Support NeoGAF

[Chaos17]

I won't go VR too at the moment because it would be too expensive for the customers and the devs.
For example, how much we will have to pay to have Morpheous+PS4?
600$ or more?
Just the dev kit of occulus Rift is 350$.

New technologies are cool, but not if it's too expensive, imo.
Otherwise Steam (or mobile games), would not be that succefful, people want to buy cheap.
I'm not talking here about mobile phone market where people can buy a new Iphone for 600$.

Better to wait.

 

[James Scott]

VR is basically tech that Nintendo has mastered over the years (3D+motion controls) so i can see them doing it pretty well. I dont feel like the tech is there yet, like streaming (at least price wise), maybe next gen bundled in with the system.

 

[Seanspeed]

Come back to me when every single PS4 and WiiU game is 1080P and 60hz, when Screens can be powered off thin air ,When wireless Comms can be sent with less latency than through cable, when hi density screens with refresh rates higher than 60hz are low enough in cost to mean that the unit price isn't more than a games console.

Why does every single game on these systems need to be 1080p/60fps? :/

I've explained already that both systems are capable of 1080p/60fps, but the graphics have to be pared back to reach these targets.

Screens can be powered by the device they are hooked up to(like in the case of Morpheus and Oculus and other upcoming headsets).

Wireless would be great, but its not absolutely necessary at all.

And the 1080p displays currently being used are reported to be less than $75 in bulk. Its really not nearly as expensive as you're probably thinking.

In regards to health.
There is probably a 99.9% chance I know more about lenses and human ocular anatomy and the long term affects on our extraocular muscles (especially in children) due to prolonged use of decentrated lens systems in non adjustable binocular head mounted display than you do, so you'll have to take my word that there are some health issues that will be of concern to a company who is providing these technologies to the general public.

First time hearing about this stuff.

But I do hope you understand how VR optics work and that its designed to more comfortable for your eyes than looking at a normal display. Perhaps there's still issues and I don't know about them, but its not the same as just sticking your face up to a display like some people think.

 

[bart64]

The similarity between VR and online is that we are focused on one player. Online is all about giving a single player a deeper experience, and with VR, you are physically detached from everyone by wearing it. There's a lot of cross over with FPSs and such, where online play types and the solitary experience of VR make a lot of sense, but Nintendo's trajectory is more about simple and local, more game board than global war.

I'm curious about the real value of VR. For anyone who has been messing with Oculus for a few months, did the novelty wear off? I was totally captivated by the 3D on 3DS, but a couple years later I switch to 2D a lot; I see the benefits and costs of each, and the 3D is less thrilling and necessary. I wonder what the long term experience with VR is, whether it would satisfy the average person to play for an hour here and there, or whether you would want to spend your life inside those glasses.

Seeing the struggles of the gamepad, kinetic, and 3D, we know it has to be super tight to succeed as a secondary function to the core tv and controller setup. If it didn't require a console, if it could plug into an outlet and a phone and look great, then that's an open market.

 

[WarpathDC]

On consoles? Definitely. Project Morpheus is going to be tied down to the PS4's limited hardware for the next 5+ years. VR is going to need more power than what the PS4 offers if they really want it to get mainstream success.

I see what you are saying but that is false. The original wii is proof that if a concept is appealing the visuals do not need to be bleeding edge. The ps4 should be perfectly capable of an adequate VR experience.

 

[marink]

Just like you were with online gaming, right Reggie?

Satellaview doesn't count?

 

[Kimawolf]

For me and my PC VR is perfect. I plan to enjoy Occulus Rift v2 once it arrives and can't wait.

But I definitely don't want a watered down experience on a console that isn't powerful enough to give me the full experience. ATM the consoles are limited and not going to give me a good experience.

And unlike motion, you don't need sharp graphics to immerse you in a world for waggle/motion controls, but VR is all ABOUT being immersed in a virtual world.

 

[Seanspeed]

The similarity between VR and online is that we are focused on one player. Online is all about giving a single player a deeper experience, and with VR, you are physically detached from everyone by wearing it. There's a lot of cross over with FPSs and such, where online play types and the solitary experience of VR make a lot of sense, but Nintendo's trajectory is more about simple and local, more game board than global war.

