Hacking Question When will a free XCI Backup Loader be released?

[Purple_Heart]

the main purpose of xci is piracy.....and that is one of main reason devs wont do it

 

[Imancol]

Bla, bla, bla, bla

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Advantages and Disadvantages of XCI & NSP:

XCI: Advantages> Better transfer speed (HDD); Disadvantages> Less secure.
NSP: Advantages>More secure; Disadvantages> Lower transfer speed (MicroSD)


Leave the drama.

 

[MasterJ360]

Yeah, the usage of a "super" XCI always seemed strange to me. On the one hand, it preserves SD space, but on the other hand, how important is SD space if you're using XCI files for the base games anyway? It's also incredibly inefficient to redownload or repackage the same base game with each new update and/or DLC.

When a new update or DLC comes out, I only have to download that new thing.

Super xci's don't need to be deleted you just add on more dlc's and newer updates overwrite outdated ones. Yes it can be a hassle towards "actively supported" games, but even the said xci user has options for that. He/she can just install the dlc or new updates from HBG and be done with that. SD space is still being preserved here b/c the base game is on a HDD while the dlc/updates or on the SD. Now do you see why some ppl want this? If you are a 100% portable user then you obviously wouldn't care for HDD mounting it shouldn't even be a debate b/c its a preference. Transfer speed on the other hand is not the same as installing it only took me 5 mins to move over 40gb of data "3 super xci games" over to my 8TB seagate expansion and a little less than 1 min to hook up the hdd to the switch.

 

[Lacius]

Super xci's don't need to be deleted you just add on more dlc's and newer updates overwrite outdated ones.

Like I said, it's inefficient to redownload or repackage the same base game with each new update and/or DLC.

He/she can just install the dlc or new updates from HBG and be done with that.

Then we are not talking about any benefits of a super XCI anymore. That's more inefficient than what I was previously talking about.

Now do you see why some ppl want this?

I completely understand why a person might want to use an HDD (cheaper space), and I understand why one might want to use a super XCI on an HDD (shifting update and DLC to the aforementioned cheaper storage). My only points are that a.) It requires sacrificing some or all portability, and b.) A super XCI is inefficient when it comes to updates and DLC.

If you are a 100% portable user then you obviously wouldn't care for HDD mounting it shouldn't even be a debate b/c its a preference.

I play portably about 50% of the time. The problem is this doesn't translate to being able to store ~50% of my games on a HDD. To use an HDD, I'd have to consciously pick games to not play portably, and that's overly cumbersome for a lot of people. I have a 256 GB SD card (plus the ~32 GB internal storage), and I've never had space issues. In addition to remaining portable, I don't have to worry about repackaging super XCI files with the latest updates and/or DLC.

Transfer speed on the other hand is not the same as installing it only took me 5 mins to move over 40gb of data "3 super xci games" over to my 8TB seagate expansion and a little less than 1 min to hook up the hdd to the switch.

Transfer times are going to vary. If we combine download times, transfer times, etc., the end results are probably going to be comparable.

 

[Rune]

Whats the big deal with having to repack XCIs with updates when games arent even supported with new content all the time?
You can get a super XCI of something like Breath of the Wild for example, with all the content you need and not have to worry about making a new XCI because there's not going to be anything new coming out for it.

You're only repacking XCIs for current games that are still being supported. You can just as easily stick to NSP updates in the meantime and make a super XCI in the end once all the DLC have been released.

 

[MasterJ360]

Like I said, it's inefficient to redownload or repackage the same base game with each new update and/or DLC.


Then we are not talking about any benefits of a super XCI anymore. That's more inefficient than what I was previously talking about.


I completely understand why a person might want to use an HDD (cheaper space), and I understand why one might want to use a super XCI on an HDD (shifting update and DLC to the aforementioned cheaper storage). My only points are that a.) It requires sacrificing some or all portability, and b.) A super XCI is inefficient when it comes to updates and DLC.


I play portably about 50% of the time. The problem is this doesn't translate to being able to store ~50% of my games on a HDD. To use an HDD, I'd have to consciously pick games to not play portably, and that's overly cumbersome for a lot of people. I have a 256 GB SD card (plus the ~32 GB internal storage), and I've never had space issues. In addition to remaining portable, I don't have to worry about repackaging super XCI files with the latest updates and/or DLC.


Transfer times are going to vary. If we combine download times, transfer times, etc., the end results are probably going to be comparable.

