Nintendo Switch

[Flojomojo]

I was afraid and figured cards that wouldn't be big enough. While 32 gigs is a lot it's still not enough for a lot of modern games. I pretty much buy Nintendo systems for only Nintendo games so it doesn't effect me too much. On the other hand though people want to play the big AAA games on their systems too. That's not good in the big picture.

I suspect Nintendo's house style won't need that much storage, because not everything needs to look photorealistic. I was shocked to read that Breath of the Wild needs 14GB. That's the biggest Nintendo game by far, on any platform.

 

I'm going to stick with the built-in storage for as long as I can, then buy the sweet spot of the biggest and fastest microSD at the time when I need it. When the 3DS came out, 64GB SD cards were impossibly big, now they're the price of a burrito.

[Punisher5.0]

The 32 gig limit is just a deterrent for developers. In the next few years it probably will be even less of a big deal as more and more people switch to digital games.

[adamchevy]

I found a few pre orders still available for the breath of the wild amiibo's and the Switch procontroller on the GameStop website.

[Flojomojo]

The 32 gig limit is just a deterrent for developers. In the next few years it probably will be even less of a big deal as more and more people switch to digital games.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the 32GB cartridge size ceiling is a deterrent to developers, to make them optimize their games and not use an expensive storage box? Or are you talking about the 32GB onboard storage, which is a deterrent to developers, to make them optimize their games and not hog up the whole user space on the Switch?

 

Either way, I'm for it. The biggest iOS games are only a few GBs, and they look plenty fine to me (Aspyr ports of KOTOR and Jade Empire, Gameloft high production value games, etc). Add some Nintendo polish and all will be well. Games don't have to be big to be fun.

[adamchevy]

I'm really excited to collect Nintendo carts once again. I probably won't buy digital, unless I don't have a choice. Like shovel knight for example.

[BillLoguidice]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the 32GB cartridge size ceiling is a deterrent to developers, to make them optimize their games and not use an expensive storage box? Or are you talking about the 32GB onboard storage, which is a deterrent to developers, to make them optimize their games and not hog up the whole user space on the Switch?

 

Either way, I'm for it. The biggest iOS games are only a few GBs, and they look plenty fine to me (Aspyr ports of KOTOR and Jade Empire, Gameloft high production value games, etc). Add some Nintendo polish and all will be well. Games don't have to be big to be fun.

 

I think the 32GB cartridge limit, permanent or not, is more or less acceptable. I do think the 32GB of onboard storage can be a potential issue when it comes to third party game support, particularly since some of the most popular third party games on PS4 and Xbox One take up the type of space that I mentioned in my other message. Sure, the Switch appears to be easily expandable, and, presumably, the slot can be used seamlessly, but, naturally, developers can't count on any Switch owners having any more than the 32GB of onboard storage (versus a minimum of 500GB on both PS4 and Xbox One).

 

Now, with that said, presumably the throughput of the cartridge is such that, unlike on the PS4 and Xbox One, you won't need to copy over most of the game to maintain optimal performance. That really comes into play though when we're talking digital versions of these games. I know I sure as hell plan on getting most of my stuff post-Launch Window digitally, just like I do on all my other systems (no interest in swapping media in and out these days). Ultimately, I guess it's all trade-off with positives and negatives to both approaches, but I think it clearly points to the very real possibility that some of the biggest (in all ways) third party games will never get ported to the Switch, at least in the same design as their PC, PS4, and Xbox One counterparts. Shades of the Wii there, I guess.

 

Anyway, if you're like me and think of the Switch as a companion system, I don't think missing out on that type of software is a big deal, but, I do worry about the greater PERCEPTION of the Switch. Of the many reasons why it failed, certainly the PERCEPTION of the Wii U didn't help it. The Switch is definitely not in a position to give people reasons not to get it.

[Andromeda Stardust]

/Blu ray discs are like what 25 or 50GB if they're double sized. Is a soft(?) cap of 32GB on a current listing of Switch cards that big of a deal? The system we know can be upgraded to read larger media. It can do SD and SDHC with a system update SDXC cards and those go up to 2TB in size for the storage choices people can buy. Perhaps the up to 32 is just what exists now so something like Skyrim can fit into being released this year later on. I imagine as part and manufacturing costs drop they could easily pump out a 64GB card or perhaps more. I'd think more than anything it's cost dictating the card size over a hard system limit. People are going to have to use these to brand games on them to sell at retail so the higher than go in size the less room for profit unless they can/are allowed to price over a $60 MSRP limit. And even if they could go higher, would a buyer tolerate it? I doubt it.

