The point is that the EU version is over 8 GB and would requires a larger card.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?
The point is that the EU version is over 8 GB and would requires a larger card.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?
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?
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.
The point is that the EU version is over 8 GB and would requires a larger card.
It can't even be played without it. The game on the cart is incomplete. That's not a patch.
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.
http://nintendoeverything.com/lego-...to-13gb-of-space-for-game-download-on-switch/
w
a
t
Does this mean the publisher is cheaping out on cartridge size and requiring a download for the rest of the game data? This would be fucking terrible. I really hope this doesn't become something normal, a big reason to go physical on Switch is the limited storage space. This sucks.
Cut me in half and digitalise said half if old.
So has anything been confirmed yet or is this just 29 pages of infighting and hyperbole overreactions?
So has anything been confirmed yet or is this just 29 pages of infighting and hyperbole overreactions?
They're both to blame. WB with their cheapness and Nintendo with its lack of standards on that store. It's becoming the Wild West on the switch and it's probably the biggest turnoff I've seen in regards to the console as a switch owner. Even with Rime, there should be restrictions in place to prevent this kind of shit from running rampant. It's not a sign of better things to come. I say this as someone who loves their switch.
nothing confirmed, just assumptions as to what is actually going on.
That's actually pretty genius, especially for a re-release. Shame about switch's stock storage situation.
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.
That's actually pretty genius, especially for a re-release. Shame about switch's stock storage situation.
I get that, but I still don't get how it can be listed on the eShop as 8.2 GB if there's a 13GB required download. That's just as scummy as needing the download to play the game on the cart too. Storage on the Switch is very limited so this is all very misleading.
Once again this is not about the storage of the Switch. This is about WB releasing a game incomplete on the damn cartridge and forcing everyone that buys to download (file sizes twice the size of what is even on the cart) the rest of the game in order to play it at all. This isn't a patch or additional content, but the retail game that is half on the cart and unplayable from the start. This a very real situation where one could buy this game and not be able to do anything with it depending on their Internet situation and then potentially be unable to return it. If this is true and looks like it is this is a complete screwing of the customer by WB. I'm even going to say Nintendo deserves part of the blame for allowing this bullshit as well but it's still on WB the most. This isn't something that just happens or a mistake if true. This would be a deliberate act on their part.
None of this is relevant.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.
You honestly believe this? If so, please explain LEGO Worlds price despite being released four years after Lego City Undercover?
People are if they're only going digital on small or digital-exclusive games and never need more than a few dozen gigabytes. Based on needs for patches, VC, and things like Minecraft I don't anticipate running out of the default space anytime soon. I mean, I've got microSD cards in old devices I could pop in right now, but I don't see the point for now.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.
Adding in an SD card is dumb, since when anyone upgrades it becomes totally wasted cost Extra internal is good because it's always there.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.
No amount of thinking is going to make X amount of storage cost the same as 4X amount of storage.MrS said:I take your point. I think we can agree that Nintendo didn't think this one through very well, right?
I said I only want it physical and internet disabled on my child's account :/Then download it on your account
I guess there is a benefit to having only 1 good game at launch, huh? What are customers going to do in the long-term when they have a catalogue of huge games and patches, as is the norm this gen. They will eventually, like it or not, need to buy more storage. Good for you that you have SD cards. Not everybody does.People are if they're only going digital on small or digital-exclusive games and never need more than a few dozen gigabytes. Based on needs for patches, VC, and things like Minecraft I don't anticipate running out of the default space anytime soon. I mean, I've got microSD cards in old devices I could pop in right now, but I don't see the point for now.
None of this is relevant.
WB will minimise costs because that's their job. Due to the cost of cartridges they've decided that mandatory downloads on physical releases save more profits than are lost to consumer outrage (and neither of us have anything to look at to give an educated opinion on this, though I would assume WB to be correct). This inconvenience is compounded by the meager internal storage provided by Nintendo, who in turn will have their own analysis which pointed to a cheaper console being more important than keeping third party publishers (and digital-favouring consumers) happy.
