Game preservationists say Switch2 GameKey Cards are disheartening but inevitable

2025-05-0111:5969117www.videogameschronicle.com

It’s also argued that patches and updates mean physical carts become outdated anyway…

Game preservationists have been giving their opinions on Nintendo Switch 2’s new Game-Key Cards.

Game-Key Cards are Nintendo’s new branding for cartridges that still require the game to be downloaded from the Switch 2 online store before the game can be played. The cartridge doesn’t contain the game data, rather it’s simply a ‘key’ that enables a download.

“Game-key cards are different from regular game cards, because they don’t contain the full game data,” Nintendo’s own description says. “Instead, the game-key card is your ‘key’ to downloading the full game to your system via the internet. After it’s downloaded, you can play the game by inserting the game-key card into your system and starting it up like a standard physical game card.”

So far the vast majority of third-party Switch 2 games are Game-Key Cards, with only a few exceptions such as Cyberpunk 2077 and the Western version of Daemon X Machina: Titanic Scion.

When Japanese store Yodobashi started listing Switch 2 games, of the 11 new third-party Switch 2 games initially listed on the site with box art, all 11 had a logo on the front of the box designating them as Game-Key Cards.

The issue some players have with Game-Key Cards is that because they don’t contain the full game content on the cartridge, should the Switch 2 shop servers ever close down in the distant future – and therefore no longer provide the downloads necessary – those cartridges may become unplayable.

Most third-party Switch 2 games on the Yodobashi site are Game-Key Cards (as noted by the white bar on the bottom of the box).

In a new report by GamesIndustry.biz, several people involved in game preservation and re-releases have given their views on the situation.

Stephen Kick, CEO of Nightdive Studios (which specialises in modern remasters of older, often out-of-print games) said that “seeing Nintendo do this is a little disheartening”, adding: “You would hope that a company that big, that has such a storied history, would take preservation a little more seriously.”

Videogame Heritage Society co-founder Professor James Newman is somewhat less convinced that Game-Key Cards will be a major issue, noting that it’s rare for a game on a cartridge to still be the same game years after release.

“Even when a cartridge does contain data on day one of release, games are so often patched, updated and expanded through downloads that the cart very often loses its connection to the game, and functions more like a physical copy protection dongle for a digital object,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Paul Dyson, director of the International Center for the History of Electronic Games at The Strong Museum in New York said the move to a future where all games are digital is “inevitable”, and that Nintendo has in fact been “in some ways, the slowest of the major console producers to be going there”.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By proc0 2025-05-0113:252 reply

    I think it's silly that the conversation on preserving games revolves around hardware. The hardware is irrelevant. It's about the right to create digital backup for personal use. Whether the game is downloaded or burned on a disc, it's just software.

    The main problem used to be about piracy, but I think now it's really about making games as a service (even if they're not online for gameplay) because it allows more forms of monetization. The conversation should be about making games into a digital product that you can download and own the files. Piracy still happens anyway, and maybe this could make companies solve the problem differently, like only allowing digital backup for trusted players.

    • By Y_Y 2025-05-0113:363 reply

      Wouldn't it be nice if the Library of Congress or the Bodleian or some other prestigous clouty institution could demand that these published artworks be given to them as an unencumbered copy? I know that such a thing might have to include server code and some agreements on runtime environment, but I don't see that as insuperable.

      This is culture and it's part of our patrimony. The privilege of getting to publish thinga and having copyright protection ought to include responsibilities to the society too.

      • By autoexec 2025-05-037:30

        > Wouldn't it be nice if the Library of Congress or the Bodleian or some other prestigous clouty institution could demand that these published artworks be given to them as an unencumbered copy?

        I agree. It should be a requirement to receive copyright protection. The US Copyright Office should also make those copies available for download on their servers the moment that the work enters the public domain.

      • By dtagames 2025-05-0113:407 reply

        The problem is the cost and knowledge base required to keep servers running. A game server is a big proprietary ball of spaghetti with hundreds of API endpoints and only the people who built it really know how it works[0]. It's expensive to keep those folks around and expensive to pay for the cloud services and SaaS tools they need to do their jobs.

