Hardware Do you think the Switch should have been digital only?

[Deleted User]

There's a number of issues with Switch game carts. Longer load times, higher price and sometimes a download along with it eg. Wolfenstein II. eShop games are more expensive in order to match the higher price of the physical cartridges. The Switch's portability aspect makes space a major design factor. Perhaps it would have been better to avoid cartridges altogether and include more than just a tiny 32GB internal memory.

 

[DKB]

I'm going to put a picture here, to show why these type of ideas do not work.

 

[The3rdknuckles]

If it was just digital I wouldn't have bought one at all.

 

[Viri]

So, no used games and no sharing games with friends huh? I'm sure a company tried something like that in 2013, at E3, and was forced to drop it due to fan backlash.

 

[astrangeone]

Digital only would suck and would require Nintendo to revamp their eshop system (which is awful - can't transfer it, no crossbuy, no whatever).

I know I won't have bought mine because digital only gives all the power to the devs/creators. They pull the plug and you suddenly have no rights to play the game (eg. you purchased the right to play the game only). With physical copies, I can choose to resell it or keep it or do whatever I want with it. (And I will have a semi-permanent version to play always.) Just imagine GB games if they did digital only. Devices will fail (I know a couple of my classic green game boys have died), and if they were tied to the system/account, you really have no recourse in anyway. (Plus if the company fails/shuts down servers, you have a brick of a device.)

 

[elm]

No, Since the Switch is only using micro SD cards (as of now), you couldn't fit all the games you want on one SD card!

 

[grossaffe]

You can pry my physical copies from my cold dead hands.

 

[morvoran]

Perhaps it would have been better to avoid cartridges altogether and include more than just a tiny 32GB internal memory.

I'm going to put a picture here, to show why these type of ideas do not work.

This is why History is so important in schools. We are supposed to learn from past mistakes.

 

[Draxzelex]

The fact that there are titles that are at least half the size of the Switch's storage capacity is reason enough not to make all games digital only (outside of asking devs for better compression)

 

[Rel]

Digital only with 32GB's of storage would be such a disaster

 

[the_randomizer]

No, because you have no control over your games; when companies shut down, servers shut down, bye bye games. No thanks.

 

[FAST6191]

Unless said downloadable only games allow me to resell and buy games from others doing reselling then no, definitely not. I could ponder further things about download speeds, limits, the nature of DRM systems and such but the lack of an unrestricted resale market tanks such things for me unless every game is pocket change and I can stomach them being rentals. I will not begrudge them the current understanding of online store -- if they can part fools or silly rich from their money then so be it.

If it is a hardware issue with speed and whatnot then the solution has been known for years -- install it to the SD card/onboard storage and use the card itself as an access token, bonus here is they could probably even use the cart's unique key to do something even more fun and attach it to an account for 30 days at a stretch.

 

[DarthDub]

No. /end thread

 

[Pleng]

This is why History is so important in schools. We are supposed to learn from past mistakes.

If it was as simple as that then we'd never have had any CD based computers after the failure of Commodore's CDTV. Times move on and it's very right to revisit ideas that failed in the past and ask ourselves whether technology has caught up with any given concept.

That's not to say that I think the Switch should have been download only (cart games are still digital ), just saying that you can't discount it just because a device that attempted it 10 years ago wasn't a success.

 

[linuxares]

It is digital only you know
Nah but I wouldn't have bought it, if it was digital only. I like to actually own my games. Not rent them.

 

[subcon959]

I'm firmly in the physical media camp BUT I think Steam has proved that the digital download model can work if you do it right.

 

[deinonychus71]

I use digital only as it's just that much more convenient, so I wouldn't have been impacted at all

 

[Dvdxploitr]

PSP Go failed for a multitude of reasons. It started out as a system with removable game media and they removed that. The wifi was 802.11b which maxed out at 11Mbps (although, average internet speed for US homes was about 4Mbps when PSP Go released). Sony also promised 3 "free" UMD to digital upgrades with a limited selection of titles available for this offer and they didn't deliver. It was $250 for a restricted device when the PSP with UMD drive was almost $100 cheaper. Switch uses the industry standard MicroSD card, 802.11ac wireless (which is faster than even Google Fiber speeds) and doesn't have a cheaper model available. If the Switch had been digital only, i think it would have hurt the sales a good bit, but not as bad as one would think. However, I would hope that Nintendo would have included more than 32GB internal storage of a digital only device. The PSP Go had 16GB of internal storage which was a pretty decent size considering it's biggest game was roughly 1.7GB and most were 1GB or less. It's kind of like the PS4 and Xbox One originally shipping with 500GB. People thought that might be enough, but that 500GB drive formatted and with the OS leaves you with about 437...games are 50GB+ meaning you will only get roughly 7 games or less and your drive is full. Granted, the Switch does have games that require a MicroSD card, but that seems to be the case for most things these days. What's included isn't enough. Sony and Microsoft both upgraded their storage and I know Xbox One has a 2TB model (not sure about PS4 though). I'm sure Nintendo will do the same in the future...We'll probably see a 64GB or 128GB Switch. Extra storage has been a pain the ass for gamers since the 90s. PlayStation, Saturn, N64 all pretty much needed memory cards to save progress and it was just a hassle. PS1 memory cards were about $30 when they came out and couldn't save much of anything. Some games like Gran Turismo could take a whole card if you saved replays. These days games have DLC that is optional, so you're paying $60 to play the "base" AAA titles. Back then, you'd be paying $50 for the game, but an additional $30 just to save your progress.

 

[CitizenSnips]

In a world where everyone has access to fast, reliable internet, and where large SD cards are relatively cheap, then, and only then, would digital-only be somewhat of a sensible thing to do.

 

[hollowtip]

There's a number of issues with Switch game carts. Longer load times, higher price and sometimes a download along with it eg. Wolfenstein II. eShop games are more expensive in order to match the higher price of the physical cartridges. The Switch's portability aspect makes space a major design factor. Perhaps it would have been better to avoid cartridges altogether and include more than just a tiny 32GB internal memory.

Absolutely not. Eliminating an option is never a good thing, and as a couple of people have already mentioned, you would also eliminate resale value and hurt businesses that offer game rentals and aftermarket sales (Netflix, Redbox, Gamestop, and your local Mom and Pop videogame retailer) if digital was the only distribution method for games. Additionally, Nintendo would never lower the $60.00 standard AAA just because they're saving a few dollars on eliminating the physical cartridge format, they'd just pocket the extra profit.

While downloading digital is usually the most convenient (unless you live in sluggish internet community) way to play games, it also comes at a high price, eliminating the ability to transfer your license for the game to another party for money, trade, or otherwise.

Gamers have been to lazy and not outspoken enough to change how digital distribution works because they're blinded by the "convenience" factor, and publishers are slowly taking away that benefits that we've enjoyed with physical releases. When digital distribution does become standard and purchasing physical games are no longer an option (which I think will take longer than people are speculating) they have to give consumers more benefits with digital distribution:

1) The ability to rent ALL games for a set amount of time. PSN does offer a cloud based (I'm adamantly opposed to cloud based gaming until input lag is equal to an offline experience) service to rent older games, this needs to be expanded to all new releases with the option of not streaming the game in the cloud.

2) The ability to resell and transfer digital game rights. I know companies such as Robot Cache do offer their own digital distribution resale service, but this needs to be adopted as standard across all digital shop platforms.

3) If a rental policy can't be implemented, than there needs to a refund policy similar to what steam currently uses.