Its inefficient b/c its not timely convenient for you. Repackaging is optional and only should matter or be used often to those who are trying to use newer games on an older firmware. And again thats only seems "inefficient" when the said game continues to get constant updates primarily new games.
I cant and wont speak on portability b/c it leans more on personal preference than a factor to be used in the argument. I for one use my sxos Switch as a home console and that is why im ok with some portability loss. Even so, putting my favorite "xci" games on the SD card cures that problem. Just as you pointed out transfer times vary so its not a general comparison towards installs as you previously claimed it was. PC specs and the speed of the said HDD determines the outcome. You have to keep in mind that your space management doesn't speak for everybody.

Ya know.. what really bothers me is that the Switch isn't the 1st hacked console to load backups from a HDD infact it was more popular in demand back in the wii, wii u and ps3 days and here we are making a big deal about who uses what. Like what are we really arguing about?

 

[Lacius]

Its inefficient b/c its not timely convenient for you. Repackaging is optional and only should matter to those who are trying to use newer games on an older firmware. And again thats only seems "inefficient" when the said game continues to get constant updates primarily new games.

No, having to repackage the base game with newer update and/or DLC files, and overwrite the entire super XCI on the HDD, are demonstrably inefficient. This has to be done each time a new update or DLC comes out (assuming you want the update and/or DLC). I'm not talking about anything related to playing on lower system versions.

This isn't a matter of opinion. You're resending (or worse, redownloading) the same base file over and over again.

Just as you pointed out transfer times vary so its not a general comparison as you previously claimed it was. PC specs and the speed of the said HDD determines the outcome.

If you look back at my previous posts in this thread, you will see that my argument has been that XCI transfer times are comparable to NSP install times, since people have mistakenly stated that the latter requires more steps. I also acknowledged that downloading games/updates directly to the system using something like HBG is often faster than downloading an XCI files and then sending it to an HDD, since HBG installs as it downloads. Comparing USB HDD speeds to SD transfer speeds, for example, isn't particularly interesting to me, since it doesn't matter.

You have to keep in mind that your space management doesn't speak for everybody.

I don't get the feeling you're being disingenuous, but I never claimed my space management applied to anyone other than me. I've also acknowledged numerous times that HDD storage is cheaper than SD storage. However, people generally don't care about HDD storage because they have SD storage, and SD storage doesn't hinder portability.

 

[MasterJ360]

No, having to repackage the base game with newer update and/or DLC files, and overwrite the entire super XCI on the HDD, are demonstrably inefficient. This has to be done each time a new update or DLC comes out (assuming you want the update and/or DLC). I'm not talking about anything related to playing on lower system versions.

This isn't a matter of opinion. You're resending (or worse, redownloading) the same base file over and over again.


If you look back at my previous posts in this thread, you will see that my argument has been that XCI transfer times are comparable to NSP install times, since people have mistakenly stated that the latter requires more steps. I also acknowledged that downloading games/updates directly to the system using something like HBG is often faster than downloading an XCI files and then sending it to an HDD, since HBG installs as it downloads. Comparing USB HDD speeds to SD transfer speeds, for example, isn't particularly interesting to me, since it doesn't matter.


I don't get the feeling you're being disingenuous, but I never claimed my space management applied to anyone other than me. I've also acknowledged numerous times that HDD storage is cheaper than SD storage. However, people generally don't care about HDD storage because they have SD storage, and SD storage doesn't hinder portability.

Nope the entire argument went from xci is bad to playing games on a HDD is inferior, its not even about xci b/c well.... xci can be installed just as an nsp can...
"This isn't a matter of opinion. You're resending (or worse, redownloading) the same base file over and over again."
Its not opinion b/c its a false statement. The actuality of it all is your rebuilding data with newer data. If we were downloading again it would take even longer. And for the 3rd time repackaging is an optional choice xci users aren't bound to repack content some ppl just like to have everything all together in 1 place. Hell there were times I was too lazy to rebuild and just grabbed a few new dlc's from HBG.. why are we dragging this out longer than it should be? lol repacking is a great choice to old games, newer game are tedious yet still doable, but if the person was on a low firmware he wouldn't have a choice but to repack anyway. I used to be that person when I was on FW8.2.0 for about a year and had to convert every new game to work on my fw. I know your not talking about lower system versions, but maybe you can read about it. its ok to learn new things.
"I don't get the feeling you're being disingenuous, but I never claimed my space management applied to anyone other than me"
You were bragging how optimized your SD space is - like it meant to be a persuasive figure into not needing a HDD for more space. Personally I don't care, I just wanted to make it clear that there are ppl out there that play more games than you so space could be a problem for them.
"However, people generally don't care about HDD storage because they have SD storage"
You say that.... but again... you don't speak for me and other users with that statement. You know... there are those who use both too

 

[Lacius]

Nope the entire argument went from xci is bad to playing games on a HDD is inferior, its not even about xci b/c well.... xci can be installed just as an nsp can...

