Support NeoGAF

[Pie and Beans]

TVs and smartphones are necessities.

VR and AR also reach that point. Not a question of "if", but "when" and its very clear now that 2015 is the real starting point as resolution is now at where it achieves presence.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but how does everyone here seem to know that VR will take off in the same vein as HDTVs? I'm legitimately curious. Everyone seems to be so confident it will be the next big thing that will change everyone's lives the way TV or the Internet did.

Maybe it's lack of confidence, but I would never be so sure about something. It's a very radical departure from how we absorb media today, and--in my opinion--could either take off the way everyone is saying, or it could be totally rejected by the public at large.

Because its such a core simple concept, that to fight against it is actually to deny a human beings ocular way of life. Do you like seeing new things with your eyes in the most organic, realistic way possible? Yes. If you could change your surroundings at any time to feel as if you were in the best possible place, would you? Yes. If you could feel like you were at that sports game, wedding, play, so on and so forth rather than watching a static capture of it, would you prefer that? Yup, most probably!

VR is seeing entertainment in your eyes as if you are actually there. Its baffling to me and many as to how anyone could bet against that in any fashion unless they are blind. Do you not like seeing things with your eyes? Is that it?

The fear of change is astounding. Worse still is I don't see this anywhere else other than GAF. Its fucking weird.

 

[-Horizon-]

I want sword art online (without the actual death).

Nah, #YOLO is the only way to play

 

[Principate]

you are just simply wrong, especially about the hardware requirements.

No I'm not You require high and consistent fps to achieve a VR environment that isn't nauseating. That means your either going to go for extremely technically simplistic games or a poor performance (if the hardware isn't up to snuff). This ignoring that graphical issues are so much more noticeable in VR.

There's a reason why the PS4 is mocked for it's capabilities to competently pull off VR. A Closed comparatively weak platform is the last thing you want.

 

[orioto]

I'll start by laughing at people who thinks:
_VR is a fad and compare it to color tv.. VR is the biggest visual revolution since the invention of film. Color tv doesn't even begin to compete here..

_Nintendo's philosophy is against VR. There is no Nintendo's philosophy. Nintendo will go in the direction the money is, like everyone. Is the 3D in the 3DS in N's philosophy ? I don't think so. They are fuuuuuull of contradiction in their history, don't worry about that.

The real problem is that now they are late and can't do better than others, hardware wise. They can, however, be the only one of every competitors with killer software for it. And i think they should give that a chance.

Other reasons why Nintendo should go VR.

_That's actually 100% perfect for their strategy in recent years. The gimmick is strong enough so they can save on graphics, and reuse old ips with a fresh twist.

_That's probably the only occasion they had in the last 20 years.. to create curiosity among the male demographic that doesn't play their games. What i mean is, if Nintendo wasn't too late (they may be already if this is not planned right now), with a strong Metroid incredible VR game, a game changer in immersion and gameplay.. They could reach a crowd that wouldn't otherwise play a Metroid game, or buy a console with it. Cause it would make it the most advance fps experience in the world. That means they would do that before someone else use that spot.

_As i've said a lot in the past, i strongly believe there is no point for a home console by Nintendo now that their portable can do everything they need, software wise, and the WiiU proves my point. That means the only reason to release a home console now, is to create a secondary, different market. What i mean is there is no point in having a home console that has the same market as the portable one, so they should go completly hardcore (which VR is) with it.

Alas i think they won't, cause VR is just not cheap and good enough to be marketed by them right now, and other guys are already on the market.. I mean if they could release a console+VR for less than 300$ in one year, with good enough screen etc.. there would be a chance, but it's clearly not possible in the current state of the tech.

Their only chance is if in 1-2 years, there isn't real killer soft yet, just demos, quick ports.. nothing game changing, then they could set the tone.

Also i'm quite sure they never ever drop the ball. People assume the Virtual Boy disgusted them from VR. I think it's the contrary. Virtual Boy proves they have a strong interest for it and will come back to it at some point. It's a shame they didn't fire first ..

 

[dose]

Can you imagine how good Pilotwings VR would be?

 

[Immaculate]

because it isnt going to get as big as you think it will and will probably die off soon

 

[EVH]

Well they still didnt jump on the online one, so...

