Nintendo Switch 2 Game-Key Card Overview
-
I think you can argue if Steam does the whole sharing thing better than Sony or Microsoft. On Playstation and Xbox you can just by one copy of a game, but play it simultaniously with someone else, but it seems like that's limited to one other console (setting the home console).
On Steam you need one copy for every accout playing the game, but you can have 6 accounts in your family, and unlimited devices. Without family share, your own account can only play on one device at a time, but then, why not just make a new Steam account and join a family.
The virtual game cards from Nintendo are also like Steam, since they need one game copy for each player, but also only on one device.
Seems to me like Nintendo is not as good as the others, when it comes to sharing digital games. Sharing physical is of course still possible and easy on console.
-
Storage is cheap. Others are being cheap too.
-
If we still need to buy one copy of a gamer per simultaneous player,.then the rest of the differences are just ceremony.
Nothing indicates that moving a Nintendo digital card requires uninstalling the game locally. It just, like steam, does a DRM check to see if it's being played elsewhere.
-
I am not 100% sure on this but i belive that you could buy 1 game and then share it with your family members on switch and everyone (except the owner) could play it at the same time. This is now changed with virtual cards and only 1 person can play a game at any one time. Note that i do only own one switch so I am not a 100% sure about this.
Steam lets anyone in family play anything except playing the same game as the owner iirc. So it is very friendly to sharing whereas just a year ago or something the owner of the game you wanted to "borrow" had to not be playing anything for you to be able to play it.
Nintendo made sharing less friendly. Steam made it more friendly. Am I wrong?
-
If we still need to buy one copy of a gamer per simultaneous player,.then the rest of the differences are just ceremony.
Like I said, to me, the differences are not as cut and dry, it depends on you situation.
As for the virtual game card, Nintendo actually uses eject, load, and borrow in their article, so it sounds to me it's basically like a physical game you have to move between consoles, not just simple check.
-
Not only on Switch 2. There was at least one Tony Hawk Pro Skater game that did this.
If I remember the episode of Guru Larry, the developer noticed their rights to the IP were set to expire, so they went to shit out one last game as fast as possible. They had to get the game published by a certain date, as in discs on store shelves by this date. The game was not going to be ready in time, so they put the tutorial level on the disc to print and distribute it while they finished the game, which would then be a multi-gigabyte download. Meaning that a physical copy of the game is worthless once the servers shut down.
-
I think the only thing that's worse with the new Steam system is that everyone has to be in the same country.
-
It was, though.
Objectively. This is not an opinion.
Switch 1 carts HAD to be purchased from Nintendo. It wasn't an off the shelf part. They weren´t SD cards priced commercially, they were a specific order that was part of manufacturing a physical copy and stacked up on top of printing labels and paperwork, making cases, shipping them to stores and so on. Margins for physical media are garbage as it is, but Switch carts were significantly more expensive than, say, a PS5 BluRay and they crucially ramped up quickly with size.
Technically the carts were available to higher sizes, but there's a reason you very rarely saw any Switch 1 games with cart sizes bigger than 16 gigs. Basically the more stuff you put in your game the more expensive it was to physically make the boxed copies. Crucially, that is a cost you had to pay whether you sold the carts or not. It was a manufacturing cost.
Look, at this point it's hardly worth it trying to wrap one's head around industrial retailed boxed copy software manufacturing, but trust me, physical Switch games were relatively and absolutely expensive to make in an environment where digital distribution was king and the next most expensive version was dirt cheap optical media.
-
I know. But then Nintendo was making a buck and someone else was being cheap by either not taking the bigger module (to maximize profits) or not optimizing their game sizes like Nintendo often excels at.
I think we're on the same page but just having different thoughts details in this.
-
As I understand it, switch 1 digital games are console-bound, but you can migrate your whole console to a new device (such as if your switch breaks.). This was terrible and unfriendly, and why almost all of my family's switch games are physical.
I doubt "share once and let everyone play but the owner" was an intentional promise from Nintendo, but I'd have no trouble believing a tale about their DRM checks leaving open a hole like that.
-
I don't know that Nintendo was forcing the issue for profit. I also don't know the costs and margins (if any) for Nintendo or who they were working with to get the storage, to be fair. But I have to assume that if Nintendo had signficantly cheaper access to storage and was artificially throttling to everybody else you'd have seen more first party games on larger carts, and that wasn't necessarily the case.
Regardless, any solid state storage was always going to be more expensive than optical storage and scale up with size gradually in a way that optical storage doesn't (until you have to go to a second disk or an additional layer, at least). Cartridges are just inherently riskier and more expensive, even at the relatively modest spec of the Switch 1. Definitely with what seems like competitive speeds in Switch 2.
That doesn't mean one has to like the consequences of it. At the same time I'm not sure I can imagine a realistic alternative for a portable. We're not doing UMD again, so...
-
At least there's marking on the packaging so you'd know which ones to avoid getting.
-
Ceremony can be a PITA,.no argument here.
But I would be shocked if Nintendo made a digital "eject" erase anything on the local console.
-
Yeah, it would be insane if the game's also uninstalled, but that second system still needs to be at hand or someone needs to "eject" it. It's a really dumb system.
-
More like, they’ve never been known to pass the savings to the consumer on the digital front. Some games were more expensive on the e shop than physical copies from time to time iirc.
-
The point about Nintendo not having significantly larger sizes on games could be attributed to a few things:
- Their developers were sometimes exclusively making Nintendo games = more familiar with the hardware and how to use it effectively
- They were guaranteed to sell a few million copies of a game = they could afford to run the numbers on refactoring the games resources and asset logic to maximize cartridge size. With the scale of sales, this could cover a specialized developer exclusively optimizing techniques to save on that front
- Many third party studios run their games through some converter and fix what’s remaining, the result are turd sized and non-optimized executables. E.g.: see iOS and Android app and game install sizes.
-
People are referring to damaged physical media = can’t play it. That’s always been the case. You mixed 2 different things into the same point, which are wildly distinct and why people say they agree partially.