Agreed Tanooki.

 

32Gb per game (max) is really a metric ton of storage. It isn't Nintendo's fault modern developers can't be arsed to reuse assets within a game engine or even apply modest compression. FLAC or PNG gives pretty good size reduction for royalty free lossless compression of audio and images if they are concerned about quality, and decompressing into RAM when loading a stage or level causes very little processing overhead. With 60Gb mandatory installs on PS4/XB1, it seems like modern developers really don't give an ass how big their games are or if Jonny has enough room on his 500Gb system to install ten games without deleting something, or data overages or inconveniences cause by waiting 12+ hours or more to install a game. Also they can take their 10+ Gb "day one" DLC mega-patches and shove them where the sun don't shine...

 

I mean, look at games like Super Mario 3D world or Mario Kart 8. Breathtaking HD visuals but if you inspect the stages closely you will notice assets such as ground textures repeated again and again, but it's okay because the stages themselves are seamless and beautiful. One could technically use the same bump map for sand/dirt over again in different stages by applying different colors to it, or reuse a grass texture for fur (though "fur" effects are generally prohibitively expensive to use in realtime and are only used in post-processing for pre-rendered scenes ie CGI).

 

I also have hope beyond hope that a section of data on the 32Gb cards could be reserved for downloadable updates installed diretly to the card along with the save file so that games retain their updates, DLC, and save data when moved between systems. That may be speculation, but if the Switch cards are made with long life data retention flash, it's definitely a possibility. 32Gb cards are probably well under $10 in quantity now, so 64Gb cards may come sooner after launch than we expect. And because they use high speed flash, there is no need for mandatory installs like all the modern 50Gb Bluray drive systems are currently plagued with.

 

I'm honestly surprised 4k UHD BluRay 100Gb discs even work given the slow nature of serial reads from optical media.

 

I suspect Nintendo's house style won't need that much storage, because not everything needs to look photorealistic. I was shocked to read that Breath of the Wild needs 14GB. That's the biggest Nintendo game by far, on any platform.

I'm not surprised. Wasn't DK Tropical Freeze 17Gb? Unbelievable for a pseudo 2D game. I downloaded it for free with Platinum Promotion after I got my 128Gb USB stick. I actually had to sit on my download code for a few days until I could go to the store to buy the flash drive, but all went well after the drive was formatted and installed.

[Tanooki]

I'd like to contribute two things here.

 

I went poking around thanks to a post on racketboy about memory cards for the Switch. I wanted to find out the most bang for the buck. I also wanted to know perhaps if Nintendo would be going into having games that install to the system (or card) in part. The first part I found online, the second I texted my brother about and while he did not know, he did tip me off to something I'm sure is public but I overlooked. Switch game cards are read only, there is no writing to them at all...no saves, no updates, nothing. This means any future patches, updates, or other fluff will go right on the system and/or the Micro SD card.

 

That said, point one.

Go here: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-microsd-card/

That was done in March of last year, all the top of the line best known memory cards. Rated on a bar graph among many points of interest for performance. In the end to save you the trouble, this card was the best for read, write (under multiple instances) versus price (still one of the highest top end over all price not factored in.)

Samsung EVO+ 64GB card -- Costs $28 (ship free PRIME) on amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Memory-Adapter-MB-MC64DA-AM/dp/B01273JZMG/ref=pd_sim_147_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01273JZMG&pd_rd_r=HYTCSNW7850B08YB0FCZ&pd_rd_w=bwEXa&pd_rd_wg=h9lQ3&psc=1&refRID=HYTCSNW7850B08YB0FCZ

 

Read the article if you're getting a Switch this is an asset. The 128GB card goes for $45 on Amazon too. They both have the same read/write values just twice the storage.

 

Depending if you'll be downloading a bunch of games instead of buying real copies of your games, or you're a eShop/Virtual console junky the 128 may be a solid choice. Also thanks to NO saving on the game cards, all your save games will start out on the system, as will any patches, and then to the SD card afterward.

 

I think I'll most likely get the 64GB card. I'm not much for game rentals. I figure if I run out of space, as the prices drop the 128GB will then do just fine. In ONE week Samsung will have the 256GB card out and it costs $135 just so you have perspective if money is not a concern.

[Punisher5.0]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the 32GB cartridge size ceiling is a deterrent to developers, to make them optimize their games and not use an expensive storage box? Or are you talking about the 32GB onboard storage, which is a deterrent to developers, to make them optimize their games and not hog up the whole user space on the Switch?

