Support NeoGAF

[Gamezone]

Didn`t WB release the Batman Collection on two discs? I guess discs are cheaper. Could have used the same method if they wanted.

 

[shiyrley]

Also Amazon and BestBuy give 20% off only for "physical" games lol.

Which doesn't really matter to me because I live in Europe and in a super isolated zone in where purchasing stuff online is slow and expensive lol

 

[Scrawnton]

Has anyone even mentioned how much BS it is that WB is charging $60 for a port of a four year old game anyway?

Is them cheaping out on cart sizes a shocker when they're completely overcharging for the game in general?

I paid $60 for this game four years ago, I'm not buying it on Switch until it's sub $30.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I have no problem with the developers doing this.

I have every problem with Nintendo not having a better storage option.

They've got game cards big enough. They let one expand system storage to hundreds or thousands of gigabytes by microSD. What else should they have?

I don't blame a developer for trying to save money on cartridges (Nintendo allows it, blame them), the issue lies with Nintendo's abysmal out of the box storage. Requiring an extra 13gb shouldn't be an issue in 2017, but Nintendo have made it as such.

I disagree. Even if they'd included 128GB standard (which is nearly the same case as current users with 128GB SD cards), a physical game forcing a download that takes up more than 10% of it would still be shit.

This is par for the course on every major platform including Wii U.

But it isnt'? I can't think of a single Wii U game that did this, and the few for other platforms that have day one patches larger than the initial game size become something of a joke due to it.

Disappointing. Was compression then a mandatory install not an option?

Compression can be done without installing, and it's not an easy fix for making a 20+GB game fit into an 8 GB card.

So they should just eat the additional cost of the larger capacity cart?

I'd have been disappointed but understood something like a $65 MSRP game instead of $60. But the way they're doing things just passes the extra cost onto the consumer in a different way, with a big scoop of inconvenience on top.

 

[esmith08734]

Has anyone even mentioned how much BS it is that WB is charging $60 for a port of a four year old game anyway?

Is them cheaping out on cart sizes a shocker when they're completely overcharging for the game in general?

I paid $60 for this game four years ago, I'm not buying it on Switch until it's sub $30.

I could be wrong, but didn't this game retail for $50 on Wii U when it was first released? In any case, yeah, game is overpriced.

 

[SomTervo]

In this scenario the Financial Director and Investors still make profits. Its an everybody wins scenario. This policy is just a publisher being greedy for what doesnt amount to a huge amount of money.

You're not wrong but from a consumer's perspective, but from a stakeholders' perspective it's definitely not a win/win. From their POV, anything that can be done to cut the bottom line should be done. All they want is devs/publishers to make the game as profitable as possible.

Infinite growth, yadda yadda

With capitalism it's impossible to avoid this

 

[Gamezone]

Eurogamer made an article about Switch games are ending up more expensive.

We've also heard that the cost of the cart depends on the size of the cart. Switch game card carts come in a variety of capacities: 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB and 32GB. At a high level, the bigger the cart the more expensive it is, although the price may vary according to print run (lower the volume, higher the price, for example - an issue that may affect indie developers who don't expect to shift a huge number of copies of their game).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-03-10-why-nintendo-switch-games-are-ending-up-more-expensive

 

[Airola]

Another release that the collectors in 2050 cannot play.

 

[Icarus]

I don't think you guys understand the price of these carts (and yes, it varies by size). I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution.

 

[TLZ]

Will this be the switch's doom?

 

[Machina]

Eurogamer made an article about Switch games are ending up more expensive.

We've also heard that the cost of the cart depends on the size of the cart. Switch game card carts come in a variety of capacities: 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB and 32GB. At a high level, the bigger the cart the more expensive it is, although the price may vary according to print run (lower the volume, higher the price, for example - an issue that may affect indie developers who don't expect to shift a huge number of copies of their game).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-03-10-why-nintendo-switch-games-are-ending-up-more-expensive

What happened to cart media being cheaper in this day and age, hence why Nintendo went with it in the first place?

 

[True Fire]

There is absolutely no reason for a port to offload downloads to the console. It should have everything in one cartridge, no excuses. It probably won't receive patches because it's already finished, it won't receive DLC, so what's the excuse, other than WB manipulating Nintendo to get a better price?

Nintendo needs a policy on this before it gets out of control.

