Nintendo Switch will support VR in the future

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Not with the 720p you don't. It was a wasted opportunity for Nintendo. If they had gone for a 1080p screen for Switch then it could have become part of a decent VR system. 720p is going to look like shite in VR.
 
Not with the 720p you don't. It was a wasted opportunity for Nintendo. If they had gone for a 1080p screen for Switch then it could have become part of a decent VR system. 720p is going to look like shite in VR.
VR isn't going to be a mainstream product for awhile. They have the right model to get there when it goes big.

Upgrade the joycons and the resolution of the display in the 3 years along with a die-shrink and you've got yourself a stew.
 
People in this thread should also have a quick recap of what allows good VR to work:

- Camera or Lighthouse setup to track headset and hand peripherals. Peripherals would need to be designed for the camera to pick up on in 3d space (lights, covered in external sensors)
- 1080p screen at bare minimum, and even then Sony made a custom OLED with tighter pixels and of course faster refresh rate.
- External console that is on par with PS4 vanilla. GearVR overheats like a motherfucker, so having the console actually in the headset doesn't work for extended play unless you get crazy with fans and coolant.

So, in all earnest its going to require a whole new console from Nintendo for any of it to work. Not even sure a Switch revision would cut it since the cost of upgrading the Joycons, power of the unit, external camera, and then adding on a headset with good screen is just not something Nintendo would be willing or able to do.

TL;DR: Topic title is woefully inaccurate. Kimishima gave VR the usual lip service to wave off investor "WHY AREN'T YOU DOING THIS" questions.
The headset could use inside out tracking, negating the need for an external camera or lighthouse. It could also use the Nvidia tech outlined in this thread to up the resolution in a relatively affordable way. That's the two most important issues down. I think that the negatives of it's lower power could be canceled by the fact that the device would be a completely untethered experience.
 
I was hoping Nintendo would have this SKU setup for the Switch:

SKU 1: Console bundle with everything, the console, the dock, the Joycons, the grip, the JoyCon straps, the HDMI cable, the AC adaptor.

SKU 2: Just the console itself with possibly new JoyCons if it's improved.

That way current owners of the Switch can just get the console itself if Nintendo tells NVIDIA to upgrade the Tegra chip inside the Switch and possibly upgrade the screen resolution from 720p to 1080p instead of needing to pay the full price for the bundle.

I must say it was very smart for Nintendo to partner with NVIDIA for its CPU/GPU chip since NVIDIA is always improving its Tegra chip and NVIDIA can simply provide an upgraded Tegra chip to Nintendo to release a upgraded Switch console.
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
The ir camera in the JoyCon-R could be used to track one of your hand or ir leds on the helmet.
VR 'hands' require tracking in a 3d space. Accelerometer and short range IR doesn't work. You need an external camera (or Valve's far better Lighthouse system that fills the room with lasers) to track the controllers. If those controllers aren't giving off light from all over themselves, they can't be tracked. This is why the Oculus Touch and Vive Wands have ring like designs so your hand can't get in the way.

Not only are the Joycons completely engulfed by hands, they're also not equipped with a big ass light or all the sensors required to track them in a 3d space.

HD rumble would be great for VR, no doubt. It's just everything else isn't there.

The headset could use inside out tracking, negating the need for an external camera or lighthouse. It could also use the Nvidia tech outlined in this thread to up the resolution in a relatively affordable way. That's the two most important issues down. I think that the negatives of it's lower power could be canceled by the fact that the device would be a completely untethered experience.
- Carmack is working away on inside out, but thats also gonna take processing power to achieve and some good cameras. It also wouldn't solve the controller issue.
- The Nvidia tech 'solution' would have 2 screens generating heat and also the console behind it AND the extra processing needed to line everything up. Welcome to the lava dimension.
 