        All software has a "lifecycle" and has to be turned off at some point because no one is willing to pay the costs of keeping it running (with hosting and client changes as ongoing moving targets). We see this even with games that have sales! So ones that don't have sales are not likely to attract anyone to pay for such staff.

        [0] Source: I spent 2 years inside a studio owned by "big gaming."

        • By trinsic2 2025-05-038:111 reply

          > All software has a "lifecycle" and has to be turned off at some point because no one is willing to pay the costs of keeping it running (with hosting and client changes as ongoing moving targets). We see this even with games that have sales! So ones that don't have sales are not likely to attract anyone to pay for such staff. [0] Source: I spent 2 years inside a studio owned by "big gaming.

          You mean SAAS has a life cycle.

          Software itself can be run by people willing to keep it running.

          The whole "software should be turned off" comment is you trying to change perception about what software is.

          • By musicale 2025-05-042:00

            The comparison is vs. games on physical media. Many Atari 2600 game cartridges still work, more than 40 years after they were originally manufactured. You can still use them in a new Atari 2600+/7800+ console.

        • By jerjerjer 2025-05-0114:081 reply

          Games with single-player mode must be playable in a fully offline mode. Would solve your (very valid) issue for a large chunk of games.

          • By tgsovlerkhgsel 2025-05-0115:151 reply

            There is a petition that would require publishers to leave games in a playable state at end-of-life (https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home), but it doesn't look like it will reach the threshold that would require the parliament to respond. It is one of the bigger petitions though, so it might still trigger some action.

            • By solardev 2025-05-0318:122 reply

              Wait, in the EU you can just petition the government and they have to respond after some threshold?

              • By LM358 2025-05-0318:45

                Yes, both at the EU level and also in many countries (EU and non-EU), see:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Citizens%27_Initiativ...

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_initiative

              • By tgsovlerkhgsel 2025-05-042:46

                "Some threshold" is doing a lot of work here, since the requirement is a million signatures (which also need to be from multiple countries).

                I made a small mistake, the response will be from the Commission, not Parliament, because only the Commission can propose laws anyways - but you do get a hearing in parliament.

                But essentially, even crossing the million signature threshold doesn't win you anything but a slightly bigger soap box and the promise of the Commission giving you a "no" in writing rather than just ignoring you. There is no requirement to actually act on it, and no way to force it (unlike e.g. in Switzerland where actual binding popular votes can be initiated with enough signatures).

        • By proc0 2025-05-0113:501 reply

          It could be paid by taxes, and run by government. Something like the Internet Archive (not sure if that's public but the entire Internet is much larger than all games put together).

          • By Rucadi 2025-05-0114:541 reply

            And why not by private entities receiving donations of people that care about preservation?

            • By proc0 2025-05-0117:29

              That could work I guess.

        • By ldng 2025-05-0119:151 reply

          What your saying is true BUT. Your are talking about keeping servers (plural ?) running but, for conservancy, you should not need a full fledge cloud. It not about keeping it running for millions of customers. It's about being able to run for research to study games in the long run. One server that can handle a couple or two clients should be enough for conservancy.

          • By dtagames 2025-05-0119:291 reply

            People are the harder problem. A game server is not a box you turn on and it just runs. The platforms themselves change under you all the time as do all the SaaS tools you rely on. Clients change all the time, too, and one missed update can make your game unrunnable. Folks don't want to train or pay the humans needed to keep server-based games alive.

            • By Nullabillity 2025-05-0322:06

              Easy; if you don't want to pay for keeping up with SaaS, don't use SaaS! This is an entirely self-inflicted problem, and it's on you (as in, the gamedev) to fix it.

        • By kubb 2025-05-038:301 reply

          Then how do unofficial WoW, Diablo 2 or Lineage 2 servers exist? Enthusiasts run them for free.

