241
Nintendo clarifies Zelda: Breath of the Wild's Switch 2 Edition doesn't include its paid DLC
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
241 points (98.8% liked)
Games
18459 readers
586 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So... ok, hold on, this gets complicated.
If I understand this correctly there are three pieces of software here. There's the Switch 1 game, which can be digital or physical. There's the DLC, which is always digital, and there's the Switch 2 expansion, which again can be digital or physical.
So if you buy the physical Switch 2 box you get a cart with the Switch 1 game and the Switch 2 patch in it, but no DLC. Presumably, if you already own the DLC in your account, that's the same SKU, because the base game is the base game, the Switch 2 cart just includes the Switch 2 patch file in there.
Right?
So if you want BotW physically for Switch 2 you ARE rebuying the full game, which is a weird thing to do, but if you own the DLC that's the same DLC for the same base game. Same deal if you buy the expansion separately for your pre-existing game.
If you don't own BotW (or the DLC) this is saying that's not unlocked in the boxed copy, it's available separately.
I think making the Switch 2 version a "GotY edition" pack-in would have been worth it just to avoid people having to do this in their heads to understand what's going on. At the same time I wonder what sort of weirdness happens if you do own the DLC and they put a different DLC key in the cartridge. I mean, they could always just chuck in a download key for the DLC in a printed card inside the box, but I wonder if you can even build that into the cart and keep the same SKU for the Switch 1 game. I genuinely don't know the answer to that.
There's a new "DLC" that gives the game Switch 2 specific upgrades. Buying the fancy $80 cartridge includes this "DLC" on the cart, but not the existing DLCs. If you already have the Switch 1 game (as an install or a ~~glorified access key~~ cartridge) and its DLC, you'll be able to play that on Switch 2 and also able to buy the $20 "generation upgrade" as DLC for it.
The physical copies "have the game on them" but not the software updates and DLC, and once you've played on the updated version once, your save file is no longer compatible with downpatched versions. You're loading part of the game from system memory with or without a cart, so there's not really a functional difference between a physical and digital copy unless you plan to resell.
See how confusing it is? I mean, for one thing, BotW is fully playable offline on Switch 1 cart-only and presumably that remains the case in Switch 2. Despite being a launch title, BotW is one of the larger titles in the Switch library, but they still splurged for the bigger cart size, so no mandatory downloads besides DLC and patches.
For another, I'm not clear that the title updates will be downloadable in the Switch 2 cart. Switch 1 carts do have an allowance of storage to build patches into the physical copies (for re-releases, later prints, discount lines, GOTY editions and the like), so I assume the build you get in the Switch 2 cart is a latest-patch build. There's no confirmation on this beyond knowing that the functionality is built into the original Switch format, though.
So no, I don't think you're right. I'm not sure about what happens with your saves if you do own the DLC but you don't download it, or what happens if you try to load a fully patched save from the old game with a downpatched cart version, but I'm pretty sure you can play through the whole upgraded Switch 2 game (sans DLC) beginning to end entirely offline indefinitely just with the cartridge.
The latest version of the game is not guaranteed to remain the latest version when it's getting rereleased on a new console. "No mandatory downloads besides DLC and patches" means yes mandatory downloads. They're free (or you-already-paid) mandatory downloads, but them being mandatory downloads at all are a bullet in the head of preservation - a banned console or end of service or a whole lot of things can lock someone out of the eShop.
Updates are never downloadable to cartridges on the Switch, and won't be on the Switch 2. Nintendo can rewrite a cartridge, the user cannot.
As for what happens if you try to load a save from a patched/DLC-installed version of the game on an unpatched/no-DLC version, the game tells you that the save is incompatible and won't let you load it. This is verifiable on the Switch 1 and Wii U versions of the game. I don't think we have concrete information on if Switch 2 will cross-save to Switch 1 via a Nintendo Account, so it's safe to assume it won't and Nintendo will do the same one-way System Transfer song and dance they've been doing since the Wii.
Here's a fun wrinkle to what Nintendo thinks about physical cartridges preserving downpatched game editions: the console firmware of the Switch 1 has a version whitelist. If you have the latest firmware on your Switch 1 and insert a 1.0.0 BOTW cart without being online to install the game updates, the system will not allow you to boot the game until you update it. This is because Nintendo fears exploits like Smash Stack on the Wii or OOTHax on the 3DS.
Patches are not downloadable to carts by the user, but they can be added to carts by the publisher in re-releases, which is what I presume they'll do here. No official confirmation for Switch 2 versions of Switch 1 games specifically, though.
I'm not surprised the older saves aren't compatible, and it can be a bummer, but hey, at least the game does work, so even if you have to start a new run that's still a lot more than what you get from a digital download.
