Nintendo Switch will support VR in the future

I have no doubt a New Nintendo Switch revision will come in the next couple of years that will have a hogher resolution and support VR. The current Switch model not so much.
 
He clearly means the Nintendo Switch line. But considering the company wants a way to make VR more appealing for long play sessions without physical ailment (I assume), it won't be for a while.
 
Lots of people have seemingly never tried google cardboard with a shit phone. All you folk saying 'no way' are really off the mark. It has been, and is being done with less power than a basic switch, it is just not very good. If it is good enough is the same question PSVR, GearVR and google all face, and have done from the start.

It is perfectly possible and plausible. I would consider it far more unlikely they release a new system to power something they have never been keen on, and has no mass market. That would be stupid.
 

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 don't know why you set the standards so high, expecting similar VR experience to 800 U.S. HMDs alone.
$450 Headset is console VR standard right now.

Switch VR touting "as good as Google Cardboard, maybe GearVR!" for some $200 price in 2018 would be eye-roll-tastic.
 
$499 Headset is console VR standard right now.

Switch VR touting "as good as Google Cardboard/GearVR!" for thrice the price in 2018 would be eye-roll-tastic.
i clearly said 800 for the HMD alone, for the case of Vive and the Oculus equivalent (that is with Touch), which need high end PCs to run and thus should be counted to the overall cost of entry. Anyway:
  • You are talking about PSVR here which is 499 for HMD alone plus a 300 or 400 machine. Total cost of entry 800 to 900 dollars.
  • Funny enough, PSVR is not in the level of the HMDs and VR you spoke of in terms of positional tracking. Touch and Vive controllers are far away from Move.
  • "for thrice the price". Is a very dishonest comparison to say the least. The Gear VR at 99 is peripheral that does not work by itslef. It needs a phone that costs new more than 600 dollars, although lderr models of the Galaxy do appear cheaper. Like older models of the Switch would also.
  • The Switch is a 300 device and the additional HMD could be sold for a similar price of Gear VR. So that's a 400 cost of entry.
 

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 clearly said 800 for the HMD alone, for the case of Vive and the Oculus equivalent (that is with Touch), which need high end PCs to run and thus should be counted to the overall cost of entry. Anyway:
  • You are talking about PSVR here which is 499 for HMD alone plus a 300 or 400 machine. Total cost of entry 800 to 900 dollars.
  • Funny enough, PSVR is not in the level of the HMDs and VR you spoke of in terms of positional tracking. Touch and Vive controllers are far away from Move.
  • "for thrice the price". Is a very dishonest comparison to say the least. The Gear VR at 99 is peripheral that does not work by itslef. It needs a phone that costs new more than 600 dollars, although lderr models of the Galaxy do appear cheaper. Like older models of the Switch would also.
  • The Switch is a 300 device and the additional HMD could be sold for a similar price of Gear VR. So that's a 400 cost of entry.
This magical doohickey is supposed to have some Nvidia screen layering tech in it though because 720p VR is unacceptable.

Spades a spade.
 
This magical doohickey is supposed to have some Nvidia screen layering tech in it though because 720p VR is unacceptable.

Spades a spade.
Well Pie, i think you reached a point that you are too focused on been dismissive, that you lost the context of the discussion.

i' ve clearly told you, that VR is not happening not because the list of reasons you provided, but mainly because of the screen resolution. Just look at it in my previous post:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=229517938

i' ve talked about this since the speculation threads, only thing preventing VR working in the Switch is the screen resolution.
It was the first thing i said, yet here you are using it as a counter argument?

As far as the Switch is concerned, the setup and engineering behind it is quite brilliant for mobile type VR expereinces. Just look what Cardboard, Gear and Daydream offer in comparison.
 
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
They couldn't put a 1080p screen because of the GPU, not because of the screen.

What makes me think they can do it in 2020? Simple, we should made a galactic shift in GPU architectures with Pascal. Switch couldn't get on the right side of that shift. Switch+1 will get the benefits of three years progress plus that shift. Those are power AND performance benefits BTW.

