在Switch 2世代中，遊戲大量採用「鑰匙卡（Key-Card）」的設計，核心原因其實並不複雜，主要是為了在遊戲資料量急遽膨脹的時代，同時兼顧成本、技術限制與玩家仍然偏好實體收藏的市場現實。隨著3A級遊戲畫質、音效與內容規模不斷提升，單一作品動輒數十甚至上百 GB，若完全以高容量實體卡帶（例如64GB或128GB）發行，卡帶本身的製作成本會大幅拉高，最終反映在售價或壓縮開發商利潤，對第三方廠商而言並不現實。鑰匙卡的做法，便是在卡帶中只保留啟動授權與必要驗證資料，真正的遊戲主體則透過下載取得，讓實體卡帶的成本回到可控範圍。

從技術層面來看，即使Switch 2相較前代有明顯升級，其卡帶容量與讀取速度仍然存在先天限制。許多高畫質3A遊戲在資料串流、貼圖載入與效能穩定度方面，仍然更適合由主機內部儲存空間來執行。鑰匙卡因此成為一種折衷方案，讓玩家在保有「我買的是實體遊戲」這種心理滿足的同時，實際運行時仍以下載後的完整資料為主，避免卡帶頻寬成為效能瓶頸。

防盜版與後續更新也是鑰匙卡受到青睞的重要原因。鑰匙卡本身結合帳號與主機驗證機制，能有效提高破解與盜版門檻，同時讓開發商在推出大型更新、DLC或修正補丁時更為彈性，不必受限於實體卡內容已固定的問題。對廠商而言，將龐大的資料集中在伺服器端管理，也有利於版本控管與長期維護，這在服務型或長線營運的遊戲上尤其關鍵。

不過，鑰匙卡的普及也帶來一些現實層面的影響，其中之一便是二手市場。由於鑰匙卡本質上是授權載體，玩家對其「實體價值」的認知往往低於完整卡帶，轉售時價格可能更容易下滑，對習慣買賣二手遊戲的玩家來說，吸引力自然不如真正的全資料實體卡。

相對而言，非鑰匙卡的Switch 2遊戲並未消失，而是集中在特定類型之中。資料量較小的獨立遊戲，或風格取向不追求極致畫面表現的作品，仍然非常適合完整收錄於實體卡帶中。這類遊戲不僅能做到真正的即插即玩，也符合獨立遊戲玩家對「完整實體收藏」的期待。部分任天堂第一方作品也會視情況選擇完整實體卡發售，尤其是自家經典IP，例如《超級瑪利歐》系列，或內容規模相對可控的作品與體驗版本。此外，一些容量不大的經典重製或高清化作品，也有機會以完整實體卡形式推出，兼顧收藏性與便利性。

整體來看，鑰匙卡與純實體卡各自代表不同取向。鑰匙卡的優勢在於能大幅降低卡帶成本，讓大型3A遊戲得以在Switch 2平台上推出，同時也方便更新與長期營運，並保留一定程度的實體收藏意義；但其缺點同樣明顯，玩家必須下載大量資料，首次遊玩體驗不再即時，對網路環境與主機儲存空間的依賴也更高，容易讓期待「全實體」的玩家產生落差感。純實體卡則仍然是即插即玩、無需下載、不受網路限制的理想型態，但高昂的製作成本與容量天花板，使其在大型遊戲領域愈來愈難以成為主流。

因此，Switch 2遊戲市場走向鑰匙卡為主、完整實體卡為輔的結構，並非單一策略選擇，而是成本現實、技術限制與玩家習慣三者妥協下的結果。對玩家而言，未來的選擇重點也將從「是不是實體」轉向「我是否能接受下載換取更大規模與更高品質的遊戲體驗」。

In the Switch 2 era, the widespread adoption of “Key-Cards” for games is driven by a combination of practical considerations rather than a single strategic choice. At its core, this approach is meant to balance rapidly growing game data sizes with cost control, technical limitations, and the market’s continued preference for physical ownership. As modern AAA titles continue to expand in visual fidelity, audio quality, and overall scope, individual games can easily reach tens or even hundreds of gigabytes. Releasing such titles entirely on high-capacity physical cartridges—such as 64GB or 128GB cards—would dramatically increase manufacturing costs, which would either push retail prices higher or significantly reduce developers’ margins. For third-party publishers in particular, this is often unrealistic. The key-card model addresses this issue by storing only the launch authorization and essential verification data on the cartridge, while the main game content is downloaded digitally, keeping physical production costs manageable.

From a technical perspective, even though Switch 2 represents a notable hardware upgrade over its predecessor, its cartridge capacity and read speeds still face inherent limitations. Many high-end AAA games rely heavily on fast data streaming for textures, assets, and real-time loading, making internal storage a more suitable medium for stable performance. Key-cards therefore function as a compromise, allowing players to retain the psychological satisfaction of owning a physical product while ensuring that the game itself runs from downloaded data, avoiding performance bottlenecks caused by cartridge bandwidth.

Anti-piracy measures and post-launch updates are another major reason key-cards have become attractive. Because key-cards are tied to account and hardware verification systems, they raise the barrier to piracy and unauthorized copying. At the same time, they allow developers to deploy patches, balance adjustments, and downloadable content more flexibly, without being constrained by data already fixed on a physical cartridge. For publishers, keeping large amounts of data on centralized servers also simplifies version control and long-term maintenance, which is especially important for games designed for extended support or live-service-style updates.

That said, the popularity of key-cards also brings real-world trade-offs, particularly in the second-hand market. Since key-cards function primarily as authorization media rather than complete data carriers, many players perceive their “physical value” as lower than that of full cartridges. As a result, resale prices may decline more quickly, making key-card games less attractive to players who regularly buy and sell used copies.

At the same time, non–key-card Switch 2 games have not disappeared; instead, they are concentrated in specific categories. Smaller-scale titles, especially indie games with modest data requirements, are well suited to full physical cartridges. These games benefit from true plug-and-play convenience and align well with the expectations of players who value complete physical ownership. Certain first-party Nintendo titles may also continue to be released as full cartridges, particularly well-established IPs such as the Super Mario series, or games with more controlled content sizes. In addition, some classic titles or HD remasters with relatively small file sizes may also be released as full physical editions, appealing to collectors while maintaining convenience.

Overall, key-cards and full physical cartridges represent two distinct design philosophies. Key-cards offer clear advantages in cost reduction, support for large-scale AAA games, easier updates, and a degree of physical collectability, but they also require large downloads, reduce immediate playability, and increase reliance on network access and storage space, often disappointing players who expect a “true” physical product. Full cartridges, on the other hand, provide instant play, no download requirements, and independence from network conditions, yet their high manufacturing costs and strict capacity limits make them increasingly impractical for large modern games.

As a result, the Switch 2 market’s shift toward key-cards as the primary format, with full cartridges playing a secondary role, reflects a compromise shaped by economic realities, technical constraints, and evolving player habits. For players, the key question going forward is no longer simply whether a game is physical, but whether they are willing to accept mandatory downloads in exchange for larger-scale, higher-quality gaming experiences.