• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

VR Hardware An idea for a Nintendo Switch 2 VR.

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
385
893
290
I've been thinking about something Nintendo could do to get into VR in the next generation: make the new Switch with two configurations, a regular one with a VR “dock” and a native VR model.


Option 1 (Gear VR style):



A format similar to the current one, but with smaller edges and 1080p screen, could be docked in a device similar to Gear VR, using joy-cons (with 3D tracking) as controllers. Such a device would be a cheap way to bring VR to Nintendo’s audience and expand the VR market, but it would not be the most convenient and comfortable. Also, instead of the unnecessarily large dock we got there would be only a HDMI output for the TV.



Option 2 (Oculus Quest style):



For those who want the best quality VR a second device would be launched, with the same SoC, RAM etc., but in a format "inspired" by Oculus Quest, however more comfortable and with better weight distribution (battery on the back). This version would come with more ergonomic controllers, with the same buttons and sticks. VR games would run at 60 fps reprojected to 120, like PSVR. Flat games could be played in cinema mode or on the TV by connecting an HDMI cable to the device; this one, just like the other model, could be plugged for more power and increased resolution (perhaps also in VR, if heat is not an issue).

Nintendo's VR games would all be made with the possibility of playing in flat, which would not be a problem if the VR modes were thought out from the start and well implemented, thus not harming their sales. If they already run at 60 fps the VR adaptation would not be too difficult. Some franchises that would adapt well: Metroid, Mario Kart (they made a VR arcade), F-Zero (think: Wipeout), Star Fox (Ace Combat), Mario 3D Word (Moss, Astrobot), Pilot Wings. The flat modes of this games would be playable on the VR device, if you are crazy or something.




Bonus:

Immersive VR retro gaming:







Bonus 2:

3DS backcompat mode in VR, with the top screen in perfect stereoscopic 3D and a large “touch” screen close to you for interactions.
 

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
385
893
290
How about No.
I want to see Nintendo release more games not more hardware, the SWITCH is not powerful enough to to VR justice.
I’m talking about a “Switch 2”, which will be more powerful and power efficient.



Also, this are Oculus Quest specifications:

CPU: Qualcomm® Snapdragon 835

CPU Notes: Developers have access to 3 gold cores that can run at a max frequency of 2.3 ghz

GPU: Qualcomm® Adreno™ 540 GPU

GPU Notes: The GPU availability is capped at 710 MHz if Guardian is on automatically, otherwise capped at 670 MHz.

Memory: 4GB total



Basicaly a smartphone SoC, 4GB of memory, 4 cores; not more powerful than the Switch. This are the games it can run:

 

namekuseijin

Member
Jun 10, 2020
783
925
385
Nintendo is all about crappy kid characters and collect-a-ton gameplay, dude. FP gaming has no place in its world view, much to the chagrin of Miyamoto

even Metroid Prime can't hold a candle to 2D ones...
 
Last edited:

JimiNutz

Member
Apr 15, 2007
11,541
4,093
1,645
London UK
I would like to see more VR from Nintendo on a future console. I think they would no doubt bring something unique and fresh to the table.

I imagine that Switch 2 is a fair few years off though and VR would be even further out as I doubt they would launch the console with it. I'm guessing around 4 years before we see any Switch 2 VR.
 

danielJackson

Member
Jun 18, 2020
97
255
240
I’m talking about a “Switch 2”, which will be more powerful and power efficient.



Also, this are Oculus Quest specifications:

CPU: Qualcomm® Snapdragon 835

CPU Notes: Developers have access to 3 gold cores that can run at a max frequency of 2.3 ghz

GPU: Qualcomm® Adreno™ 540 GPU

GPU Notes: The GPU availability is capped at 710 MHz if Guardian is on automatically, otherwise capped at 670 MHz.

Memory: 4GB total



Basicaly a smartphone SoC, 4GB of memory, 4 cores; not more powerful than the Switch. This are the games it can run:


Bullshit.


Switch handheld: 157 GFlops
Switch docked: 393 GFlops

Adreno 540 GPU @ 710MHz 567 GFlops

So it is like 3-3.6 times more powerful than switch handheld(which it would be on vr helmet) And probably passively cooled, unlike switch

Annoying how people still talk from their ass without checking specs, just assuming that any mobile = not better than switch.

even when switch launched there were already better mobile chips than switch.

Switch have slow SoC by todays standards, and todays fastest SoCs are near original PS4 levels (apple have damn fast chips for their ipads), maybe even past ps4, havent checked those in a while.


