Oh, I missed the UHD bit, right. Triple layer it'd cap at 20-25, yeah. Technically Switch carts were available up to 32GB, but I think like one or two games ever used that much, they were so expensive. That's where the partial download stuff comes in.
Of course for optical media the solution was always to ship multiple discs, because the smaller discs are so cheap. Or were. With most optical media manufacturing phased out who knows how expensive optical will become.
Good question. What was the UMD, 1GB? From the DVD default, which was 4GB single layer and 8 dual layer? Blurays are 25GB single layer,so 25% of that is like 7gigs, which is still smaller than the 16gigs the larger Switch carts were. But hey, a lot of games on Switch were smaller, dual layer discs would get you almost to the same size and be a fraction of the cost.
Well, the discs would be. I have no idea how much the weird plastic caddy on UMDs pushed the price up.
I don't know about that. Reception to most of this Direct seems to be positive, they have a literal 10x sales advantage and 150 million people already in the ecosystem.
I wouldn't be surprised if it sold a lot slower, but half as fast as the Switch 1 is still faster than the PS5 and much faster than the Steam Deck.
Will PC handhelds gain some ground? Maybe, I'm curious to see.
Yeah, it definitely puts their overhaul of digital game sharing in perspective. They are ABSOLUTELY shifting to digital. I wouldn't be surprised if the Switch 2 Lite had no cartridge slot at all.
That said, their idea here seems to be that you have a physical cart with a game license in it so you can download the game on multiple consoles and then just swap the key around. That is not a new idea, but it goes to show how frustrated by the limitations of having to ship flash memory with every game they are.
Yep. This is a shockingly... Playstationy proposition. First party games aside I would have not been surprised to see a Vita revival be this exact console. I mean, they're basically shipping Bloodborne 2 and EyeToy.
Yeah, sure, that's always the case for consoles. I have no objection to that train of thought. If you want versatility and an open platform you're going to be better off with a similarly specced PC handheld. At the cost of first party exclusives and a few other creature comforts, but if you're only going to buy one device and that's a priority that's clearly the way to go.
Looking at it in general and in the market and just looking at the hardware they're packing in, though, their proposition isn't super overpriced. The part that is a bummer is they seem to be shifting that extra cost to other places with the subscription, generational upgrade packs, higher physical game prices and so on.
This conversation is kinda surreal and I think I want it to stop.
Even if you were correct about this, and you are not, especially in modern times, this only applies to one part of the APU. The GPU is still your run of the mill CUDA-based Nvidia GPU, effectively a PC part. And this is a handheld, a lot of the cost is stuck in the display, controllers, storage and the rest of the hardware package. The CPU component of the APU is not going to be what sets the baseline for cost unless you're building in a super high-end part.
I can't parse how you're looking at this, but I assure you that it doesn't counter the point that this thing seems to both perform similarly and cost about as much as the current batch of PC handhelds. I don't know how this is a back-and-forth thing.
Yep. The slight difference is that those Switch games typically included a chunk of the game in the cart and sometimes were partially playable. Short of requiring a smaller download, though, it was the same practical function.
I still don't like it, but those carts get prohibitively expensive at high sizes.
It's actually not "only on the Switch 2". There were a bunch of Switch one games that only came with a partial set of assets and required a mandatory download to be played.
It sucks, and it's what you get when your physical storage is too expensive and too small, unfortunately.
Yep, agreed. I mean, revolutionizing the entire concept of home consoles and starting an entire new hardware segment is a hard act to follow, I wasn't expecting to be blown away by an iteration on the same idea.
Would have been nice, though.
Sure, anything is cheap if you don't pay for software. Kinda not how we measure the value of the hardware.
I mean, by that metric, and considering how Nintendo's software security has been, historically, the Switch 2 is probably going to get dirt cheap real soon, by your standards.
I am pretty sure that this honest leftist self-criticism thing is against online decency rules and I demand to see the manager.