I never argued XCI was bad, and I never argued playing games on an HDD is inferior.

The actuality of it all is your rebuilding data with newer data. If we were downloading again it would take even longer. And for the 3rd time repackaging is an optional choice xci users aren't bound to repack content some ppl just like to have everything all together in 1 place. Hell there were times I was too lazy to rebuild and just grabbed a few new dlc's from HBG.. why are we dragging this out longer than it should be? lol repacking is a great choice to old games, newer game are tedious yet still doable, but if the person was on a low firmware he wouldn't have a choice but to repack anyway.

If I have a 10GB base game, a 5GB update file, and a 1MB DLC file, I get a super XCI that's approximately 15GB. If a new update comes out that I want to add to the XCI, then I have to replace the 5GB update file with the newer one, and I have to send the new 15GB super XCI file to the HDD. That's inefficient.

I know your not talking about lower system versions, but maybe you can read about it. its ok to learn new things.

This isn't new information. I just wasn't talking about it.

You were bragging how optimized your SD space is - like it meant to be a persuasive figure into not needing a HDD for more space. Personally I don't care, I just wanted to make it clear that there are ppl out there that play more games than you so space could be a problem for them.

For most people, SD storage is large enough for their needs, and it's portable.

You say that.... but again... you don't speak for me and other users with that statement. You know... there are those who use both too

I didn't claim to speak for everybody.

 

[MasterJ360]

I never argued XCI was bad, and I never argued playing games on an HDD is inferior.


If I have a 10GB base game, a 5GB update file, and a 1MB DLC file, I get a super XCI that's approximately 15GB. If a new update comes out that I want to add to the XCI, then I have to replace the 5GB update file with the newer one, and I have to send the new 15GB super XCI file to the HDD. That's inefficient.


This isn't new information. I just wasn't talking about it.


For most people, SD storage is large enough for their needs, and it's portable.


I didn't claim to speak for everybody.

If I have a 10GB base game, a 5GB update file, and a 1MB DLC file, I get a super XCI that's approximately 15GB. If a new update comes out that I want to add to the XCI, then I have to replace the 5GB update file with the newer one, and I have to send the new 15GB super XCI file to the HDD. That's inefficient.
For the 4th time its inefficient to active supported games and its entirely optional. Pls dont make it a 5th time. Ive been using NSC Builder for almost 2 years I know how it works and for some reason I'm not really bothered by these petty things tbh then again this is coming from a guy who transfer's 40gb of data under 7mins.. but im sure you don't care. If it takes me a few extra mins to save SD space I'm cool with that. If want portability then I just put all my favorite games on the Sd card that simple im not hindered by anything. If you got time to pirate then you obviously have time for other things... but I guess that another whole argument right?

 

[Lacius]

For the 4th time its inefficient to active supported games and its entirely optional.

Thank you for conceding that super XCI files are often inefficient.

If want portability then I just put all my favorite games on the Sd card that simple im not hindered by anything.

Thank you for conceding that HDD XCI loading hinders portability.

 

[MasterJ360]

Thank you for conceding that super XCI files are often inefficient.


Thank you for conceding that HDD XCI loading hinders portability.

If you wanted to shitpost all you had to do was ask... it would have saved you about 10 pages of nonsense. I get it Lacious
you want that last word in. I conceded nothing but if it helps you sleep at night your welcome

"However, people generally don't care about HDD storage because they have SD storage"
Me:You say that.... but again... you don't speak for me and other users with that statement. You know... there are those who use both too
If i didn't care I wouldn't be using a HDD..... "people generally" thats the same as saying "Everybody"
and keeps backpedaling of not making claims.
This is why debating with incompetent people gets you nowhere. I conceded to switching to portability with my fav games on the go b/c im not using a HDD at the moment? No Lacious thats just my Switch not being docked to play on a bus ride... Im still trying to figure out why should it matter what others use if your all about portability? HDD xci loading was created for home console play.... it hinders portability... maybe b/c its not meant for portability users Lacious.

 

[Cylent1]

To each their own...
I am sure someone will come out with a free XCI loader, so why stress over the nay sayers for?