This is to do with a sensory disconnect and/or incorrect iPD. The results have nothing to do with the general use of VR where people are literally just donning a headset doing nothing, sitting down and watching a movie, or using teleportation/room-scale - which means my point stands.Come on now
Prevalence is also known to be higher among Asians and women.
Thank you.You come on. I've demoed roomscale VR games to 40+ people with no reports of nausea, so I was curious what games this guy used in his study. Sure enough, red flags everywhere. One was a student project where you tilt your head to rotate a board to move a marble (can't imagine how exactly that looks or how confusing those gravity effects might be), and the other was a horror game with sliding locomotion (something we already knew makes a large number of people sick until they get their VR legs).
As DarthBuzzard said, roomscale VR is a lot more comfortable, because it doesn't deceive your senses. You simply need to adjust the HMD to the correct IPD and insure your framerate and tracking performance are smooth.
No. This is the biggest myth of VR, because you're assuming that VR itself causes sickness for most people when infact, it's only part of VR that does this - whenever there is a sensory disconnect between what your eyes see and the expected movement via your inner ear. However I agree that Nintendo might always hold onto home consoles even if Sony and Microsoft don't.This for me and I imagine for many more. Maybe Nintendo will make a fully fledged VR device one day, but I can't see them ever not having a standard home console as their many product at any given time.
In all likelihood this is just a misconception on your part. You could be right, but the chance is very low, so I'd take another shot if you get given the chance, and make sure that you're playing something at 90Hz+ without the game taking control over the camera over you.I physically can't use VR due to motion sickness, After the 3DS Nintendo would never make something a large part of their audience can't use
What's lame about it? If you're in to immersive games at all, it's the place to be. I also wouldn't consider demos as any kind of indication of what VR is like because you're never going to demo the long-standing games like Lone Echo / Echo VR, Astro Bot, and Asgard's Wrath. These are at the GOTY-contender level and also require hours of playtime, so you'd never be able to demo them in public and wouldn't be able to appreciate them at a friend's house either unless they left you to it for hours.
That's kind of redundant. That's like saying "This water is too cold to be hot". Except that certain conditions can change that, which can also happen for VR too.
I mean it's not like Nintendo gave money they made from the N64, GameCube, etc. to charity ... they still made a lot of money from those platforms even in the 22-33 million install base range.
Money is money, if they could make some kind of unique VR setup in a "Nintendo-ey" way (ie: the helmet simulates things like wind and water sensations) they could make a handful of VR titles a year and get 3rd party ports of other VR content plus it could play Switch games as well. They could also repurpose Switch titles for VR mode as they did with Labo VR without much fuss.
This is something that would *additive* to the Switch platform and the money they make there, not a replacement or something that has to carry the company.
If you're selling 5.5 million units of these things per year on average at a $40 profit margin lets say, that's $220 million per year in extra profit before you even sell a single game or collect a licensing fee royalty. That's not a bad extra revenue stream at all.
Been wondering about this for a while.
I think one of the reasons why Nintendo did Labo VR was to get their feet wet with VR so that they know how to do this stuff if VR indeed takes off big time at some point. If you look at Quest, it's a 399$ consumer device, so by 2022, Nintendo could probably make a 299$ or 349$ headset. They already have quite a bit of experience with motion controls as well, so it all kinda makes sense.
Ever since the Wii, Nintendo has done well whenever they tried to approach the console market from a different angle and if they come out with Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Mario Kart and so on in VR, I think that's when we really talk about VR becoming accepted by the masses.
So, yay or nay? Would you care, as long as the games are fantastic?
EDIT: Adding my post below, cause Nintendo going the GearVR route could also be a real possibility:
I'd guess that Nintendo will keep working with Nvidia on a new chipset, so there's 0 reason why this thing wouldn't support all your Switch titles. They could literally just do the GearVR thing where you slot the tablet portion into a headset using those JoyCon rails and also support JoyCons and handheld-play, while ensuring developers that everyone has access to the VR functionality, so that it's not just a gimmick or a peripheral that only 20-30% of the userbase has access to.
Nintendo has shown that they love this stuff before. The Virtual Boy, the 3DS,... and by 2022, the Tech would be cheap and powerful enough to make a device like that.