It's no secret that of late some developers opt to order a batch of small capacity Switch cartridges and force mandatory downloads on users for games that are large in file size (such as Doom or L.A. Noire), arguably killing the point of physical media. The reason for this is cost as small capacity cartridges cost less than large ones. The good thing about this is that the prices are not too overpriced compared to the prices of those games when they were released on other platforms. The other route would be when developers chose to fit the entire game in a large capacity cartridge without requiring a mandatory download from the eShop. The downside of this is that it results in what is known as "Switch tax", games sold for more to offset the cost of large cartridges. Currently the maximum capacity for Switch cartridges is 32GB.

In any event, games won't become smaller over time and seeing the trend of large PC/PS4/XBone games ported to the Switch, it has to be expected that mandatory downloads for physical media won't go away anytime soon. Especially not since a recent report from The Wall Street Journal suggests that Nintendo has delayed the Roll-Out of 64GB Switch cartridges to 2019 that were originally scheduled for release during the second half of 2018. Apparently Nintendo had some technical issues that impacted the quality of the final media and needs more time to resolve those issues.

The question now for the average joe is whether or not this will impact third-party releases. Developers whose games are larger than 32GB could either wait til 64GB cartridges are available, delaying their releases in the process (although that's very unlikely in my opinion), or ship their games in small capacity cartridges and require a large mandatory download from the eShop. Another question is whether or not developers care at all about 64GB cartridges since they would presumably and significantly cost more than existing ones, making it not worth it for them from a financial standpoint.

What do you think about it? Do you prefer games being shipped in a single cartridge without requiring a large download, no matter the cost, or do you not care if half of the game from a cartridge has to be downloaded as long as the price is reasonable?

Source

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Is the global shortage of flash just NAND? Might explain the high costs to make these things.

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

1080p is 2k if we use the horizontal resolution like we do with 4k. 1920x1080, 1920 is close to 2k.
4k and 2k are used as an approximation. 3840x2160 is close to 4k by approximation. And has 4 times the resolution of 1080p.

Did they really fuck up? It seems it was intentional to use horizontal resolution for 4k for marketing purposes. Instead of saying 2160p. They'll sell more tv's. There is no rules that say's use only vertical resolution. It does annoy some people though.

Horizontal resolution is used by cinema, right?

Edit: Seems that's what happened

 

[jrobertdobson]

Honestly, I'm tired of physical media for games... Slap it all on a micro-SD or HDD and roll... A 200GB micro-SD is $10 more than a game cartridge or disk, 4+TB HDDs, not too expensive either.
Seriously, what's the point of MS making a disk, then forcing a 60GB install on a HDD for all games. I can't have the data read off the disk when I play? M$ bs...

 

[SG854]

Is the global shortage of flash just NAND? Might explain the high costs to make these things.

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



Horizontal resolution is used by cinema, right?

Edit: Seems that's what happened

Ya. And 4k originally comes from the cinema resolution 4096x2160.

4096x2160 = DCI standard.
3840x2160 = UHD-1 standard

For UHD-1, they doubled the vertical and horizontal resolution of 1080p, to keep an even multiple and decided to call it 4k.
This annoys some in the film industry, because the 4k label is used for the DCI and UHD-1 standard interchangeably, even though they are different horizontal resolutions.

Me personally, I'm fine with 1080 screens right now. Even on a 55" TV, you won't notice a difference between 1080 and 4k from more than 8-10 feet away.
And the majority of games right now are 1080 and less. If you do 4k than you would have to sacrifice graphics quality for that higher resolution. Not worth it at my sit distance and you'll only benefit if your sitting close to the tv.

Plus, I'm still waiting for them to sort out HDR standard. Its a mess right now. There are many HDR standards battling it out to be the dominant one. Similar to the Blueray's and HD-DVD wars. With Blueray being victorious. And there are also no display's that can display the full colors of the HDR Rec.2020 color space standard.

SDR/Rec.709 = Displays 35% of the visual spectrum.

There are 2 HDR standards.

DCI-P3 = 26% More coverage than Rec.709

Rec.2020 = Covers 75% of the visual spectrum = 72% larger than Rec.709 = 37% larger than DCI-P3

So you're getting more colors with HDR. No TV exists right now that can display at least 90% of Rec. 2020 standard. Which is the minimum UHD alliance requirement. Full 100% coverage being better. DCI-P3 will be implemented first since its color space is smaller than Rec.2020. So display technology improvement will reach this standard first.

This is why i'm waiting for the technology to improve before I buy. I don't want to buy a display that doesn't meet requirements, that doesn't have the HDR standard sorted out, and then for it to be quickly outdated a few months later as HDR technology gets better.

