- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- What's your stance on the "cartridge tax"?
|
It's no secret that some multiplats on Switch are costing more than that of other platforms due to the fact that gamecards are more expensive than discs(which, of course, is getting passed onto the consumer in these cases).
I, personally, think cartridge formats are superior enough to discs in most ways that I prefer them to discs and don't mind paying the extra to get them that way. I also understand why some people are miffed by that extra cost. What's you're opinion on gamecards in general and the extra dough you may have to shell out because of them?
"Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away."
|
|
SSjYagami posted...
N64 all over again, Nintendo doesn't learn. It won't be as bad this time around but still...bad hardware decision-making. Yeh because optical disc drives work so well in a handheld ... there’s no other sensible option. It’s s*** but least it’s less likely to break (which would cost more)
PSN - Wingo_84
Wii U NNID - Wingo84 ----- 3DS FC - 2122-7025-1013 |
|
Obviously, I'd like to save money wherever possible which is where Amazon Prime comes in handy, even though they've slashed the discount on applicable games in half, at least in Canada. All in all, it's the price I pay for my chosen platform, though I am willing to pay the premium for physical games whenever possible.
I can also understand the criticism of the cost, especially when the premium is also applied to digital sales (in most cases), but as I can currently only afford to support my gaming hobby with a single console (yeah, I see the irony there, only being able to afford a single console and going with the one with the most expensive software), I just have to hope I will enjoy the games I choose to buy.
GameFAQs, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and vulgarity. We must be cautious.
|
|
wingo84 posted...
SSjYagami posted...N64 all over again, Nintendo doesn't learn. It won't be as bad this time around but still...bad hardware decision-making. Lol, I have that dude blocked for the very bulls*** he just spewed now. Cartridge based media is the only realistic choice of physical media for a device like Switch. I didn't even know blocked people could see my topics :P
"Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away."
|
|
I actually like the cartridges, though I wouldn't pay more to have them over discs. I doubt I'll be buying any game that charges more than the other platforms on release. I am just now realizing that this is a thing, guess I haven't paid enough attention and can't say that I like it.
|
|
Rolfin posted...
wingo84 posted...SSjYagami posted...N64 all over again, Nintendo doesn't learn. It won't be as bad this time around but still...bad hardware decision-making. Neither you nor I are computer hardware professionals, so stoo pretending there's no other possible option, there surely is. Also, you didn't block s***. ;)
Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.
|
|
ibrokethedam posted...
It seems high. Does a card really cost $10 more? No it doesn't, but businesses will round up to $69.99 instead of $64.99 because $69.99 looks better
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer."
--Satoru Iwata, 1959-2015 |
|
is it really all because of cartridges?
the higher price could also be attributed to the fact that the nintendo switch is the "new console", and versions of games for new consoles are often $10-20 more if the game is released on new and old consoles within a year of each other. and it might be in part because a game bought for the switch works on 2 "platforms": switch handheld, and switch home console(same device, but when it comes to stuff like licenses companies like to exploit every tiny distinction they can find) |
|
The additional cost is somewhat understandable, but it shouldn't apply to eShop games. I'm aware of the logic that Nintendo don't want to burn retailers, but I'd prefer that to burning customers, which is what's currently happening. Retailers are perfectly happy to undercut the eShop.
I think the Switch has helped underscore what we mostly already knew - cards are better for portables but for home consoles discs clearly still have a number of key advantages. As a portable device, cards were the only really viable format for the Switch. ibrokethedam posted... It seems high. Does a card really cost $10 more? No, but to retain margins, a small cost increase can result in a larger price increase. Publishers and retailers are also reluctant to price at uneven prices. A 32GB Switch card might cost US$5 more than a the equivalent Blu-ray but margin retention might push that to US$67 and then the desire for round prices would further push it up to US$70. (These are illustrative numbers - exact costs and exact margins for each party involved are secret and would also vary by country). |
|
Discs don't work well for portable consoles. And cards of these sizes don't cost much. Paying a little bit more would not justify a much higher cost.
Read the mania: http://www.fanfiction.net/~nonexistinghero
In SA2, it's Super Sonic and Hyper Shadow. |
|
ibrokethedam posted...
It seems high. Does a card really cost $10 more? Seems like it's possibly even more than that. I love how people itt are making estimates for propietary cards manufacturered by Nintendo of all people. It's not that simple. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/09/feature_exploring_the_switch_tax_and_why_nintendo_was_right_to_use_game_cards https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/6ytciu/zhugeex_explains_why_nintendo_switch_games_are/ https://mobile.twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/906053345206566912/photo/1
"Fear cuts deeper than swords."
|
|
CallmeSoren posted...
It's terrible. What's even worse is that the digital versions are also more expensive. Snake Pass is a brilliant example. The game has been on sale a couple of times on psn but not once on eshop. They released simultaneously It's been on sale on the eShop: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/06/snake_pass_celebrates_summer_solstice_with_40_percent_discount_and_a_hint_of_upcoming_dlc It's worth asking why it's been on sale more often on other platforms than it has been on the Switch, but it has been on sale on Switch. |
|
I think it's it's worth it to not have Blue Rays spinning around getting scratched.
Everything EA contributed to gamers around the world in one youtube clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBoesEFWZnM |
|
Eoin posted...
CallmeSoren posted...It's terrible. What's even worse is that the digital versions are also more expensive. Snake Pass is a brilliant example. The game has been on sale a couple of times on psn but not once on eshop. They released simultaneously Yeah Snake pass definitely went on sale, because I bought it during the sale.
Everything EA contributed to gamers around the world in one youtube clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBoesEFWZnM |
|
PS4Warrior posted...
It's dumb. Nintendo really should pay the "cartridge tax" themselves. The only ones suffering from this is consumers. For their in house games they are. Expecting them to pay it for 3rd party is asinine. With publishers like EA if nintendo agreed to throw in $10 per game to cover costs, ea would come back the next week and say it was cisting them $20.
Hanlon's razor " Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
|
|
aluminafalcon posted...
PS4Warrior posted...It's dumb. Nintendo really should pay the "cartridge tax" themselves. The only ones suffering from this is consumers. Consumers don't want to pay extra because of a cartridge. Atlus was able to get away with it on the 3DS because it was few and far between. If more and more devs start doing it on the Switch people will be less inclined to buy Switch versions of games.
PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them. |
|
aluminafalcon posted...
if nintendo agreed to throw in $10 per game to cover costs, ea would come back the next week and say it was cisting them $20. That's not how it works. Third party publishers don't go out and negotiate their own deals for cartridge production. They go to Nintendo, tell them how many games they want and what the packaging should look like, and pay Nintendo, and Nintendo orders the games. Publishers therefore couldn't pretend that it cost them more. Nintendo know exactly how much every game is costing every publisher because they're the ones receiving the money. |
|
It sucks and I fear it might backfire in terms of sales... Which will result in even less their party support.
A particular rage inducing example is Puyo Puyo Tetris. In the US people paid more for the Switch physical version, but at least they got the keychains. The digital version was 30 dollars in PS4 and Switch, which was fair. What happened in Europe? 40€ for physical AND digital versions! NO keychains. PS4 of course 30€ (no digital version at all). Another "great" example. The sale of I am Setsuna. On every other platform it goes down to 20€ regularly. The great sale on Switch: 27€. Oh, Rayman Legends by the way is on sale for 7€ in the Playstation store... |
|
It's not good, but there's no viable alternative. You can't shove an optical disc drive into a device that will be used portably.
That said, I'd rather have this than mandatory installs due to using a physical medium that's apparently too slow for games these days. At least I can pick and choose when and/or if to "support" this practice. |
|
PS4Warrior posted...
aluminafalcon posted...PS4Warrior posted...It's dumb. Nintendo really should pay the "cartridge tax" themselves. The only ones suffering from this is consumers. This is very true and this is something that Nintendo should've thought about before hand. Most AAA 3rd party games need a 32GB card but according to industry insiders these cost the publishers $20 each! After factoring in logistics, retailers and hardware royalties that leaves the 3rd party with very little on each game. Why would 3rd parties want to publish their best games on Switch under these conditions? The few publishers who do that will pass the expense on to the consumers with higher prices with no price reductions or they will use a card that cost less and force you to download the rest on a mandatory SD card. Nintendo chose proprietary cards here. If they want 3rd parties on the Switch then they should be willing to absorb half of the cost of large cards to show publishers they are willing to help. If that isn't good then they should've went with a standard SD card so publishers can supply their own cards.
the end of one nightmare, prelude to the another...
Shenmue III |
|
Rolfin posted...
It's no secret that some multiplats on Switch are costing more than that of other platforms due to the fact that gamecards are more expensive than discs(which, of course, is getting passed onto the consumer in these cases). every single Nintendo IP cost the same digital as physical, and on Japan region all games cost the same, so that can not be Nintendo but the greedy western developers.
PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing. |
|
The only alternatives are a disk player (higher power consumption, lower life expectancy, higher error probability, larger unit size), or a digital only platform (the suicide option). It is what it is. I don't have a problem with it because it's not like there are any good alternatives.
Surrender and I will destroy you peacefully. R.E.G.I.S. mk5 - Megas XLR
Omega Ruby Secret Base - https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrht5cvsjiyfnrj/SecretBase.JPG |
|
I highly doubt 32GB carts cost 3rd-parties $20, especially when consumers are buying faster, rewritable microSDs for close to half that after retail markup.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters. |
|
Accrovideogames posted...
BladeManEXE posted...You can't shove an optical disc drive into a device that will be used portably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Disc Capacity: 900MB (single layer), 1.8GB (dual layer) To get physical games to fit, you need a full size disc drive. So... explain that one to me, please.
Play games, not companies.
|
|
DiscostewSM posted...
I highly doubt 32GB carts cost 3rd-parties $20, especially when consumers are buying faster, rewritable microSDs for close to half that after retail markup. Any cost estimates that suggest this kind of cost include not just the card, but the packaging, shipping costs, and Nintendo physical royalties. US$20 is probably a reasonable all-inclusive estimate for the cost of getting a Switch game made and shipped to a retailer. |
|
Makes me consider digital, probably will still go physical on account I could resell it, but ya it makes me consider going digital once in awhile.
PSN: captsplatter & Gamertag: OGcaptsplatter &
Switch FC: SW-3078-9578-8685 & Steam ID URL: http://steamcommunity.com/id/captsplatter |
|
Canas_Renvall posted...
To get physical games to fit, you need a full size disc drive. So... explain that one to me, please. I didn't say it was viable, I only proved it was possible. You said that it's impossible to have a portable console with a disc drive, so I proved you wrong.
I'm French speaking.
27/Male/Quebec |
|
Eoin posted...
DiscostewSM posted...I highly doubt 32GB carts cost 3rd-parties $20, especially when consumers are buying faster, rewritable microSDs for close to half that after retail markup. That might be true, but I wonder about the packaging/shipping half of that equation. While supposedly a Switch game costs 60% more than Sony/Microsoft in licensing fees and cards (I have no idea if that's accurate, or what number we're tacking that percentage onto, but it's the only number I know for this sort of thing offhand), their cases are significantly smaller. This should be a mitigating factor for both packaging and shipping. Apparently not enough to prevent a "tax", but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers. Doubt we ever will, though. |
|
Accrovideogames posted...
Canas_Renvall posted...To get physical games to fit, you need a full size disc drive. So... explain that one to me, please. Go back, read who posted that, and I accept your apology first of all. :P And it's theoretically possible, but it would make the system crazy bulky, crazy dangerous to carry around, crazy loud, crazy low battery life even compared to what it already is... like, there's literally no good upside to using a disc drive except for lower costs per disc vs. a cart. That's literally the only positive.
Play games, not companies.
|
|
BladeManEXE posted...
their cases are significantly smaller. This should be a mitigating factor for both packaging and shipping. The cases are smaller and that will knock a little bit off shipping costs. However they're also custom and that will add some right back on. There's almost certainly a net overall reduction in costs due to the smaller cases but we can't be sure of the figures. We can be pretty sure it's not truly significant, since if it were, Nintendo would surely have reduced the size of the cases a bit further - it's not like they need the space. |
|
Canas_Renvall posted...
Accrovideogames posted...BladeManEXE posted...You can't shove an optical disc drive into a device that will be used portably. Not only that, wasn't battery life one of the top complaints of the PSP? An optical drive is hell on the battery, as moving parts take a fair amount of power compared to solid-state solutions. Given that the Vita dropped the optical drive (which made its BC digital only), I'd say that the fact the PSP had one did not go well for it. |
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- What's your stance on the "cartridge tax"?
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- What's your stance on the "cartridge tax"?
I think there are workarounds that would've been better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this problem exists for the big-file games (30+GB), not so much smaller games.