Now if you want to be a part of that "consumer outrage" then feel free. I am only suggesting your anger would be more constructive directed at Nintendo since they are the ones who decided to give third parties this choice. They could just as easily forbid this kind of practice, and there are profit-related reasons they aren't doing that as well.
"Victims"? Please.
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
You should still be able to download it on yours and it would be accessible to a child's account.I said I only want it physical and internet disabled on my child's account :/
What's the point of buying physical then?
Irrelevant to my point. Big games like Zelda I was always going to get physical. The internal space would be enough for me to get 50 Minecrafts and 100 VC games without stretching, which is fine as long as some card games don't start pouring themselves all over the place.MrS said:I guess there is a benefit to having only 1 good game at launch, huh?
Platform-holder shouldn't allow something like this to occur on their platform. Nintendo shouldn't get a pass on that. If WB can fuck over consumers, they're going to do it. It is known.anti third party on nintendo's part
anti consumer on the third party's part
they both should get the blame
Nintendo have to acknowledge that this doesn't make the Switch very attractive.
I dunno what else to tell you man. Corporations exist to make money. You can rail against WB all you want, they expected it and accounted for it..
So multi-billion dollar earner Warner Bros. is not to blame for the ire of their fans due to doing business with Nintendo where they knew what they were doing?
What happened to cart media being cheaper in this day and age, hence why Nintendo went with it in the first place?
What's the point of buying physical then? Might as well go digital since I'm downloading games now.You should still be able to download it on yours and it would be accessible to a child's account.
Breath of the Wild and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe combined are the same size as this game.
On the Wii U Mario 3D World was 1.6GB and Splatoon was 1.8GB.
I guess Nintendo assumed other devs would've stepped their compression game up by 2017...
I do wonder if Nintendo would allow a mandatory download that's bigger than the available internal storage (which is about 25GB iirc).If WB can do this, EA will too. FIFA 17 almost filled up an entire Bluray. That's more than twice this game.
It's highly unlikely that the FIFA we see on Switch will be anywhere near that large. It'll probably either be custom made or a heavily modified PS3/360 version of the game.If WB can do this, EA will too. FIFA 17 almost filled up an entire Bluray. That's more than twice this game.
UPDATE 2.30pm: Lego City Undercover publisher Warner Bros. has provided us with this short statement on the game's cartridge version, which suggests you will be able to play without downloading anything.
"Players who purchase Lego City Undercover on Nintendo Switch at retail do not need to download the game to play," a company spokesperson told us.
We're still no clearer why the game's box states it requires an internet connection, or 13GB of storage, but the suggestion here perhaps is that at least some of the game is playable without downloading.
We've contacted Warner Bros. again for further clarification.
Breath of the Wild and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe combined are the same size as this game.
On the Wii U Mario 3D World was 1.6GB and Splatoon was 1.8GB.
I guess Nintendo assumed other devs would've stepped their compression game up by 2017...
I can agree on that much, but the child's account thing isn't very relevant unless your child is in a remote location.What's the point of buying physical then? Might as well go digital since I'm downloading games now.
It's highly unlikely that the FIFA we see on Switch will be anywhere near that large. It'll probably either be custom made or a heavily modified PS3/360 version of the game.
But yeah, this is shitty. Particularly shitty when Nintendo provided fuck all storage on board. That being said, I bought a 128gb card for launch as this was expected.
Cart media is way cheaper than it used to be, but there's an astronomical difference between $.75 and $2.50 when producing things in scale.
That's theoretically possible, yes. They will face some extra massive backlash when it turns out to be (all but technically) a lie, though. Wonder if they would take that risk.That sure is a slippery PR line. It seems to suggest that there's enough of the game on there to be able to start playing it.
That sure is a slippery PR line. It seems to suggest that there's enough of the game on there to be able to start playing it.