I don't hate VR I just don't care / want to play in VR and I would just not buy the system. But for me it's easy. I was neer that beep into the Nintendo eco system. Some nice games here and there, but I have more than enough choice without Nintendo.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
How would you feel if the next Nintendo console is a VR headset similar to Oculus Quest?
- Thread starter thomasmahler
- Start date
I'm a bit confused about your hypothetical VR headset as described in the OP. Your OP talks about the next nintendo console being a VR headset, which implies that it will be just a headset with no functionality outside of VR. But then in your edit you do you're describing a Switch-like system (tablet, joycon rails) that just has VR capability, and basically is just a non-cardboard version of Labo VR.
So which are we describing?
A Switch-like system that function in docked, handheld, as well as having the specs/screen referesh rate to support quality VR? Perhaps it would come with whatever headset portion is needed a la this GearVR you reference?
Or just a VR headset with no home console traditional TV/handheld play?
I think people would be excited about the first, and would be up in arms about the second. I don't think people want their traditional experience they've been accustomed to for decades to fall by the wayside for the sake of VR. But I think that as long as it doesn't infringe upon their preferred way to play, people will be open to it.
Doubt they'd do vr. Requires too much tech and they've been focused on accessibility for a while so vr would cut into both
No thanks VR only would fucking suck. VR as an optional peripheral where it docked into the headset? Yes please!
The FPS games on a TV and the games you've likely experienced in VR probably share a movement disconnect, where you are perceiving movement that isn't your own. The games I mentioned in my previous post do not have such a disconnect, which would be a different situation to these FPS games on a TV that yo mention.
That seems to be more on your end, not mine, since you keep opposing to something that actually isn't as unfit as you think it is, but refuse to acknowledge any benefits. That is stubbornness down to a tee.
I can play Destiny 2 or Overwatch all day. No problems. Doom for 20 minutes and I'm ready to hurl. So I believe it.
Just not going to pay a few hundred bucks to confirm it. VR isn't for me.
That's fair, and I'm sure there's plenty of great VR games. But I wasn't saying it'd be bad -- just I'm not interested. I do think in its current state VR is mostly a gimmick more than anything, but so is the Switch's handheld-console schtick (and I love it). I don't doubt Nintendo could do something awesome with it, but I certainly need to be sold on it at this state.
When you say you believe it, you mean you believe what you've been saying or what I said? From your last sentence, it seems the former.
I absolutely understand not wanting to pay money to confirm it, but people really need to stop saying "VR isn't for me" because it's the same as saying "movies aren't for me", "books aren't for me", or heck, "computers aren't for me".
It's just a really weird thing to say, especially when you don't want to confirm it, meaning you're relying on a guess but stating an absolute. Many studies have been done to prove that as long as there isn't a movement disconnect, the only cause for sickness in VR (other than user setup issues) is latency, which can eventually be acceptable for 100% of the population because there is a finite amount of latency that even the most adapt brain's can perceive.
Doom makes you sick because you're perceiving fast movement on a screen that your brain is picking up as the reference point for your own body's movement, which causes a sensory conflict. Conflicts like this don't exist just by wearing a VR headset; they exist when movement is disconnected from your real and virtual self.
I would qualify the 3DS as a sub VR.
Dont know why people dont believe Nintendo to be able to do VR. They will do it if they feel they need to do it
Nintendo, don't look at this poll! They don't understand the idea! Please continue developing this amazing product!
I'm sorry? We don't even know if they ARE developing VR tech.
This thread is based on a hypothetical and so is my post lol.
I can't vote as I fall between options.
I'm 100% fine if it's compatible with a VR headset--i.e. can put the table in a headset.
100% opposed to it being solely VR. I enjoy my PSVR, but only in short bursts as I just don't like wearing a headset, tend to get sweaty, don't like motion controls outside of short bursts (and regular controls lesson VR experiences for me) and sometimes get motion sick.
So it's a great part of my gaming routine, but couldn't be a major part. I like to game in binge sessions of 2-6 hours a few times a week and VR just isn't conducive to that.
I'm 100% fine if it's compatible with a VR headset--i.e. can put the table in a headset.
100% opposed to it being solely VR. I enjoy my PSVR, but only in short bursts as I just don't like wearing a headset, tend to get sweaty, don't like motion controls outside of short bursts (and regular controls lesson VR experiences for me) and sometimes get motion sick.
So it's a great part of my gaming routine, but couldn't be a major part. I like to game in binge sessions of 2-6 hours a few times a week and VR just isn't conducive to that.
I'd be 100% in on the Hybrid option. It just seems like such a no-brainer IF they can get the technology to the point where it needs to be.
Oh, well, sorry we "don't understand" the hypothetical idea of hypothetical tech from Nintendo, I guess.
