Super xci's don't need to be deleted you just add on more dlc's and newer updates overwrite outdated ones. Yes it can be a hassle towards "actively supported" games, but even the said xci user has options for that. He/she can just install the dlc or new updates from HBG and be done with that. SD space is still being preserved here b/c the base game is on a HDD while the dlc/updates or on the SD. Now do you see why some ppl want this? If you are a 100% portable user then you obviously wouldn't care for HDD mounting it shouldn't even be a debate b/c its a preference. Transfer speed on the other hand is not the same as installing it only took me 5 mins to move over 40gb of data "3 super xci games" over to my 8TB seagate expansion and a little less than 1 min to hook up the hdd to the switch.Yeah, the usage of a "super" XCI always seemed strange to me. On the one hand, it preserves SD space, but on the other hand, how important is SD space if you're using XCI files for the base games anyway? It's also incredibly inefficient to redownload or repackage the same base game with each new update and/or DLC.
When a new update or DLC comes out, I only have to download that new thing.
Like I said, it's inefficient to redownload or repackage the same base game with each new update and/or DLC.Super xci's don't need to be deleted you just add on more dlc's and newer updates overwrite outdated ones.
Then we are not talking about any benefits of a super XCI anymore. That's more inefficient than what I was previously talking about.He/she can just install the dlc or new updates from HBG and be done with that.
I completely understand why a person might want to use an HDD (cheaper space), and I understand why one might want to use a super XCI on an HDD (shifting update and DLC to the aforementioned cheaper storage). My only points are that a.) It requires sacrificing some or all portability, and b.) A super XCI is inefficient when it comes to updates and DLC.Now do you see why some ppl want this?
I play portably about 50% of the time. The problem is this doesn't translate to being able to store ~50% of my games on a HDD. To use an HDD, I'd have to consciously pick games to not play portably, and that's overly cumbersome for a lot of people. I have a 256 GB SD card (plus the ~32 GB internal storage), and I've never had space issues. In addition to remaining portable, I don't have to worry about repackaging super XCI files with the latest updates and/or DLC.If you are a 100% portable user then you obviously wouldn't care for HDD mounting it shouldn't even be a debate b/c its a preference.
Transfer times are going to vary. If we combine download times, transfer times, etc., the end results are probably going to be comparable.Transfer speed on the other hand is not the same as installing it only took me 5 mins to move over 40gb of data "3 super xci games" over to my 8TB seagate expansion and a little less than 1 min to hook up the hdd to the switch.
Its inefficient b/c its not timely convenient for you. Repackaging is optional and only should matter or be used often to those who are trying to use newer games on an older firmware. And again thats only seems "inefficient" when the said game continues to get constant updates primarily new games.Like I said, it's inefficient to redownload or repackage the same base game with each new update and/or DLC.
Then we are not talking about any benefits of a super XCI anymore. That's more inefficient than what I was previously talking about.
I completely understand why a person might want to use an HDD (cheaper space), and I understand why one might want to use a super XCI on an HDD (shifting update and DLC to the aforementioned cheaper storage). My only points are that a.) It requires sacrificing some or all portability, and b.) A super XCI is inefficient when it comes to updates and DLC.
I play portably about 50% of the time. The problem is this doesn't translate to being able to store ~50% of my games on a HDD. To use an HDD, I'd have to consciously pick games to not play portably, and that's overly cumbersome for a lot of people. I have a 256 GB SD card (plus the ~32 GB internal storage), and I've never had space issues. In addition to remaining portable, I don't have to worry about repackaging super XCI files with the latest updates and/or DLC.
Transfer times are going to vary. If we combine download times, transfer times, etc., the end results are probably going to be comparable.
No, having to repackage the base game with newer update and/or DLC files, and overwrite the entire super XCI on the HDD, are demonstrably inefficient. This has to be done each time a new update or DLC comes out (assuming you want the update and/or DLC). I'm not talking about anything related to playing on lower system versions.Its inefficient b/c its not timely convenient for you. Repackaging is optional and only should matter to those who are trying to use newer games on an older firmware. And again thats only seems "inefficient" when the said game continues to get constant updates primarily new games.
If you look back at my previous posts in this thread, you will see that my argument has been that XCI transfer times are comparable to NSP install times, since people have mistakenly stated that the latter requires more steps. I also acknowledged that downloading games/updates directly to the system using something like HBG is often faster than downloading an XCI files and then sending it to an HDD, since HBG installs as it downloads. Comparing USB HDD speeds to SD transfer speeds, for example, isn't particularly interesting to me, since it doesn't matter.Just as you pointed out transfer times vary so its not a general comparison as you previously claimed it was. PC specs and the speed of the said HDD determines the outcome.