They could do a s***load of compression on those pre-rendered movie scenes and all the music in it, and make lossless quality a free download
Or maybe offer us something to convince us to buy digital insteadKaiRyusaki posted...They could do a s***load of compression on those pre-rendered movie scenes and all the music in it, and make lossless quality a free download
Movies are already compressed, on every format, probably as much as they can be without noticeable drops in quality.
Developers are not idiots. They are not sitting on 30GB games that can be easily turned into 14GB games without affecting them in any obvious way.I'm fine with it under the circumstances that:
A. The game is "finished", it was not released as a broken mess that requires 5 patches to be playable.
B. The game is "complete", the entire game is on the cartridge, no need to download the rest of the game from the Internet. *If the game is compressed and merely needs to be installed onto an SD card (still no download), that is also acceptable.
In general, I feel physical media is superior to digital and worth protecting. I honestly wouldn't mind paying more for physical games in general as long as it meant they stuck around. Additionally, I feel that cartridges are superior to discs for a multitude of reasons. I'm alright paying a little more assuming the above is true."But you never got to see my Chaup au Fan!"
"You keep your chappy thong to yourself, Mister!"Eoin posted...KaiRyusaki posted...
They could do a s***load of compression on those pre-rendered movie scenes and all the music in it, and make lossless quality a free download
Movies are already compressed, on every format, probably as much as they can be without noticeable drops in quality.
Developers are not idiots. They are not sitting on 30GB games that can be easily turned into 14GB games without affecting them in any obvious way.
The music in GTA V PC is 16GB.
The game, ITSELF, on Xbox360 is roughly 16GB.
They don't compress anymore because there's honestly no reason to... except for physical Switch releases.
Edit: Honestly, might not even be worth it on physical Switch.KaiRyusaki posted...They don't compress anymore because there's honestly no reason to... except for physical Switch releases.
That's my point. If they need to compress, they do so. If they're having problems fitting the game onto a Switch card after that, then the answer is no longer "compress stuff", because they've done that.Thunderbird8 posted...Not only that, wasn't battery life one of the top complaints of the PSP? An optical drive is hell on the battery, as moving parts take a fair amount of power compared to solid-state solutions. Given that the Vita dropped the optical drive (which made its BC digital only), I'd say that the fact the PSP had one did not go well for it.
Back when PSP was released, discs were the only practical way to have large storage spaces for game distribution media. Flash storage was expensive at the time, and the decision made quite a few different kind of games possible on a portable device.Want to cure diseases with your spare computing power?
http://folding.stanford.edu/Vita cartridges cost more to produce than discs and that somehow hasn't been passed down to the gamer with Sony. I wonder why Nintendo just couldn't lower licencing fees or something to cut down on the cost a bit"When a black moon shines, Light and Dark break apart, the King of Darkness howls"bith_the_black posted...Vita cartridges cost more to produce than discs and that somehow hasn't been passed down to the gamer with Sony.
The Vita never moved past 4GB cards. That would have kept costs down.
bith_the_black posted...I wonder why Nintendo just couldn't lower licencing fees or something to cut down on the cost a bit
The suggestion was made this week that an 8GB card had the same overall cost (including all overheads) as a PS4 disc, or at least similar. If that's the case then it's likely that Nintendo have reduced their licensing fee a little, because it's unlikely that in terms of manufacturing costs, any Switch card is as cheap as a Blu-ray disc, even an 8GB card.KaiRyusaki posted...Eoin posted...
KaiRyusaki posted...
They could do a s***load of compression on those pre-rendered movie scenes and all the music in it, and make lossless quality a free download
Movies are already compressed, on every format, probably as much as they can be without noticeable drops in quality.
Developers are not idiots. They are not sitting on 30GB games that can be easily turned into 14GB games without affecting them in any obvious way.
The music in GTA V PC is 16GB.
The game, ITSELF, on Xbox360 is roughly 16GB.
They don't compress anymore because there's honestly no reason to... except for physical Switch releases.
Edit: Honestly, might not even be worth it on physical Switch.
so that's your excuse for when a developer is lazy and useless? why do SE, Bandai, and others do it fine?PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.It doesn't bother me, and from a business perspective it makes sense. The pros of using a cart over a disc greatly outweigh the cons, and anyone honestly b****ing about it has greater issues to work on because it's trivial at best.
I'd wager those same people who complain about this support incomplete games (Destiny), season passes, Xbox live/ps+, and midgen console upgrades. If you do, this is nothing.its bulls*** and not something im willing to support
either have the same prices for the same game, offer exclusive "stuff" (be it themes, in game items etc.), lower the digital price, have a sale...
and if NONE of this is possible they can f*** off and i wont buy the game until the price goes down. Tired of supporting s*** practices, i'll just wait it out"Ok I just spoke to my source. My source confirmed the Nintendo Direct will be on the 13th!" - CloudStrife630-Lo- posted...It doesn't bother me, and from a business perspective it makes sense. The pros of using a cart over a disc greatly outweigh the cons, and anyone honestly b****ing about it has greater issues to work on because it's trivial at best.
I'd wager those same people who complain about this support incomplete games (Destiny), season passes, Xbox live/ps+, and midgen console upgrades. If you do, this is nothing.
Having to spend extra money on games and memory cards is not trivial at best.
This is on Nintendo. If they want to entice 3rd parties who have gladly abandoned them before, to develop for them using an expensive proprietary cart, then they need to foot the bill. Especially coming off a huge failure.
Not the customers just because you think wasting money is trivial and anyone who cares about it has issues.
This can so easily backfire and just make the industry s***tier. If people don't pay the markup and the sales suck, they could abandon support or just charge every console the same higher price in the future to avoid backlash by masking it.*insert sig*DunGoofd posted...This can so easily backfire and just make the industry s***tier. If people don't pay the markup and the sales suck, they could abandon support or just charge every console the same higher price in the future to avoid backlash by masking it.
problem is, we know thats not the reaction it would get..... what would actually happen is that they would say that since the sales were bad, that means that people didnt want the game, not the s*** practice, then they can save a whole lot more by simply not worrying about Switch
its bad for everyone in a number of ways"Ok I just spoke to my source. My source confirmed the Nintendo Direct will be on the 13th!" - CloudStrife630Eoin posted...KaiRyusaki posted...
They could do a s***load of compression on those pre-rendered movie scenes and all the music in it, and make lossless quality a free download
Movies are already compressed, on every format, probably as much as they can be without noticeable drops in quality.
