Switch's requirement for storage are much less than that of the PS4 and X1.

Last, the size of the average retail game on the PS4 and X1 is much greater than the size of the average game on the Switch. Judging based on my Ps4 vs Wii U game sizes (with the Switch roughly being a portable Wii U,) I'd say the difference is in the 3-5x range. This shows even less need for storage on the Switch compared to the PS4/X1.

So bringing up 500gb on the PS4/X1 doesn't make any sense.

Yes there is already a Switch game due to come out this year or something that supposedly occupies 32gb of storage space. And that's an obvious reason for why it should have more storage if you only consider that factor in a vacuum and only compare it devices that don't have the same restriction the architecture of the Switch has.

But the reality is mobile storage is costly. There is no cheap storage option on a mobile device. Mobile devices seem to start out at 32gb max and charge $100 to bump up the storage to 128gb. That's the reality of storage on a mobile device.

The other reality is the vast majority of customers will buy their games on carts and will eat up that 32gb storage on the Switch very slowly.

Last if you want to really go digital then Nintendo passes the cost of going digital only onto the customers that want to go digital. Not the vast majority that don't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
trip1eX said:
Your 128gb SD card is the Switch's higher capacity option.

The comparison to the 500gb of storage to the PS4 and X1 is apples to oranges on multiple levels.

Switch is a mobile device. IT can't have a hard drive inside it. And hard drives are economical storage. That's a reason every other mobile device doesn't provide as much storage as a PS4/X1 either. And it's why mobile devices tend to cost a $200 premium for the 256gb model compared to the typical ~32gb the base model offers.

Next, game installs are mandatory on the PS4/X1. So even if you buy physical media (which even on those systems most people still do) your game is installed to the hard drive and your using gobs of storage space. This doesn't happen on the Switch. Thus the Switch's requirement for storage are much less than that of the PS4 and X1.

Last, the size of the average retail game on the PS4 and X1 is much greater than the size of the average game on the Switch. Judging based on my Ps4 vs Wii U game sizes (with the Switch roughly being a portable Wii U,) I'd say the difference is in the 3-5x range. This shows even less need for storage on the Switch compared to the PS4/X1.

So bringing up 500gb on the PS4/X1 doesn't make any sense.

Yes there is already a Switch game due to come out this year or something that supposedly occupies 32gb of storage space. And that's an obvious reason for why it should have more storage if you only consider that factor in a vacuum and only compare it devices that don't have the same restriction the architecture of the Switch has.

But the reality is mobile storage is costly. There is no cheap storage option on a mobile device. Mobile devices seem to start out at 32gb max and charge $100 to bump up the storage to 128gb. That's the reality of storage on a mobile device.

The other reality is the vast majority of customers will buy their games on carts and will eat up that 32gb storage on the Switch very slowly.

Last if you want to really go digital then Nintendo passes the cost of going digital only onto the customers that want to go digital. Not the vast majority that don't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no.

First of all, you are forgetting things. Game updates and patches have ballooned the last several years, and if BoTW is any indication then it would not surprise me if we see a lot more season passes from Nintendo titles, some that will require patches that will eat up the storage in the Switch in no time. Not to mention system patches and game saves, which will slowly chip away at the Switch's internal memory. And hell, who says there isn't going to be installs? Just because a title uses flash memory does not mean there will not be installs to the system, especially if 3rd parties start to develop more titles for it. 32GB was fine several years ago, but for a "premium" product like the switch, it does not cut it. So far, everything launching on Switch has been relatively low-power for the most part and does not require a lot in the way of storage, but come fall there will be a lot more 3rd party titles coming out. We simply do not know, and Nintendo has been rather hush-hush about a LOT of things with the Switch. Yes, many times installs are because of the disc drive speed for these consoles being rather lackluster, but there is nothing that I have seen that tells me that Switch will not have installs on certain titles.

Second, it is NOT apples and oranges. The excuse of the Switch being a "portable device" does not change the fact that there will be third party games on the system that will require extra features. Third party titles that are direct ports of console versions that many times have been rather big data hogs. It was fine with the 3DS because a lot of the titles and updates were relatively small, and 3DS games had much lower texture sizes and the updates for most titles were relatively small. The Switch, whether you call it a portable device or a home console is going to run more demanding titles that require more demanding storage options. These are not iOS or Android games that can get by on a small amount of storage.

To be fair on the switch, I do think the storage setup is far better then the Vita and allowing the use of both SD cards and USB-C cords for power is far better then a proprietary option. As a console, however, the options for storage are a issue. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for either a base 64GB version or at least options for higher storage capacities right out of the box without having to purchase a SD card. I am not going to fault Nintendo for SD card technology still taking awhile to catch up (and the fact that it offers up to 2TB will be a good thing in the future). Nintendo needs to offer options with future versions and not stick to the base 32GB version like they did with the Wii U (or at the very least offer external HDD support for dock mode).