"switch 2" wont be out in years, and knowing nintendo, it is probably slow system, maybe near fat ps4 levels docked
 
Last edited:

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
385
893
290
Bullshit.


Switch handheld: 157 GFlops
Switch docked: 393 GFlops

Adreno 540 GPU @ 710MHz 567 GFlops

So it is like 3-3.6 times more powerful than switch handheld(which it would be on vr helmet) And probably passively cooled, unlike switch

Annoying how people still talk from their ass without checking specs, just assuming that any mobile = not better than switch.

even when switch launched there were already better mobile chips than switch.

Switch have slow SoC by todays standards, and todays fastest SoCs are near original PS4 levels (apple have damn fast chips for their ipads), maybe even past ps4, havent checked those in a while.


"switch 2" wont be out in years, and knowing nintendo, it is probably slow system, maybe near fat ps4 levels docked
Nvidia GPUs are better flop for flop even when compared to AMD (prior to RDNA), probably much better than Qualcomm too. You can compare the performance of games like Fortnite on Switch and a smartphone for a more realistic assessment:


Also, comparing VR games on the Quest versus PS4 (even the amateur one) gives you addifference roughly like PS4 to Switch in flat:


Anyway, even if Switch 2 in a few years is just the power of a PS4 that is enough for some great visuals in VR games designed specifically for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: namekuseijin

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
385
893
290
Nintendo is all about crappy kid characters and collect-a-ton gameplay, dude. FP gaming has no place in its world view, much to the chagrin of Miyamoto

even Metroid Prime can't hold a candle to 2D ones...
How about this?


Certainly far better than the indie kart racers we have now in VR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Abear21

Member
Apr 11, 2020
341
363
255
I wish!

Just the retro application would be great. I think Nintendo has higher standards and are into cheap and easy plug and play hardware-not expensive VR. Their first party offerings already take forever to develop, to complicate things with VR would be a bad idea IMO and I don’t think Nintendo would be comfortable with janky vr games representing their IPs
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rudius

UltimaKilo

Member
May 17, 2006
5,124
483
1,500
Florida
No thanks. I’m a huge VR enthusiast and VR is still in its very early stages.

A Nintendo VR experience with 70hz, 80 degrees FOV, 720p per eye and PS2 graphics is not what the industry needs.
 

Spukc

Member
Jan 24, 2015
13,978
12,117
830
I just ordered the quest.

After having played switch VR
I wanted something more open like the quest.

I hope the games are ok too.
Normally nintendo is just better in VR compared to anyone else. Oh well it was a sale so imma test it.
 

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
385
893
290
I just ordered the quest.

After having played switch VR
I wanted something more open like the quest.

I hope the games are ok too.
Normally nintendo is just better in VR compared to anyone else. Oh well it was a sale so imma test it.
Check this out:
 

Al3x1s

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Nov 24, 2018
4,408
4,003
645
More like Switch 2 should be another traditional portable/home system, just with better specs, while they can differentiate and have a second platform that is VR-only, like a Nintendo Quest 2. With Switch they can't handle also having a home console as in the past because they're too similar but with something as different as VR they could. People couldn't whine over not having this or that VR game on their Switch 2 when it's literally incapable of having that sort of gameplay (without additional hardware a la PSVR/Move/Aim and at that point you might as well buy their second system) or vice versa so that would be a bonus for the endeavor. When in the past anything they put out on portables could technically be done on their home systems also, so people felt one stole games and support from the other. With this separation each offers completely different things. It could be a more elaborate add-on for Switch 2 but that would compromise the design imo. VR does work as a (pricier) add-on for other systems because it comes with its own headset rather than have to design the headset part to work with slotting in a screen meant for traditional play. Similarly for the controllers (I can imagine a controller that works for both VR and non VR but it wouldn't work for a portable, like a Dual Shock 4 split). Edit: I've been saying this shit since last year apparently, lol:
 
Last edited:

Resenge

Member
Feb 17, 2020
154
187
240
Thanks for the link!

I am mainly interested it sideloading stuff.
Brutal doom quake half life and other stuff
Those games are a treat to play on the quest, hope you like it.
 
Last edited:

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
385
893
290
No thanks. I’m a huge VR enthusiast and VR is still in its very early stages.

A Nintendo VR experience with 70hz, 80 degrees FOV, 720p per eye and PS2 graphics is not what the industry needs.
I'm assuming Switch 2 will have a 1080p screen and maybe employ Nvidia DLSS technology in order to upscale the image to 4K TVs. That would be enough for entry level VR. Also, PSVR interpolates the image from 60fps to 120, so the frame rate wouldn't have to be higher then most Nintendo games right now.