Developers are not idiots. They are not sitting on 30GB games that can be easily turned into 14GB games without affecting them in any obvious way.
May not be 30GB dropped to 14GB, but still...
http://nintendoeverything.com/nba-playgrounds-update-on-switch-will-cut-file-size-in-half-increase-resolution-more/
I would say though that going from H264 videos on PS4/XB1 to H265 on Switch (supported by Tegra X1) would drop video sizes to roughly half with equivalent quality. Surely there are other things like ASTC for textures that could be used on Switch that provide better compression in various circumstances."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.DiscostewSM posted...May not be 30GB dropped to 14GB, but still...
http://nintendoeverything.com/nba-playgrounds-update-on-switch-will-cut-file-size-in-half-increase-resolution-more/
Not sure why you posted this, while also saying that you're aware that it isn't particularly relevant to what I said.
DiscostewSM posted...I would say though that going from H264 videos on PS4/XB1 to H265 on Switch (supported by Tegra X1) would drop video sizes to roughly half with equivalent quality.
You are missing the point.
I am not saying that there's no such thing as compression, or that there can't be savings made with compression.
I am saying that compression is by far the most obvious way of saving space, so once a developer gets to the point where they struggle to fit their game onto a Switch card, they are already using compression, and further compression is not the answer. KaiRyusaki seems to have the impression that developers are running into problems with card capacity because they're not compressing anything and that if they'd only just compress somethings the capacity problem would go away, and that's not correct, and posting about types of compression doesn't change or address that.Eoin posted...DiscostewSM posted...
May not be 30GB dropped to 14GB, but still...
http://nintendoeverything.com/nba-playgrounds-update-on-switch-will-cut-file-size-in-half-increase-resolution-more/
Not sure why you posted this, while also saying that you're aware that it isn't particularly relevant to what I said.
DiscostewSM posted...I would say though that going from H264 videos on PS4/XB1 to H265 on Switch (supported by Tegra X1) would drop video sizes to roughly half with equivalent quality.
You are missing the point.
I am not saying that there's no such thing as compression, or that there can't be savings made with compression.
I am saying that compression is by far the most obvious way of saving space, so once a developer gets to the point where they struggle to fit their game onto a Switch card, they are already using compression, and further compression is not the answer. KaiRyusaki seems to have the impression that developers are running into problems with card capacity because they're not compressing anything and that if they'd only just compress somethings the capacity problem would go away, and that's not correct, and posting about types of compression doesn't change or address that.
so we have been making software and compressing since the 80s. I mean I learned at a kid in the 90s. and now the so called professionals cant, or are not good enough to do it? this is why I will never spend a cent ever again on any EA software.PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.Eoin posted...DiscostewSM posted...
May not be 30GB dropped to 14GB, but still...
http://nintendoeverything.com/nba-playgrounds-update-on-switch-will-cut-file-size-in-half-increase-resolution-more/
Not sure why you posted this, while also saying that you're aware that it isn't particularly relevant to what I said.
DiscostewSM posted...I would say though that going from H264 videos on PS4/XB1 to H265 on Switch (supported by Tegra X1) would drop video sizes to roughly half with equivalent quality.
You are missing the point.
I am not saying that there's no such thing as compression, or that there can't be savings made with compression.
I am saying that compression is by far the most obvious way of saving space, so once a developer gets to the point where they struggle to fit their game onto a Switch card, they are already using compression, and further compression is not the answer. KaiRyusaki seems to have the impression that developers are running into problems with card capacity because they're not compressing anything and that if they'd only just compress somethings the capacity problem would go away, and that's not correct, and posting about types of compression doesn't change or address that.
I mentioned that article because it's an indication that perhaps the devs are not taking into account everything the Switch can provide. How in the hell can they go about reducing a game by half unless they missed something, or "did something idiotic"?
And I'm not saying they aren't using compression. I'm saying that as time goes on, newer and better compression formats get developed and supported on newer hardware, so best to utilize those formats, especially with something like the Switch. PS4/XB1 don't support HEVC natively. Switch does. Tossing something like AVC onto Switch instead of HEVC is laziness on the devs part, especially if it could mean reducing overall size of a game to fit into a smaller sized cartridge."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.wingo84 posted...SSjYagami posted...
N64 all over again, Nintendo doesn't learn. It won't be as bad this time around but still...bad hardware decision-making.
Yeh because optical disc drives work so well in a handheld ... there’s no other sensible option. It’s s*** but least it’s less likely to break (which would cost more)
Think of all that money paying for carts that could go towards making a good dedicated home console.DiscostewSM posted...I mentioned that article because it's an indication that perhaps the devs are not taking into account everything the Switch can provide. How in the hell can they go about reducing a game by half unless they missed something, or "did something idiotic"?
The most likely explanation is that they were a small dev rushing to make a multiplatform game and get as close as they could to the Switch launch. If you think it has any kind of wider applicability to Switch development in general then you're going to have to prove that.
DiscostewSM posted...I'm saying that as time goes on, newer and better compression formats get developed and supported on newer hardware
Yes, which, again, is missing the point. There are no developers wishing that they could get chop down their game size to fit on a Switch card, totally unaware of some convenient new compression technology that would allow them to do exactly that.
Developers know what kind of compression is available, what assets they're prepared to compress, and the extent to which they're prepared to compress them. If that doesn't get their game down to a suitable size, then the natural conclusion for us is not ever that they are lazy developers who could be educated by a 30-second post on GameFAQs.
I'm not sure how to make that any clearer, to be honest. When you hear about developers facing capacity issues on Switch, your natural assumption shouldn't be that the answer is compression - the starting point for discussion should be that the developers have at least made a minimal effort to reduce file sizes, including applying compression anywhere that it was likely to result in any kind of significant saving.
DiscostewSM posted...Tossing something like AVC onto Switch instead of HEVC is laziness on the devs part
Name one single game in the entire Switch library that you can prove has encoded movies that use an inefficient codec. Please also link to the proof.It's amazing that somehow some people seem to live under the impression that the guys making video games are some kind of idiots.
As someone who has done two internships in the gaming industry, my personal impression was that game developers are some of the best software engineers around.
Of course, there are exceptions, but in general, it's safe to assume that those people are aware of what's available and what's not.Komm suesser TodQuol posted...I can understand the cartridge tax but am i correct in assuming the digital copies are going to cost the same as the physical copies?