Storage will be a issue with the Switch in the long run.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original DS wasn't that bad. As someone who could never get a DS Lite (or higher) and was stuck with the original for the whole cycle, it got the job done. The subsequent models were a definite improvement, though. It always was a bummer to play DS with my friends, since they all had DS Lites. The screen difference of color quality and lighting between the two really is ridiculous when you see them next to each other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry CheapyD, you are totally a 1%'er now. For me, it was most obvious when you made an off-hand comment about not caring about paying an extra $20 for a game instead of trying to get the best price. The site is called "Cheapassgamer.com" and you can't be bothered to be cheap anymore.

edit: Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a 1%'er. There is something offensive and annoying when you whine about first world problems.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CheapyD said:
Love you man, so I hate to shove your theory back up your butt, but here it goes. After the show I looked up what 1% actually means, and I'm not part of that club.

Also, I mentioned on the show I bought PSVR due to listener demand. What kind of asshole would buy something to impress people? Probably the same kind that would come up with that theory.
Love you man

Edit: also, how could you "love" someone who you thought behaved that way? That's the very definition of an asshole and someone I would not associate myself with. Oh well, this is why I don't usually read the comments.
Click to expand...
OK Cheapy, I'll take your word for it that you never make any purchases to impress others O:). But, EVEN IF YOU DID I wouldn't judge you as an asshole(!) for doing so. I really couldn't care less how you spend your money or choose to live your life, I just find the repetitive "oh cheapy you're out of touch because you're so rich" feedback that is often highlighted, followed by the "no, no, tell me more" replies to get a bit old/predictable and it seems like your recent PSVR purchase has brought them out in droves.

I can say "love you Cheapy" because if it really bothered me I would have left a long time ago, but I've been listening now for 10-odd years and have rarely missed a podcast, so I'm really not too bothered by it.

Now to close with something positive so you don't curse me forever for my last comment - My 13 year old son really wants a Switch at launch even though none of the launch titles really interest him - he's just on the hype train big-time. Anyway, I played him the segment comparing the Switch "1.0" to the original DS vs the DS Lite (he had the original DS and his sister had a Lite) and I think it helped him realize it might be better to take a wait and see approach with the Switch. It was a great point that I hadn't thought of previously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just watched a YouTube video about how Half-Life 3 will never come out and found it interesting it mentioned a lot of the same points the CAGCast discussed weeks ago: that Valve isn't in the business of making games anymore. I was more surprised to (re)learn that most of the company's gaming successes were not their own games originally, but smaller developers that they had purchased (example: Counter Strike). It just lends more to the argument that Valve is making 3 VR games as an attempt to prop up their hardware, not because of VR's 'success'. So for a bunch of 1%ers and friends, we listeners have to give them the credit that they know their stuff. That is, unless Cheapy's maid is doing their research.

So, is it too early to say VR is dead?

https://youtu.be/wlQ8wYnZyf8 (2:37 in)
 
Great show as always guys!

Cheapy, the company that might have built RoboButler is International Robotics (https://internationalrobotics.com) -- they built the robot in Rocky III that uncle Paulie fell in love with.   :D

They still rent out Robots - you could rent one for Tai's Bar Mitzvah!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A while back I tried to get the Cagcast top analysts to predict the PSVR sales. I believe I said 1.5 million in 6 months, and now the news is almost a million sold against a target of 1 million in six months. I didn't get a response on a sales prediction from any of the hosts.

Predictions: The Cagcast will ignore this news or spend a good 10 minutes convincing us these are underwhelming numbers.

 
Loboss said:
Yeah, no.

First of all, you are forgetting things. Game updates and patches have ballooned the last several years, and if BoTW is any indication then it would not surprise me if we see a lot more season passes from Nintendo titles, some that will require patches that will eat up the storage in the Switch in no time. Not to mention system patches and game saves, which will slowly chip away at the Switch's internal memory. And hell, who says there isn't going to be installs? Just because a title uses flash memory does not mean there will not be installs to the system, especially if 3rd parties start to develop more titles for it. 32GB was fine several years ago, but for a "premium" product like the switch, it does not cut it. So far, everything launching on Switch has been relatively low-power for the most part and does not require a lot in the way of storage, but come fall there will be a lot more 3rd party titles coming out. We simply do not know, and Nintendo has been rather hush-hush about a LOT of things with the Switch. Yes, many times installs are because of the disc drive speed for these consoles being rather lackluster, but there is nothing that I have seen that tells me that Switch will not have installs on certain titles.