 

Either way, I'm for it. The biggest iOS games are only a few GBs, and they look plenty fine to me (Aspyr ports of KOTOR and Jade Empire, Gameloft high production value games, etc). Add some Nintendo polish and all will be well. Games don't have to be big to be fun.

 

The carts. Your supposed to make systems dev friendly so they want to make games for it. Nintendo will have no problem with 32 gig carts but others will find it to be restricting. DOOM for instance is probably 80 gigs now after the updates.

 

I guess it's nothing new. The last time Nintendo had comparable sized medium to the competition was the 16 bit days. I'm not complaining about this as it doesn't effect me but I view it as a real potential problem for the Switch.

[Flojomojo]

The carts. Your supposed to make systems dev friendly so they want to make games for it. Nintendo will have no problem with 32 gig carts but others will find it to be restricting. DOOM for instance is probably 80 gigs now after the updates.

 

I guess it's nothing new. The last time Nintendo had comparable sized medium to the competition was the 16 bit days. I'm not complaining about this as it doesn't effect me but I view it as a real potential problem for the Switch.

I would think "developer friendly" would mean having good libraries for easy programming, and lots of sales so you can make your money back. The specs hogs aren't going to be on a Nintendo platform anyway, I wouldn't cry over their absence. DOOM 2016 would need a special custom edition if they even decide to bring a bloodbath like that to this cute machine.

 

Not that these are the only two options, but given the choice between (a) a quick port of an existing title, cut down to fit on the Switch, or (b) a custom game built from the ground up and designed to play to the Switch's strengths, I know which one I would prefer.

 

For what it's worth, iOS development is similar -- easy porting isn't encouraged unless you're heavily leveraging something like Unity.

 

We know that Nintendo has unified its 3DS and Wii U teams so they're all working on the same platform. We also know that Unreal Engine and Unity development tools will be supported by this platform.

 

I know people like to dump on the N64, but I liked that it got a ton of exclusives that were in the (b) category of games made for the Switch. If this is half as fun, I'll be satisfied.

[Austin]

Didn't Nintendo state previously that the system has the capability to read carts larger than 32GB? I can see them raising the sizes as needed later on down the road when the tech and price allows.

 

Then again, we are talking about a platform that's basically on the same level as the Wii U. 32GB should be plenty for most situations.

[Flojomojo]

You might be thinking of the microSD spec, which goes up to 2TB (but doesn't exist yet, at least not at consumer prices)

[Tanooki]

I don't recall that, just that they said the SD card slot has a launch update for SDXC and that it starts at 32GB and can go up to 2TB as time rolls along and cards get bigger. But really, it would make no sense for them in the firmware or otherwise to lock down the ability of the system to only read a 32GB card while allowing your backup microSD media to hit 2TB. As long as it's affordable there's no reason to think they wouldn't allow larger cards. Odds are right now they won't offer over 32GB because a 64GB card would end up causing the retail title to exceed the $60MSRP for games which would drive off a lot of buyers. Think of it like N64 which was just brought up a post before. When it came out the best sized games on it were 64Mbit carts (8MB for stuff like Super Mario 64.) By the time the system expired you has 512Mbit (64MB) carts such as Resident Evil 2 and Conker's Bad Fur Day. The system was more than capable, but price wise could you imagine how much RE2 or Conker's would have cost in 1996 instead of in 99/00? Price dictates availability.

[bretthorror]

People who think these small microSD cards are going to get you anywhere are 100% completely, totally off base. This is going to be the bane of the system and anyone who actually games in this modern era would see that in a heartbeat. I now have to delete shit on my 500 GB Xbox One and it's not like I'm exactly rolling in games for it. Zelda is a launch title and essentially a Wii U game and it needs 13 gigs. The system takes up space, too. Do the math, and this is just everyone's day one purchase. It's basically shipping with no storage and buying multiple SD cards for the system's lifespan is going to be costly and inconvenient.

 

For any half serious gamer, a 64 GB card minimum is gonna be needed basically out of the gate, which is what it should have shipped with so that at least you could get a cheap, small SD to get you through for a while after your large launch price purchase of the unit, games, case, screen protector, etc. since these are basically required for a portable unit with touch. And 64 itself isn't gonna get you anywhere within a year... assuming it gets any games.

[Andromeda Stardust]

I'd like to contribute two things here.