From what we've seen that depends on the game and sometimes the region. What some publishers seem to be doing is including a trinket or two with the physical package and using that to say that the physical version is different, thus selling the eShop version for less. Nailing down the exact rules that are being followed is tricky.Fauch posted...It's amazing that somehow some people seem to live under the impression that the guys making video games are some kind of idiots.
As someone who has done two internships in the gaming industry, my personal impression was that game developers are some of the best software engineers around.
Of course, there are exceptions, but in general, it's safe to assume that those people are aware of what's available and what's not.
well they are idiots...when compared to the vast intellect of your average gamefaqs user.finally a new .Hack game! its been too long old friend.I think if Nintendo chose the format, they should eat the loss instead of passing it on to the consumer.
Their games don't cost $10 more than the average game so they should do what's right to get the third party titles in line with the competition.Had to be me. Someone else might have gotten it wrong.slyman19 posted...I understand the need. Hell, I would pay the full $60 for the Resident Evil collection if they were both on a cart.
This is me as well. I put a high value on physical media and don't mind shelling out to get it that way.
That said, I do understand people's qualms with the practice and think Nintendo is doing a fairly poor job handling overall situation"Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away."HogSplash posted...I think if Nintendo chose the format, they should eat the loss instead of passing it on to the consumer.
Their games don't cost $10 more than the average game so they should do what's right to get the third party titles in line with the competition.
however no Nintendo game is charging the extra 10, only greedy 3rd parties.PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.dunnyrega posted...HogSplash posted...
I think if Nintendo chose the format, they should eat the loss instead of passing it on to the consumer.
Their games don't cost $10 more than the average game so they should do what's right to get the third party titles in line with the competition.
however no Nintendo game is charging the extra 10, only greedy 3rd parties.
nitnendo isnt more greedy. they make more money on their game because they don't have to pay licensing fees or higher cart costs, because they controls the production and distribution process.
so no. 3rd party isnt more greedy. they just want to cover the cost from another bad decision from nintendoEl_Zaggy posted...dunnyrega posted...
HogSplash posted...
I think if Nintendo chose the format, they should eat the loss instead of passing it on to the consumer.
Their games don't cost $10 more than the average game so they should do what's right to get the third party titles in line with the competition.
however no Nintendo game is charging the extra 10, only greedy 3rd parties.
nitnendo isnt more greedy. they make more money on their game because they don't have to pay licensing fees or higher cart costs, because they controls the production and distribution process.
so no. 3rd party isnt more greedy. they just want to cover the cost from another bad decision from nintendo
wait, have you worked for a company that makes money? any company has to pay all the fees and licensing before the profit margin is taken into account, yet they don't overcharge the customer or the developers or manufacturers, they bite the bullet to make the sale. sometime to the point of making a 5% of profit only to keep their customers happy, yet I see these companies that always try to make others pay more money so they turn in a profit.PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.It sucks, but I can't think of any better option other than not making it a hybrid.
Maybe they could have made games install from a disc in a dock, and somehow tied an activation to it from the disc that had to be checked online once a week or something (that's doable).
But then you'd run into a problem with storage space on the handheld.
They pretty much did the best they could do.
NOW, on the other hand: Nintendo should be eating the costs 100% on this, and not making developers at all. Not doing that is just making their already bad relations with third parties worse, and why they can't see this is beyond me.Now Playing
Zelda BOTW Master Mode (Switch), Tales of Berseria (PC), Witcher 3 (PC)Down with this sort of thing.
careful nowMy Miiverse doodles :)
http://tinyurl.com/pp79dsu http://tinyurl.com/zu9l2gn https://tinyurl.com/kjkzx5dOtimus posted...It sucks, but I can't think of any better option other than not making it a hybrid.
Maybe they could have made games install from a disc in a dock, and somehow tied an activation to it from the disc that had to be checked online once a week or something (that's doable).
But then you'd run into a problem with storage space on the handheld.
They pretty much did the best they could do.
NOW, on the other hand: Nintendo should be eating the costs 100% on this, and not making developers at all. Not doing that is just making their already bad relations with third parties worse, and why they can't see this is beyond me.
not true,3DS didn't have this problem, and no japan based developer does either.PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.SSjYagami posted...N64 all over again, Nintendo doesn't learn. It won't be as bad this time around but still...bad hardware decision-making.
may I ask what the "better" decision was here?3DS FC: 2063-0061-2915
``if the system is easy to develop for then that just confirms how weak it is" shaunme - 2014dunnyrega posted...El_Zaggy posted...
dunnyrega posted...
HogSplash posted...
I think if Nintendo chose the format, they should eat the loss instead of passing it on to the consumer.
Their games don't cost $10 more than the average game so they should do what's right to get the third party titles in line with the competition.
however no Nintendo game is charging the extra 10, only greedy 3rd parties.
nitnendo isnt more greedy. they make more money on their game because they don't have to pay licensing fees or higher cart costs, because they controls the production and distribution process.
so no. 3rd party isnt more greedy. they just want to cover the cost from another bad decision from nintendo
wait, have you worked for a company that makes money? any company has to pay all the fees and licensing before the profit margin is taken into account, yet they don't overcharge the customer or the developers or manufacturers, they bite the bullet to make the sale. sometime to the point of making a 5% of profit only to keep their customers happy, yet I see these companies that always try to make others pay more money so they turn in a profit.
The difference here is that these gamecards(as far as I know) are in-house products that Nintendo has near full control over. I think that was the point he was trying to make. The cost of these cards are a much bigger deal for the parties than they are for Nintendo themselves"Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away."Rolfin posted...dunnyrega posted...
El_Zaggy posted...
dunnyrega posted...
HogSplash posted...
I think if Nintendo chose the format, they should eat the loss instead of passing it on to the consumer.
Their games don't cost $10 more than the average game so they should do what's right to get the third party titles in line with the competition.
however no Nintendo game is charging the extra 10, only greedy 3rd parties.
nitnendo isnt more greedy. they make more money on their game because they don't have to pay licensing fees or higher cart costs, because they controls the production and distribution process.
so no. 3rd party isnt more greedy. they just want to cover the cost from another bad decision from nintendo
wait, have you worked for a company that makes money? any company has to pay all the fees and licensing before the profit margin is taken into account, yet they don't overcharge the customer or the developers or manufacturers, they bite the bullet to make the sale. sometime to the point of making a 5% of profit only to keep their customers happy, yet I see these companies that always try to make others pay more money so they turn in a profit.
