But DKC:TF is pretty fucking beautiful and in HD...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Reggie: VR isn't ready right now, but when it is, Nintendo will be there too
- Thread starter aza
- Start date
But DKC:TF is pretty fucking beautiful and in HD...
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I know, I know, loltendo living in the past and all that jazzz..
But is he really wrong on this one though? I almost fell on the floor from dizziness after 2 minutes demonstration of the Occulus.
But is he really wrong on this one though? I almost fell on the floor from dizziness after 2 minutes demonstration of the Occulus.
Amazeballs
Member
Gyro and tilt controls on certain GBC and GBA predate the Eye Toy. People created VR concepts with the WiiMote when that came out, and if I recall correctly the WiiMote has been used in some Oculus demos, probably because of how easy it is to use.
This "who did it first" back and forth is utterly pointless though.
the 360 may just be Microsofts only truly successful system. History will tell.
Sony is a different story. Out of 4 generations they have been involved in they are poised to right win 3 of them. Nintendo is 2 for 6.
But again, this thread, this discussion, it is about how Nintendo responds to emerging technologies. Does anyone really argue that Nintendo has been proactive on that front?
The only time they are out in front of technology is if they create it I.E motion controls, analogue stick. When it comes to outside technologies they have almost always fallen behind and have been apprehensive to adapt and adjust.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Wearable Headgear are highly uncomfortable, i you want to test if a product is mainstream just think about any member of your family who is not that interested into technology, imagine if they'll tolerate wearing something on their eyes for 30 min.
You completely made up a narrative about them and then concluded that it must be true. We're talking Nintendo, a company that is always looking for the next big thing.
They experiment with all kinds of tech, shelve them sometimes, and then dust them off when they become viable/feasible/relevant... you don't think they've looked into VR too?
Look into all the prototypes they did for touch screens, motion controls, 3D, and Mii characters - and how they were on the pulse of the mainstream for most of those. How out-of-touch must they be?
I think Nintendo and Miyamoto in particular would fit VR like a glove. Miyamoto has in many ways made games around a sense of presence, like Zelda trying to capture the spirit of adventure or Pikmin being a detailed look at life in a garden. Seen from this perspective transporting the player to a world using VR seems like a natural progression. They've also proven that they have the capability of making actions like jumping on Goombas work when switching around fundamentals completely, as when they transitioned many of their games into 3D with the N64 (or a generation later Metroid Prime being one of the first games nailing first person jumps). It'll take a lot of work but they're more capable than most when moving into new areas or shifting control schemes while working towards a focused vision.
If they'll pick up on VR sooner rather than later I'll be very pleased. Not really expecting it, but who knows.
The D-Pad
Rumble
Analog sticks
The diamond button layout with shoulder triggers
Motion controls
Portable console gaming
3D home gaming
3D portable gaming
all I can think of off the top of my head for now.
Edit: Microsoft's console division hasn't been profitable ever IIRC. Also Nintendo won NES, SNES, and Wii. That's 3 gens.
Smiles and Cries
Member
you are still stuck on trolling Virtual Boy and not making any good points to what the true concept of VR is. Virtual Boy was not even Nintendo tech it was something someone brought to Nintendo and they rushed to push it because they believed it cool. VR was a fad in movies at the time. Every arcade had some strange hologram gimmick to entertain people. You can't separate one gaming platform from another. The VR we are talking about here is Gaming VR that will never reach the concept of true VR. So being down on Virtual Boy for being a gaming gimmick is harder to understand, we are going to get 3D Gaming open world games or on rails games in this generation of gaming head sets, they are not doing so much more different when the concept is glue something to your face projecting video gaming into your eyeballs. It comes down to immersion that is the goal they have in common.
You are getting way ahead of yourself if you think what we are getting today is so much greater thus it must be called True VR. I would call that True PR talk.
It is a good start, I liked what Virtual Boy tried to do but it failed for many reasons. We can't get too far ahead of ourselves and miss a good learning opportunity and learn about why it failed.
Are we saying wow because we are looking at pretty visuals in a headset or are we saying wow because this headset gave me a powerful new way to play games?
I need to see the gameplay that blows my mind not just pretty pictures into my eyes but deep gaming. If a Virtual Boy game turns out to be more playable than most modern VR games I'll have a huge issue with that.
So where is this tech going that makes it so special? The Hype is Hot and the Visuals are there, but give me that game, that is what I want the leap to be. And this is just gaming VR, not NASA in SPACE VR visiting Mars and ISS as Sony hopes to sell. I hope we can see all that come true.
Stop shouting gimmick, because it all started as a gimmick. A new way to experience old things.