          • By jsheard 2025-05-039:361 reply

            Due to huge reverse engineering efforts which few games get, especially after the official servers have already shut down so there's no reference implementation anymore. For every game which gets unofficial servers, a few dozen never will.

            • By kubb 2025-05-0316:17

              So people can run servers even without the server source code, and the problem preventing leaving the server code to the Library of Congress, etc. is not "the cost and knowledge base required to keep servers running".

        • By codedokode 2025-05-0115:01

          This might be solved in future by more advanced LLMs as long as binaries are preserved.

        • By mpalmer 2025-05-0320:15

          ...therefore it shouldn't be preserved at all? This doesn't follow.

          No one mentioned running the code, just persisting it for the future public good

      • By proc0 2025-05-0113:49

        Yes that would be nice. It could definitely be a non-profit and get a lot of support. Then they could grant access to past games that are no longer on the market. Ideally anyone can just make their own backups without publishing the copy. I still think there are solutions to allow this but companies want games a service to make more money.

    • By ferbivore 2025-05-038:093 reply

      All games with a budget over $10m will be online-only gacha soon enough because it would be fiscally irresponsible to do anything else. The only reason you can still "buy" large games - to whatever extent you still can, you're mostly leasing games if you don't pirate them anyway - is irrationality and inertia on the part of publishers, which I doubt will last forever under shareholder pressure.

      A lot of games are already nearly impossible to preserve because they use DRM and anti-cheat systems that only a handful of people in the world could crack. Maybe in the future more people will learn, but I think it's more likely the opposite will happen and these people will be fully outcompeted by DRM providers.

      I wish there was a way to prevent this, but I don't see it. You would have to outlaw SaaS in general. I mean, that sounds like utopia to me, but there's no chance any country would go for it.

      • By proc0 2025-05-0312:171 reply

        I think that's true for multiplayer games, which is understandable because they are more like platforms, even social media, because it has to support a community of people that play with each other.

        Single player games will still exist though, and companies will still try to make them online games that can be patched often and have online stores (latest assassin's creed does this), but we should all agree this is no longer the same product. If a single player game becomes a service, it is no longer about a self-contained experience that exists like a movie or book. I guess here is where consumers need to demand that certain game genres be treated as art, and as such be sold like products instead of services.

        • By kbolino 2025-05-0316:57

          There's definitely been a shift in what it means to be a multiplayer game. Live service games are crowding out the other forms.

          Split-screen, LAN, and even Internet play without fixed servers all existed once upon a time (and still do, to a limited extent). But they aren't what people usually mean when they say "multiplayer" anymore. However, they all have the advantage of staying playable basically forever, with the only real limitation being the ability to emulate older tech.

      • By Wowfunhappy 2025-05-0311:49

        People were predicting this a decade ago but somehow we're still getting games like Tears of the Kingdom and Expedition 33.

      • By pjmlp 2025-05-038:42

        The reason being timesharing seems to be the only way to force people to pay for digital goods, including developers.

  • By jsheard 2025-05-0113:423 reply

    I get that Switch 2 games need faster storage, and that makes the traditional model of running games directly from the cart prohibitively expensive, but they could have just copied the Xbox/Playstation model of shipping physical games on slow media (Blurays in their case) and then having a mandatory installation step which copies the data to the fast internal SSD before you start playing. That way you're not entirely dependent on online services to play a physical game.

    • By mattl 2025-05-0113:583 reply

      For the Switch any amount of flash memory for those game cards is expensive. They previously offered much smaller, slightly cheaper cards that started at 2GB.

      Unfortunately this time they’re only offering 64GB cards or these key cards. I’m curious how much storage they have, I’m sure very little.

      • By kllrnohj 2025-05-0114:352 reply

        Brand name 64GB microSDXC UHS-I cards are $10 retail. Figure Nintendo can get the actual flash storage directly much cheaper than that, probably more like $3-5. That hardly seems like a meaningful cost saving measure for a physical game, especially on a console that's pushing upwards of $80 as the game price.