 

[Gamezone]

What happened to cart media being cheaper in this day and age, hence why Nintendo went with it in the first place?

You can`t insert a Bluray disc in a handheld.

 

[lutheran]

Unfortunately this is straight out of the Wii U playbook. Old ports going for brand new prices with very little improvements to the game to justify it. Much like you can get 1-2 Switch for 20 dollars all over the place (eBay/Amazon 3rd party sellers etc) this game will be 29.99 or cheaper within 2 months. Better to wait..

 

[Frodo]

Any publisher that does this gets an automatic pass from me.

Exactly. I don't want to depend on the good will (of people that are showing no good will at all to start with) of these publishers to keep those servers alive so I can download the game in case I want to play it in a few years.

 

[ggx2ac]

I don't think you guys understand the price of these carts (and yes, it varies by size). I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution.

So then why was Ubisoft able to release Just Dance 2017 on a 16GB game card at the same $60 price as the Warner Bros. Lego City Undercover game on an 8GB game card?

They are both big publishers, it sounds more likely that Warner Bros wanted to gouge consumers by going cheaper on costs so that WB could make higher margins on retail.

 

[rockx4]

What happened to cart media being cheaper in this day and age, hence why Nintendo went with it in the first place?

It's cheaper than N64 days given the storage space, but it was never going to be cheaper than discs.

 

[jdstorm]

You're not wrong but from a consumer's perspective, but from a stakeholders' perspective it's definitely not a win/win. From their POV, anything that can be done to cut the bottom line should be done. All they want is devs/publishers to make the game as profitable as possible.

Infinite growth, yadda yadda

With capitalism it's impossible to avoid this

Which is why Nintendo has to take a hard line on this. Ultimally those investors will chose small profits over no profits if those are the only 2 possible outcomes. They may be disapointed but they still get a win.

Nintendo allowing their customers to be taken advantage of like this could cause them huge issues.

 

[Candescence]

So Nintendo pushes costs onto publishers (by providing insufficient internal storage and opting for expensive physical cartridges), publishers push these costs onto customers, and the publishers take the blame from fans.

Sly move by Nintendo, imo

Let's be honest, Sony and MS would've done the same thing or worse, and Sony did do worse with the Vita by having no internal storage whatsoever and proprietary memory cards with jacked-up prices.

A more expensive physical format was unavoidable, Sony tried to make a disk format with the PSP and we all know how THAT turned out. Good news is, the additional expense isn't much, and economy of scale greatly reduces costs over time, and it looks like the Switch card format is likely going to be the standard Nintendo is going with for the next decade or so, especially since the Switch is doing pretty fine so far.

But this is really just WB being greedy cheapskates more than anything.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

What happened to cart media being cheaper in this day and age, hence why Nintendo went with it in the first place?

Card media is cheaper. That's why the occurrences like this are exceptions that get people riled up, rather than it being standard for every game on the system to be $10-30 more than on disc platforms.

 

[shiyrley]

So then why was Ubisoft able to release Just Dance 2017 on a 16GB game card at the same $60 price as the Warner Bros. Lego City Undercover game on an 8GB game card?

They are both big publishers, it sounds more likely that Warner Bros wanted to gouge consumers by going cheaper on costs so that WB could make higher margins on retail.

This. This is just Warner Bros cheaping out. The Switch preorders were the highest anyway, and you are charging 60$/60€ for a fucking port of a 2013 game. I can't see any way to defend them, they are being greedy.

If anything, the 32 GB cart could be a bad excuse to keep the 60€ price. But keeping the 60€ price AND doing this? Pure greed, nothing more to it.

 

[Machina]

You can`t insert a Bluray disc in a handheld.

They could have gone with standard SD cards if it was really that much of an issue

 

[Kresnik258]

Not quite majority, but Vita. Sly Collection didn't have Sly 3 on the cart, it was a download code. Luckily that didn't become a trend. Also Tony Hawk 5 on PS4/XO where the day one patch was almost double the size of the game on the disc and added like most of the game.

I always found it baffling that Sony only ever made 4GB carts (with usable space of 3.4GB) despite the fact that it was like 7 years after PSP which used 1.8GB UMD's.

Multiple games suffered from this - although I can't think of any occasion where a title wouldn't be playable without a download, things like the MLB games started including certain game modes and stuff only through downloads.