Not really. Its about Reggie's statement on the current state of VR and the actual article isn't just about Nintendo. The discussion of Nintendo's approach to emerging technologies can be tied into it, but Nintendo hasn't said anything to make us think they're ignoring VR outside of people making assumptions based on how they approached HD and online.
Proven wrong in what way son? You made a comment about only having one failing console, I put it into its proper context. When it comes to console market share, Nintendo has been on a steady decline since the 90's.
When it comes to external changes to the industry they have failed to adapt. Give whatever excuses you want but they have taken a very conservative stance on outside disruptive technology. It has been to their own peril IMO for the their long term health.
Ninja Scooter
Member
It's not about trolling Virtual Boy, what I am saying is that nobody looks back at Virtual Boy and sees the seeds of the Morpheus and OR. It's not even a footnote. It was a bad attempt at a novelty product. It's not even worth bringing up in VR discussions.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
looked into it in the same fashion as palmer? as a 3d hmd with motion control? nope, i dont think so.
Touch screen controls for gaming (y'know that thing that mobile gaming was inspired by).
They've been profitable for 123 of their 125 years of business. Even when their sales were in a decline they still managed a fairly hefty profit. They have indeed taken conservative stances but they've also gone out on a limb and created new technologies that created this modern gaming world you and I both live in. They're the reason why we even have a Playstation and Xbox in this race.
Not getting first doesn't mean failure. Not being profitable means failure. Big difference.
You failed to read my posts didn't you? Let me help you:
No one argues that Nintendo hasn't put their stamp on innovations within the gaming market. However when it comes to external changes that are poised to become staples of the industry: CD's, DVD's, HD, online; they have been notoriously and unquestionably slow to adapt.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
wait wait wait wait wait. youre saying that the iphone would never have had any games made for it if it werent for the DS?
It may not be economically feasible now, hence why they're not doing it, but I guarantee they've looked into it.
They had the concept for Miis in the 90s and 3D prototypes for Gamecube, for God's sake.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. Mobile games would have happened, certainly, but Nintendo DS provided a model for them.
Despite your dismissive attitude and attempt to take away Nintendo's innovations, this really isn't a controversial statement.
So you're saying is that they're slow to adapt when they're not slow to adapt?
Someone's certainly thinking about it
If Oculus CV1 delivers on 1440p and 90+Hz low persistence, with a 110-120 degree fov and sub mm positional tracking, then it will be able to produce truly incredible experiences.
Neither Oculus or Sony are saying VR is ready right at the moment, but they are both getting a ton of developers on board that are genuinely interested in the tech and building a platform from the ground up. There is a good chance that at least the Rift will deliver a truly mind bending VR experience by the end of next year. Since it's reliant on powerful PC hardware I don't think it will necessarily explode (although I hope it does), but with their open development that has already built a faithful community with projects long underway, with Valve's dedication to making VR viable on Steam (and probably Steam machines), and with Morpheus hitting the scene around the same time it will definitely lay the foundation for something big.
Nintendo can ride the coattails of that 5 years later when they finally have capable hardware on the market if they want, I have no problem with that. But there's no need to try to spoil it for the real pioneers of this tech. Hearing them say stuff like this makes me sad because they've completely slacked on hardware development in the last decade. They should be the last ones to speak on the matter, because if anything they've done nothing but actively hinder gaming tech development themselves.
Neither Oculus or Sony are saying VR is ready right at the moment, but they are both getting a ton of developers on board that are genuinely interested in the tech and building a platform from the ground up. There is a good chance that at least the Rift will deliver a truly mind bending VR experience by the end of next year. Since it's reliant on powerful PC hardware I don't think it will necessarily explode (although I hope it does), but with their open development that has already built a faithful community with projects long underway, with Valve's dedication to making VR viable on Steam (and probably Steam machines), and with Morpheus hitting the scene around the same time it will definitely lay the foundation for something big.
Nintendo can ride the coattails of that 5 years later when they finally have capable hardware on the market if they want, I have no problem with that. But there's no need to try to spoil it for the real pioneers of this tech. Hearing them say stuff like this makes me sad because they've completely slacked on hardware development in the last decade. They should be the last ones to speak on the matter, because if anything they've done nothing but actively hinder gaming tech development themselves.
Kodak was profitable for 125 years before their failure to adapt put them in bankruptcy.
But profit margins have zero to do with whether Nintendo has failed to adapt to emerging disruptive technologies. Re-read my initial point. Nowhere did I argue they haven't earned profits. Nowhere did I say they haven't contributed to innovations(I said the opposite in fact, multiple times). What I have said is that they have been slow to adapt to outside disruptive technologies and that Reggie's response seems to echo their past approaches and that I argue it has been to their detriment when it comes to consumer relations, software developer relations and their long term prospects in the market.
Unless they are the designers of the new technology they almost always trail several years, if not entire generations behind their competitors in embracing that technology. It's like a company trying to focus on a blackberry competitor when the iPhone caught fire.