 

[Fox_Mulder]

Also Microsoft.

 

[mstevens]

Excite Truck, Metroid Prime, Punch-Out!!

Oh man, punch out would be great.

 

[phanphare]

Its baffling to me and many as to how anyone could bet against that in any fashion unless they are blind. Do you not like seeing things with your eyes? Is that it?

The fear of change is astounding. Worse still is I don't see this anywhere else other than GAF. Its fucking weird.

there is a stark difference between being excited for VR, realizing that it has a lot of potential for awesomeness, and doubting its mainstream adoption.

Now you just look small.

just to be clear, I wasn't trying to insult you. your insult towards me was redundant. you essentially called me childish and childish, and with a spelling error on top of that. hence "your thesaurus has done you wrong." I meant no offense, it was supposed to be a joke. I guess my jokes are too dry for the internet

but I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that. cheers!

 

[cacildo]

Stop with the gimmicks, Nintendo!

Nintendo, why aren't you jumping on the gimmick bandwagon?!

Ahah!

Everything nintendo does is WRONG!!

 

[Mihos]

No I'm not You require high and consistent fps to achieve a VR environment that isn't nauseating. That means your either going to go for extremely technically simplistic games or a poor performance. This ignoring that graphical issues are so much more noticeable in VR.

There's a reason why the PS4 is mocked for it's capabilities to competently pull off VR. A Closed comparatively weak platform is the last thing you want,

You are talking to someone who is running VR games and streaming video using nothing but a phone and insisting that I am hating it. Actually it is the opposite that is true. When people see that the best parts, like watching sports, plays, concerts.. and some of the social games stuff like a FarmvilleVR don't require much at all in the way of specs... most people won't bother with higher end PS4 to PC experiences any more than people playing regular Farmville care about Witcher 3. when things like this come down in price, Facebook and YouTube will have entire channels devoted to it. None of it needing a PC or console at all.

 

[Pie and Beans]

There's a reason why the PS4 is mocked for it's capabilities to competently pull off VR. A Closed comparatively weak platform is the last thing you want.

People are not mocking GearVR, a mobile powered VR experience, they are enthralled by it. People are not mocking Morpheus, they are pleased with it and impressed with what it is achieving. Sure, the highest of high end PC level VR will exist just as highest of high end 4K gaming exists now. Doesn't stop that PS4 from getting to 20 million so quick.

Wii sold over 100 million because it had a new experience that was "just enough" for the mass market. If the most popular games console on the market can power VR well, as can all the mid to high end smartphones releasing at this point, theres no obstacles left anymore. This is just where technology is now at the commercially achievable prices.

 

[Jackano]

I wish they jump on it as soon as their next-gen starts, if the ps4 VR is successful.
Let the others risk the innovation, and Nintendo to copy them, instead of the other way, for once.

I believe all the big names are working on it, seeing facebook with Oculus and such. The best way for Nintendo is to team up with one of them, just like HTC with Valve. That way they can:
- Produce a cheap, low-cost VR of their own;
- Develop it with a strong partner that will try anyway to make it standard in other fields;
- Make it compatible with high-end VR sets from this partner, for the gamers who doesn't want the tiny screen, cheap Nintendo one.

Of course in the video games field, Nintendo will produce games that use it well, let's say, Pilotwings. And more than that, they can make it for their unified architecture, meaning their home console will not be the only device to use it, but also your n4DSXL.

The problem in this wet dream of mine, is the only word: partner. Nintendo can't do shit with anyone.

 

[Somnid]

I have no doubts they have heavily researched the topic and continue to do so, that's just how they are and they've been a substantial early pioneer in the field. But recent interest in VR seems primarily focused on the engineering aspect, it's a very western way to do things. We have small high-resolution screens which good performance, better and better methods of physically tracking objects and so it's natural to apply them to new mediums. The one thing GDC has made clear is that Oculus, Valve, Sony and everyone else jumping on the bandwagon does so because they see it as a growth market and they want to be like Google or Apple for VR (Google and Apple also want in on VR) collecting the 30% from VR content creators. This is the defining moment on who will take the market and win the dev community and you need to be better than the competition in hardware and software APIs. But I'm not sure anyone has decided what a real software content strategy should look like, they want developers to tell them and so like Google Glass much of it is not focused.