Remember that the PSVR uses a 1080p OLED and the Quest 1440p LCDs. The Quest was launched for 399 and the PSVR today can be found for half that price. It wouldn't be so expensive for Nintendo to support VR in a few years with Switch 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wonko_C

Silvawuff

Gold Member
Mar 9, 2012
2,602
558
820
I dunno if Nintendo would go for VR. They seem to have found a happy medium with the Switch and I'd hope their next iteration will be a Switch with better hardware, screen, etc. I'd love to see Ninty tap into the Library of Alexandria of video games they're sitting on. They seem to never get past the SNES phase of their existence when porting older content.
 

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
13,620
7,516
960
I think the biggest problem with a Switch VR would be the cost of hardware.
With how they love to overprice everything you'd end up paying $300 for a headset and a pair of controllers + around $300 for the console. Which is a lot and would probably cut out a lot of the casual audiences which are an important percentage of their audience.
 

Wonko_C

Member
Jul 5, 2010
5,066
1,322
1,125
Cancun, Mexico.
I can see it, maybe not for their next system but the one after, as a 3-in-1 hybrid system with TV mode, handheld mode and VR mode.

The system would need to be considerably smaller, though: A giant tablet like the current Switch won't cut it. Make it the size of a PS Vita, but slimmer, this would also make the system more portable-friendly.



Grab two Joycons, slide the 1440p screen inside the included headset (which has cameras for inside-out tracking) and presto, Nintendo VR that's higher specced than the Quest.

Slide it out of the headset and attach the Joycons for handheld gaming, or dock it for TV play, like the original Switch. $399. Boom.
 
Last edited:

UltimaKilo

Member
May 17, 2006
5,124
483
1,500
Florida
The problem is that both the Quest (90FOV, 72hz) and the PSVR (90Hz, 100FOV) are bad, early headsets with a questionable experience. Hell, even the Index (the few games I can even run at 144hz with a GTX2080) is still limiting in FOV and comfort.

Nintendo will not be a pioneer with FOV, processing power, or foveated rendering. Therefore, they should stay out of it and possibly look at VR in 5-7 years, once the tech is more mature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Resenge

Resenge

Member
Feb 17, 2020
154
187
240
The problem is that both the Quest (90FOV, 72hz) and the PSVR (90Hz, 100FOV) are bad, early headsets with a questionable experience. Hell, even the Index (the few games I can even run at 144hz with a GTX2080) is still limiting in FOV and comfort.

Nintendo will not be a pioneer with FOV, processing power, or foveated rendering. Therefore, they should stay out of it and possibly look at VR in 5-7 years, once the tech is more mature.
PSVR is 120Hz I think? although not many go there, most are 60 reprojected.

I agree Nintendo should stay out of the VR game for now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UltimaKilo

UnNamed

Member
Dec 21, 2006
663
924
1,220
A VR only console is a bad idea. VR is interesting but not very versatile.
 

UltimaKilo

Member
May 17, 2006
5,124
483
1,500
Florida
PSVR is 120Hz I think? although not many go there, most are 60 reprojected.

I agree Nintendo should stay out of the VR game for now.
PSVR is capable of 120, but the hardware limits it. Maybe beatsaber gets up there? PS5 should remedy that.

I don’t notice a huge difference between 120 and 144, but the Quest is atrocious at 72hz and the difference between 72, 90, and 120 is huge.

Can’t wait for the day we’re at 8K per eye, 210 degrees FOV, 240hz all under 350 grams. Nintendo is a long, long ways away from that.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
3,527
4,144
450
A VR only console is a bad idea. VR is interesting but not very versatile.
I think it's a bad idea too for now. But do you mean versatile in terms of portability, game genres, or both? Because VR is extremely good at platformers, which is Nintendo's bread and butter.
 

UnNamed

Member
Dec 21, 2006
663
924
1,220
I think it's a bad idea too for now. But do you mean versatile in terms of portability, game genres, or both? Because VR is extremely good at platformers, which is Nintendo's bread and butter.
In terms of user experience.
Lots of people, including me, have huge problems using VR despite its undoubtedly high potential and immersion. Even if we solve the motion sickness for good, playing in a close environment, completely disconnected from the reality around you, it's not everyone would like to do. Even people who are used to VR don't play VR all the time.
That's why they invented Augmented Reality, to solve VR inner problems.
 

namekuseijin

Member
Jun 10, 2020
783
925
385
The problem is that both the Quest (90FOV, 72hz) and the PSVR (90Hz, 100FOV) are bad, early headsets with a questionable experience. Hell, even the Index (the few games I can even run at 144hz with a GTX2080) is still limiting in FOV and comfort.