Good god. VR is cool and everything but people in here are evangelizing like it's their religion. Chill out. A VR only Nintendo console would suck. Imagine having to put a headset on to breed Pokémon eggs. Imagine smash bros tournaments where every participant had to wear VR. Imagine just wanting to pop in to your animal crossing village for a few minutes to water flowers.
VR is very fun but it's not our lord and savior and the end all be all of games, and many types of games (Nintendo's specifically) would be made worse by forced VR.
Some people in here (you know who you are) need to chill out and accept that some people don't want to have to put on a headset in order to knock out a few picross puzzles.
VR is very fun but it's not our lord and savior and the end all be all of games, and many types of games (Nintendo's specifically) would be made worse by forced VR.
Some people in here (you know who you are) need to chill out and accept that some people don't want to have to put on a headset in order to knock out a few picross puzzles.
I definitely support optional (not forced) VR support for Nintendo's next console, but we shouldn't pretend that Nintendo's franchises aren't good for VR when most of them are very good fits, unless you mean that forcing all of them into VR with no other option is the part that's bad.
It's fine! It takes a second to wrap your head around as it doesn't really resemble much on the market, but the idea is hands-down, unequivocally, inarguably the best all-around consumer VR gaming device one could imagine coming to market in the next few years.
Now, if your beef is that you just have no interest in VR, that's a different discussion from what I'm having.
Last edited:
People usually hate what they don't understand. It's not a new concept for technology reception.
Issue is the OP's thread title frames VR as a replacement for a Nintendo Console, rather than a major feature of the next Nintendo console. I think people are answering the question based on that premise. People are open to VR, but not at the expense of the other traditional gaming methods they've loved for decades.
Yeah, exactly. It's like if people responded to rumors of the Switch Lite with: "I don't want a handheld only switch! Wtf Nintendo, you're dead to me!"
It's still a Switch. Nintendo will still spend 90% of their development efforts on traditional games. This is far less segmented than how Nintendo has historically handled their hardware/software ecosystem.
I don't see OP suggesting VR as a replacement. It doesn't have to be Nintendo's next flagship console.
Pretty much this.
Why would you want them to unnecessarily separate it into a different platform? There's literally no reason to do that. You're just killing an insane value proposition
I think if you try to make it optional, it will inevitably suck. You need to redesign your game from the ground up for VR to make it feel worthwhile. Especially when wearing a headset is less comfortable.
People liked motion controls in Wii Sports, because the game was designed around them. When they tried to add motion controls to games like Mario Galaxy and Skyward Sword without really changing the controller-based gameplay, it ranged from forgettable to annoying.
I mean, that sounds like an awful idea, if anyone suggested it. I see more realistically, Nintendo offering a Switch 2 with a wireless hub to stream VR gameplay to 2-4 headsets.
I don´t hate VR, but I don´t want to put on a helmet and completely isolate myself from others when I play games: One of the big reasons why I bought a WiiU first and a Switch later was because they allowed me to stay on the couch next to my SO when I wanted to play and she just wanted to watch TV. Putting on VR gear would be like going to a different room. I think that for all the advantages VR brings to the table this is a hurdle it needs to solve before it can make the big jump to the mainstream. And I don´t see how it can do so, as VR relies precisely on taking over all your senses and completely nullifying external "noise" to make you submerge in the experience.
Yeah but a console designed entirely around it isn't gonna have the appeal of something like the switch.
I'd rather Nintendo make a headset like Sony.
Sure I don't want, but I don't see people happy with a $499+ Nintendo console.
The Op suggested it. That's what the whole thread is about. "What if the next Nintendo console is a VR headset". And then after that they edited in something about being able to slot a switch into it so you could play switch games. The premise still being that the next console was fully VR so that developers knew 100% of the audience had it and took full advantage of it.
And people are (rightfully) saying that would suck. Barely anybody would be against a PSVR situation.
"How would you feel if the next Nintendo console is a VR headset similar to Oculus Quest?"
The thread title certainly frames it as Nintendo's "next console."
IMO a more accurate framing based on your interpretation of that would be:
"How would you feel if Nintendo developed a fully featured VR Headset compatible with Nintendo console games?"
There is an important distinction between those two things, and based on other replies in this thread I think there are other people that are confused as to whether this would replace a traditional console or be a separate thing entirely in the OP's hypothetical.
I've already posted it in this thread before, but this solves the issue:
Why is the price going up so much?!?!
Switch VR would be an all-inclusive device similar to the Oculus Quest that offers the benefit of being able to plug into the TV and be played as a docked Switch. The Oculus Quest sells for $399 today. Why would Nintendo have to charge $499 in 2022?
In this world, Nintendo is still releasing the Lite and the OG Switch form factors. They're putting new Nvidia chips in them as they come along.