But as for Nintendo I think they approach things from a content creator standpoint. What would they make if they had VR and does that feel compelling enough? What would they need to create it? I think if they felt they had something they would pursue it, whether it be home HMDs or VR Arcade experiences. I also think they are wary of the "red ocean" effect. Too many people trying to get in creates a sort of competition they don't want, so from a purely business standpoint it might not seem worthwhile to do for the sake of doing.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

There's a reason why the PS4 is mocked for it's capabilities to competently pull off VR.

There certainly is. The reason is that the people who say these things don't know wtf they are talking about.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the Morpheus threads the last couple of days, but good luck finding a single person who has tried the Morpheus who is mocking anything about it at this point.

 

[slit]

You really don't know if Nintendo is or isn't since they're so secretive.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Oh, also Star Fox, F-Zero, Mario Tennis, and Pilotwings

Seriously, the notion that Nintendo would have to come up with new games to justify VR is a bit silly.

 

[DeanBDean]

It's amusing that anyone could pretend to know either way whether this technology is going to take off. There are upsides (super immersion) and downsides (wearing a headset, space, etc.). It is literally impossible to know now how the general market will accept it now or in the future. I do know that no consumer device exists like this. Big tech companies have been wrong in the past about "the next big thing" (3D movies/TV, smartwatches) and they have been right. Picking individual examples of times that things have worked or not worked does not help one's case either way. If someone brings this threat back in two years to gloat either way, they were not right in their view. They were just lucky. I know this ruins the fun of a message board debate, but reality is no one knows.

 

[batman2million]

and they shouldn't. I don't understand the need that every console manufacture HAS to do the same thing the other is doing.

 

[Shuggananas]

TVs and smartphones are necessities.

TV is not a necessity. A phone is a necessity, a smartphone ? Not really.

 

[Vampirolol]

Wow. People SURE about VR becoming the biggest thing since internet, laughing about cautious people? I mean, the potential is there, movies are going to change forever like videogames and social media, but the truth is that we don't know how this thing will be received, not even in the near future. Predicting things is really hard, did any of you predict internet? And VR is still a question. Will people be scared? Will it be too expensive in order to work properly? Will people wear anything? Will the games/movies on it be worthy in the near future? Will new forms of social problems rise?
Seeing megatons of money thrwon at it doesn't make cautious people (like some members here) dumb.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Oh, also Star Fox, F-Zero, Mario Tennis, and Pilotwings

Seriously, the notion that Nintendo would have to come up with new games to justify VR is a bit silly.

Its nonsense anyway. Right from their first full 3D game, Nintendo personified the camera tracking Mario as a person:

No, not all VR games have to be first person. Personifying the "third person" camera as a person however is a good idea!

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

Was color television a gimmick? Was the Internet a gimmick?

That's how important an advance VR is.

A gimmick in the sense it will make a good closet partner for the wii mote and kinect yes.
Color tv had to happen eventually because people wanted tv shows to look more like the real world and the internet became necessary as people needed easier access to information. VR doesnt fill a real need for consumers and will be a niche product at best in my opinion.

 

[FLAguy954]

OP is incorrect. Only Sony has a VR headset while Nintendo and Microsoft are dabbling in AR.

 

[Interceptor]

They won´t. Why? Because they embrace local multiplayer and games you can enjoy with your whole family. In short - not this:

Because this is not going to happen. VR at home is you using it alone.

 

[Caramello]

Nintendo games generally wouldn't be improved with Virtual Reality though.

They don't really have a reason to launch a system that be as expensive as VR would require.

 

[RoadHazard]

Isn't Hololens pretty much the same thing? I mean, I guess they haven't announced anything regarding it's functionality with XB1, but, still the same company.

I was under the impression that Hololens is more AR than VR, but I'll admit to not having followed it very closely.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Nintendo just figured out the internet exists not too long ago. They're currently investigating these things called accounts and whatnot. Truly fascinating developments for them.

Non snarky answer - they don't have the prowess/knowledge to develop it considering the above. With that said, I think it's fine. Not everyone has to do it. There's too many as it is and more coming imo.

 

[-Horizon-]

I was under the impression that Hololens is more AR than VR, but I'll admit to not having followed it very closely.