Nintendo will not be a pioneer with FOV, processing power, or foveated rendering. Therefore, they should stay out of it and possibly look at VR in 5-7 years, once the tech is more mature.
psvr is 120Hz. That ultra butter smooth framerate is rarely used except for interpolating extra frames in 60Hz VR games. But I'm hoping it's used on PS5.
 

Resenge

Member
Feb 17, 2020
154
187
240
Even people who are used to VR don't play VR all the time.
I don't play games all the time period. Sometimes I play on a handheld, sometimes I play on a console, sometimes I watch movies, this excuse is just grasping as straws.


playing in a close environment, completely disconnected from the reality around you
No one who has a VR headset thinks this is a problem.

You are trying hard to come up with excuses and that weakens your argument. Just stick to the facts please.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rudius

namekuseijin

Member
Jun 10, 2020
783
925
385
A VR only console is a bad idea. VR is interesting but not very versatile.
Oculus Quest is doing great as a standalone full 6DoF VR mobile headset that uses pc as add-on for bigger VR games, while running most indies relatively fine

in other words, it's really the first VR console, and quite versatile at that
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudius and Resenge

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
3,527
4,144
450
In terms of user experience.
Lots of people, including me, have huge problems using VR despite its undoubtedly high potential and immersion. Even if we solve the motion sickness for good, playing in a close environment, completely disconnected from the reality around you, it's not everyone would like to do. Even people who are used to VR don't play VR all the time.
That's why they invented Augmented Reality, to solve VR inner problems.
Yeah just going straight up VR would be a dumb ass move for Nintendo, for now at least. But, with the way its advancing I see an option being feasible. For instance, you wanted to play Metroid in VR. Maybe the switch 3 etc could be placed in the headset or played handheld or on the TV. Options.

As for being disconnected to the world around you, this mode is an option instantly during any game. We're just getting started but you can already see its moving to combat that. This was a year ago btw.

 
Last edited:

namekuseijin

Member
Jun 10, 2020
783
925
385
In terms of user experience.
Lots of people, including me, have huge problems using VR despite its undoubtedly high potential and immersion. Even if we solve the motion sickness for good, playing in a close environment, completely disconnected from the reality around you, it's not everyone would like to do. Even people who are used to VR don't play VR all the time.
That's why they invented Augmented Reality, to solve VR inner problems.
AR isn't VR nor solves any of its problems

AR is giving up immersion for local socialization and limited transparent digital imagery.

AR is for people who want to play Star Wars holographic chess while chatting with a human being across the table rather than fully immerse themselves in a VR shooter and run and shoot and kill dozens of virtual folks across the globe

if you need to answer the phone you can just take off the headset and if you need to pay attention to your wife's complaints, you can just take off the earbud.

But overall you should think of VR as the same kind of immersive experience as you get when you take a good bath in a jacuzzi: you schedule time for it rather throw your phone and wife and kids all together in the water
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Wonko_C

UnNamed

Member
Dec 21, 2006
663
924
1,220
No one who has a VR headset thinks this is a problem.
And what about who don't have a VR headset because they are worried this could be a problem, or VR is an actual problem for them?

Oculus Quest is doing great as a standalone full 6DoF VR mobile headset that uses pc as add-on for bigger VR games, while running most indies relatively fine

in other words, it's really the first VR console, and quite versatile at that
Quest is doing great considering its market, not the entire gaming market, its subjective. Quest and other products are heading to those who like VR but mostly as an alternative to classic gaming. We now are talking about a VR only Nintendo console, or this is what I understand from OP.

The question is not "VR experience is appealing or not" but ""Would you buy a stand alone VR only console from Nintendo?". Reply I'm receiving are from people used with VR, but the are tons of people out there who don't appreciate VR because it's limits, not it's potential. People who would have trouble to play a Super Mario VR despite Astro BOT already shown platforms are fitting well in VR.

EDIT: just as an example: I have trouble with VR, makes me puke because the motion sickness. I absolutely loved Resident Evil 7 but I could not playing it because PSVR caused me MS. I had less problem with Vive and racing games, maybe because the better tracking. I loved Project Cars VR experience, but even with no motion sickness at all I would not play it for more than 20 minutes (in VR). I'm not the only one, there are lots of people like me.
 