I shot down this idea when it was brought up months ago mostly due to what I thought the size of the Switch would be at the time, but it turned out smaller than I thought. Still, I have a hard time seeing this happening with the Switch as it exists today now mostly due to screen resolution. It's good that they're apparently exploring it though.
 
On one hand there's no way they're planning on docking the Switch tablet into a Cardboard/GearVR given the size, weight, and resolution, but on the other it doesn't come close to having the processing power to drive a stand alone, high resolution $400+ Rift/PSVR type device that would be worthwhile and compelling Vs. the competition. Truly a lose lose situation, I can't even imagine where they would be going with this. Maybe they plan to build the Switch hardware itself into the HMD a la Hololens and Oculus Santa Cruz.
 
Given the Switch system specs, I can't imagine the framerate will be particularly good (unless they reduce the poly count considerably, which could work out fine)
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
VR isn't going to be a mainstream product for awhile. They have the right model to get there when it goes big.

Upgrade the joycons and the resolution of the display in the 3 years along with a die-shrink and you've got yourself a stew.
The OP talks about a twitter post specifically talking about the Switch which is why I specifically mentioned the Switch in my reply but you're talking about some fictitious future consoles.

Please try harder.
 
Headline: Nintendo announces new VR games for Nintendo Switch!

Article: Using your Nintendo App subscription, you can access Nintendo Switch VR games with your smartphone! Gear VR sold separately.
 
Given the Switch system specs, I can't imagine the framerate will be particularly good (unless they reduce the poly count considerably, which could work out fine)
I'm wondering why Nintendo/NVIDIA isn't providing details on the Switch's Tegra chip, would be nice to know at least on the graphics side, which GeForce GTX card is the Switch Tegra chip equivalent: https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Nintendo-Switch/Specifications/Specifications-1176277.html#1

CPU/GPU NVIDIA customised Tegra processor
 
... I'd change the topic title to "might" instead of "will" if I could. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, it was a simple mistake. I even spoke about how it's not confirmed in the actual post. I didn't realise one word would cause this much grief :/
Be sure to burn that little mistake into your brain. Sensationalist and outright false headlines/news is rampant. Please don't contribute to this problem. You can contact a mod to change the title.
 
The OP talks about a twitter post specifically talking about the Switch which is why I specifically mentioned the Switch in my reply but you're talking about some fictitious future consoles.

Please try harder.
I get it. Not criticizing you.

Look at the big picture. NO ONE has figured out how to take VR mainstream. Do we use a phone? Do we tie it to the PC? Do we make an all-in-one headset? What do you do about controls?

Whether or not Nintendo ships a VR accessory to the current Switch, my point is they may have stumbled on to the right model to make VR mainstream. They may even have been planning it.

If it is the right model, it doesn't matter whether they ship VR tomorrow or in 3 years with Switch+1. If they're right, they already have a significant advantage that folks like Oculus and Samsung may struggle to replicate.

Think bigger picture.
 
If their solution involves using the tablet screen, sounds horrible!
Not only with it being a 720p, but strapping a tablet to your face?
I can't imagine it being comfortable to use.
Judge for yourselves:
  • Switch unit with Joycon detached 297g
  • Gear VR 390g without phone.
  • Samsung range of phones for Gear VR 150 ~ 160 g
The weight difference is not that much, the Switch has all the necessary hardware contained and has a built in fan so heat could be less of an issue.

VR 'hands' require tracking in a 3d space. Accelerometer and short range IR doesn't work. You need an external camera (or Valve's far better Lighthouse system that fills the room with lasers) to track the controllers. If those controllers aren't giving off light from all over themselves, they can't be tracked. This is why the Oculus Touch and Vive Wands have ring like designs so your hand can't get in the way.

Not only are the Joycons completely engulfed by hands, they're also not equipped with a big ass light or all the sensors required to track them in a 3d space.