The difference here is that these gamecards(as far as I know) are in-house products that Nintendo has near full control over. I think that was the point he was trying to make. The cost of these cards are a much bigger deal for the parties than they are for Nintendo themselves
theres a concept that seems lost on these boards, its called business, and proftmaking, they don't have over 50 BILLION by doing charity work.PSN: Akiradeviruman
quickposter posted... Numbers indicate nothing.Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.I lost my second born daughter. I hope my pain is one you never EVER experience. In loving memory of Iyolah Phaeri Hassan 3-31-2006slightlord posted...Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.
Rime.slyman19 posted...slightlord posted...
Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.
Rime.
Rime came with extras as well. Including a download code for the games original music score. Unsure if $10 worth but not 1:1 still.I lost my second born daughter. I hope my pain is one you never EVER experience. In loving memory of Iyolah Phaeri Hassan 3-31-2006slightlord posted...slyman19 posted...
slightlord posted...
Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.
Rime.
Rime came with extras as well. Including a download code for the games original music score. Unsure if $10 worth but not 1:1 still.
Wasn't there something about not calculating Tantalus' involvement into the Switch port with their budget, causing the cost to be higher even though it doesn't use a large capacity cartridge?"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.Fauch posted...It's amazing that somehow some people seem to live under the impression that the guys making video games are some kind of idiots.
you should know that this site is filled with projectionRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4dunnyrega posted...so we have been making software and compressing since the 80s. I mean I learned at a kid in the 90s. and now the so called professionals cant, or are not good enough to do it? this is why I will never spend a cent ever again on any EA software.
Lol, stop acting like your drug addicted mind can even comprehend this. Yeah, these professionals are using compression you learned in the 90s. All the more sad that you're at least 20 and talk like you haven't even completed middle school.
dunnyrega posted...wait, have you worked for a company that makes money? any company has to pay all the fees and licensing before the profit margin is taken into account, yet they don't overcharge the customer or the developers or manufacturers, they bite the bullet to make the sale. sometime to the point of making a 5% of profit only to keep their customers happy, yet I see these companies that always try to make others pay more money so they turn in a profit.
Lmfao, another braindead post. Everything you said applies to Nintendo more since they control the format and platform and by being greedy themselves, they're just f***ing themselves over.
dunnyrega posted...not true,3DS didn't have this problem, and no japan based developer does either.
Of course you wouldn't understand why 3DS didn't have this issue.
dunnyrega posted...theres a concept that seems lost on these boards, its called business, and proftmaking, they don't have over 50 BILLION by doing charity work.
There's a concept completely lost on you. You have to spend money to make money. Companies take loses all the time but Nintendo wants every penny from 3rd parties. 3rd parties are more doing Nintendo a favor than the other way around. These guys don't need to be on the Switch. Nintendo however should welcome as much on the Switch. Thus it's your own costs that are hurting 3rd parties.
"Hey, come develop for our new console. Please note you'll only make $7.5 a game as opposed to $12.5 on the PS4 because you need to pay us $5 extra in Nintendo fees."
3rd parties are just looking for parity. They're not gonna take a loss on the Switch especially when it's still premature and not a guarantee. They'll just gonna stop f***ing with it altogether or pull shady s*** to make the same amount.
Learn to use your brain sometimes instead of posting like a rabid fanboy all the time. Maybe research things before you try to spew it as fact.*insert sig*slightlord posted...Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.
As I said before, at least in Europe we got totally screwed over with PPT. Digital and physical 40€, no keychains.
PS4 ... 30€.- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- What's your stance on the "cartridge tax"?
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- What's your stance on the "cartridge tax"?
slightlord posted...Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.
It's pretty clear that cards are more expensive than discs, with the only real question being how much more expensive and how far that the real-life cost difference gets stretched into an artificial price difference.
I think that the specific scenario that you're looking for is a bit strict. It's plausible that Nintendo will simply disallow any eShop price that undercuts a suggested retail price, unless there's physical extras. That would explain why those extras exist in the first place - we certainly haven't seen publishers rushing to include random tchotchkes with the base retail version of games on other platforms.cjplaya posted...was the psp game disc really thag much better than a game card?
It was noisy, power-hungry and bulky.
At the time it was just the only reasonable format for storing large amounts of data for game distribution.Want to cure diseases with your spare computing power?
http://folding.stanford.edu/Eoin posted...slightlord posted...
Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.
It's pretty clear that cards are more expensive than discs, with the only real question being how much more expensive and how far that the real-life cost difference gets stretched into an artificial price difference.
I think that the specific scenario that you're looking for is a bit strict. It's plausible that Nintendo will simply disallow any eShop price that undercuts a suggested retail price, unless there's physical extras. That would explain why those extras exist in the first place - we certainly haven't seen publishers rushing to include random tchotchkes with the base retail version of games on other platforms.
To your direct point, I am not disputing that cards cost more than discs and the main thing is to see if the cost difference really is THAT drastic. However, I would think that with even the largest 3DS and Vita games costing $40, that cards cannot be that big of a deal. I mean, I do not know for sure but history is kind to us in this regard.
Nintendo used proprietary hardware with DS, 3DS, Gamecube, and now with Switch and for some reason only Switch is seeing these, "card tax" hikes. Something seems fishy here. Now, it could be greedy Nintendo because of Wii U hurting their business last generation or it could be that publishers and developers are being greedy. Honestly, we are going to need a lot more information in order to understand this situation and that is why I will reserve taking this conversation seriously for the time being.I lost my second born daughter. I hope my pain is one you never EVER experience. In loving memory of Iyolah Phaeri Hassan 3-31-2006One of the benefits of these cards is that they are not region locked. IMO that is a very good move.
On the other, yeah, the price hike sucks. It's pretty funny that the Puyo Tetris physical version came with two keychains, and was $10 more expensive than the digital version. We all know that keychains were not what put the price up."Poop"Nintendo severely overcharges for accessories of all kind. They are by far the cheapest of the big three when it comes to offering discounts for their titles. They're equally known to be the absolute worst and cheapest when it comes to repairs. They also felt free to adjust to the standard of paid online to collect millions that go straight to their pocket while continuing to refuse to follow any and all other standards like graphics, storage, online performances, functionalities and what not, and they put zero effort into doing so either.