I'm curious about the real value of VR. For anyone who has been messing with Oculus for a few months, did the novelty wear off? I was totally captivated by the 3D on 3DS, but a couple years later I switch to 2D a lot; I see the benefits and costs of each, and the 3D is less thrilling and necessary. I wonder what the long term experience with VR is, whether it would satisfy the average person to play for an hour here and there, or whether you would want to spend your life inside those glasses.

Seeing the struggles of the gamepad, kinetic, and 3D, we know it has to be super tight to succeed as a secondary function to the core tv and controller setup. If it didn't require a console, if it could plug into an outlet and a phone and look great, then that's an open market.

I disagree that online is all about giving a single player a deeper experience. I think its largely about social interaction, playing games with friends without needing to be present in the same location and of course the challenge and thrill of playing with or against other humans rather than computer AI.

VR will be revolutionary in the online world as much as it will be for single player experiences. And local coop is totally do-able in VR as well. There are already examples of demos that involve this.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Why does every single game on these systems need to be 1080p/60fps? :/

The 60 FPS is not optional for these devices. Dropping below 60 FPS and larger amounts of people are suddenly prone to motion sickness. Even 60 FPS still results in a fair amount of people getting motion sickness. Go up to 90 FPS or 120 FPS, and the problems are completely gone barring a few.

1080P is nice for image quality concerns which is important for something right next to your eyes. This is more an aesthetic concern than the framerate. Jaggies, especially that close to your eyes, would be a bit distracting.

 

[Canis lupus]

The Oculus Rift is gonna be $350 to $400, that's not expensive

Yes it is. You forget the price of the hardware people need to pay, you need a capable pc and/or PS4. By capable I mean a high end gamers pc, which is a niche market on it's own. According to Steam hw stats less than 10 percent of the Steam userbase have a decent high end pc. No one wants to go into VR seeing their games in PS2 quality.

Also I don't expect the consumer version to cost that much, I expect them to sell at a cost just like Morpheus. And even despite that, it's still gonna be too expensive for the masses. It needs to be below 99 dollar/euro with a Move controller or the like and that's gonna take years.

 

[Ocaso]

In regards to health.
There is probably a 99.9% chance I know more about lenses and human ocular anatomy and the long term affects on our extraocular muscles (especially in children) due to prolonged use of decentrated lens systems in non adjustable binocular head mounted display than you do, so you'll have to take my word that there are some health issues that will be of concern to a company who is providing these technologies to the general public.

Genuinely curious about this. Care to give us a brief explanation on the risks.

 

[Natureboy99]

Microsoft 2012: tablet computers aren't ready now, but when they are, Microsoft will be there too.

 

[MR ARCADE FOREVER]

Yeah Reggie, just like online games and hd weren't ready a few years ago right? Maybe Nintendo isn't ready...

 

[AmyS]

The PlayStation 4 is barely powerful enough to handle decent VR experiences. The demos look cool, but it's been said many times that full VR games on PS4 will need to keep the actual graphics around PS3-level in order to maintain the framerate / refresh rate that proper VR demands.


If Nintendo's next gen home console is to support a future Nintendo VR initiative at some point in its lifcycle, something equivalent to Sony's Project Morpheus, then the console would realistically need to be significantly more powerful than PS4 if the base Nintendo console itself launched in Fall 2017. By that time, Sony would probably be no more than two years away from releasing PS5, alongside its own 2nd generation, highly refined, mass market priced VR headset with PS5 VR games on day one.

 

[Radec]

Just like you were with online gaming, right Reggie?

Damn. Ice cold!

 

[googleplex]

The 60 FPS is not optional for these devices. Dropping below 60 FPS and larger amounts of people are suddenly prone to motion sickness. Even 60 FPS still results in a fair amount of people getting motion sickness. Go up to 90 FPS or 120 FPS, and the problems are completely gone barring a few.

1080P is nice for image quality concerns which is important for something right next to your eyes. This is more an aesthetic concern than the framerate. Jaggies, especially that close to your eyes, would be a bit distracting.

The Playstation 4 is already running VR experiences at 60fps per eye and on a 1080p panel. What's your point.

 

[CoconutTank]

The Playstation 4 is already running VR experiences at 60fps per eye and on a 1080p panel. What's your point.

He's responding to seanspeed, who's wondering why folks are insistent on 60fps/1080p output for VR devices. Based on some of the responses here, even 60fps might not be enough.