HD rumble would be great for VR, no doubt. It's just everything else isn't there.
i' ve talked about this since the speculation threads, only thing preventing VR working in the Switch is the screen resolution. Your list is not a requirement for VR, what you describe in there is high end VR. The Switch could do well and bring a new level for mobile VR thanks to it's engineering and control method for seated and stand VR experiences.

The IR motion camera in the joycon can be easily set in a base and track LEDs in the head set. So you would get fairly good head tracking, then the left Joycon works even better than the solutions you have in Gear VR or Google's daydream, non of which feature absolute tracking of any kind.

So contrary to your assertion, almost everything is in fact there for VR to function, save for the screen resolution. Now, maintain the same design and bring the screen's resolution up in a new Switch revision and surely VR would work.

Although someone brought up a very insteresting point (although not sure how plausible) with that Nvidia LCD tech.

Alternatively, they could stream to a VR headset via the usb-c port.
That would limit it's functionality a bit then. A Switch with a higher resolution screen would have offered a new level of mobile VR at the lowest point of entry. im not counting Google cardboard for obvious reasons XD
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
You could easily have a VR add on that connects to switch via USB-C
Which would add significant cost and would have been avoided if Nintendo had gone for a 1080p screen in the first place.

It makes no sense that they decided on a 720p if they had the intention of having VR on Switch.
 
Should probably read this as "Switch Platform" will support VR in the future.

This goes right along with my belief that you aren't going to get home only or handheld only switch models, you are going to just get upgraded switch specs, i.e. more internal space, higher resolutions and the specs to drive those resolutions.
 
I get it. Not criticizing you.

Look at the big picture. NO ONE has figured out how to take VR mainstream. Do we use a phone? Do we tie it to the PC? Do we make an all-in-one headset? What do you do about controls?

Whether or not Nintendo ships a VR accessory to the current Switch, my point is they may have stumbled on to the right model to make VR mainstream. They may even have been planning it.

If it is the right model, it doesn't matter whether they ship VR tomorrow or in 3 years with Switch+1. If they're right, they already have a significant advantage that folks like Oculus and Samsung may struggle to replicate.

Think bigger picture.
They will still have to sell the headset, and they will still have to court 3rd parties to make content. Besides the fact that this Switch or even a Switch 2 will be greatly underpowered for any real VR gaming... it's not looking good for Nintendo VR
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I get it. Not criticizing you.

Look at the big picture. NO ONE has figured out how to take VR mainstream. Do we use a phone? Do we tie it to the PC? Do we make an all-in-one headset? What do you do about controls?

Whether or not Nintendo ships a VR accessory to the current Switch, my point is they may have stumbled on to the right model to make VR mainstream. They may even have been planning it.

If it is the right model, it doesn't matter whether they ship VR tomorrow or in 3 years with Switch+1. If they're right, they already have a significant advantage that folks like Oculus and Samsung may struggle to replicate.

Think bigger picture.
There is nothing inherently revolutionary about the Switch. Yes a Switch + could make a good VR platform. But then again every single smart phone will have that capability when the next generation Switch launches and Nintendo will be playing catch up with it's tech again.
 

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
I think we'll see a Switch Pro 1080p in 2-3 years but VR will probably support the 720p screen too.
Alternatively, they could stream to a VR headset via the usb-c port.
 
Switch is a platform, not just one console. Anybody not expecting an upgraded switch and more powerful accessories in a year or two isn't using their head. This is a longterm play for them.
 
They will still have to sell the headset, and they will still have to court 3rd parties to make content. Besides the fact that this Switch or even a Switch 2 will be greatly underpowered for any real VR gaming... it's not looking good for Nintendo VR
Totally disagree. Nintendo made really smart choices. They've moved to ARM which means they can continue to ride Moore's Law unlike x86. They've moved to NVIDIA which means they can follow their performance curve. They made sure they supported the big game engines.

The headset will be dirt cheap. All the pricey electronics are already in the Switch itself.

A 4K portable screen in 3 years will be cheap. Portable Pascal will be cheap. Remember, Oculus set a baseline for VR performance that they intend to maintain for many years.