Smiles and Cries
Member
I have no doubt that EAD could pull off some amazing things with modern VR tech but I want them to go last.
If they went first it would doom the company, too many are cynical about Nintendo.
Nintendo needs to do this right they have no room for yet another bombing platform give them another 5-10 years they will be on VR but rushing out would be a mistake for them.
I like what Sony is trying and my PS4 will be ready, not sure if VR will work with one eye because I am blind in the other so this tech may not fit me as the 3DS did not fit me. But I am still excited to see what kinds of gaming can come from it.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
they also released the hardware atrocity that is the wii u gamepad. before oculus, there were no blips of that kind of VR anywhere, now there's a dozen copycats. using mobile displays and modern 3d tech along with gryoscopes seems like an obvious way to build vr in retrospect, but occulus were the only ones doing it.
and im not sure the invention of the mii was all that groundbreaking.
SkeptiMism
Member
Do you think online gaming became massive within a day?
DK1 or Dk2? Either way, it's not the customer version anyway.
But yes, he's not really wrong though. It's not completely ready for mass adoption yet (will take a few years). It just sounds eerily similar to what they said about things like online gaming and HD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol do you have some agenda here if I may ask?
You made already 2 posts saying the exact same thing a couple of pages earlier in this thread.
You also ignored my reply to that earlier in the thread:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Well, they don't have a console that could do it effectively right now, and they won't for a few years. They're gonna be late to this, just like they've been to so many other things.
Kodak didn't have the biggest profit in the history of their company five years before their collapse either. They were drowning for years.
Nintendo is adapting to outside "disruptive" technologies when they feel its feasible for them to do so. Sometimes it works for them and other times it doesn't. Right now its not working out for them. They won't win this generation, but they won't fall into obscurity either. The gaming landscape as a whole is changing and everyone's got issues. It's still way too early to make any definitive arguments on who's right and who's wrong in their approach.
Actually on topic though: Until VR is stable and financially attainable it'll still be just like 3D gaming. A niche that will hold a very small adoption rate. Oculus is neat, but people pushed back against traditional controls before. What guarantees are that VR will actually take off as an actual home platform?
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
what do you mean by 'they provided a model for them' though? ds games and mobile phone games are generally pretty different beasts. the only commonality is touching a finger to a screen. nintendo has innovated plenty but i dont think mobile phone games would have looked any different if the DS didnt exist.
Welp that about sums it up, doesn't it?
I was only half serious afc. It was meant to point out that the statistics thingy that is dragged around on GAF is just silly as you can make that point for Sony and Ms as well.
Nintendo has many hits and misses on both handheld and console but are never afraid to take risks and try to innovate.
That being said it would not surprise me if they are to little to late in VR tech although they could partner with Facebook. But they could chose to stay the party console of choice for a long time
PC gaming is the only area where I see VR having any success any time soon. I think the success will be limited and I don't see how it will expand into other markets. No one is gonna put on a headset/helmet to browse facebook. People aren't even willing to put on glasses for 3d outside of theaters where the industry is basically forcing them to.
Smiles and Cries
Member
No it was a gaming product, and they should pay attention to more than a footnote if they are working on Gaming VR they need to understand why it failed.
I love what OR and Morpheus are promising but I disagree that Virtual Boy is not worth looking at when they are all going for immersion of video games. This whole industry is based on selling novelty products smh. You are trying too hard to dismiss Virtual Boy, does not matter if you do not see the gaming connection but they all face the same issues. I am more interested in how these modern platforms solves the issues than being condescending about the roots of VR Gaming.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
This was a friend's unit, the one they sent out to kickstarter backers I guess?
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i think we just see differently in terms of vrs potential. i wouldnt expect people to buy a rift to broswse 2d facebook tiles in 3d either. i think facebook will prepare much more enticing things. Something like psn home for example.
SkeptiMism
Member
Yup that was DK1. Palmer himself couldn't use it more than a few minutes, but he can use DK2 for long times without problems.
OmegaDL50
Member
They also weren't ready for the HD gaming uprising. Technology wise, Nintendo moves at their own pace.
Consequently this generally means people will criticize them more often for not keeping their console hardware specs comparable to the other companies, or utilizing things like a unified account system, but it has not deterred them from making quality software on whatever hardware they decide to make and work with.
I'm pleased with my current Wii U library for sure, and there are even more games coming out that I want for the platform.
Although something I've wanted to mention. Nintendo is largely criticized for their approach in using "gimmick" like controls as opposed to doing something traditional. Do you find it ironic that they don't find the idea of VR to fit in the scheme of their plans which also can be somewhat to have gimmick-like appeal to a limited assortment of games.