 

[Kioku]

Honestly, I'm tired of physical media for games... Slap it all on a micro-SD or HDD and roll... A 200GB micro-SD is $10 more than a game cartridge or disk, 4+TB HDDs, not too expensive either.
Seriously, what's the point of MS making a disk, then forcing a 60GB install on a HDD for all games. I can't have the data read off the disk when I play? M$ bs...

Sony does the same damn thing...

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Ya. And 4k originally comes from the cinema resolution 4096x2160.

4096x2160 = DCI standard.
3840x2160 = UHD-1 standard

For UHD-1, they doubled the vertical and horizontal resolution of 1080p, to keep an even multiple and decided to call it 4k.
This annoys some in the film industry, because the 4k label is used for the DCI and UHD-1 standard interchangeably, even though they are different horizontal resolutions.

Me personally, I'm fine with 1080 screens right now. Even on a 55" TV, you won't notice a difference between 1080 and 4k from more than 8-10 feet away.
And the majority of games right now are 1080 and less. If you do 4k than you would have to sacrifice graphics quality for that higher resolution. Not worth it at my sit distance and you'll only benefit if your sitting close to the tv.

Plus, I'm still waiting for them to sort out HDR standard. Its a mess right now. There are many HDR standards battling it out to be the dominant one. Similar to the Blueray's and HD-DVD wars. With Blueray being victorious. And there are also no display's that can display the full colors of the HDR Rec.2020 color space standard.

SDR/Rec.709 = Displays 35% of the visual spectrum.

There are 2 HDR standards.

DCI-P3 = 26% More coverage than Rec.709

Rec.2020 = Covers 75% of the visual spectrum = 72% larger than Rec.709 = 37% larger than DCI-P3

So you're getting more colors with HDR. No TV exists right now that can display at least 90% of Rec. 2020 standard. Which is the minimum UHD alliance requirement. Full 100% coverage being better. DCI-P3 will be implemented first since its color space is smaller than Rec.2020. So display technology improvement will reach this standard first.

This is why i'm waiting for the technology to improve before I buy. I don't want to buy a display that doesn't meet requirements, that doesn't have the HDR standard sorted out, and then for it to be quickly outdated a few months later as HDR technology gets better.

I'd tend to agree, though 55" 1080p TV would have a terrible DPI

 

[pedro702]

Honestly, I'm tired of physical media for games... Slap it all on a micro-SD or HDD and roll... A 200GB micro-SD is $10 more than a game cartridge or disk, 4+TB HDDs, not too expensive either.
Seriously, what's the point of MS making a disk, then forcing a 60GB install on a HDD for all games. I can't have the data read off the disk when I play? M$ bs...

this is normal pratice now due to read speeds, there is no way any game would have decent load times nowadys if they were reaing 50gb+ off the bluray drive so both sony and microsoft just made their disc instalables like in the pc you just install them on the normal console hdd. it sucks but its a diferent compromise, on the switch we dont need no install except afew selected titles, it all is just plug and play.

 

[DSAndi]

Burning onto Bluray disks costs way less than a Euro, so even if Nintendo get 64GB carts for around 10 Euros, they are still much more expensive than burning onto a disk.

From what I've seen this seems reflected in the current pricing of switch games, where the difference is usually less than £10.00. I think Fifa 2018 had a difference of £6.00 at launch compared to other consoles.

They dont burn Blurays, they press em. The more expensive thing when making this is to make the master, the BD later cost almost nothing.

As for the flash, as i said class 10 64GB micro sd means it should read and write 10 MB per second. Usually the read is much higher. There are also Micro sd cards that have 100MB read and 60-90 MB write times.

Flash cart is the way to go. Its much faster, saves power, better medium.

Its more expensive but you wont need a harddrive and you could be able to patch updates into the card.

On the other side i dont really care, i dont own a switch or any other of the actual consoles.
I play on PC and getting games quite cheap, usually i dont spend more then 20€ for a game, just because i dont buy em when they come out i buy em later.

If i miss some games, then so be it. I dont have much time to play anyway.

 

[Deleted User]

View attachment 109446 -OVERKILL SNIP-

What brand of flash memory are they using? iirc their cards are basically eMMC chips with different firmware, so what's the issue here? Samsung is already manufacturing 64gb chips on the cheap, can't they just get Samsung to write a new firmware for their eMMC controller and slap that in there?

Considering EA chose to push a bunch of mandatory downloads on us instead of using the 32GB version I don't expect this to be much of an issue.

Wow, this is amazing, you managed to say something that isn't patently false for once! Good on you. doesn't make the EA or any other company doing that less bullshit that needs to be resolved, but progress!