And then there's stuff like World of Final Fantasy included all voice acting via DLC; Sly Trilogy including the 3rd game on a voucher etc. It went as far as SD Gundam G Generation Genesis having to be a dual-cart release - one cart installs 3.4GB of game data then you play the title from the other cart.

I have to wonder if it wasn't a better solution though. Games like Assassin's Creed III Liberation and Jak Trilogy were compressed to all hell and back to fit on a Vita cart.

 

[Minsc]

Every game on 3DS and Vita I own is digital... so this really shouldn't bother me that much. But it just seems so awful what they're doing here, it's making me rethink buying this game now, even though I'd probably have gotten a digital copy. Knowing the physical version is essentially a useless card bothers me, such a scummy tactic to save a few bucks.

Hopefully memory card prices plummet, so I can upgrade my old 128GB card I'm using in the Switch. Well, I still have quite a while before worrying about that, at worst I'll just get a second 200GB card for cheap and that should last quite a while when needed.

 

[kitchenmotors]

It's pretty BS. It was $49.99 when it came out on Wii U. I dont see how they could justify charging $10 more 4 years later for a game you need to download 2/3rds of. Even if the physical release costs more than a blue ray, I don't see how you can ask consumers to download the equivalent of Breath of the Wild just to play the physical release. And again, this is a port of a 4 year old game that's more expensive than it was back then.
It's also like 720p, the same as the Wii U version. What a terrible way of handling this

This is all that needs to be said.

Do not support this shit. It's WB, they're shit.

 

[TLZ]

It's pretty BS. It was $49.99 when it came out on Wii U. I dont see how they could justify charging $10 more 4 years later for a game you need to download 2/3rds of. Even if the physical release costs more than a blue ray, I don't see how you can ask consumers to download the equivalent of Breath of the Wild just to play the physical release. And again, this is a port of a 4 year old game that's more expensive than it was back then.
It's also like 720p, the same as the Wii U version. What a terrible way of handling this

720p?? WHAT?

Is this docked?

 

[Icarus]

Few scenarios

1) Pub uses larger more expensive cart, games has to cost more. Switch owners pissed off
2) Pub uses smaller cart, mandatory day 1 download. Price parity. Switch owners pissed off.
3) Pub uses larger more expensive cart, price game same as other versions. Switch owners happy, investors and Financial Director pissed off.
4) Pub goes digital only for switch, price parity across versions, loses retail presence of game, sells below expectations. Combination of pissed off switch owners who want physical and pissed off investors who see this and switch as a flop.

This pretty much sums up the situation... Ain't no happiness no where.

 

[jdstorm]

Because if it's only a code why go to a store? Buy it on the Eshop.

Wonder why PC retail is almost non existant? Because why bother going to a store and get a code instead of buying it on steam instantly.



So what you're saying is that Nintendo should say fuck off to the biggest game on the planet for a game that has been bombing these last couple of years. Seems like a good business decision.

Fifa couldn't care less about nintendo with the amount of money EA brings in for them

Sure they want to make money. Selling games at a loss is not making money though

FIFA might not give a shit about Nintendo, however that doesnt mean that they wouldnt be willing to ruthlessly take advantage of EA breaking their liscencing agreement in order to renegotiate a more favourable deal.

Most people honestly wouldnt care if it was PES or FIFA if they were buying a portable football game.

 

[*Splinter]

So then why was Ubisoft able to release Just Dance 2017 on a 16GB game card at the same $60 price as the Warner Bros. Lego City Undercover game on an 8GB game card?

They are both big publishers, it sounds more likely that Warner Bros wanted to gouge consumers by going cheaper on costs so that WB could make higher margins on retail.

So they chose to eat the cost instead of pass it on. That sounds great but it affects which games they choose to port over to switch. Something like Just Dance is guaranteed to sell well so it's fine, but would they bother to port the next Trials/Rayman/etc for a few sales at thin margins? Ubisoft's best games are from smaller developers, and there you're going to see games either skipping the switch or releasing ""overpriced"" or doing the same as WB have (or even skipping physical entirely, if that's an option).

 

[guybrushfreeman]

I always found it baffling that Sony only ever made 4GB carts (with usable space of 3.4GB) despite the fact that it was like 7 years after PSP which used 1.8GB UMD's.

Multiple games suffered from this - although I can't think of any occasion where a title wouldn't be playable without a download, things like the MLB games started including certain game modes and stuff only through downloads.

