How is that mutually exclusive with having more onboard memory out of the gate?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lego City Undercover Switch cover mentions 13GB download [Up3: Full game on card]
- Thread starter shiyrley
- Start date
How is that mutually exclusive with having more onboard memory out of the gate?
Okay, so with your last post about smaller Ubisoft games.
How would the development costs of smaller games make it more difficult for Ubisoft to bring out physical versions of those games?
I don't doubt it is a good game. I am actually looking forward to it and I'm going to buy it for the PS4. It's just that I find it ridiculous to pay $60 for it. Personally, I've paid the equivalent of $60 only for Horizon Zero Dawn this generation and that is only because it is probably THE game of the generation AND I wanted it day one. A Lego game, I'm getting it for 20, because that's the price Lego games sell for around here a couple months after release.
LFMartins86
Member
This is one of the dumbest arguments I ever heard-
FIFA wouldn't care much, Konami would care less and it would be too much work for Ubisoft, Activision and Take 2.
FIFA are doing quite well with their deal with EA and for Activision, Ubisoft and Take 2 to take that deal away for EA they would need to have an engine for the game, a team specialized in football games, a detailed database of players and multiple hours of testing the different online modes and fine tunning it.
This would have to be done months after the license had changed hands as there would have to be a FIFA game out at the start of every season or FIFA loses money and recognition.
Konami can't bother to a good PC port, why do you think they would bother to do a good port for a console that isn't selling very well on the region where PES is still successful (Latin America)?
PES sales have been shrinking from release to release, it isn't a beast like it used to be.
You would also run into the problem of not being able to copy option files because of the way the Switch handles save files. Don't think many people would have the patience to manually change teams names, badges and kits for many of the leagues.
No micro transactions would be a minus for most players as Ultimate Team in FIFA is probably the most played mode in the game.
FIFA sales at least 20 times more than PES worldwide, it's one of the best selling franchises in the world and it's one of the most streamed games on the internet.
Nintendo saying "Fuck Fifa, we have PES" would be like saying "Fuck Call Of Duty, we have ARMA".
I really want to buy Ghostbusters on UHD BluRay, but why should I pay $30 for a 30 year old film when I can get it on VHS for $3?!
I agree: ultimately, it's Nintendo's decision to give the Switch an anemic amount of internal memory that caused this unnecessary workaround from WB.
names2hard4you
Member
LOL. I gotta hand it to them, this is so smart that I can't even be mad. This could potentially become a trend going forward though, specially is the production costs are lower by doing this. Get your SD cards ready.
plagiarize
Banned
That'd be a great analogy if the UHD BluRay was just a scan of the VHS.
This game runs at the same resolution on Switch that it ran at on Wii U.
WB aren't doing this because the Switch only has a small amount of internal memory. They're doing it because bigger cartridges are more expensive. Using carts, and not preventing developers from pulling this shit is where Nintendo take some of the blame.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
But they added multiplayer, which is huge. Of course it should have had it all along...
Wouldn't small amount of internal storage be an argument against this decision?
FreedomFighter
Member
I'm ok with this. It's better than charging more for the Switch version which would potentially send many a game to die.
I've decided to go all digital Switch anyways. But l like this move.
Minsc
Gold Member
A port of a last gen game being sold at full price and they can't deal with the costs of a game card that fits the game when said card exists...
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
RoninChaos
Member
Don't excuse this shit or hand wave it away. This is bullshit.
Where did you read that? Because I live in Brazil and even with the console not being officially launched here a lot of first shipments from importers sold out and the price here is absurd (~US$800,00).
I don't like his argument either I just really want to know about how the console is selling in Latin America.
A port of a last gen game being sold at full price and they can't deal with the costs of a game card that fits the game when said card exists...
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
While it indeed smells pretty greedy to sell it at full price, you also need to bear in mind that WBIE had to reacquire the publishing rights in this case. Unlike other remasters, this game required further investment to make the port possible.
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
You are forgetting the launch game tax.