My personal gripes are that I would rather not strap a large box onto my face to play games, and VR gaming in this style seems to be an isolated experience. My interests are more towards games played together (and tabletop games) so I don't quite see how VR will enhance our collective experience without each of us requiring a head set. And I will admit that 3D on the 3DS has been kind of annoying since turning it on makes it harder for me to share the screen with others that are watching.

 

[Jonm1010]

That's cute, a personal insult. The PS4 was going to release with 2gb according to its first development documentation in late 2011. This is verifiable, you just have to ask a developer who would be privvy to this information. 4gb became a target over a year later.

Anyway, your pettiness aside, you still don't know what's going on behind closed doors and you don't know what's being prototyped. His language suggests the opposite of what you suggest it does.

As far as the broader discussion here... Simply put, the Wii u can't do VR justice. Nor can the One. Nor the ps4. If ms and Sony were smart they would wait another 3 years to launch it alongside different base hardware rather continue on their current internal timelines.

It's not an insult it is a reminder of why I stopped listening to your drivel.

You write in declarative sentences and frame your opinions as fact. You cherry pick what rumors fit your narrative and then belittle people who don't fall in line with your opinions.

You speak as an expert but history has shown you have little expertise around here.

I remember arguing back and forth with you pointing out rumors that spoke counter to your claims of 2gigs and laptop GPU's. You would just go on tangents about costs and why these companies have no interest in going past 2gigs. Talking down to everyone and acting like you are some authority on the inside going ons of these tech companies.

 

[Seanspeed]

The 60 FPS is not optional for these devices. Dropping below 60 FPS and larger amounts of people are suddenly prone to motion sickness. Even 60 FPS still results in a fair amount of people getting motion sickness. Go up to 90 FPS or 120 FPS, and the problems are completely gone barring a few.

1080P is nice for image quality concerns which is important for something right next to your eyes. This is more an aesthetic concern than the framerate. Jaggies, especially that close to your eyes, would be a bit distracting.

I get why VR games need to be 1080p/60fps. I don't understand why EVERY game needs to be 1080p/60fps, though.

Read the post I responded to for context. They were saying that VR isn't viable until EVERY game is 1080p/60fps, ignoring that VR games can be specifically designed to achieve these benchmarks. Just because one game on a system is 900p/30fps doesn't mean another game on the same system cant be 1080p/60fps.

 

[astroturfing]

i agree with Reggie, it's just not ready. pretty much everyone who tries Oculus/Morpheus takes it off immediately because it feels like unfinished tech.

seriously though, in technology nothing is ever ready, it's all a work in progress, slowly getting better all the time. or are you going to keep your current tv, phone and console or pc for the next 20 years?

 

[unholyrevenger72]

What he actually means is that it's too expensive and Nintendo will jump in once the tech is established and inexpensive

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Its still sort of amusing how short term and reactionary a lot of GAFfers are, as though the Wii is the only hardware ever developed by Nintendo.

True story: the last time VR was considered a thing in the early 90s, VR researchers went round buying all the Powergloves they could find as a cost effective input mechanism.

You don't need super high end tech to make VR work, and you literally can't be using bleeding edge tech to hit a mass market price point.

I know at least some GAFfers bought into Sonys head mounted 3D displays which were overpriced and underwhelming BECAUSE they took the 'bleeding edge' route - then OR showed up with the kind of cheap shitty deprecated low end tablet screens that techheads laugh at, and made a compelling product by thinking about how to intelligently apply that cheap hardware to a dedicated purpose.

Does that sound familiar? Using "withered" technology in new innovative ways?
Is there a games company that has used that as a design philosophy almost since inception?

The software side is not something trivial and neither is the hardware work when the other players have patented all its bits and pieces. Considering all the R&D resources companies like Oculus, Valve, and Sony are pouring into VR, I would say that they have been encountering and solving a lot of hard problems and that Nintendo risks the very real possibility of having to re-do all that homework when they start working on a releasable mass market solution of their own. VR should not be any easier than adapting your tools, engines, and teams to shaders and HD rendering... So are online networks... Strangely the strategy of letting others solve the hard problems and copying their homework first thing in the morning did not turn out as well as they expected .

Nintendo already have numerous hardware prototypes and patents than can be immediately applied to the field of VR.

I mean honestly; think for a moment about what sort of hardware you need for telepresence / VR.

Stereoscopic displays.
Wireless input and display mechanisms.
Low latency videostreaming from a 'base box'.
Motion controls.
Relative positioning in a 3D space.
Headtracking.