 

I went poking around thanks to a post on racketboy about memory cards for the Switch. I wanted to find out the most bang for the buck. I also wanted to know perhaps if Nintendo would be going into having games that install to the system (or card) in part. The first part I found online, the second I texted my brother about and while he did not know, he did tip me off to something I'm sure is public but I overlooked. Switch game cards are read only, there is no writing to them at all...no saves, no updates, nothing. This means any future patches, updates, or other fluff will go right on the system and/or the Micro SD card.

 

That said, point one.

Go here: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-microsd-card/

That was done in March of last year, all the top of the line best known memory cards. Rated on a bar graph among many points of interest for performance. In the end to save you the trouble, this card was the best for read, write (under multiple instances) versus price (still one of the highest top end over all price not factored in.)

Samsung EVO+ 64GB card -- Costs $28 (ship free PRIME) on amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Memory-Adapter-MB-MC64DA-AM/dp/B01273JZMG/ref=pd_sim_147_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01273JZMG&pd_rd_r=HYTCSNW7850B08YB0FCZ&pd_rd_w=bwEXa&pd_rd_wg=h9lQ3&psc=1&refRID=HYTCSNW7850B08YB0FCZ

 

Read the article if you're getting a Switch this is an asset. The 128GB card goes for $45 on Amazon too. They both have the same read/write values just twice the storage.

 

Depending if you'll be downloading a bunch of games instead of buying real copies of your games, or you're a eShop/Virtual console junky the 128 may be a solid choice. Also thanks to NO saving on the game cards, all your save games will start out on the system, as will any patches, and then to the SD card afterward.

 

I think I'll most likely get the 64GB card. I'm not much for game rentals. I figure if I run out of space, as the prices drop the 128GB will then do just fine. In ONE week Samsung will have the 256GB card out and it costs $135 just so you have perspective if money is not a concern.

Samsung 200Gb MicroSD for $69 on Amazon. Technically it is a 128+64Gb flash chip, 192 binary Gigabytes total, or approximately 183Gb after formatting, according to Windows. 192binary Gigabytes = 206 decimal Gigabytes, hence listing it as 200 instead of 192. Sloppy math, I know. I ordered one and full-formatted it ExFAT on my PC using the SD Formatter. Ironically the thing shipped unformatted, if you can believe that...

[Keatah]

Costs time to format it. If they can get you to do it, why should they bother with it themselves?

[Atariboy]

Was glancing at a Wii U Pro Controller compatibility list and didn't see Lego City Undercover listed. While the Wii U gamepad is fine and I've always liked it, that's another reason to wait on this one and play it here instead.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Atariboy

[Flojomojo]

People who think these small microSD cards are going to get you anywhere are 100% completely, totally off base. This is going to be the bane of the system and anyone who actually games in this modern era would see that in a heartbeat. I now have to delete shit on my 500 GB Xbox One and it's not like I'm exactly rolling in games for it. Zelda is a launch title and essentially a Wii U game and it needs 13 gigs. The system takes up space, too. Do the math, and this is just everyone's day one purchase. It's basically shipping with no storage and buying multiple SD cards for the system's lifespan is going to be costly and inconvenient.

 

For any half serious gamer, a 64 GB card minimum is gonna be needed basically out of the gate, which is what it should have shipped with so that at least you could get a cheap, small SD to get you through for a while after your large launch price purchase of the unit, games, case, screen protector, etc. since these are basically required for a portable unit with touch. And 64 itself isn't gonna get you anywhere within a year... assuming it gets any games.

There are two things under discussion here -- the capacity of manufactured physical game cartridges (up to 32GB right now, unknown whether that is set or flexible in the future), and the microSD card spec.

 

A 64GB MicroSD card is a small card nowadays, super cheap too. It needn't be a day one purchase, because there aren't many games out now. They can always be added later. I say wait until you need it, and get the best deal on price vs capacity.

 

Xbone's external storage is great. I connected an old 4TB drive when I got mine, and it's only half full, despite storing over 200 games, mostly backwards compatible tiny Xbox 360 Arcade games, but also everything offered with the Gold deal and the whole EA Access library. The 2TB Seagate external is under $100 and is small and green. Space problems on Xbone and PS4 are easily solved with external storage. It's cool that PS4 is finally on board with that.

 

"Cleaning out the fridge" is real, but I think we'll be okay. The SD card slot looks accessible on the Switch so multiple cards shouldn't be a big deal either -- unlike the 3DS or Vita.