An upgraded Dock could do the tracking BTW.

The model is right. Nintendo just has to execute.
 
I gather that this is just a preparatory measure for insurance in case the VR market surprises everyone and actually does take off in the next five years. One of Nintendo's missteps during the Wii era was not adequately preparing for mass adoption of HDTVs to happen as quickly as it did.

Certainly not expecting any VR until the next cycle of hardware revisions, that's for sure. This is just reassurance to investors that Nintendo won't be caught off guard if VR indeed explodes (and I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon).
 
Did you even read? That's my point. I have gearvr ND even if it hit that level the other sets will be so God damn far ahead it wont even be funny.

Anyways. Will they call it virtual boy?
Does the Gear VR of play exclusive Nintendo IP?

That answers your question.
 
Am I wrong for thinking that this means we will get a higher resolution Nintendo Switch for VR? Since Switch only has a 720p screen.
One of the JP developers at the event mentioned that he could turn a 720p mobile screen into a VRHMD (Head mounted device?) by rendering the same scene on two sides of the screen for each eye.

The screen inside the PSVR is just a 1080p screen, and they just split the horizontal resolution. So this could work similarly
 
If the Joy-cons, the dock and a future version of the tablet (with upgraded battery, screen and GPU) could communicate their positions and orientations to each other. It would be a pretty viable VR setup.
 
Makes sense, the joycons seem well suited for VR.
People really have no idea what VR is, do they.

The joycons might do basic motion controls, but the switch is not able to track their positioning in 3D space, which is the bare minimum of fidelity required for VR interaction.
 
The first thing I thought of during the very initial video demo was "man - this form factor is just perfect for VR" - no need for bumbling cords all over the living room. Just throw the thing in your VR headset/helmet and you're ready to go.

Of course - you have to have the right screen and you need to have a powerful enough set up to push VR games...but if a Samsung Galaxy can do primitive VR, I'm sure Nintendo could have some simple VR games in the future. If not with this iteration of Switch, maybe a more powerful revision in a few years.

Glad to see my speculation could be correct.
 
Now :

Speculation time!

When you'll slide the Switch in the VR helmet, there'll be a 2nd non opaque cheap LCD screen already in the headset. Both of them will work together to create Cascading display.

Nvidia created this before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XwaARRMbSA&feature=youtu.be





With their algorithms and the use of 2 cheap LCD displays, they can reach the illusion of having 4x the resolution.

Very impressive. I certainly don't want Nintendo thinking about a Switch Pro for at least 3 years though.
 
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.
Outside-in spacial tracking using cameras is a matter of both resolution and FoV. The Wiimote FoV is absurdly low (33 degrees horizontally and 23 degrees vertically) due to how small of an angular distance a typical TV would take up at playing distances. It would require a massive increase in the camera's FoV to be useful. As you increase the FoV, the resolution has to scale up to maintain similar accuracy for a given angular distance. The Wiimote could also compensate for low sensor resolution by a large "sensor-bar" inter-light distance. The LEDs on a headset would be much closer together and the sensor would have to be high enough resolution to compensate for that. So now the sensor resolution has to jump again just to maintain parity with the Wiimote, let alone exceed it's capabilities.

As the resolution scales, the processing power required to analyze the image increases. Processing power isn't exactly something we lack in modern devices, and the Switch could do such image processing easily enough, but there's a catch. The Wiimote isn't streaming images wirelessly to the console to interpret. The functionality is built into the remote itself and it reports coordinates. You can pretty much bet that the Joycon is working the same way. This would mean using the joycon for theoretical VR faceplate tracking would need a powerful enough chip in it to identify and track multiple points at sufficient speeds on a high resolution camera and triangulate the object's position and rotation. Assuming you could even accomplish this in the form factor of the joycon (given the size, battery, and thermal constraints), it's going to add to the BoM and only benefit a potential future VR device. Frankly, Nintendo would be stupid to make the joycons like that.