Isn't hololens more in line with google glass I think?

 

[RoadHazard]

Isn't hololens more in line with google glass I think?

Yeah, AR (Augmented Reality). Which means overlaying stuff on top of your view of the real world, rather than trying to immerse you in a virtual world, which is what VR is all about. Both very cool and potentially useful, both quite different from one another.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

because it isnt going to get as big as you think it will and will probably die off soon

Sort of like every home console nintendo has released since the snes except for one?


VR is still in its infancy I wouldn't expext everyone to be jumping in this soon. It's not something everyone has to be in on the ground floor on.

 

[Somnid]

Sort of like every home console nintendo has released since the snes except for one?

I'd argue all console die, with no exceptions.

 

[SMattera]

It's amusing that anyone could pretend to know either way whether this technology is going to take off. There are upsides (super immersion) and downsides (wearing a headset, space, etc.). It is literally impossible to know now how the general market will accept it now or in the future. I do know that no consumer device exists like this. Big tech companies have been wrong in the past about "the next big thing" (3D movies/TV, smartwatches) and they have been right. Picking individual examples of times that things have worked or not worked does not help one's case either way. If someone brings this threat back in two years to gloat either way, they were not right in their view. They were just lucky. I know this ruins the fun of a message board debate, but reality is no one knows.

When the sample size is one, it's impossible to say either way (luck or skill).

VR has long been the holy grail of the industry. It's been the goal all along. The end game. The primary objective. This is obvious in the design of so many games: the entire first-person genre and cockpit-based racing sims are a very crude attempt at offering VR.

If the technology isn't good enough, it could certainly fail. But if it works, it's going to be enormous. The applications are obvious and endless -- both for gaming and for other forms of entertainment.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I'd argue all console die, with no exceptions.

Dreamcast lives on through all of us

 

[DeanBDean]

When the sample size is one, it's impossible to say either way (luck or skill).

VR has long been the holy grail of the industry. It's been the goal all along. The end game. The primary objective. This is obvious in the design of so many games: the entire first-person genre and cockpit-based racing sims are a very crude attempt at offering VR.

If the technology isn't good enough, it could certainly fail. But if it works, it's going to be enormous. The applications are obvious and endless -- both for gaming and for other forms of entertainment.

What you say definitely makes sense, that it is the seeming endgame for certain genres. A mech game where you control a mech in VR could be quite awesome, for example. I'm just not going to pretend to really know if it will or will not succeed.

 

[Penguin]

To be fair, we don't know if they are or aren't.

I mean would imagine would be a complete waste to attempt it on the Wii U

And not like talking about their next home console.

 

[DarthWalden]

I think they are smart. VR is a great piece of tech that does some truly neat stuff I just don't think it has a big place in gaming and espeically not in Nintendo titles.

Since VR is essentially limited to First Person games I can't think of single title that would work well with it.

 

[the TMO]

would be funnier if we didn't already know exactly what QOL was^^



taylor-swift-confused-face.gif

he is right.

 

[Shuggananas]

They won´t. Why? Because they embrace local multiplayer and games you can enjoy with your whole family. In short - not this:


Because this is not going to happen. VR at home is you using it alone.

uh... what ?

You can make asymmetrical multiplayer with VR too. Actually it could be much much better than with the Wii U gamepad.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Since VR is essentially limited to First Person games I can't think of single title that would work well with it.

Mario 64 would work with it. Ocarine of Time would work with it. Star Fox would work with it.

I don't envy gaming companies having to explain VR capabilities to this GAF audience. Lot of blank expressions staring back right now.

 

[Mihos]

I think they are smart. VR is a great piece of tech that does some truly neat stuff I just don't think it has a big place in gaming and espeically not in Nintendo titles.

Since VR is essentially limited to First Person games I can't think of single title that would work well with it.

Isometric games work great.. Pikman, Mario 3D games, and Treasure Tracker would be insane in VR. Bayonetta..not so much. I think Hyrule warriors could be cool also.

 

[Links_fantasy]

By the time VR is available to consumers, Nintendo will be getting close to its next console/consoles. I also think if it does take off it won't be for a number of years. I just can't see people wanting to wear huge goggles, maybe in the future when the tech gets smaller and less cumbersome. Plus I'm really enjoying and finding the 3DS glasses free 3D really immersive esp on the new 3DS.