You guys are so obsessed with today's specs. You need to be thinking about performance curves. Nintendo has a legit story here.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Switch (as a high-level model) was designed to accommodate VR from the outset. I hope they don't ship a headset this gen and are disciplined enough to wait for their next-gen product.
 
Be sure to burn that little mistake into your brain. Sensationalist and outright false headlines/news is rampant. Please don't contribute to this problem. You can contact a mod to change the title.
To be fair the quote says: "will add VR to Switch once they figure out how users can play for hours without problems."

It litterally says they will add it, albeit after they figure some things out. He didn't use the word "if" or anything. Weather this was an accurate translation/weather this actually comes to fruition is another matter.
 
To be fair the quote says: "will add VR to Switch once they figure out how users can play for hours without problems."

It litterally says they will add it, albeit after they figure some things out. He didn't use the word "if" or anything. Weather this was an accurate translation/weather this actually comes to fruition is another matter.
Will they ever figure it though?
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Totally disagree. Nintendo made really smart choices. They've moved to ARM which means they can continue to ride Moore's Law unlike x86. They've moved to NVIDIA which means they can follow their performance curve. They made sure they supported the big game engines.

The headset will be dirt cheap. All the pricey electronics are already in the Switch itself.

A 4K portable screen in 3 years will be cheap. Portable Pascal will be cheap. Remember, Oculus set a baseline for VR performance that they intend to maintain for many years.

You guys are so obsessed with today's specs. You need to be thinking about performance curves. Nintendo has a legit story here.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Switch (as a high-level model) was designed to accommodate VR from the outset. I hope they don't ship a headset this gen and are disciplined enough to wait for their next-gen product.
You are much more positive about Nintendo's ability to deliver great VR. Stay positive. I hope you are right. Mario/Zelda in VR would be awesome.
 
VR 'hands' require tracking in a 3d space. Accelerometer and short range IR doesn't work. You need an external camera (or Valve's far better Lighthouse system that fills the room with lasers) to track the controllers. If those controllers aren't giving off light from all over themselves, they can't be tracked. This is why the Oculus Touch and Vive Wands have ring like designs so your hand can't get in the way.

Not only are the Joycons completely engulfed by hands, they're also not equipped with a big ass light or all the sensors required to track them in a 3d space.

HD rumble would be great for VR, no doubt. It's just everything else isn't there.
you're right but i don't expect nintendo to approach VR the same way Valve, Oculus and sony does.
They will not go after high end stuff, and maybe they know how to use the tools they already have for fun ( if not fully immersive) experiences.
Edit:
A game like "Arms" could be playable day one on VR ( with a proper screen/secretsauce) without the need of new controllers or hands tracking
 
Well I did some Google Cardboard with my iPhone 6S so it's not like VR is impossible on a 720p screen...

But they'll need some damn compelling exclusive software to go with it, if they want anyone to care.
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
i' ve talked about this since the speculation threads, only thing preventing VR working in the Switch is the screen resolution. Your list is not a requirement for VR, what you describe in there is high end VR. The Switch could do well and bring a new level for mobile level VR thanks to it's engineering and control method for seated and stand VR experiences.

The IR motion camera in the joycon can be easily set in a base and track LEDs in the head set. So you would get fairly good head tracking, then the left Joycon works even better than the solutions you have in Gear VR or Google's daydream, non of which feature absolute tracking of any kind.

So contrary to your assertion, almost everything is in fact there for VR to function, save for the screen resolution. Now, maintain the same design and bring the screen's resolution up in a new Switch revision and surely VR would work.

Although someone brought up a very insteresting point (although not sure how plausible) with that Nvidia LCD tech.
Fuzzy thinking.

IR sensor isn't going to be on same level as a precisely static configured wide angle 1280x800 camera, and is intended for short distance stuff. Start adding multiple things to track and you're in trouble, not to mention the console required to track all this would already be on your face.