        • By gjsman-1000 2025-05-0114:542 reply

          > Figure Nintendo can get the actual flash storage directly much cheaper than that, probably more like $3-5

          Not necessarily. Nintendo’s variant is built by Macronix under their XtraROM service; a variant of NAND flash designed to be a reliable Mask ROM substitute (including only being writable once, automatic repair afterwards, etc). Officially, their chips are rated to last 20 years at 85 degrees Celsius, which is insane.

          This isn’t your off the shelf SD card chip built by a no-name Chinese design company that fails after 3 years of not receiving power. Combine the niche flash with a custom security chip (Lotus3) on every game card; that’s not cheap.

          While we don’t know the exact pricing, the rumors are that 64GB is somewhere in the $15-$25 range per cartridge. At those prices, even if I ran a game company, I’d be reserving the non-game-key versions for a Deluxe Collector’s edition.

          • By jbm 2025-05-036:571 reply

            Strange, my copy of fitbox died after about 2-3 years of occasional use without any abuse.

            To be fair, this was the case for my Joycons too (Calling it drift is branding, they are effectively unusable)

            I like Nintendo's games but their QC has always been a little off. I got bad joypads even in the 80s when we got a NES. (Not having the internet and being a dumb kid I thought I was only limited to moving up and left on Zelda for whatever reason)

            • By xmodem 2025-05-0313:363 reply

              I have an Xbox 360 wired controller that I purchased circa 2008. I use it at least 1-2 times a week - these days for gaming on PC mostly, although I still pull the 360 out of the closet from time to time. The thumbstick rubber is definitely starting to get a little worse for wear at this point, but the controller still functions perfectly.

              I cannot understand how we used to engineer controllers that last, and now we just... don't.

              • By terribleperson 2025-05-0321:56

                I think it's literally cost-cutting. Parts that used to be built well enough that they last years are now built just well enough to not fail in testing.

                Luckily, you can now buy third-party controllers that use hall effect sensors.

              • By jbm 2025-05-0316:34

                Literally have the same thing; a wired XBOX360 controller that I bought a long time ago. I had to clean up the gunk inside a few years ago, but it still works perfectly fine.

                I've seen some videos explaining the cause of the Joycon issue and it feels like it must be cost cutting (on the most important component of the device). People even fix it temporarily with a piece of cardboard.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StRvTiRagPo

                Keep in mind, these are 100$+ in Canada. Per my experience, I think it will be another 40 years until I buy another Nintendo console.

              • By goosedragons 2025-05-0319:56

                Dead zones. Older controllers had bigger dead zones so the wear didn't matter as much. Switch joycons are physically smaller sticks so this makes the problem worse. There's even less tolerance to wear.

          • By autoexec 2025-05-037:251 reply

            People's 3DS games are already being found to be unplayable after sitting on the shelf and switch games will meet the same fate. Nintendo has been failing both paying customers and preservationists for a very long time now. Piracy will again be the only way people will have to play many Nintendo switch titles. In other cases, people will have to wait for nintendo to release a limited selection of overpriced (and sometimes edited/censored) versions of certain older games on whatever future platform they're currently pushing.

            • By Wowfunhappy 2025-05-0316:40

              I did some Googling and there doesn't seem to be an epidemic of 3DS game carts failing, I can find a few isolated reports but that feels as expected to me.

              It also sounds like you can extend the lifespan my making sure to boot up your cartridge in a 3DS every so often, because Nintendo gave them an error correction routine: https://gbatemp.net/threads/nintendo-switch-3ds-cartridge-li...

        • By staticman2 2025-05-0314:04

          Digital Foundry said these cards are estimated to cost game companies 16 bucks per unit.

      • By jsheard 2025-05-0114:00

        Maybe Sony was actually onto something with UMDs :P

      • By stevenwoo 2025-05-0114:43

        I think we only know the maximum physical cartridge size for Switch 2 is at 64GB as you write, but the CD Projekt interview about Switch 2 indicates there is/are other sizes available.