Second, it is NOT apples and oranges. The excuse of the Switch being a "portable device" does not change the fact that there will be third party games on the system that will require extra features. Third party titles that are direct ports of console versions that many times have been rather big data hogs. It was fine with the 3DS because a lot of the titles and updates were relatively small, and 3DS games had much lower texture sizes and the updates for most titles were relatively small. The Switch, whether you call it a portable device or a home console is going to run more demanding titles that require more demanding storage options. These are not iOS or Android games that can get by on a small amount of storage.

To be fair on the switch, I do think the storage setup is far better then the Vita and allowing the use of both SD cards and USB-C cords for power is far better then a proprietary option. As a console, however, the options for storage are a issue. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for either a base 64GB version or at least options for higher storage capacities right out of the box without having to purchase a SD card. I am not going to fault Nintendo for SD card technology still taking awhile to catch up (and the fact that it offers up to 2TB will be a good thing in the future). Nintendo needs to offer options with future versions and not stick to the base 32GB version like they did with the Wii U (or at the very least offer external HDD support for dock mode).

Storage will be a issue with the Switch in the long run.
Click to expand...
There are no mandatory game installs.

The Switch is the Wii U moved to a mobile architecture. Mobile storage is smaller and more costly. Those are just facts. And then given the similar power between the Wii U and Switch, the game sizes are going to be pretty close to the same as they were on the Wii U including 3rd party games. And so DLC and patch sizes will be roughly similar to what we saw on the Wii U. Nintendo had DLC on the Wii U. Nintendo 1st party games had relatively few patches. 32gb on the Wii U was fine for average use. If you were going to go heavy on the digital then you needed to add storage. That's pretty much the same as any computing/mobile system ever. Some users have storage needs above and beyond what the base model offers and what the average user requires and eventually they have to add more storage. Saying you might run out of room eventually is true of every system. It's all relative. So 32gb is a non-issue.

Whether you have to buy an SD card for more storage or purchase a model with more storage built-in is the same difference. And thus a non-issue.

No one said asking for 64gb is unreasonable. I did say 32gb is reasonable. I did say every mobile device I know of has a 32gb or smaller base model and you have to pay more for more storage. I did say the Xbox 360 had 4gb storage in its base model and you had to pay more for more storage. Switch isn't much more capable than a 360 in terms of power. I did say 64gb is not going to solve most if not all the complaints everyone has about 32gb so it hardly matters to those arguments. And I did say every mobile device I know of charges $100 to step up to 128gb storage (some charge $50 to step up from 32gb to 64gb) and that doesn't seem any different to me than buying an SD card.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
trip1eX said:
There are no mandatory game installs.

The Switch is the Wii U moved to a mobile architecture. Mobile storage is smaller and more costly. Those are just facts. And then given the similar power between the Wii U and Switch, the game sizes are going to be pretty close to the same as they were on the Wii U including 3rd party games. And so DLC and patch sizes will be roughly similar to what we saw on the Wii U. Nintendo had DLC on the Wii U. Nintendo 1st party games had relatively few patches. 32gb on the Wii U was fine for average use. If you were going to go heavy on the digital then you needed to add storage. That's pretty much the same as any computing/mobile system ever. Some users have storage needs above and beyond what the base model offers and what the average user requires and eventually they have to add more storage. Saying you might run out of room eventually is true of every system. It's all relative. So 32gb is a non-issue.

Whether you have to buy an SD card for more storage and purchase a model with more storage built-in is the same difference. And thus a non-issue.

No one said asking for 64gb is unreasonable. I did say 32gb is reasonable. I did say every mobile device I know of has a 32gb or smaller base model and you have to pay more for more storage. I did say the Xbox 360 had 4gb storage in its base model and you had to pay more for more storage. Switch isn't much more capable than a 360 in terms of power. I did say 64gb is not going to solve most if not all the complaints everyone has about 32gb so it hardly matters to those arguments. And I did say every mobile device I know of charges $100 to step up to 128gb storage (some charge $50 to step up from 32gb to 64gb) and that doesn't seem any different to me than buying an SD card.
Click to expand...
Love how you ignored everything I mentioned about the Switch not being a traditional mobile device and kept harping on that point, but whatever! Its a issue, and you are wrong.

 
GOTA said:
If it's possible then why do so many other mobile devices have 128gb or now even 256gb? How was the Vita which cam out 5 years ago able to support 64gb? Of course it's possible. Nintendo just doesn't want to pay the cost to include it.
Click to expand...
The Switch has to be 32GB to support a $299 price.

Vita is a tough comparison because their memory cards are crazy expensive. At least the Switch takes MicroSD cards that are very, very affordable for the space you get.

 
surferboy said:
A while back I tried to get the Cagcast top analysts to predict the PSVR sales. I believe I said 1.5 million in 6 months, and now the news is almost a million sold against a target of 1 million in six months. I didn't get a response on a sales prediction from any of the hosts.