So no. I really don't see a reason for that to be excused."Such potential they bring to our minds. And yet a lock stopped you from all of that. How... lazy." - Whiterosethedicemaster posted...is it really all because of cartridges?
the higher price could also be attributed to the fact that the nintendo switch is the "new console", and versions of games for new consoles are often $10-20 more if the game is released on new and old consoles within a year of each other.
and it might be in part because a game bought for the switch works on 2 "platforms": switch handheld, and switch home console(same device, but when it comes to stuff like licenses companies like to exploit every tiny distinction they can find)
If that was the case, PS4 and XBox One games would have been $69.99 over PS360 games. So yes, it is more likely because of carts. And Nintendo.The Internet allows us to make more mistakes faster than any invention in history. With the possible exceptions of Handguns and Tequila!Ulk posted...Nintendo severely overcharges for accessories of all kind. They are by far the cheapest of the big three when it comes to offering discounts for their titles. They're equally known to be the absolute worst and cheapest when it comes to repairs. They also felt free to adjust to the standard of paid online to collect millions that go straight to their pocket while continuing to refuse to follow any and all other standards like graphics, storage, online performances, functionalities and what not, and they put zero effort into doing so either.
So no. I really don't see a reason for that to be excused.
Nintendo is the Apple of gaming. In every aspect including its fanbaseNintendo Switch Friend Code:
0209837474242048207. Add me plzcjplaya posted...I buy digital so this doesn't really bother me but in a sense of being portable was the psp game disc really thag much better than a game card? I like the cards better out of those 2 but I am all digital now
The UMDs used by the PSP were a reasonable solution for the time - they were really the only way, in 2004, to distribute the kind of games that Sony wanted the PSP to be able to play. They had flaws but they had the critical advantage of being able to store 1.8GB and many of the PSP's most popular and best games wouldn't have been possible if it had used the cards available at the time.
The economics of handheld storage have shifted heavily towards on-board storage and external cards, however - with no new consumer optical formats on the horizon, a small UMD-style disc would probably only hold about 10GB and cost more than a game card to make, and require things that a handheld usually can't spare much of - space and power.
slightlord posted...However, I would think that with even the largest 3DS and Vita games costing $40, that cards cannot be that big of a deal. I mean, I do not know for sure but history is kind to us in this regard.
Nintendo used proprietary hardware with DS, 3DS, Gamecube, and now with Switch and for some reason only Switch is seeing these, "card tax" hikes. Something seems fishy here.
The Vita and 3DS cards maxed out at 4GB though. Even if higher capacity cards were technically available, they were never used. That probably held prices down. Both probably also benefited from a lower platform royalty, which would have resulted in a lower cost of getting a game to a shelf. I suspect that they were also constrained by the traditional handheld pricing model and that some publishers would have charged more if they could have. (I half-remember some publishers in fact did charge more for 3DS games, but can't remember the specifics).
GameCube discs were barely proprietary - some PC optical drives can read them. It's almost certain that they cost more to make than DVDs but it probably was not a significant fraction of a game's total price. There are other examples of machines where it's pretty clear that the format made a big difference to the price - the N64 being the most obvious. Switch cards clearly don't have the same kind of huge cost as N64 carts, but I think there's enough of a trend suggesting that, at least for the bigger games, they're a high enough additional cost that there'll often be an impact on price as a result.
slightlord posted...Now, it could be greedy Nintendo because of Wii U hurting their business last generation or it could be that publishers and developers are being greedy.
I don't think it's "greedy" Nintendo - as I mentioned earlier, we even have some approximations that hint that they may have reduced the platform holder fee slightly to partially mitigate this problem.
It's certainly not greedy developers - they don't really get a say in this. Unless they're self-publishing, for Switch games they're under pressure from publishers to keep game size down to save money.
I think this is most likely a pretty simple cost issue.Questionmarktarius posted...Eoin posted...
(I half-remember some publishers in fact did charge more for 3DS games, but can't remember the specifics).
Atlus
The fans put them on a cross for that
They also included trinkets in their physical releases, then again, most NIS and Atlus games do that as pre-order incentivesRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4slightlord posted...Eoin posted...
slightlord posted...
Until there is proof the cartridges are the problem, I withhold my judgement. That is to say, until a game comes out more expensive in cartridge form but cheaper for digital download (Puyo had extras... not 10 dollars worth in my opinion but I want a 1:1) on the same platform, only then will I indulge this conversation with seriousness. Until then, I will either see it as greedy publishers being greedy or I will not look too deeply into it at all.
It's pretty clear that cards are more expensive than discs, with the only real question being how much more expensive and how far that the real-life cost difference gets stretched into an artificial price difference.
I think that the specific scenario that you're looking for is a bit strict. It's plausible that Nintendo will simply disallow any eShop price that undercuts a suggested retail price, unless there's physical extras. That would explain why those extras exist in the first place - we certainly haven't seen publishers rushing to include random tchotchkes with the base retail version of games on other platforms.
To your direct point, I am not disputing that cards cost more than discs and the main thing is to see if the cost difference really is THAT drastic. However, I would think that with even the largest 3DS and Vita games costing $40, that cards cannot be that big of a deal. I mean, I do not know for sure but history is kind to us in this regard.
Nintendo used proprietary hardware with DS, 3DS, Gamecube, and now with Switch and for some reason only Switch is seeing these, "card tax" hikes. Something seems fishy here. Now, it could be greedy Nintendo because of Wii U hurting their business last generation or it could be that publishers and developers are being greedy. Honestly, we are going to need a lot more information in order to understand this situation and that is why I will reserve taking this conversation seriously for the time being.
The Switch is a different beast, though. Not only is the hardware proprietary to Nintendo, but it's completely different from the competitors, AND the games are console-quality rather than handheld quality. 3DS games have always been cheaper to develop because they were smaller and more focused (and way less graphically intensive), this isn't true of actual well-made Switch games. This is also why the GameCube didn't suffer this problem, because it was still a disc, still really cheap to produce.
I really don't put it past Nintendo to be trying to fleece publishers by charging excessive amounts to use their cartridges. The same thing was visible back in the N64 era, I seem to recall that the N64 versions of games were often more expensive than their PlayStation counterparts, in the few instances where a game was released on both. "Megaman Legends" and "Resident Evil 2" come to mind.slightlord posted...To your direct point, I am not disputing that cards cost more than discs and the main thing is to see if the cost difference really is THAT drastic. However, I would think that with even the largest 3DS and Vita games costing $40, that cards cannot be that big of a deal. I mean, I do not know for sure but history is kind to us in this regard.
To be fair, there's no 3DS game on cart larger than 4GB, and most aren't even that large.
