Given how many features use generative AI to build user-generated content I would say mark this moment. There is a future of slop-centric Roblox stuff everywhere and this may well be where it starts.
I’m not as mad about that as most will be, but… yeah, I’ve mentioned a couple of times around here how weird it is that nobody is really bringing it up so far.
A quick look at US Amazon spits out that the only 24Gb card in stock is a 3090 for 1500 USD. A look at the European storefront shows 2400EUR for a 4090. Looking at other assorted stores shows a bunch of out of stock notices.
It’s quite competitive, I’m afraid. Things are very stupid at this point and for obvious reasons seem poised to get even dumber.
Yeah, for sure. That I was aware of.
We were focusing on the Mini instead because… well, if the OP is fretting about going for a big GPU I’m assuming we’re talking user-level costs here. The Mini’s reputation comes from starting at 600 bucks for 16 gigs of fast shared RAM, which is competitive with consumer GPUs as a standalone system. I wanted to correct the record about the 24Gig starter speccing up to 64 because the 64 gig one is still in the 2K range, which is lower than the realistic market prices of 4090s and 5090s, so if my priority was running LLMs there would be some thinking to do about which option makes most sense in the 500-2K price range.
I am much less aware of larger options and their relative cost to performance because… well, I may not hate LLMs as much as is popular around the Internet, but I’m no roaming cryptobro, either, and I assume neither is anybody else in this conversation.
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…
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’m not sure that’s how that works. The Switch already had both physical boxes with digital codes in them and cartridges that required mandatory downloads to run. This seems like a physical unlock key for a digital download, which depending on how it’s implemented is actually easier to both resell and use offline than the Switch 1 solution to the same problem.
I don’t recommend purchasing either, and I avoided both of those options on Switch 1, but I’m pretty sure this at least does not make things any worse.
I have major gripes with a number of pricing choices in this thing, but to the best of my current understanding this one is based on a misunderstanding.
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.
Yes, I am implying that the price is right because the performance is similar. ARM isn’t fundamentally cheaper than x64, I don’t know where you get that. The Switch was cheap because it was running a cheap, old, basically off-the-shelf part, not because that part had an ARM CPU. And indeed the Deck is running an older AMD APU as well at this point.
My laptop has an ARM CPU in it. I assure you it wasn’t any cheaper than the equivalent x64 version with the same performance.
Yeah, well, that’s not really a good thing in my book. You also arguably don’t need a thousand games you’re not gonna play. One of the things I’d like to see this gen on the Switch 2 is more curated discoverability and less shovelware.
I think your argument will make more or less sense depending on how the physical market eveolves. The price bump for physical is a bummer, but this generation it’s been very easy to find cheap physical copies, both new and used.
At the end of the day, PC handhelds are like PCs, you tend to pay more for the hardware (only the very cheapest LCD version of the Deck is cheaper than the Switch 2, and multiple specs are actually worse) and on consoles you get more affordable hardware but typically more expensive games, at least day one.
So at worst the Switch 2 is… you know, a console. The pricing of the hardware is by far the least egregious pricing choice in this whole thing. If anything, the Switch 2 feels weirdly standard for Nintendo’s typical strategy. They have a tendency to sell very old hardware at some profit instead of subsidizing it. This feels weirdly comparable to the PC handheld segment.
How is it based on UGC if the game wasn’t out when they implemented the GenAI? As far as I can tell they’re using a whole bunch of ML-based tools built on Unreal tech for animation and model creation and what seems to be run of the mill Gen AI for textures. I could be wrong, but hey, I’ll hold you to that being cool when EA or Ubisoft show up with their version of the same thing.