 

[Tobor]

"That's how important an advance VR is."

He is talking about now. 5 or 10 years from now when it's a accepted standard it might be a different situation all together.

No, I obviously meant over time. People still had black and white tvs for years after colors introduction. And we all know the Internet took 20 years to spread across the world.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think they are smart. VR is a great piece of tech that does some truly neat stuff I just don't think it has a big place in gaming and espeically not in Nintendo titles.

Since VR is essentially limited to First Person games I can't think of single title that would work well with it.

Punch-Out!!, Metroid Prime IV, Pilotwings, Star Fox, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Excitebike, Excite Truck, Link's Crossbow Training, Hotel Dusk/Last Window sequel, Duck Hunt, Hogan's Alley, F-Zero, Famicom Tantei Club, Mach Rider, Nintendogs, Virtual Boy Wario Land, Sin & Punishment, Wave Race, 1080 Snowboarding, Wild Gunman

This, of course, doesn't account for the fact that VR is good for more than just FP games.

 

[Taker666]

Excite Truck, Metroid Prime, Punch-Out!!

I'd argue that Punch-Out would be far better with an AR system like Hololens than VR.

With VR you have to sit down/stay in one place.

....with Hololens you'd see a physical representation of your opponent in the real world...so could safely walk and move around him just as you would in a real fight.

 

[lamaroo]

I'm still not convinced it will be good for anything but first person games. Not sure how VR would improve anything in thr majority of Nintendo's games.

 

[bart64]

It's expensive, it's anti-social, and it's not that great yet. When it become great, it may not even be popular anymore. Nintendo just spent a fortune investing in glasses-free 3d and that didn't have the return they expected, even though the technology is more competent and easier to deliver than VR.

 

[Principate]

People are not mocking GearVR, a mobile powered VR experience, they are enthralled by it. People are not mocking Morpheus, they are pleased with it and impressed with what it is achieving. Sure, the highest of high end PC level VR will exist just as highest of high end 4K gaming exists now. Doesn't stop that PS4 from getting to 20 million so quick.

Wii sold over 100 million because it had a new experience that was "just enough" for the mass market. If the most popular games console on the market can power VR well, as can all the mid to high end smartphones releasing at this point, theres no obstacles left anymore. This is just where technology is now at the commercially achievable prices.

The wii was also a fad that currently isn't even notable anymore. Let alone it's core concept being far easier to market than VR currently is (family health fad/currently cool but isolating experience). Your helping my point thanks.

Gear VR is a fun novelty. I highly doubt any significant plans for VR will be powered by it, especially not your connected online communities. Which is exactly my point, these significant plans are the reason why a lot of people are interested in VR it's not to play virtual pong (obviously a purposefully exaggerated example). Which is why the high end isn't just the high, end, it's the entire point for many people.

 

[Pyrokai]

VR and AR also reach that point. Not a question of "if", but "when" and its very clear now that 2015 is the real starting point as resolution is now at where it achieves presence.



Because its such a core simple concept, that to fight against it is actually to deny a human beings ocular way of life. Do you like seeing new things with your eyes in the most organic, realistic way possible? Yes. If you could change your surroundings at any time to feel as if you were in the best possible place, would you? Yes. If you could feel like you were at that sports game, wedding, play, so on and so forth rather than watching a static capture of it, would you prefer that? Yup, most probably!

VR is seeing entertainment in your eyes as if you are actually there. Its baffling to me and many as to how anyone could bet against that in any fashion unless they are blind. Do you not like seeing things with your eyes? Is that it?

The fear of change is astounding. Worse still is I don't see this anywhere else other than GAF. Its fucking weird.

Dude. I've never used VR, if that helps. What you're saying sounds amazing, but I have no idea what it's like. At all.

I'm not afraid of change. In fact, I embrace it. Don't assume that. It's this prediction of the future so assuredly that's getting to me. Who's to say some unknown tech doesn't leapfrog over VR in the first place? We have no idea. And we don't know if everyone in the world will accept it. I get what you're saying--that for some reason once I use this I'll never want anything else, but just because you feel that way doesn't mean 90% of everyone will.