Predictions: The Cagcast will ignore this news or spend a good 10 minutes convincing us these are underwhelming numbers.
Click to expand...
Prediction: I'm going to ignore everything about PSVR.
 
Are people really arguing with/upset that Cheapy may or may not be part of the 1%?? Lol...humanity. 

Well, Cheapy, if you are part of the 1% congrats! That's a fantastic accomplishment, keep up the hard work!

 
Loboss said:
Love how you ignored everything I mentioned about the Switch not being a traditional mobile device and kept harping on that point, but whatever! Its a issue, and you are wrong.
Click to expand...
It isn't a traditional mobile device. The big games are sold on carts!!! ...which will be the way the vast majority of consumers buy them. IT's a cart-first mobile system. That's why the amt of storage relative to the size of the big games is a non-issue.

You're glossing over that major detail of its mobile non-traditional-ness. And you're glossing over other major differences between storage requirements on the Switch vs other platforms as well as costs associated with that storage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
urge26 said:
60 indie titles for Switch by the end of 2017, but those must all be carts!!
Click to expand...
Yeah that's like $600-$1200 worth of indie games. Are you really worried about buying an SD card?

Plus if I bought every PS4 game that came out in a year I would need extra as well.

Nevermind that I said the big games are on carts!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But but cheapyd.....didn't you have a maid at one point in japan. I remember you hiding in your room when she came in to clean and do laundry.

P.S I'm still waiting for that epic moving story you never shared with us.

 
I personally don't give a shit about zelda mario or nintendo. None of those games mean anything to me and therefore I wont be buying a switch now or ever. I would have perhaps bought those games (60 bucks a pop in Nintendo's pocket) but since my only choice is to buy an overpriced half-ass/gimmick/WiiU product that will eventually (40 hours) collect dust, Nintentdo gets NONE ($0) of my money. I'll Pass. See ya next gen Nintendo. (probably not)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
trip1eX said:
Yeah that's like $600-$1200 worth of indie games. Are you really worried about buying an SD card?

Plus if I bought every PS4 game that came out in a year I would need extra as well.

Nevermind that I said the big games are on carts!!!
Click to expand...
Completely missing the point. I'm not worried about buying an SD card, Nintendo being cheap is basically forcing everyone to buy an SD card because they're cheap. If digital downloads and indie titles take off along with everything else that's been discussed then your argument about people just buying big games with carts is nonsense.

 
urge26 said:
Completely missing the point. I'm not worried about buying an SD card, Nintendo being cheap is basically forcing everyone to buy an SD card because they're cheap. If digital downloads and indie titles take off along with everything else that's been discussed then your argument about people just buying big games with carts is nonsense.
Click to expand...
lol. Dude you're talking $600-$1200 worth of indie games in 1 year. They don't design the base models to accommodate those edge case scenarios where a customer buys everything and wants to store everything. IT's no different than you find with storage on the PS4 and on Iphones. Android phones. TAblets. Xbox One. Macbooks. etc etc. With your logic, every company is being cheap.

All these indie games are small. Many of those won't even take up a gig. Even if you bought all those indie games you could probably keep 10-20 of them on the Switch without buying an SD card if you can't afford an SD card after spending a $1000 on games. That's a large number of games at any one time let alone for the entire lifecycle for the average user. If you want to keep more games on there you have to buy more storage just like with every other device.

There is nothing nonsensical about pointing out that all the big games, the games that take up lots of storage, will be on carts and that most, the vast majority of customers, will be purchasing carts. That's just the way the it is. That is part of why the storage requirements on the Switch are different from other devices.

No one disagrees that the heavy digital download customer that wants to store everything needs more storage. But there's no way to keep the price at $299 and provide that. Another 32gb won't help that customer either. It's a drop in the bucket. YOu're going to have to pay for more storage. And storage costs a lot more on the Switch because it's portable than it does on a console which can use cheap hard drives.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
4nik8tor said:
I personally don't give a shit about zelda mario or nintendo. None of those games mean anything to me and therefore I wont be buying a switch now or ever. I would have perhaps bought those games (60 bucks a pop in Nintendo's pocket) but since my only choice is to buy an overpriced half-ass/gimmick/WiiU product that will eventually (40 hours) collect dust, Nintentdo gets NONE ($0) of my money. I'll Pass. See ya next gen Nintendo. (probably not)
Click to expand...
photo-25814.jpg


 
Its also good to note that the switch can only store saves on the 25GB of available data and cannot transfer it to other devices OR the SD card. That is a huge fucking issue and classic Nintendo making it difficult to upgrade or at least preserve your save data. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top