From a cursory glance, it seems this is the case with the Vita as well, but I'm not 100% sure because finding good data on that is harder because no one cares about the Vita.Now Playing
Zelda BOTW Master Mode (Switch), Tales of Berseria (PC), Witcher 3 (PC)Accrovideogames posted...BladeManEXE posted...
You can't shove an optical disc drive into a device that will be used portably.
The PSP says hi.
And UMDs could easily be scratched, required large amounts of loading because the disc couldn't be read as quickly, and caused the PSP to have a large thickness to house that reader and the UMD.
There's a reason Vita didn't have UMDs or some other disc format.DuranmanX4 posted...Questionmarktarius posted...
Eoin posted...
(I half-remember some publishers in fact did charge more for 3DS games, but can't remember the specifics).
Atlus
The fans put them on a cross for that
They also included trinkets in their physical releases, then again, most NIS and Atlus games do that as pre-order incentives
Capcom tried it too. They were gonna price Revelations at $50 but the backlash was so severe they dropped it back down to $40 before release.Play games, not companies.There is no cartridge tax, otherwise there would be price hikes across the board (which there isnt). You have third parties and indies charging more for no other reason than because they can. The real question you should be asking is "why are digital games still full price when they dont have the same distribution costs of physical copies?"
And to the people bringing up the 64, N64 games were $10 more than their Sony counterparts but the 64s pricing troubles were mostly because of price gouging. $70-90 was not the MSRP.Check out my channel!
http://twitch.tv/travisaxelNewMoonShadow posted...slightlord posted...
Eoin posted...
slightlord posted...
It's pretty clear that cards are more expensive than discs, with the only real question being how much more expensive and how far that the real-life cost difference gets stretched into an artificial price difference.
I think that the specific scenario that you're looking for is a bit strict. It's plausible that Nintendo will simply disallow any eShop price that undercuts a suggested retail price, unless there's physical extras. That would explain why those extras exist in the first place - we certainly haven't seen publishers rushing to include random tchotchkes with the base retail version of games on other platforms.
To your direct point, I am not disputing that cards cost more than discs and the main thing is to see if the cost difference really is THAT drastic. However, I would think that with even the largest 3DS and Vita games costing $40, that cards cannot be that big of a deal. I mean, I do not know for sure but history is kind to us in this regard.
Nintendo used proprietary hardware with DS, 3DS, Gamecube, and now with Switch and for some reason only Switch is seeing these, "card tax" hikes. Something seems fishy here. Now, it could be greedy Nintendo because of Wii U hurting their business last generation or it could be that publishers and developers are being greedy. Honestly, we are going to need a lot more information in order to understand this situation and that is why I will reserve taking this conversation seriously for the time being.
The Switch is a different beast, though. Not only is the hardware proprietary to Nintendo, but it's completely different from the competitors, AND the games are console-quality rather than handheld quality. 3DS games have always been cheaper to develop because they were smaller and more focused (and way less graphically intensive), this isn't true of actual well-made Switch games. This is also why the GameCube didn't suffer this problem, because it was still a disc, still really cheap to produce.
I really don't put it past Nintendo to be trying to fleece publishers by charging excessive amounts to use their cartridges. The same thing was visible back in the N64 era, I seem to recall that the N64 versions of games were often more expensive than their PlayStation counterparts, in the few instances where a game was released on both. "Megaman Legends" and "Resident Evil 2" come to mind.
This post I will address even though there are many replies.
1) You are not going to tell me Smash Bros. and Monster Hunter are not, "console quality" titles. Resident Evil Revelations and Metal Gear on 3DS fit this mold as well. While you can argue there is a difference in most hand held vs home console games, the gap was closing rather quickly last generation with some (Smash Bros.) reaching parity with home console in terms of quality and content. Also, if Nintendo does not dictate the price of third party titles, then I think it is also safe to say they may not dictate the price parity between download and physical versions of said titles. We do not know so we cannot just assume there.
2) Gamecube did suffer the same problem. It was proprietary Nintendo hardware that was different than and charged differently than the competitors. It also used smaller space than its competitors. Despite that, every game came out with parity in price. I hope everyone reads this, every game, even if using 2 discs on Gamecube and only one of Playstation 2, came out at price parity.
3) I do not put it beyond Nintendo to fleece developers. I also do not put it past publishers to fleece their consumers. Business can be dirty at any point.I lost my second born daughter. I hope my pain is one you never EVER experience. In loving memory of Iyolah Phaeri Hassan 3-31-2006Ulk posted...Nintendo severely overcharges for accessories of all kind. They are by far the cheapest of the big three when it comes to offering discounts for their titles. They're equally known to be the absolute worst and cheapest when it comes to repairs. They also felt free to adjust to the standard of paid online to collect millions that go straight to their pocket while continuing to refuse to follow any and all other standards like graphics, storage, online performances, functionalities and what not, and they put zero effort into doing so either.
So no. I really don't see a reason for that to be excused.
^ Nintendo's arrogance knows no bounds.#1 Paper Mario fan on this website. GOAT series (2001-2007) http://i.imgur.com/Aemgqnt.pngQuestionmarktarius posted...slyman19 posted...
The PSP worked just fine with a disc drive.
A disc that size at bluray density would be maybe 20GB.
Solid-state carts don't really have an upper limit, or it's some absurd number by comparison (somewhere in the realm of a handful of terabytes, currently)
Look, if you don't understand the conversation, keep your trap shut. Thanks.alienfreaks04 posted...Extra cost? Aren't the new games $60?
this generally applies to smaller games that are 30 or 40 on PS4 or XBox One and 40 or 50 on Switch
fortunately there is no case AFAIK of a standard edition Switch game that costs 70 or moreRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4DuranmanX4 posted...alienfreaks04 posted...
Extra cost? Aren't the new games $60?
this generally applies to smaller games that are 30 or 40 on PS4 or XBox One and 40 or 50 on Switch
fortunately there is no case AFAIK of a standard edition Switch game that costs 70 or more
I don't believe we'll be seeing that any time soon either"Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away."DuranmanX4 posted...Questionmarktarius posted...
Eoin posted...
(I half-remember some publishers in fact did charge more for 3DS games, but can't remember the specifics).
Atlus
The fans put them on a cross for that
They also included trinkets in their physical releases, then again, most NIS and Atlus games do that as pre-order incentives
They also discounted the digital versions very frequently and at relatively generous prices eventually.- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- What's your stance on the "cartridge tax"?
No comments:
Post a Comment