[Schizophretard]

The SD card slot looks accessible on the Switch so multiple cards shouldn't be a big deal either -- unlike the 3DS or Vita.

The Vita's SD cards are also proprietary, expensive, and one of the primary reasons that are given for it not even coming close to being as popular as the PSP was. So, the Switch using non-proprietary ones makes it immune to that issue.

 

Also, the game cards for the DS were 8-512 MB, 3DS were 1-8 GB, Vita were 2-4 GB, and the PSP's UMD was 900 MB-1.8 GB. So, I don't see how currently the Switch going up to 32 GB could be seen as anything but a major improvement for handheld gaming.

[Flojomojo]

The Vita's SD cards are also proprietary, expensive, and one of the primary reasons that are given for it not even coming close to being as popular as the PSP was. So, the Switch using non-proprietary ones makes it immune to that issue.

PSP had proprietary memory sticks in addition to their ridiculous UMD physical media. It strikes me as damned peculiar to limit the appeal of your digital store by limiting how much people can buy and download. And this is coming from someone who splashed out over $100 to get a 64GB Vita card from Japan.

 

At least one of the Switch carrying cases seems to have space for storing microSD cards. I don't want to get into the habit of swapping tiny memory cards out, but it's nice to know it might be an option if necessary.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Was glancing at a Wii U Pro Controller compatibility list and didn't see Lego City Undercover listed. While the Wii U gamepad is fine and I've always liked it, that's another reason to wait on this one and play it here instead.

Lego City has some clever usage of the Gamepad. It utilizes the Gyro controls (stick also works to change viewpoint) as part of the spy gear Chase uses to spot and detect criminal activity, as well as an HUD and map.

 

Overall it's a great game but absolutely requires the gamepad. My only complaint is the looooong loading screens when transitioning between the hub city and the special stage areas of the game. Expect to see a lot of the rotating badge while the stage loads.

 

That said, aside from gimmicky NintendoLand, Lego City Undercover and Pikmin 3 make some of the best usage of the Gamepad of any Wii-U games I've played (I haven't tried Splatoon).

[Tanooki]

Brett you're being overkill on that. The games themselves if you're not a digital renter won't apply to eating up space other than save games and potentially and bug fixes/DLC additions. 32GB should last someone who buys physical media a good little while. They're also using off the shelf memory cards so the prices are far less steep than the game of abuse Sony did with PSP and Vita memory card (I had both systems.)

 

Sure the One and PS4 have 500GB HDDs that run out with like 10 games installed, but you do see the key word there...installed. They all require it, usually vast amounts of data to keep up with the slow reading drives to speed up usage and minimize waits on load screens. The Switch evades the install problem and the speed issue greatly too using a mini sized game card/cart instead.

 

Yes it was dumb only having 32GB in there, but it should last a lot of people a good little while until they need to buy some memory card. A 64GB card should be enough for probably most people to ever bother with as it will stack with the 32GB in there, probably after the OS eats some leaving around 90GB for DLC and patches, some digital games too. That's not bad, not great but not bad either. If someone chooses to go all digital, that's their problem to figure out a solution or just not buy it.

 

 

I believe Nintendo said via that set of USB ports weren't they not blocking the future option of an external drive? Found it...possible via USB2.0 port, but at launch it is not enabled to do so but it could be -> http://www.nintendo-insider.com/2017/01/nintendo-conflicted-on-nintendo-switch-external-hard-drive-support/

[Gentlegamer]

Lego City has some clever usage of the Gamepad. It utilizes the Gyro controls (stick also works to change viewpoint) as part of the spy gear Chase uses to spot and detect criminal activity, as well as an HUD and map.

 

Overall it's a great game but absolutely requires the gamepad. My only complaint is the looooong loading screens when transitioning between the hub city and the special stage areas of the game. Expect to see a lot of the rotating badge while the stage loads.

 

That said, aside from gimmicky NintendoLand, Lego City Undercover and Pikmin 3 make some of the best usage of the Gamepad of any Wii-U games I've played (I haven't tried Splatoon).

 

Aiming the bow in Twilight Princess HD with motion control works quite well, too.

[BillLoguidice]

I had high hopes for Lego City Undercover, hoping it would be the Wii U's first great third party game. Long load times and a large amount of bugs sucked the fun out of the thing. I'm frankly much more interested in Lego Worlds than a fixed version of Lego City Undercover.

[adamchevy]

I'm glad to see that Nintendo is going to have DLC for their upcoming Zelda Game. That's going to be....fun.