    • By altairprime 2025-05-0115:393 reply

      It’s to prevent warez rips as well, though. Performance of the SD card can be easily worked around; blocking the non-preservation segment community that just wants to download and play Switch games without paying for them — the majority of which don’t care about historical preservation or speedrunning — is made much easier by simply not loading new games from SD cards at all.

      • By jsheard 2025-05-0115:592 reply

        If stopping piracy was the main motivation for this change then all games would ship on GameKey carts, but they are still offering real carts to publishers who are willing to pay extra for the flash.

        It's rare for physical media to be the weak link in console DRM nowadays, when piracy does happen it's nearly always enabled by a full system jailbreak at which point you can just as easily pirate digital games.

        • By Ferret7446 2025-05-028:51

          It's up to the publisher how much DRM they want. Just as publishers choose whether or not their game on Steam uses DRM, publishers for Switch 2 decide whether their game will use GameKey or not.

        • By altairprime 2025-05-0116:36

          It’s not all or nothing. They made ripping of the most valuable games more difficult in exchange for lower prices for publishers, a win-win scenario for their platform, and those few who will insist on having a no-download experience can pay extra to do so. Obviously platform compromises will continue to make ripping possible, but this isn’t about all or nothing prevention, it’s about ratcheting up the difficulty level.

      • By autoexec 2025-05-037:18

        > It’s to prevent warez rips as well, though.

        There's basically no chance that this scheme will prevent piracy. Once again the pirates will have the superior product and paying customers will be screwed over.

    • By Wowfunhappy 2025-05-0316:44

      The Switch is a portable device, so this "slow media" would have to be some form of solid state memory. And unfortunately, cheap flash memory tends to also have a short self life. That doesn't exactly help with preservation!

      All else being equal, I'm happy Nintendo went with the more expensive media, even if it means some smaller titles likely won't be available physically. (In my eyes, a key card does not count as a physical release.)

      I'm mostly just happy the key cards are clearly labeled so I can avoid buying them...

  • By mysteria 2025-05-0113:212 reply

    In the computer games industry pretty much everything has been download only for some time as the assets are too large for DVD and BD never caught on for PC. Places like GOG provide unrestricted offline installers but the majority are provided via a storefront like Epic or Steam.

    The worst case scenario for preservationists is for games to become a streaming service via cloud gaming, which publishers may like since it pretty much prevents piracy and allows them to charge a monthly fee rather than a one time license fee. For movies and music streaming exclusives aren't a new thing and improvements in network latency and bandwidth are making game streaming more and more viable.

    • By lelag 2025-05-0114:404 reply

      Interesting point about PC going digital-only as Nintendo is a fascinating counter-example.

      While they offer digital downloads on the eShop, their pricing actively discourages it.

      Case in point: I just bought my kid a new first-party Switch game. Physical copy on Amazon was ~25% cheaper than the identical digital version on Nintendo's own eShop. Even my 9-year-old noted how illogical it seems, the physical version requires manufacturing, shipping, retail markup, yet costs significantly less than the digital bits that have near-zero marginal cost.

      It strongly suggests Nintendo wants the physical retail channel to thrive, or values the perceived permanence/resale value of cartridges.

      This context makes the Switch 2 "gamekey" cartridges (physical auth token, digital download) fit their pattern of valuing a physical artifact and retail presence, even if the data delivery shifts.

      • By jerf 2025-05-0114:461 reply

        And physical, at least to date, retains resell value as well. If you want to play an expensive Nintendo release that effectively never goes down in retail value, it's reasonably safe to buy it, play it, and resell it if you don't want it indefinitely. Nintendo never lowering their prices helps anchor the value high even in the resell market most of the time.

        I haven't read enough about this to know if the gamekey will kill this but it's certainly only a matter of time before they are all coded and bindable to only one account. Technically this has obviously been possible for a long time, they just haven't dared to pull that trigger yet. They clearly want to.

        • By autoexec 2025-05-037:341 reply

          > And physical, at least to date, retains resell value as well.