WB could never get away with this shit 2 years in
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Unacceptable. PS4 version for me.
LFMartins86
Member
Really? Thought I had read otherwise. Guess I was wrong.
It's the same price on all platforms.
MrS
Banned
They must share in the blame for making a product on which this could happen. They should also be embarrassed at their system only having 32GB memory as default.
TLZ
Banned
Minsc
Gold Member
True, but I'd argue its being sold at full price, so that should cover it and more (digital copies would also offset the cost), plus you have other platforms too. It's definitely a bad practice imo.
This is one case where I think people would actually prefer to pay $10 or $20 more than not. Or at least have an option to (maybe release a collector's edition with a few extras that has the whole game on the card for $80 or something). I wonder if all regions selling this game will feature the same required download, if they are forced to release it as a full game somewhere, then at least you could just import it if all the languages are on the cart...
Even if the Switch had 500GB of internal storage (hell, even 3TBs), people would still be upset with this solution. I definitely think if this catches on, and all third parties start doing this (maybe even Nintendo themselves), well, it would suck. But unfortunately, the average customer would probably just go to Walmart or wherever and buy an overpriced mircoSD card and continue buying said games.
It's also $60 on PS4 and Xbox One though. They are getting away with it.
not to disparage the guys who made the video, it doesn't really confirm anything until I hear it from the devs/pubs or others back up the claim.
What I'm saying is that either reduced margins (eat the cost) or fewer sales (raise the price or sacrifice goodwill like WB did) will lead to lower profit. Ubi chose to eat the cost on Just Dance because it's a safe bet anyway (and they seem a little more concerned with goodwill lately). What you won't even see is games where they ran that same analysis and decided that a port / switch version wasn't worth doing for the profits they expect.
^that all sounds a bit sensationalist. I'm assuming this is only a tiny factor amongst many other more important considerations, but the end result is fewer games on switch than there might otherwise have been.
TLZ
Banned
Having the game half physical half digital is complete idiocy. What if you have disabled the internet on your child's account and only buy physical? What if I like buying physical for the future?True, but I'd argue its being sold at full price, so that should cover it and more (digital copies would also offset the cost), plus you have other platforms too. It's definitely a bad practice imo.
This is one case where I think people would actually prefer to pay $10 or $20 more than not. Or at least have an option to (maybe release a collector's edition with a few extras that has the whole game on the card for $80 or something). I wonder if all regions selling this game will feature the same required download, if they are forced to release it as a full game somewhere, then at least you could just import it if all the languages are on the cart...
Even if the Switch had 500GB of internal storage (hell, even 3TBs), people would still be upset with this solution. I definitely think if this catches on, and all third parties start doing this (maybe even Nintendo themselves), well, it would suck. But unfortunately, the average customer would probably just go to Walmart or wherever and buy an overpriced mircoSD card and continue buying said games.
This is unacceptable.
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
not sure what other lego games do after a while.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
The "core functionality" of portability is largely incompatible with modern console games.
The 2.5 hours of battery life for Breath of the Wild will probably end up being on the high end once games like CoD, Destiny, or Resident Evil start to drop. Destiny 2 (the game itself) will probably be close to 50 GB with dozens of GB of post-release content planned; a hypothetical Switch version is going to require a storage investment from the consumer.
For consumers that prefer to play docked, why not offer a storage option that gives you more GB per $? People who want to play such games on the go can buy the more expensive SD storage cards. Portable tax and all that.
Welcome to 4 years ago, Nintendo fans.
crookedaxis
Member
MrS
Banned
I think this is a bit disingenuous because the consumer has to pay more for SD cards anyway, so the consumer isn't actually saving anything. Also, it's likely that Nintendo would have got a much lower bulk price for SD cards than consumers do when they buy a single card, which they could have passed on to customers while solving the storage issue.
I take your point. I think we can agree that Nintendo didn't think this one through very well, right?Even if the Switch had 500GB of internal storage (hell, even 3TBs), people would still be upset with this solution. I definitely think if this catches on, and all third parties start doing this (maybe even Nintendo themselves), well, it would suck. But unfortunately, the average customer would probably just go to Walmart or wherever and buy an overpriced mircoSD card and continue buying said games.