I am not aware of the Switch having a per-game build whitelist in the firmware. That seems weird, since it'd effectively brick all existing carts after end-of-life. I am familiar with game carts requiring specific minimum firmware versions to run (so the other way around) and including the minimum allowed firmware package in the cartridge to force an update to the correct minimum version. This has been standard on all physical games on all platforms since as far back as the PSP. If you have a source for the Switch doing things backwards on that front and thus being actively engineered to make all carts stop functioning when the patch servers go down by all means please share it and I'll be the first to go alert the press, but I think you may be getting that one backwards.
I'm confused about what you're mad about here. You seem to either be mad about things that have been going on for multiple generations (and incidentaly done eff all to curb jailbreaking or piracy, so I have to wonder what's the point of even trying for Nintendo, frankly) or you're not right about how the Switch 2 version carts are meant to work.
I'm not "mad" about anything new to the Switch 2. I'm pointing out that anything "new" that indicates physical copies aren't complete games anymore or that physical copies will not outlive server end of life in a meaningful way Isn't new. Cartridges and discs have been glorified DRM keys ever since the first patch-enabled consoles came out - "the game" is always delivered in some part via patching, so "the game" is never preserved in any meaningful way by someone having a cart/disc. The only meaningful game preservation is DRM cracking and loadable backups of "all-digital" content.
Hm. That's an interesting approach to it, but I think it's probably too black and white.
I mean, yeah, sure, for complete preservation you need archival and version control. I'll honestly say that's only legitimately doable on the dev side. You get into preserving the code and the assets there, too.
But on the user end I'd say that any version that is physically stored and can run offline, be it a DRM-free installable GOG-style or a physical piece of media storing a build of the game is much, much better than a DRMd all-digital release.
Even if it hadn't been pirateable day one, BotW would live on. Not only are there multiple cart versions with multiple patches of the game, including the Switch 2 upgrade, but all those versions will run on all consoles. It won't be the most up to date version of the game, but it'll be playable, and that's already a lot compared to the baseline we're setting elsewhere. It's certainly not a "glorified DRM key".
But that's at the top end of sustainability for physical media. The Switch 1 has some carts that don't include full playable builds and need partial downloads to run properly. That's a different scenario. If a game needs online auth to unlock the media that's another scenario. Obviously for online only games the cart IS in fact just an access point. And on Switch 2 there will be carts that act as physical keys only.
But not all of those are created equal. I think acknowledging the differences is important. If nothing else to ensure people are educated about the difference between owning BotW in a cart they will get to play indefinitely versus Street Fighter 6 in a cart that won't work if the servers are down and they don't have an installed version stored.
Thankfully the Switch 1 was cracked day 1 so the preservation can got kicked down the road to the Switch 2 release. Look up what speedrunners have to do to get the optimal any% patch for Pokémon BDSP legitimately
Oh, come on, speedrunners cherrypicking patches is hardly the litmus test for preservation.
The Switch is easily the most preservation-friendly console platform of its generation, even if it is unfortunately by default. It has also turned out to be the most officially preservation-friendly Nintendo platform in a good long while, if only because its unexpected success forced a robust backwards compatibility scheme, which in turn forces server compatibility and likely longer support than anything else since the DSi got.
Am I happy about that state of affairs? Not really. Am I grading on a curve at this point? I sure am. It's not a black and white thing.
And for the record, that's not a defense of Nintendo as a company, but there's a lot of willingness to misrepresent how the actual proposition on the Switch 2 works, and I find that frustrating. I will take a beligerent company putting all its eggs on the basket of a physical-friendly backwards compatible platform over Microsoft's "your toaster is an Xbox" cloud-driven nonesense any day. Catch me on a good day, I'll take it over Steam's "remember you don't actually own anything" store warning sticker.
Preserving the shit very few people care about is absolutely a more important thing than preserving the popular thing. BOTW's latest version will never disappear, neither will Mario 64, but the most ephemeral media in the modern landscape is always interstitial versions. You might be able to find the first cut of Star Wars before it was "A New Hope", but what about all those recuts and edits that happened between the original release and whatever the latest CGI-filled release is? you might not care about watching the "worst" version of Star Wars, but the definition of "niche" is "most people don't care". A speedrun glitch that existed for a week (without being pressed to the cartridge, even!) before being patched is absolutely something worth preserving, because unlike Ocarina of Time it's actually in danger of being lost (and would be lost almost certainly if the Switch wasn't hacked. You had to have the game for that week and then permanently leave an entire console offline to keep it)
You think this is a more antagonistic conversation than it is. I absolutely agree preservation isn't about the ten big games that mass audiences (or big speedrunning communities) care about.
But, again, we're grading on a curve on the user side and for the real silver bullet for full preservation you need publishers and public organizations instead. As a user I want access to physical media that runs offline and stand-alone (or DRM-free digital copies). For actual preservation I want it to be mandatory to deposit a public copy of both client and server code in some public organization and for studios to have at least a best practice to keep fully version historied archives of both code and assets.
But even on the consumer side, if I'm going to be frustrated at someone it's going to be to the worst offenders, and from what we know of it at launch, and from this angle the Switch 2 is far from that.