You're better off just slapping cameras on the headset shell, feeding those to the Switch for processing via the USB port, and using inside out tracking. Either way you're not going to have tracked controllers, and with the inside-out camera method, Nintendo isn't paying to make every single joycon capable of something a fraction of the user base would use.
 
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?
Damn, I didn't realise only 10 people in the world can use vr without being sick. I must know 5 of them when I had a party recently and no one had any issues using the psvr.

I know what you mean, but I think that for the most part it's a vocal minority that suffer with issues or simply don't have the set up correct. Vr can be popular and successful right now, Sony is showing that.
 
People really have no idea what VR is, do they.

The joycons might do basic motion controls, but the switch is not able to track their positioning in 3D space, which is the bare minimum of fidelity required for VR interaction.
Actually, they are. They can sense subtle motions, and they can track their relative position and distance from each other in a 3D space which makes most of the gestures in ARMS possible.

It's been said they're on par with Oculus controllers.

Oh you thought they were just wii motion plus... hmmm.
 
- 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.
- Way more people than Carmack are working on inside out. Hell, the original Valve tech that Oculus boosted and demoed to Zuckerberg was inside out. Depending on the implementation, it shouldn't require that much more processing than any other positional tracking method. One of the Joycons is already capable of inside out tracking.

- The Nvidia solution uses a pretty low quality and low power screen. It was designed to solve the problem of miniature, mobile VR after all. All together, the additional processor in the headset could probably be something along the lines of a Raspberry Pi. Not exactly Vesuvius.

The whole thing could be a pretty compelling $100 to $200 accessory by 2019.
 
Outside-in spacial tracking using cameras is a matter of both resolution and FoV. The Wiimote FoV is absurdly low (33 degrees horizontally and 23 degrees vertically) due to how small of an angular distance a typical TV would take up at playing distances. It would require a massive increase in the camera's FoV to be useful. As you increase the FoV, the resolution has to scale up to maintain similar accuracy for a given angular distance. The Wiimote could also compensate for low sensor resolution by a large "sensor-bar" inter-light distance. The LEDs on a headset would be much closer together and the sensor would have to be high enough resolution to compensate for that. So now the sensor resolution has to jump again just to maintain parity with the Wiimote, let alone exceed it's capabilities.
in full agreement. That's why i said without knowing the capabilities we can't say for sure. What i did comment on, was about the range demostrated in the January unveil due to the IR source been contained in the R Joycon vs the same sensor detecting IR LED's emission from outside at a higher distance.

As the resolution scales, the processing power required to analyze the image increases. Processing power isn't exactly something we lack in modern devices, and the Switch could do such image processing easily enough, but there's a catch. The Wiimote isn't streaming images wirelessly to the console to interpret. The functionality is built into the remote itself and it reports coordinates. You can pretty much bet that the Joycon is working the same way.
Yes, im aware of the fact how the processing is done onboard in a Wii Remote. And going by the Switch patents it is indeed the case for the R Joycon, since it points out a procesing unit contained.

This would mean using the joycon for theoretical VR faceplate tracking would need a powerful enough chip in it to identify and track multiple points at sufficient speeds on a high resolution camera and triangulate the object's position and rotation. Assuming you could even accomplish this in the form factor of the joycon (given the size, battery, and thermal constraints), it's going to add to the BoM and only benefit a potential future VR device. Frankly, Nintendo would be stupid to make the joycons like that.
Here is where you can help with your technical knowledge.

The IR Motion Camera, for what we know, is resolving complex shapes like hand gestures or objects and motion/distance of these. Leaving range issues aside, you think that resolving a grid of IR dots in space is more processive intensive than that?

Is not like im proposing "room scale types of interaction" where the user walks around, what im implying is a seated experience and tracking interactions like moving the head close/farther to the camera and IMU orientation to minimize drift. So the HMD is what's been tracked.

