WSJ: Nintendo Delays Rollout of 64-Gigabyte Switch Game Cards Until 2019

Oct 25, 2017
909
0
#1
Nintendo Co. told outside game developers it is delaying delivery of 64-gigabyte game cards for the Switch console until 2019, people familiar with the matter said, meaning gamers may have to wait longer for some data-rich software titles.

Nintendo had planned to make 64-gigabyte cards available to partner developers in the second half of 2018, but recently told them that it would push the date back to 2019 owing to technical issues, according to people with direct knowledge of the discussions.

They said the notice disappointed some software makers, especially U.S.-based publishers that often produce data-heavy games. Those publishers may wait for the 64-gigabyte card to release those kinds of games for the Switch.



More: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ninten...abyte-switch-game-cards-until-2019-1514360941


The last sentence is just the author's thought. 3rd parties will just offer the remaining content as a download as we've already seen.

Mod Edit:

 
Oct 26, 2017
4,053
0
#5
Weird news really. Espescially as US publishers does all they can to avoid 32 gb cards. I don't see anyone using a 64 gb card if they think 32 gb is too expensive.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,812
0
22
The Netherlands
#7
That sucks, but it's not like they're using the 32GB one either, right? The only games that uses it is the Japan only DQH1+2 pack, which retails for 9000+ yen.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,158
0
#10
Right... unless Nintendo is eating the costs, I can't see any publisher use these cards anyway. Especially since they already can cheap out by putting most of the game as a download.
 

Joseki

Banned
Member
Nov 5, 2017
3,447
0
#13
I'm scratching my head thinking about what kind of games could require as much as 64 GB of space using Switch-quality assets. BotW is 13 GB for example, the biggest game I have is Revelations 2 and it's 23 GB. The few direct PS4/X1 ports that are on the system are all under 30 GB.
 
Oct 31, 2017
141
0
Krista
#14
SRSLY? Are 3rd parties actually demanding these expensive cards when Take Two prefers to get a smaller one and impose downloadable content to get the full game?
 
Oct 26, 2017
74
0
#18
Us based publishers are concerned? That strikes me as odd as none have used 32 gb cards. Maybe they hoped the introduction of 64 gb card would lower the price of the 32 gb ones.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,866
0
#20
I'm scratching my head thinking about what kind of games could require as much as 64 GB of space using Switch-quality assets. BotW is 13 GB for example, the biggest game I have is Revelations 2 and it's 23 GB. The few direct PS4/X1 ports that are on the system are all under 30 GB.
COD (for example)
 
Nov 4, 2017
284
0
#22
That sucks, but it's not like they're using the 32GB one either, right? The only games that uses it is the Japan only DQH1+2 pack, which retails for 9000+ yen.
Some games are coming close to it. Resident Evil Revelations is 26GB? And I read something about some sports game being 48GB after patching.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,203
0
Germany
#23
That's too bad - I could see some titles making their way to the Switch way easier, if extra development time doesn't has to be used for compression...
 
Nov 4, 2017
839
0
#27
Who would even buy 64 gb carts? I imagine that the profit margins would be way too thin to justify going for that size.
 

Vito

formerly Undead Fantasy
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,111
0
#35
Why even bother?

Fucking Nintendo can't even use a 32GB one for the Bayonetta collection.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
0
#38
One other important point from the article regarding third party developers:

Also, the Switch’s computing power trails that of rival consoles, and some outside developers said the Nintendo device might not be well-suited to data-heavy titles regardless of whether the 64-gigabyte card is available.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,075
0
#39
I may be wrong, but switch game cards are only superficially similar to SD cards. It's not writable, for example. Edit: On topic, I'm not sure this will be a big issue. Mario is 5.7 GB.
I just used SD cards as a common example of flash memory. I doubt the Switch game cards are some incredible exotic technology. They are flash memory. That is not an expensive or poorly understood tech at this point.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,812
0
22
The Netherlands
#42
Some games are coming close to it. Resident Evil Revelations is 26GB? And I read something about some sports game being 48GB after patching.
Sure, but that's not what I said. My point was that publishers have been opting to go with 16gb or even 8 gb even if they needed more space than that, and would release the rest to a download. I don't see them adoptie 64 gb when they aren't even adopting 32 gb cards.
 
Oct 30, 2017
136
0
#43
Yeah they should first focus on reducing costs on the current ones especially the 32GB one that is not even used except by 1 game so they are not in a hurry.
 
#44
I really want to see the current price list for the cartridges that are available right now (8, 16, 32 GB). Take-Two put their games on 16 GB cartridges and let players download the rest of it. L.A. Noire for example takes a 14 GB download, while a full download from the eShop is 27,4 GB. That should fit on a 32 GB cart, I suppose. :P

So even when 64 GB cartridges become available, how often will they get used? They'll probably be too expensive...

Edit: basically what Zedark is saying.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,715
0
#49
Didn't even know they were planning 64GB ones. Especially in this digital era. I guess it's sort of good news some developers were considering it anyway.