What I'm antagonistic towards is console manufacturers selling incomplete games on their DRM boxes.
Nintendo's the good side of the curve? Nintendo shut down the 3ds and wii u eshops when the console was half a generation out of date. If we lived in a world with no piracy and no emulation (and no buying secondhand consoles with paid DLC installed, because that's against TOS), and I threw my PS4 and Wii U into a wood chipper, I'd be one used PS4 away from playing my digital or disc copy of Bloodborne complete with the Old Hunters DLC. I don't even have to buy it again because Sony is sane and ties purchases to an account instead of a console. Meanwhile on the Nintendo side, I'm never gonna play as Cloud in Smash 4 again, with or without my disc.
How about the situation where Nintendo and Sony both stop operating CDNs for old consoles? In that case, they're equal at worst - I can play stuff I have installed until the console breaks, same with discs/carts. If the console breaks post-CDN apocalypse, and I buy a new one that can't access game updates, I'm stuck with infinite loading screens in Bloodborne and whatever the heck v1.0 of Mario Kart 8 was. Rhythm Heaven Megamix was never released physically in the US, and the 3DS is region locked, so if you want to get your hands on that, up yours I guess. Wanna experience the weirdest port of The Binding of Isaac to ever exist? Nope.
Nintendo released a limited run digital purchase (Mario 3D All-Stars), for Christ's sake! What's MS or Sony done that's even close to that? Pulled a free trailer for a canceled horror game? I can still buy PS3 games on Sony's store if I want to. On the PlayStation 3! From 2006!
Nintendo, MS, and Sony do not deserve any grace when it comes to this topic. They're all bad. It's just easier to overlook how bad Nintendo's preservation of digital content (including significant portions of games that also got carts) is when it takes half an hour to hack a 3DS, Wii U, or launch model Switch.
I am very confused now.
So you're okay with DRMd digital purchases as long as they keep the servers up? But you're angry that indefinitely working cartridges don't include patches and DLC in the cart? Even though ultimately the content not included in the cart is literally delivered the same way as the digital purchases?
What?
I mean, what?
I would get it as a user preference thing, in terms of what you prefer right now or what's convenient to you right now, but from the long term preservation angle it is the physical release that takes it every time, patches or no patches, DLC or no DLC. Absolutely every current system is flawed and absolutely jailbreaking and piracy are needed for full preservation as the system currently works, but in what world is a company arbitrarily choosing to keep servers going a better solution than standalone physical versions?
You are extremely opinionated about this in a very inconsistent way and it's just so confusing.
Physical games aren't the whole game anymore and haven't been for over a decade, is the main thesis. A DRM-locked (encryption and copy protection on the cart/disc are also DRM) physical copy that needs DRM-locked downloads to be complete is equal in preservation weight to a DRM-locked fully digital game. Once both releases are DRM-locked and download-reliant, I do consider the DRM-locked download that's still acquirable 10 years later to be better than the one that isn't. Both are shit, but like you said - spectrum. Disregarding piracy, The Old Hunters is better preserved than Champion's Ballad (Wii U).
Meanwhile outside of console land, DRM-free digital exists. That's the holy grail gold standard, not 60% of pokemon sword on a flash drive. DRM-free digital survives the CDN end-of-lifing. It survives my PC exploding, because unlike even complete physical games like a SNES cart, I can copy my DRM-free digital installer to as many devices as I want. DRM-free digital installs the version of the game I downloaded, without any connection to the internet. DRM-free digital survives the music license for a David Bowie track expiring. Even if every physical console release eventually got the "final cut GOTY" disc with everything on it, it's worse than DRM-free digital by virtue of being a physically destructible copy (though I do consider physical a relevant form of preservation for all the patchless console gens). Everything less than DRM-free (or DRM-stripped) digital is ephemeral. PC is the only platform that's DRM-free by default, and fully abandoning physical copies a decade ago didn't change a thing for preservation.
Consoles will never give us DRM-free digital, because the only reason consoles exist now is to be DRM. So the only relevant preservation of console games is dumping and cracking and emulating, because that makes them DRM-free digital, even though they're not legally such.
No, it is not equivalent. A full build in a cartridge is playable beginning to end. It may be missing bug fixes, tuning changes or expansions, but it is a full game.
The Switch in particular has games that look physical but aren't, and nobody should consider those physical releases, but physical games that actually are physical games aren't equivalent to digital releases just because there is additional content that is digital-only. You lose me there, that premise is just incorrect. And even if it wasn't, preserving the 1.0 vanilla version of a game is as relevant as preserving the all-bells-and-whistles last patch with all DLC. Ultimately for full archival purposes both are relevant, so I'd rather have one of those frozen in carbonite than neither.
Now, I agree that DRM-free releases are a better way to handle this than DRMd releases, and I do agree that jailbreaking and backing up digital copies of DRMd releases is crucial for preservation.
But that is neither here nor there. For practical usage, as a sustainable artefact and as a preservable snapshot of a media release a physical version is absolutely crucial.