You're better off just slapping cameras on the headset shell, feeding those to the Switch for processing via the USB port, and using inside out tracking. Either way you're not going to have tracked controllers, and with the inside-out camera method, Nintendo isn't paying to make every single joycon capable of something a fraction of the user base would use.
Oh man... im answering this part by part and just noticed the highlighted XD

i did not imply that. Have been very clear from the begining that i say (screen resolution aside) that mobile type of VR would be rather competent due to the Switch setup and controllers compared to Google cardboard, Gear and Daydream. Non of those 3 have any absolute tracking so far, yet have really nice seating and stand up experiences, which is what Nintendo should be aiming at giving the capabilities of the device. And they are good with these types of bit sized games.
 
I'm assuming the screen is 60hz? That's not quite as miserable a drawback as the 720p, but still bad. for anything needing tracking or positioning. That's fine for video playback but combined with the low resolution I'm nauseous just thinking about how that might feel with anything interactive.

The Joycon features do sound absolutely perfect for VR, though. The tactile ability to "pick up" an object with a control feels awesome and putting weight and resistance on that would greatly enhance immersion.
Nintendo still hasn't figured out headset jacks and voice chat. All of a sudden they're gonna master VR? No lol
Nintendo isn't exactly known for prioritizing resources, so who knows, they could be a decade ahead in VR tech but have absolutely nothing else to back it up with!
 
Now :

Speculation time!

When you'll slide the Switch in the VR helmet, there'll be a 2nd non opaque cheap LCD screen already in the headset. Both of them will work together to create Cascading display.

Nvidia created this before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XwaARRMbSA&feature=youtu.be





With their algorithms and the use of 2 cheap LCD displays, they can reach the illusion of having 4x the resolution.

Interesting. How much of power overhead is needed for... "their algorithms"?
 
Actually, they are. They can sense subtle motions, and they can track their relative position and distance from each other in a 3D space which makes most of the gestures in ARMS possible.

It's been said they're on par with Oculus controllers.

Oh you thought they were just wii motion plus... hmmm.
Source for them being on par with Oculus Touch?

I've been playing with Oculus Touch all weekend, if Nintendo managed to replicate that fidelity in a tiny joy-con then i'd be impressed.
 
Actually, they are. They can sense subtle motions, and they can track their relative position and distance from each other in a 3D space which makes most of the gestures in ARMS possible.

It's been said they're on par with Oculus controllers.

Oh you thought they were just wii motion plus... hmmm.
I'd bet my left nut that they're not going to be remotely on par with the Oculus Touch controllers. Nintendo would need voodoo black magic to get submillimeter accurate, non-drifting positional tracking from an IMU alone. Nobody has done that anywhere before to my knowledge, and Nintendo is going to pull a world first technological feat... in commodity level consumer hardware no less? Yeah, not happening.

Anybody claiming that is full of it, because until you get objective debug measurements (Nintendo sure as hell isn't providing them), or use them in VR to see first hand, it's all extrapolation from TV play which means nothing.

Here is where you can help with your technical knowledge.

The IR Motion Camera, for what we know, is resolving complex shapes like hand gestures or objects and motion. Leaving range issues aside, you think that resolving IR dots in space is more processive intensive than that?

Is not like im proposing "room scale types of interaction" where the user walks around, what im implying is a seated experience and tracking interactions like moving the head close/farther to the camera and IMU orientation to minimize drift.
In the case of resolving shapes/gestures, that's fundamentally different as there's leeway in how they're using that data. They don't need to be updating that camera info at 60hz minimum for gestures/shapes. They don't need to be exceedingly accurate as you'd never be able to tell for TV play. There's no leeway in positional tracking of a VR headset. The latency has to be extremely low and the accuracy has to be within ~1mm positionally and angular error at roughly a tenth of a degree or better. Ask any of the PSVR folks what it's like when the tracking of the headset starts flaking out. VR isn't forgiving of errors. Or rather, people's stomachs aren't forgiving of them. ;)

i did not imply that. Have been very clear from the begining that i say (screen resolution aside) that mobile type of VR would be rather competent due to the Switch setup and controllers compared to Google cardboard, Gear and Daydream. Non of those 3 have any absolute tracking so far, yet have really nice seating and stand up experiences.
I was just expanding on how that in a best case basis where everything worked, it still made less sense to use the joycon than inside out via cameras on the headset. The main benefit to outside in would be making tracked controllers possible, but that was off the table.
 