And then there's stuff like World of Final Fantasy included all voice acting via DLC; Sly Trilogy including the 3rd game on a voucher etc. It went as far as SD Gundam G Generation Genesis having to be a dual-cart release - one cart installs 3.4GB of game data then you play the title from the other cart.

I have to wonder if it wasn't a better solution though. Games like Assassin's Creed III Liberation and Jak Trilogy were compressed to all hell and back to fit on a Vita cart.

Yeah 4GB was limiting from the start on Vita but there's no examples like this. Some of Borderlands 2 DLC content wasn't on cart also well (I think, I never owned it) but otherwise I think you've got a good list there. The compression you mention for Assassins Creed was awful. Unfortunately it looks like companies will want to do everything they can to keep cart sizes down on the Switch too

 

[*Splinter]

Let's be honest, Sony and MS would've done the same thing or worse, and Sony did do worse with the Vita by having no internal storage whatsoever and proprietary memory cards with jacked-up prices.

Other companies being shit (or even hypothetically being shit in MS case) doesn't make this behaviour any less shit.

I'll agree that physical cartridges were unavoidable but Nintendo should have improved internal storage rather than "hiding" this cost be rerouting it through publishers.

 

[Robin64]

720p?? WHAT?

Is this docked?

Yep.

 

[Xando]

FIFA might not give a shit about Nintendo, however that doesnt mean that they wouldnt be willing to ruthlessly take advantage of EA breaking their liscencing agreement in order to renegotiate a more favourable deal.

If you know the terms of the licensing contract between EA and FIFA please post it. Don't speculate

Most people honestly wouldnt care if it was PES or FIFA if they were buying a portable football game.

This just shows how clueless you are.
Fifa sold 1.1 million units in it's first week in the UK.
PES didn't hit 50k.

They're in no way comparable

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/782875935196454912

 

[NumberThree]

They could have gone with standard SD cards if it was really that much of an issue

Yeah I'm pretty sure those Switch game cards are cheaper than SD cards. Discs are still cheaper (but using discs was never an option for the device they wanted to make).

 

[Shiggy]

FIFA might not give a shit about Nintendo, however that doesnt mean that they wouldnt be willing to ruthlessly take advantage of EA breaking their liscencing agreement in order to renegotiate a more favourable deal.

If you know the terms of the licensing contract between EA and FIFA please post it. Don't speculate

Yup, please don't make things up about EA's contract with the FIFA.

Yeah I'm pretty sure those Switch game cards are cheaper than SD cards.

That's pretty unlikely given the massive economies of scale on SD cards.

 

[ggx2ac]

So they chose to eat the cost instead of pass it on. That sounds great but it affects which games they choose to port over to switch. Something like Just Dance is guaranteed to sell well so it's fine, but would they bother to port the next Trials/Rayman/etc for a few sales at thin margins? Ubisoft's best games are from smaller developers, and there you're going to see games either skipping the switch or releasing ""overpriced"" or doing the same as WB have (or even skipping physical entirely, if that's an option).

You make it sound like Ubisoft are being benevolent just because they chose the size that would fit the whole game they made.

Warner Bros. didn't pick the 16GB game card and force the consumer to download the rest at ~4GB. They chose the 8GB game card and forced the consumer to download ~12GB.

It is obvious they are choosing the smaller game card to make higher margins on retail. Warner Bros. is not some mid-tier publisher, they are a publisher that makes multi-million dollar AAA titles.

Their action isn't saying they can't afford the cost, their action is saying they want to make more money off the consumer for less cost.

 

[NumberThree]

That's pretty unlikely given the massive economies of scale on SD cards.

SD cards are read/write, Switch cards read only.

edit: Either way, the difference between an SD card and a Switch card is going to be less than the difference between an optical disc and any card type.

 

[Machina]

SD cards are read/write, Switch cards read only.

Surely it's very easy to make SD cards read only without the threat of piracy in 2017

 

[Candescence]

Other companies being shit (or even hypothetically being shit in MS case) doesn't make this behaviour any less shit.

I'll agree that physical cartridges were unavoidable but Nintendo should have improved internal storage rather than "hiding" this cost be rerouting it through publishers.

Bigger internal storage would add, what, about $100+ to the price of the Switch, even with just 64GB, going by the price of smartphone/tablet storage variations? You can pay a lot less than that with a decent MicroSD. Publishers aren't "hiding" that cost, I don't know what you're on about.