Look at the hardware Nintendo have been producing for years.
Look at how hardware hackers have repurposed nintendo hardware for other uses, like the old dual wiimote headtracking videos.

 

[MilesTeg]

I don't believe Nintendo's next box will have any VR capability whatsoever. I don't see them with VR until sometime after 2020.

 

[Death Penalty]

I remain pretty skeptical about VR at this point, especially when I hear about the motion sickness issues that it causes in a surprising number of people. I remember a lot of people hailing the Wii as the next big thing, and now derogatorily named "waggle" controls are really frowned upon. Even games like Skyward Sword that did their best to integrate the technology in a meaningful and accurate way received moaning for including the controls at all. Then you see that Nintendo failed to keep the market's interest with it; it had no staying power or long-term appeal. And now people seem amazed that Nintendo is hesitant to adopt VR right off the bat, I don't understand it.

If VR is the massive success everyone thinks it will be, I'll apologize then. At the moment I don't believe it's going to be the next big thing at this early stage in its development.

 

[Reversed]

Makes me think they won't innovate with it.

I'd rather hear Iwata's thoughts on it.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Nintendo already have numerous hardware prototypes and patents than can be immediately applied to the field of VR.

I mean honestly; think for a moment about what sort of hardware you need for telepresence / VR.

Stereoscopic displays.
Wireless input and display mechanisms.
Low latency videostreaming from a 'base box'.
Motion controls.
Relative positioning in a 3D space.
Headtracking.

Look at the hardware Nintendo have been producing for years.
Look at how hardware hackers have repurposed nintendo hardware for other uses, like the old dual wiimote headtracking videos.

We are talking about some prototypes here and there, we are talking about some pieces of the equation and not others (the audio part of the equation for example), and also we are not talking about a high quality enough solution delivery a good sense of presence without inducing motion sickness to the users. We are also not talking about a powerful enough hardware to free developers in carving their own VR experience (PS4 is probably only barely qualifying for that... and that is assuming developers are familiar with it enough to extract its potential fully).

Also, given that the market already heavily invested on it and soon enough tons of developers will attempt at rewriting game design rules in a VR enabled world, I doubt Nintendo really wants to compete in this arena on the short to medium term at all.

I still think that for an acceptable kind of VR experience you need higher quality components that Nintendo is willing to invest on at the moment (looking at the quality of displays they use in any kind of product they make). I also doubt their supply chain management in terms of lowering the cost of the components their source to build their products, but that might be due to how the now probably very outdated estimated manufacturing costs of the GamePad ($100+).

Also, I am not convinced that without investing the necessary R&D resources now (software too), including targeting their next systems for this, that they will be very late once they realize they need to add VR.

 

[Haines]

Very glad to hear this. Nintendo could do well in vr

 

[BizzyBum]

How can anyone believe Reggie when Nintendo still doesn't fully embrace modern online functionality in 2014?

 

[18-Volt]

I won't be surprised if they're working on Holographic display for future systems.

 

[Architect]

In regards to health.
There is probably a 99.9% chance I know more about lenses and human ocular anatomy and the long term affects on our extraocular muscles (especially in children) due to prolonged use of decentrated lens systems in non adjustable binocular head mounted display than you do, so you'll have to take my word that there are some health issues that will be of concern to a company who is providing these technologies to the general public.

Care to explain?

 

[Anteater]

my reggie isn't ready

i think it's good they're aware of it and probably doing something with their R&D

 

[border]

How can anyone believe Reggie when Nintendo still doesn't fully embrace modern online functionality in 2014?

Probably because they have been at the forefront when it comes to exploring new control and display technologies.

Nintendo never liked online because they couldn't see any money in it. All it does is bloat up game budgets and increase complexity.

But there's obviously money in selling hardware, and Nintendo can see that.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I still think that for an acceptable kind of VR experience you need higher quality components that Nintendo is willing to invest on at the moment (looking at the quality of displays they use in any kind of product they make). I also doubt their supply chain management in terms of lowering the cost of the components their source to build their products, but that might be due to how the now probably very outdated estimated manufacturing costs of the GamePad ($100+).

I disagree, in that if Nintendo choose to do something they go all in on it regardless of expense - I would take the gamepad as an example in favour of that, rather than against it.

The gamepad lacking mass appeal is somewhat irrelevant to the point - it would be hard to argue that their vision for it shaped the whole wiiu design around it, rather than it being a box-ticking cover your bases sort of thing.