Why are you bringing in something completely unrelated? So what if they made the Gamepad? It's a total non-sequitor.
And good for Occulus being the first to have a public "blip" for existing, but now that it's public and still nowhere near released, it's lunch might possibly be copy-catted by everyone else (like Sony). Which illustrates why Nintendo keeps things close to the chest.
Just because Occulus was first doesn't mean it hasn't been attempted elsewhere. Just as a reminder, I'm refuting whether Nintendo is really out of touch. I don't think they are nearly as much as the person I quoted thinks (though they do misread the pulse of the market sometimes), and I'm merely saying that there are multiple discussions in Iwata Asks where we see they do a lot of prototyping behind the scenes to cover every eventuality. Sometimes they pick the wrong path as the "next big thing" but that doesn't mean that was the only option they had to choose.
And, for whatever you think about Mii, it was fairly groundbreaking for a period of time in terms of creating a somewhat persistent console-based character, used across multiple games. There's a reason why it was copied by MS as well. And even if you disagree, I'm merely using it as an example of how Nintendo frequently has ideas/innovations that they've conceived of long before the competition, and remain hidden until they think they can do them justice.
There's no guarantees stating that they're not working on VR themselves.
the_batman
Banned
i'm sure they are but they don't have the same resources as Sony, Facebook or Microsoft.
True, but they do have connections at IBM and Panasonic. They don't have to do everything themselves.
Smiles and Cries
Member
I think my biggest worry about the tech being pushed by Facebook is that they might be aiming for a VR internet not just their own pages but a VR Browser that views the internet in a very different way.
I am more interested in VR gaming and VR tourism but I am happy someone is spending money on VR so let's watch this play out
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
oh i thought you meant they were looking at something oculus rift like before oculus. i was disagreeing with that assertion. a miscommunication i suppose.
i think nintendo probably has thought about making a morpheus of their own but they just dont have the horsepower or demographic for it.
edit: and i brought up the gamepad because i was making the point that they arent exactly right about hardware all the time.
I think a lot of the early minigame collections of the DS (like Mario 64DS's touchscreen games) and the cheap third-party touchscreen efforts in 2004-2006 were early bases for the big phone games of the iPhone era (like Angry Birds) in terms of control style and on-the-go gaming
Would mobile games have developed similarly anyway? Yes. But that wasn't my argument. It's just that Nintendo was one of the first big players in touchscreen gaming and the experiences created on DS evolved into the mobile games market.
Do people have auto reply post script on hand for anytime someone from MS/Sony/Nintendo say something?
Because this response is absolutely accurate. VR is about 10 years away (if we are lucky) from being mainstream enough to do ~70 million units during a 'generation' the way consoles like PS1/PS2/PS3/Wii/360/DS/GBA do or have done.
His statement is right. The tech needs time to evolve, its just barely getting there now. Its not even close to where consoles are in terms of consumer adoption or even being ready for retail. Jesus Christ...
Not sure how much that is supposed to scare them. They were late to console gaming too. The NES was faaaaaaaaaar from the first console. There is far more to success in tech related fields like gaming than being first or being right on the bleeding edge. Don't believe me? Go buy one of those samsung smart watches.
Because this response is absolutely accurate. VR is about 10 years away (if we are lucky) from being mainstream enough to do ~70 million units during a 'generation' the way consoles like PS1/PS2/PS3/Wii/360/DS/GBA do or have done.
His statement is right. The tech needs time to evolve, its just barely getting there now. Its not even close to where consoles are in terms of consumer adoption or even being ready for retail. Jesus Christ...
Not sure how much that is supposed to scare them. They were late to console gaming too. The NES was faaaaaaaaaar from the first console. There is far more to success in tech related fields like gaming than being first or being right on the bleeding edge. Don't believe me? Go buy one of those samsung smart watches.
SkeptiMism
Member
How is your post any different from the "auto reply post script" posts here (just as there are people jumping on him, there are people defending him)?
I don't think many are directly disagreeing with him. It's just that it sounds so similar to what they said about HD and online gaming.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Your describing how the technology will offer an immersive experience something that 3D couldn't emulate using the 3D glasses. Yet my main concern here is that wearing something that are uncomfortable since it covers the eyes and is attached to the head. The only I can see this taking off is that the whole device should look like glasses which very light and comfortable and have glasses like lens which from my understanding can't be offered with the current technology that is presented. When you want something to be mainstream you need to think about all ages, my mother hates video games and although the Wii was declared a fad it was the first time I saw my mother interested in Video games and actually trying play, the problem with the Wii is that Nintendo is to blame because they dropped the ball. In the VR case I can see my self liking it playing and feeling that I'm in the Elder Scrolls world is a dream come true to me but not my mother since she doesn't care what experiences this device offers and won't love something that is attached to her face most if the time.