Switch Lite: handheld only. $199
Switch: handheld and docked. $299
Switch VR: docked flat gaming and wireless VR gaming (including the ability to play your flat Switch games in theater mode anywhere). $399
This is an all-in-one PSVR solution minus the wires at half the price lol. I assume the OP was allowing for the device to have TV out. It'd have TV out.
It would be a huge disaster if every game had to be played with the headset on. Having an HDMI out would solve that problem. But the other challenge would be convincing people who aren't interested in VR to pay for the HMD components, but I feel like if anyone can change people's perceptions that VR sucks, it's definitely Nintendo.
In this hypothetical scenario, Nintendo wouldn't force VR into every title they could. VR just isn't appropriate for every game, and there certainly is and will always be a big demand for traditional games.
It would be entirely supplemental. You can buy a Switch for $300, or you can pay $100 extra and get a Switch that also opens you up to the VR stuff on the platform. I imagine Nintendo would aim to make 1 or 2 solid, true-blue exclusives for VR each year (at least at first). Fewer than you would have expected them to make for their handhelds. The rest of the lineup would be subsidized by third party VR stuff and VR modes on some of Nintendo's flat games. Platformers are great for this, isometric games are great for this.
So, for $399 you'd get the latest, greatest docked Switch PLUS what might quickly become the most appealing library of VR software out there. The only downside with the form factor that I'm proposing is the absence of traditional handheld mode. I'd, personally, be willing to sacrifice that and maybe buy a Lite down the line.
Used Switch Lite plus a Switch VR is the Pro Gamer move.
Nope, that doesn´t solve anything: If you implement that solution you´re in fact breaking the immerion into the VR. Reconciling the VR with the real world inherently means making the VR less "real". It´s like trying to sell a sports car which all around the pont that it´s able to get to 500km/h, while also saying that at any moment any else can slow you down to 100km/h. And you still need to wear a helmet, that is a HUGE stopper for a lot of people. VR is cool and you canhave some amazing experiences with it, but I don´t see it gettting traction with the main public just for how it needs to rely on sensory isolation.
I was supposing to support VR Nintendo needs to upgrade their chips which will force them out of the $299 comfort zone. PS4 Pro at $399 wasn't able to really handle VR very well in 2016. That plus the cost for headset.
Quest can be sold at its price is because it's a dedicated VR console and it's not really that powerful.
It will solve the issue because the gain in immersion is so vast in general that anything you lose by having the real world pouring in (you only need to let other humans in) will be a non-issue. The game could even automatically retexture or model that person as a character in the game. All in all, it's not an issue that people will care about, it's merely just you thinking it's an issue before having tried it. The sports car example doesn't work at all.
This issue you have only exists in your mind. In reality, it will not be an issue.
Billions of people wear headphones, glasses, and such. Billions of people will be fine wearing VR/AR glasses. That's the distinction, it needs to get much, much smaller than it is today, but it will eventually happen, and people will be fine with wearing them.
Yeah, and that's why the Switch is such a good fit. Oculus Quest is a good proof of concept that you can have damn good VR experiences with completely mobile hardware. Literally every single game Nintendo makes runs on mobile hardware. Boom. None of the other platform holders can say that. Hell, not even Oculus can say it lol.
What we're hoping for here is that this device would run off whatever next gen SoC Nvidia and Nintendo create for the Switch. I'd expect that upgrade will come around a time when they can afford to sell it at the price point they're at now, which is why OP was talking about a 2022 release.
Basically I'm asking Nintendo to spend the next three years stealing and refining the idea of a product that already exists. As of 2022, this proposed hardware will be older tech (very Nintendo move) but i still think it'll be the best VR value proposition to date.
If we´re going to speak about things that don´t exist today and pull conjectures about adoption out of thin air then I raise you that 3D holograms will be much more succesfull than VR.
Also you don´t understand that it´s not a matter of the helmet size. Just look at the market penetration of Google Glasses. A controller is something you grab with your hands, is a tool you USE, while VR helmets/glasses and other kind of stuff is something you WEAR. That is something that is extremely hostile as a concept for billions and more when it´s something that you put on your face and that makes you blind to the world. Yeah, they can consume it sporadically, but as something to have in their houses and use regularly...that´s a very different story.
We don't have any kind of inclination of how to get genuine 3D holograms. We do however know ways to get to VR/AR glasses using waveguides, pancake lenses and such. That's the distinct difference between my example and yours because one is somewhat tractable, and the other isn't.
Bringing up Google Glass is a tried and failed example of how to make a relevant point. It has nothing to do with VR or AR and was never sold to consumers. It had controversies surrounding it's camera prior to when society adapted cameras on phones as a norm, and was a Google product which means it often gets canned.
It's strange that you keep bringing up being blind to the real world when I've already given you an example showing you don't have to be, and when provided with that example you start coming up with concerns that people just won't care about like a slight hit to the already massive gain in immersion. The exact type of people that will want that functionality are the type of people that aren't going to care for it's effect on immersion.