English is not my native language, but I'm pretty sure Kimishima's remarks refer to a possibility in the future, not a certainty, so I don't know why the title reads "will support".
 
Lots of people have seemingly never tried google cardboard with a shit phone. All you folk saying 'no way' are really off the mark. It has been, and is being done with less power than a basic switch, it is just not very good. If it is good enough is the same question PSVR, GearVR and google all face, and have done from the start.

It is perfectly possible and plausible. I would consider it far more unlikely they release a new system to power something they have never been keen on, and has no mass market. That would be stupid.
So much this. I had fun with a couple of free VR games on my sub 720p iPhone 5c. Much like the resolution of standard games the mass market don't care as long as the experience is fun.

Nintendo will not be trying to run Resident Evil 7 quality visuals in VR. Think Wii level.
 
Source for them being on par with Oculus Touch?

I've been playing with Oculus Touch all weekend, if Nintendo managed to replicate that fidelity in a tiny joy-con then i'd be impressed.
Supposedly the gyro sensitivity is. It's not camera tracked or anything, but extremely accurate.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/rfn/43976/episode-505-switchmas-presents info was from a developer. They talk about it in the podcast.

Also one of the developers said at the switch presentation that because the joycon were so accurate he could see the switch being used as a VRHMD
 
Actually, they are. They can sense subtle motions, and they can track their relative position and distance from each other in a 3D space which makes most of the gestures in ARMS possible.

It's been said they're on par with Oculus controllers.

Oh you thought they were just wii motion plus... hmmm.
No routerbad, they are not even in the same realm in terms of positional tracking to Vive or Oculusus solutions, not even to the outside/inside of the old Move controller. The strong suit of Joycon is how versatile they are not it's 3D positional tracking.

Basically they contain an Accelerometer and a Gyroscope and they can't sense their postion in relation to each other. The type of interactions seen in Arms are in the range of a WM+ capable Wii Remote, but hopefully the quality of the IMUs in there surpasses that.

Yet even with this limited type of motion sensing they present a lot of potential for enhancing game control, even the Wii Remotes weren't fully exploited so is great to give a 2nd chance to this type of input method.
 
Actually, they are. They can sense subtle motions, and they can track their relative position and distance from each other in a 3D space which makes most of the gestures in ARMS possible.

It's been said they're on par with Oculus controllers.

Oh you thought they were just wii motion plus... hmmm.
Ignorant and smug about it.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Am I wrong for thinking that this means we will get a higher resolution Nintendo Switch for VR? Since Switch only has a 720p screen.
You are not wrong for thinking that a console that only outputs 720p on ONE screen needs leagues more beef to render two 1080p fields. Which is a standard of sorts for modern VR. However Nintendo doesn't do horsepower, so they may be approaching the challenge from an unexpected angle.

It's been said they're on par with Oculus controllers.

.

Gonna need a picture of your butth...I mean, source for that.
 
Supposedly the gyro sensitivity is. It's not camera tracked or anything, but extremely accurate.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/rfn/43976/episode-505-switchmas-presents info was from a developer. They talk about it in the podcast.

Also one of the developers said at the switch presentation that because the joycon were so accurate he could see the switch being used as a VRHMD
The problem is not the power of the console, or the ability to track the remotes. The problem is the screen. At 720p, your VR experience will be this:

Does that look appealing to you?
 
I figure entry level VR Nintendo would have in mind for the Switch would be like casting a movie with a VR helmet. Not fully immersive, but with a focus on a personal experience.