Im not arguing semantics. You're calling it a hindrance when the only hindrance is to the person having to create the XCI loader. If thats the real issue, then say it like it is.
And its not a good analogy when you're comparing two instances that arent the same. People didnt care about Gateway because it was completely redundant. XCI loading isnt redundant. There are uses for it that NSPs cant provide.
And on the subject of being "safer", of course a signed NSP is the safest thing out there, but signed NSPs arent the only type of NSP you're installing. Homebrew games wont be signed (such as that AM2R port that was made). And correct me if Im wrong, but when people change the firmware requirements of a game and repackage the NSP, that will also no longer be signed.
Also when people convert XCIs to NSP, that also isnt signed.
The point is that with both NSPs and XCIs, you're agreeing to accept the responsibility of running unsigned code. At some point you're gonna want to, and will knowingly accept the risk that comes with it. This applies to NSPs and XCIs.
Pikabricker was distributed as a NSP also. If NSPs were so safe, then it would've been released as an XCI instead. But it tried to reach the masses, and did so as a NSP.
So the general use of NSPs arent necessarily safer. There's an option where you can choose to only use signed NSPs, but by the same token, you can also use tools to verify NCA signatures within an XCI too.
NSPs in general arent more safer.
And as I said before, by accepting to use a XCI loader, you're not picking a side and deciding to never use NSPs again. You can still use NSPs with all of it's benefits, while still using XCIs.
You're making it sound like a war when its not. This isnt really about XCIs vs NSPs. Its about people being able to use their XCIs with their NSPs.
You are arguing semantics when you create a false equivocation between "option" and "hindrance." It's not a hindrance to have the option, but the option is itself a hindrance to portability, and you already acknowledged this. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to have more options, but I personally would never store my Switch games on an HDD, and a lot of people also wouldn't. My point was that, considering the objective hindrance to portability, it's not worth the price tag of SX OS for most, and most people could not care less about it.
Again, when you look at the point of my analogy, it's sound. In fact, ignoring the HDD stuff, almost the exact arguments (drag and drop without installing anything, having options, hotswapping storage, using personal dumps, etc.) were used by people crying Luma and its predecessors didn't have .3ds support. To remind you, the point of my analogy is it's largely SX OS people complaining (oddly) about missing XCI support in other custom firmwares, just as it was Gateway users doing the same thing. With an analogy, it doesn't matter that it's not exact same thing, and the slight differences you've cited don't make it a false analogy, since the main similarity I'm pointing out is still true. These are definitely comparable situations.
I enjoyed how you jumped from "XCI files are safer than NSP files" to "XCI files and NSP files are just as safe," but moving the goalposts doesn't matter, since neither statement is true, and respectfully, I knew you wouldn't get it before you responded. If I am using a decent title installer, I'm going to be barred for installing unsigned NSP files. You can talk all you want about homebrew forwarders and whatnot, but they're irrelevant to the conversation, since they're not something we're talking about trading off for an XCI alternative, and I also don't recommend their usage. If you change the software requirements of an NSP on the fly using the aforementioned title installer, the signature of the NSP is verified, and then it's installed with its version requirements changed. There is also no point in converting an XCI file to an NSP file anymore, since the aforementioned installer can check if the XCI is signed and install it like an NSP file. I'm summary, signed NSP files are safer than loading XCI files. Don't be disingenuous and say they're not.
I'm not arguing XCI vs NSP (that was you). I'm all for options. I'm arguing, however, that the option for XCI usage is largely unwanted, unsafe, and unneeded, at least so far as not making it worth the work. If someone wants XCI support, great. Use SX OS. However, most people look at the price tag and say "not worth it," and many of them say "wouldn't be worth it if it was free."
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
There's no need to install XCI files. Just drag, drop, and go. No messy uninstalls if you wanna change them out for new games. You just delete the XCI files and drop in new ones. I see zero advantages to NSP, since XCI does it all, but keeps things simpler.
I've listed some NSP advantages above (in short, portability if we are talking about HDD usage, and safety).
However, drag and drop isn't particularly convincing. The amount of time it takes to send an XCI to a device is comparable to the amount of time it takes to install an NSP over a USB connection, for example. There are no real advantages to the XCI format. Some people really want to use mounted HDD storage, I suppose, and they should use SX OS if HDD usage is worth the price tag, but most people could not care less.
Oh, and you don't have to do "messy uninstalls." You can just delete from the data management screen.