 

[Jimrpg]

I'm just going to get the Wii U version in that case.

 

[Smax]

Has anyone even mentioned how much BS it is that WB is charging $60 for a port of a four year old game anyway?

Is them cheaping out on cart sizes a shocker when they're completely overcharging for the game in general?

I paid $60 for this game four years ago, I'm not buying it on Switch until it's sub $30.

The irony in this post is that the reason a publisher is charging full price for a 4-year old game is because there are people out there that paid $60 for a Lego game 4 years ago and are willing to pay to buy it again now for some reason.

 

[liquidtmd]

The irony in this post is that the reason a publisher is charging full price for a 4-year old game is because there are people out there that paid $60 for a Lego game 4 years ago and are willing to pay to buy it again now for some reason.

Why is that bit specifically bolded - it was a good a game as any on its release?

 

[*Splinter]

You make it sound like Ubisoft are being benevolent just because they chose the size that would fit the whole game they made.

Warner Bros. didn't pick the 16GB game card and force the consumer to download the rest at ~4GB. They chose the 8GB game card and forced the consumer to download ~12GB.

It is obvious they are choosing the smaller game card to make higher margins on retail. Warner Bros. is not some mid-tier publisher, they are a publisher that makes multi-million dollar AAA titles.

Their action isn't saying they can't afford the cost, their action is saying they want to make more money off the consumer for less cost.

Yes?

These are businesses, not charities. Ubi chose the bigger card because they felt it made the best return in the long run (consumer goodwill is a part of the consideration, but not out of anything resembling altruism).

 

[Shiggy]

Bigger internal storage would add, what, about $100+ to the price of the Switch, even with just 64GB, going by the price of smartphone/tablet storage variations? You can pay a lot less than that with a decent MicroSD. Publishers aren't "hiding" that cost, I don't know what you're on about.

You know that phone producers charge such hefty premiums not because the storage is that much more expensive? They do it because they can get away with it.

SD cards are read/write, Switch cards read only.

edit: Either way, the difference between an SD card and a Switch card is going to be less than the difference between an optical disc and any card type.

Production volumes make a much bigger difference than read/write vs read.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Surely it's very easy to make SD cards read only without the threat of piracy in 2017

It has to do with the price not with piracy. The switch carts are mask ROMs so they are a lot cheaper to produce then read write memory. At least in theory since none of us have seen what Nintendo charges for them.

Fwiw, game boy carts and 3ds games used to be $30 so there's nothing inherently expensive about a cart format even if it does cost more to produce than a CD/BD.

 

[pirateluigi]

The irony in this post is that the reason a publisher is charging full price for a 4-year old game is because there are people out there that paid $60 for a Lego game 4 years ago and are willing to pay to buy it again now for some reason.

What's ironic about it? It's a great game and a lot of people never played the wii u version.

 

[gconsole]

Other companies being shit (or even hypothetically being shit in MS case) doesn't make this behaviour any less shit.

I'll agree that physical cartridges were unavoidable but Nintendo should have improved internal storage rather than "hiding" this cost be rerouting it through publishers.

They give u an optin to upgrade it yourself by buying additional microsd. What is wrong with that?

 

[*Splinter]

Bigger internal storage would add, what, about $100+ to the price of the Switch, even with just 64GB, going by the price of smartphone/tablet storage variations? You can pay a lot less than that with a decent MicroSD. Publishers aren't "hiding" that cost, I don't know what you're on about.

Are you saying that the end customer could increase storage for less money than Nintendo could? Because that's pretty obviously wrong, and comparing smartphones to their + counterparts is not a reasonable measure of the price increase you might have seen on the switch.

I'm saying Nintendo hid the cost - "our brand new console is just £320!*"

 

[*Splinter]

They give u an optin to upgrade it yourself by buying additional microsd. What is wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it. It's a good option to have regardless of the internal storage provided.

 

[Shiggy]

Fwiw, game boy carts and 3ds games used to be $30 so there's nothing inherently expensive about a cart format even if it does cost more to produce than a CD/BD.

Game budgets for GB and 3DS titles were significantly lower though, thus it's not really comparable. DS and 3DS cards were quite a bit more expensive than disc media; that's part of the reason why some publishers charged quite a premium for retail releases of cheaper eShop games.