Last edited:

Resenge

Member
Feb 17, 2020
154
187
240
playing in a close environment, completely disconnected from the reality around you
And what about who don't have a VR headset because they are worried this could be a problem, or VR is an actual problem for them?
Please explain how this is any kind of a problem at all? I do not understand where you are coming from here. You setup a time and place and play.

Trust me when I tell you this that I have played VR since 2016 consistantly and have not come across 1 thing that can be considered any type of problem with wearing a headset and "being disconnected from reality around you". I guess that could be because I am an adult though and can look after myself.

[EDIT]
After thinking a little the only thing I think you are talking about is if you hit a wall or a TV with your controller, is that what you mean? Even that is not a problem if you prepare. I play most of my games sitting down so I do not need much space and I make sure I have enough space to move my hands from where I am sitting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rudius

namekuseijin

Member
Jun 10, 2020
783
925
385
We now are talking about a VR only Nintendo console, or this is what I understand from OP.
doesn't sound like it to me, except for his Option 2.

absolutely loved Resident Evil 7 but I could not playing it because PSVR caused me MS. I had less problem with Vive and racing games, maybe because the better tracking. I loved Project Cars VR experience, but even with no motion sickness at all I would not play it for more than 20 minutes (in VR). I'm not the only one, there are lots of people like me.
yes, I call them VRgins

they get a VR headset and instead of easing their way into it with short demos and gentle stationary games like Moss, Job Simulator, Super hot they go straight into Doom VFR, RE7, Ace Combat and whatever big traditional game that will make them puke right away and be traumatized from the VR experience

I had a easier intro because I pretty much only had the demo disc to play for a week or so. It eased my way. Still, Doom would trash me later, but still within a few days got the hang of it.

Bottom line: the body does build up resistance. I feel nothing today and you probably too. You say you feel nothing 20 minutes in PCars, because your body probably has build some resistance already. I bet you could go back at RE7 and play it for hours now - I certainly did that with Doom and RIGS.

But here's the deal: that endurance can go away if enough time away from VR. I've experienced it before when I was away for a few months just in flatland. No worries, I build it up again...
 
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Rudius and Resenge

namekuseijin

Member
Jun 10, 2020
783
925
385
Please explain how this is any kind of a problem at all? I do not understand where you are coming from here. You setup a time and place and play.

Trust me when I tell you this that I have played VR since 2016 consistantly and have not come across 1 thing that can be considered any type of problem with wearing a headset and "being disconnected from reality around you". I guess that could be because I am an adult though and can look after myself.

[EDIT]
After thinking a little the only thing I think you are talking about is if you hit a wall or a TV with your controller, is that what you mean? Even that is not a problem if you prepare. I play most of my games sitting down so I do not need much space and I make sure I have enough space to move my hands from where I am sitting.
Well, I once punched a wall. Lol can happen and I suggest most play areas to be quite open and away from tv (which doesn't even need to be on)

Btw, this reminded me this parody article:

 

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
385
893
290
The problem is that both the Quest (90FOV, 72hz) and the PSVR (90Hz, 100FOV) are bad, early headsets with a questionable experience. Hell, even the Index (the few games I can even run at 144hz with a GTX2080) is still limiting in FOV and comfort.

Nintendo will not be a pioneer with FOV, processing power, or foveated rendering. Therefore, they should stay out of it and possibly look at VR in 5-7 years, once the tech is more mature.

This was good enough in 1989, since it sold well, even though it had a miniscule screen with 4 shades of green, bad sound and bulky size. What would have happened if they had waited until they could provide a high resolution full color screen on a compact format?
 

namekuseijin

Member
Jun 10, 2020
783
925
385

This was good enough in 1989, since it sold well, even though it had a miniscule screen with 4 shades of green, bad sound and bulky size. What would have happened if they had waited until they could provide a high resolution full color screen on a compact format?
VR deniers are like those folks who grew watching other kids talking about the atari, the NES, SNES, GB, PlayStation, etc. But only got to play one once games were 1080p in the least.

 
  • LOL
Reactions: Wonko_C and Rudius

UltimaKilo

Member
May 17, 2006
5,124
483
1,500
Florida

This was good enough in 1989, since it sold well, even though it had a miniscule screen with 4 shades of green, bad sound and bulky size. What would have happened if they had waited until they could provide a high resolution full color screen on a compact format?
There’s no comparison to VR. Dropped frames coupled with slow refresh won’t be a vomit-inducing experience on a game boy, or even when playing a big game on Switch.

By the same token, resolution is much more important than on flat gaming.