          That stopping being true as soon as the DS line started and they switched to flash memory that will degrade over time when they don't have power. People's DS games are already failing. The same will happen to switch games. Only a few hardcore collectors are going to pay money for a cartridge that doesn't let you play the game anymore.

          • By kbolino 2025-05-0313:18

            That's more like antique value. Resell as meant here occurs within the first few months to maybe years after a game releases. Degradation that happens on a time scale of a decade or more will not be a significant issue for ordinary resale.

      • By nottorp 2025-05-0312:05

        It's not only Nintendo, but all consoles that still have physical versions of games.

        I never buy digitally from Sony, for example. The discs get discounted far earlier than the occasional digital sale.

        Plus since we're talking about preservation, I don't trust Sony to make my digital purchases available indefinitely.

        The only content you really own is the cracked version from pirate bay...

      • By f33d5173 2025-05-0316:58

        Price discrimination. Digital is more convenient to the consumer, hence by nature they prefer it. Consumers who are more price sensitive can instead choose to put up with the inconvenience of a physical purchase in exchange for a cheaper price.

      • By Tarsul 2025-05-0312:48

        Nintendo has raised the physical prices for Switch 2 games more than the digital edition. E.g. Mario Kart physical will cost 90USD/EUR and digitally 80USD/EUR. Thus, their retail-friendliness has diminished with the new generation.

    • By mystified5016 2025-05-0113:462 reply

      Fortunately for everyone, all of the "stream games as a service" initiatives failed completely. Consumers aren't really interested due to obvious drawbacks, and vendors aren't interested in provisioning enough or good enough hardware to solve those drawbacks.

      • By ApolloFortyNine 2025-05-0114:092 reply

        Imo if Gamepass is allowed to survive, it's end game is a tier, or maybe included at no extra cost with some limitations, a cloud gaming component.

        Gamepass is the biggest threat in turning games into subscriptions, and unfortunately a growing subset of people will only play games on Gamepass. We've dodged Gamepass exclusives for now, but for how long?

        • By autoexec 2025-05-037:413 reply

          Game pass doesn't seem terribly popular. Xbox in general isn't doing very well compared to the other consoles. I think they'll keep pushing for games as a service though. It's too tempting to keep all that control out of the hands of players.

          • By kcb 2025-05-040:36

            Weird to describe something with maybe like 40 million subscribers as not terribly popular. Xbox is game pass and not a console anymore at this point.

          • By detaro 2025-05-0310:07

            > Game pass doesn't seem terribly popular

            It seems fairly popular right now. If you are the kind of person who wants to play many new releases it's a great deal.

            But I think it's not particularly sticky: it's a great deal for as long as Microsoft invests into it getting many titles immediately. If they stop doing that, that same audience segment doesn't really have a use for it anymore.

          • By Cipater 2025-05-039:561 reply

            It's only available in 40 out of 195 countries in the world and they have zero plans to expand it. They must not care much about it.

            • By kbolino 2025-05-0313:42

              That doesn't mean much. And 40 countries is actually a pretty large amount for this sort of thing. Companies like this are accustomed to (near-)first-world unit economics and market dynamics and they struggle at best to adapt to conditions outside of that bubble. They likely have metrics showing very few potential customers, for various reasons like low ownership of eligible hardware or low exposure to relevant advertising or high rates of piracy setting the price to compete with near zero, etc.

              There are logistical challenges that have to be solved, and both upfront and ongoing costs that have to be paid, for every new country that needs to be served, and often these are unlikely to be recouped. If they foreseeably reach 90+% of their potential customer base and revenue (or think so anyway) from those 40 countries then not expanding beyond them is a practical decision that doesn't extrapolate to not caring within those 40.

        • By detaro 2025-05-0310:03

          Game pass already comes with tiers with cloud gaming

      • By nottorp 2025-05-0312:07

        I paid for GeForce Now for a while. But that one's different because you play the games you "own" on Steam and they just rent you the hardware to play them on.

        Eventually I got a gaming video card and canceled - for now.

HackerNews