I don't get the feeling you're being disingenuous, but I never claimed my space management applied to anyone other than me. I've also acknowledged numerous times that HDD storage is cheaper than SD storage. However, people generally don't care about HDD storage because they have SD storage, and SD storage doesn't hinder portability.You have to keep in mind that your space management doesn't speak for everybody.
Nope the entire argument went from xci is bad to playing games on a HDD is inferior, its not even about xci b/c well.... xci can be installed just as an nsp can...No, having to repackage the base game with newer update and/or DLC files, and overwrite the entire super XCI on the HDD, are demonstrably inefficient. This has to be done each time a new update or DLC comes out (assuming you want the update and/or DLC). I'm not talking about anything related to playing on lower system versions.
This isn't a matter of opinion. You're resending (or worse, redownloading) the same base file over and over again.
If you look back at my previous posts in this thread, you will see that my argument has been that XCI transfer times are comparable to NSP install times, since people have mistakenly stated that the latter requires more steps. I also acknowledged that downloading games/updates directly to the system using something like HBG is often faster than downloading an XCI files and then sending it to an HDD, since HBG installs as it downloads. Comparing USB HDD speeds to SD transfer speeds, for example, isn't particularly interesting to me, since it doesn't matter.
I don't get the feeling you're being disingenuous, but I never claimed my space management applied to anyone other than me. I've also acknowledged numerous times that HDD storage is cheaper than SD storage. However, people generally don't care about HDD storage because they have SD storage, and SD storage doesn't hinder portability.
I never argued XCI was bad, and I never argued playing games on an HDD is inferior.Nope the entire argument went from xci is bad to playing games on a HDD is inferior, its not even about xci b/c well.... xci can be installed just as an nsp can...
If I have a 10GB base game, a 5GB update file, and a 1MB DLC file, I get a super XCI that's approximately 15GB. If a new update comes out that I want to add to the XCI, then I have to replace the 5GB update file with the newer one, and I have to send the new 15GB super XCI file to the HDD. That's inefficient.The actuality of it all is your rebuilding data with newer data. If we were downloading again it would take even longer. And for the 3rd time repackaging is an optional choice xci users aren't bound to repack content some ppl just like to have everything all together in 1 place. Hell there were times I was too lazy to rebuild and just grabbed a few new dlc's from HBG.. why are we dragging this out longer than it should be? lol repacking is a great choice to old games, newer game are tedious yet still doable, but if the person was on a low firmware he wouldn't have a choice but to repack anyway.
This isn't new information. I just wasn't talking about it.I know your not talking about lower system versions, but maybe you can read about it. its ok to learn new things.
For most people, SD storage is large enough for their needs, and it's portable.You were bragging how optimized your SD space is - like it meant to be a persuasive figure into not needing a HDD for more space. Personally I don't care, I just wanted to make it clear that there are ppl out there that play more games than you so space could be a problem for them.
I didn't claim to speak for everybody.You say that.... but again... you don't speak for me and other users with that statement. You know... there are those who use both too
If I have a 10GB base game, a 5GB update file, and a 1MB DLC file, I get a super XCI that's approximately 15GB. If a new update comes out that I want to add to the XCI, then I have to replace the 5GB update file with the newer one, and I have to send the new 15GB super XCI file to the HDD. That's inefficient.I never argued XCI was bad, and I never argued playing games on an HDD is inferior.
If I have a 10GB base game, a 5GB update file, and a 1MB DLC file, I get a super XCI that's approximately 15GB. If a new update comes out that I want to add to the XCI, then I have to replace the 5GB update file with the newer one, and I have to send the new 15GB super XCI file to the HDD. That's inefficient.
This isn't new information. I just wasn't talking about it.
For most people, SD storage is large enough for their needs, and it's portable.
I didn't claim to speak for everybody.
Thank you for conceding that super XCI files are often inefficient.For the 4th time its inefficient to active supported games and its entirely optional.
Thank you for conceding that HDD XCI loading hinders portability.If want portability then I just put all my favorite games on the Sd card that simple im not hindered by anything.
If you wanted to shitpost all you had to do was ask... it would have saved you about 10 pages of nonsense. I get it LaciousThank you for conceding that super XCI files are often inefficient.
Thank you for conceding that HDD XCI loading hinders portability.