2 screen and console overlap with processing to pair up and also work with tracking, as above, generates this stuff called heat.

Current Switch aint doing any kind of quality VR. Revision might.

All this is also why its incredibly forward thinking of Cerny to get the PS4 VR ready right from the start. Nintendo has failed that step.
 
You are much more positive about Nintendo's ability to deliver great VR. Stay positive. I hope you are right. Mario/Zelda in VR would be awesome.
It's not about positivity. It's about design.

Nintendo made GREAT design choices to put themselves in position to be a real player in VR over the next decade.

This is so similar to Sony. Sony made fantastic design decisions with PS4. x86 commodity architecture. Streamlined system software optimized for gaming. Paid online (YES, a wise decision). Those decisions not only won them this generation, it will win the next generation for them as well. They will stay on x86, not make major changes to their system software, and thanks to backwards compatibility will own next-gen as well.

If Nintendo executes, they could own the portable gaming and potentially mobile VR space just as thoroughly.
 
Totally disagree. Nintendo made really smart choices. They've moved to ARM which means they can continue to ride Moore's Law unlike x86. They've moved to NVIDIA which means they can follow their performance curve. They made sure they supported the big game engines.

The headset will be dirt cheap. All the pricey electronics are already in the Switch itself.

A 4K portable screen in 3 years will be cheap. Portable Pascal will be cheap. Remember, Oculus set a baseline for VR performance that they intend to maintain for many years.

You guys are so obsessed with today's specs. You need to be thinking about performance curves. Nintendo has a legit story here.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Switch (as a high-level model) was designed to accommodate VR from the outset. I hope they don't ship a headset this gen and are disciplined enough to wait for their next-gen product.
This is Hopes and Dreams: A NeoGAF Story

How would the Switch track controllers while in a headset? What makes you think Nintendo would put a 4K screen on a Switch in 2020 when they can't even put a 1080p screen on a Switch in 2017? Battery life is already borderline, throw VR at 60-90-120fps... it's going to be a gimmick at best, unless Nintendo is uncharacteristically WAYYY ahead of the tech curve
 
I have a feeling these "studies" on VR are going to come to fruition maybe 2-3 years from now at the earliest with some sort of console refresh. The current tech just doesn't seem like it could support it unless they're going for something very lo-fi, and that frankly does not sound like a good experience (If that's what they're aiming for as suggested here).

Then again, we'll see where VR goes in the coming years. I wouldn't be totally surprised if these plans come to nothing if VR doesn't take a very firm place in the market by then.
 
With the specs of Switch this is not feasible. Does not have speed, horsepower or the display. The VR add on would need 90% of the hardware of a system.
 
Fuzzy thinking.

IR sensor isn't going to be on same level as a 1280x800 camera, and is intended for short distance stuff.
We don't know the specs of the IR Motion Camera to make any definitive statements. A reason for the short range is explained because the Joycon has to provide the IR emition by itself, since it most have 1 or 2 LEDs inside which is not a powerful enough infrared source.

However, a HMD like Gear VR for Switch could provide the LEDs itself thus the range could be improved. i sincerly doubt that this camera is lower resolution than the Wii one, yet that one could track 4 IR sources at decent distances.

2 screen and console overlap with processing to pair up and also work with tracking, as above, generates this stuff called heat.

Current Switch aint doing any kind of quality VR. Revision might.
The Switch is capable enough to handle mobile VR type experiences and it could do so with improved controls. i don't know why you set the standards so high, expecting similar VR experience to 800 U.S. HMDs alone.

Didn't say cuarrent Switch unit will do quality VR, however is not for the reasons you provide.
 
Just because some do have issues doesn't mean we dont have vr that can be played for hours.

Works both ways.
They don't want to sell the vr to just you, but also to people have tried and had issue with other vr devices. What's the point of selling a product that only 10 guys are going to buy it?