 

[geodeath]

Going by this list there is absolutely no rush to get 64gb carts out there. No one is even up to using 32gb.

You would expect the technology to be ready and prepared though, just in case it is needed, at least a few months after release at worst. We are not talking about new strides here, we are talking about 64gbs. It is just Nintendo being smug about it, getting a system out and developing things as they go. As for why Nintendo would be careful with blu-rays, MS did it, went great. Not suggesting a portable that reads discs but they *could* have gone optical or download, meaning you get the game on a disc that the dock reads if you care about physical releases or buy a digital only/code only version that you just download. But that would mean the dock needs to be proper hardware, at least then you would be getting your £90 worth.

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

The Switch tax is real, all the accessories for the switch are 10 to 20 more than they should be, joycons included.

And if we talk about the charger or the dock, make than 200%-300% at least.

 

[Jayro]

And if we talk about the charger or the dock, make than 200%-300% at least.

Yeah, the generic charger by Nyko is still too much, about $20, but it does the 15v and 5v switching the other generic ones don't do.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Not suggesting a portable that reads discs but they *could* have gone optical or download, meaning you get the game on a disc that the dock reads if you care about physical releases or buy a digital only/code only version that you just download. But that would mean the dock needs to be proper hardware, at least then you would be getting your £90 worth.

That sounds like a huge compromise that wouldn't be worth it for what is essentially a portable.

 

[Jayro]

e personally, I'm fine with 1080 screens right now. Even on a 55" TV, you won't notice a difference between 1080 and 4k from more than 8-10 feet away.

Maybe if you're outputting a 1080p signal to your 4K TV, sure... But I want a 4K picture on my 4K TV, and the difference on a desktop is night and day.

 

[SG854]

Maybe if you're outputting a 1080p signal to your 4K TV, sure... But I want a 4K picture on my 4K TV, and the difference on a desktop is night and day.

No I was talking about 4k signal.
To me HDR is much more exciting then 4k.

Are sitting close to your screen or far away? It depends on screen size and viewing distance.

 

[Jayro]

No I was talking about 4k signal.
To me HDR is much more exciting then 4k.

Are sitting close to your screen or far away? It depends on screen size and viewing distance.

I'm strictly talking about desktop resolution. I don't like using a non-native desktop resolution because anything that isn't a 1:1 pixel just looks FUGLY.

 

[SG854]

I'm strictly talking about desktop resolution. I don't like using a non-native desktop resolution because anything that isn't a 1:1 pixel just looks FUGLY.

Well I was talking about 1080 signal on 1080 screen. And 4k signal on 4k screen. And won't notice a difference, depending on size and distance.

This is why I got a 1080 screen last year. So I can use 1080 resolution natively and it won't look ugly.

 

[Jayro]

I must have the eyes of a videophile, because I can spot the difference between them instantly, even from far away. The 4K is just so much richer.

 

[SG854]

I must have the eyes of a videophile, because I can spot the difference between them instantly, even from far away. The 4K is just so much richer.

Are you talking about resolution or color space when you say richer? Maybe its the colors and not the resolution you are noticing.

 

[Jayro]

Are you talking about resolution or color space when you say richer? Maybe its the colors and not the resolution you are noticing.

Both really. Every 4K we have on display at the store I work for has HRD and a demo video playing. The few 1080p displays we have left can't compare in color or resolution.

 

[SG854]

Both really. Every 4K we have on display at the store I work for has HRD and a demo video playing. The few 1080p displays we have left can't compare in color or resolution.

Well i'm not doubting you. If you can see the difference then go for 4k.
I calibrate screens for SDR using a colorimeter. I calibrate to industry standards. So all displays should look the same or close to the same after they are calibrated properly. That is if they can produce the picture properly and meet standards.

HDR screens right now should show a noticeable difference from SDR, even though many still can't meet the minimum requirement for HDR.
Which means future HDR screen will look way better then what you see now. There is still no reference display for HDR as there is no screen that meets full coverage. So there really isn't anything to compare too.

The Pioneer Plasma KRP-500M is the reference display for SDR content. Its what all displays try to match for SDR, be it OLED, Plasma, LCD or any other display technologies. Its able to produce blacks at 0 nits and gives the same infinite contrast ratio OLEDs show. It even produces a better picture than many OLEDs. Pioneer really went all out with their Plasma's, its like NASA tech going on in there in the insides.

 

[Captain_N]

One have to wonder if the secret art of file compression have long since been lost.

Im with ya. how about having the game install to the sd card? or decompress the required files on the fly. Star ocean did that on the Snes with a special chip. The switch is more then capable to do on the fly decompression.