Candescence
Member
There's a difference between needing online to play post-release SP content and needing it just to play SP content out of the box via physical, and you fucking know it.
What WB is doing is inexcusable and unprecedented.
Minsc
Gold Member
If you're going to troll, try to at least use numbers that don't destroy your whole argument. Here's someone playing BotW for ~5 hours, and even if that is high, the average time is a little over 3 hours with the bells and whistles, btw. Which can be easily extended to 12+ hours with a small power bank if needed.
I'm not sure what your "Welcome to 4 years ago" is referencing either, but surely you don't mean retail games were being sold with only 1/3 the game on the disc as a standard practice?
frankie_baby
Member
Except these are publishers that make multi-million dollar AAA titles.
Ubisoft:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-05-12-ubisoft-reports-full-year-earnings
They are not comparable to greybox games which had to raise the cost of the Switch version of Rime by $10 to be able to release a physical version.
If Ubisoft games sell well on the Switch unlike Wii U, then Ubisoft will make as many physical versions of their games as possible.
This is why I asked "how would smaller games from Ubisoft be more difficult to make physical versions of?"
It wouldn't, unless they sell terribly on Switch. Ubisoft would want as many games as possible on shelves for their products otherwise their competitors would gain more market share on retail.
BigEmil
Junior Member
Pretty muchA port of a last gen game being sold at full price and they can't deal with the costs of a game card that fits the game when said card exists...
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
You're taking my argument as more absolute than it is. I even said that this is a tiny factor amongst many. Games being slightly less profitable than they otherwise would be doesn't mean that Ubi is going to abandon the Switch overnight.
This decision making isn't unique to Ubisoft either - as you said it is the smaller Devs who are far more likely to be affected by stuff like this.
Edit: Also it's irrelevant how many millions Ubisoft is worth. If a game isn't expected to make money then the game (generally) won't be made.
...I just remembered what this thread was about. I'm quite far off topic here so I'll stop.
My on-topic point was: WB look bad here, but the criticism belongs with Nintendo.
If Nintendo choices didn't lead to publishers needing to recoup or absorb extra costs for new games too (Rime) then you might have had a point. This game being a port really has nothing to do with Nintendo's choice to use more expensive carts as a Lego Undercover Switch port on a disc would still be relatively cheaper for WB.A port of a last gen game being sold at full price and they can't deal with the costs of a game card that fits the game when said card exists...
Pure and simple. Maybe, if this was a new game there'd be more of an argument for it, but for a game already made and sold four years ago, and being resold again now at full price? Nope.
The only greed here is Nintendo not eating the cost themselves and once again giving third parties another burden to work with on their platforms.
Yep, this is what I was trying to say.
Although I don't like attributing anything to "Greed" when we're talking about corporations. If anything this is "well played Nintendo" for passing on costs AND consumer ill will to third party publishers (unless it backfires of course, but I think Switch will sell enough to attract 3p so Nintendo essentially get away with it).
Sure, and WB are not to blame for releasing the same four years old game at full price with the cheapest card available to them? They did have the choice and they chose to be cheap.
Nintendo holds just as much blame as WB to me. WB for being so fucking cheap and Nintendo for authorizing it.
March of the Crabs
Member
Could it be possible they consider it a "patch"? A "patch" that is almost double the original game's sizes and is necessary to play the game?
D.Lo
Member
It is reasonably ironic that this has occurred because Nintendo has been too accommodating to a third party publisher...
So Warner Bros. which makes billions in revenue per quarter choose an 8GB game card over any higher storage capacity which they would've known the costs ahead of time before they started porting the game are not blame for trying to push higher retail margins and screwing the consumer over by making them download 2/3 of the game to be able to play.
Yeah... Warner Bros. are the rich victim here because they chose to do business by bringing a 4 year old port of a game to a new video game console.