 

[lefantome]

2017 Wii U replacement console offering full VR capabilities, running current gen games at 1440p and 75fps?

 

[border]

I disagree, in that if Nintendo choose to do something they go all in on it regardless of expense - I would take the gamepad as an example in favour of that, rather than against it.

The gamepad is kind of a piece of junk, as far as touchscreens go. So are the screens on the 3DS.

It's been nearly 15 years since Nintendo made a console that was technologically competitive, so I think it is maybe a stretch to think that they will drop some new uber-system with enough horsepower to run VR experiences.

 

[KojiKnight]

Yes it is. You forget the price of the hardware people need to pay, you need a capable pc and/or PS4. By capable I mean a high end gamers pc, which is a niche market on it's own. According to Steam hw stats less than 10 percent of the Steam userbase have a decent high end pc. No one wants to go into VR seeing their games in PS2 quality.

The people who were upset at no OR support coming to Minecraft disagree with you.

 

[Ingueferroque]

I mean, he's not wrong when he says it isn't ready yet.

I've no idea how Palmer and co. are going to fix the motion sickness problem, if it's even possible.

They've addressed that frequently and know how to fix that.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I disagree, in that if Nintendo choose to do something they go all in on it regardless of expense - I would take the gamepad as an example in favour of that, rather than against it.

The gamepad lacking mass appeal is somewhat irrelevant to the point - it would be hard to argue that their vision for it shaped the whole wiiu design around it, rather than it being a box-ticking cover your bases sort of thing.

I disagree with regards to the GamePad showing what Nintendo can do when they go all in, mainly because I like to think Nintendo can do better than that if they went all-in. Very small battery, certainly not great black levels, contrast, and could be better colors. Also, low battery life, and relatively high manufacturing costs even taking that into account.

 

[Koppai]

I don't care about VR and think its another gimmick like 3D movies. That Oculus thing looks ridiculous.
Nintendo should have had the NFC stuff at the start of Wii U.

 

[Mitsurugi]

How much power do you all think would be needed to render a Mario Kart with Forza 5 or better quality LoD and FX in 1080p @ at a solid 120fps with good AA and AF?

 

[MilesTeg]

I disagree with regards to the GamePad showing what Nintendo can do when they go all in, mainly because I like to think Nintendo can do better than that if they went all-in. Very small battery, certainly not great black levels, contrast, and could be better colors. Also, low battery life, and relatively high manufacturing costs even taking that into account.

Nintendo hardware needs to get back to basics. The 3DS and Wii U just try to do too much within a certain hardware budget.

Imagine if Nintendo's portable had one big touch screen, even 480p. Supported modern game engines like Unity. Able to download GBA and DS games. Port GCN or Wii games to it easily. It would have so much more developer support which means more games obviously, and a lower base price point since they don't need the clamshell design, or two screens with one being 3D.

Which is why I don't see Nintendo adopting VR anytime soon. Way too costly for a Nintendo platform.

 

[Nanashrew]

I wish all these goddamn people with online one-liners and GIFs would have bought the REAL first online console, the Dreamcast.

Goddamn hypocrites, the lot of ya.

I believe the Super Famicom and Sega MegaDrive/Genesis had online with things like BS Zelda and the Sega channel. They were both in the market very early on but they never stopped with online, especially Sega because I believe there are a few games on the Saturn with online functionalities. Nintendo did stop for awhile in the console space but gave the option for those that wanted online gaming (sadly no one really brought any to the console) but never stopped them from experimenting like Pokemon Crystal having phone connectivity for online battles and trading. I felt that Nintendo dialed it back for the Wii, keeping things on the safe side but now with the Wii U I see something better. Lots more improvements to be made though.

Sega was the first to be more built around online functionality while the Xbox was the one that refined it further.

Spoiler

I still wonder what would have happened if Sega lasted one more generation and further refined online.

ON TOPIC:

I agree with Reggie. VR has yet to really prove itself in the market to know if it's a viable platform to become mainstream. Price point will be the biggest factor above all else for the mainstream to take hold. But even that will be tricky with what VR has to offer because you have to use it before you truly understand it.

 

[Cuburt]

Just like you were with online gaming, right Reggie?

Bayonetta 2 online co-op, Splatoon online multiplayer, Devil's Third online multiplayer, Smash is online, and they already have Mario Kart 8 online as well as Wii Sports Club.

Nintendo is there.

 

[Cuburt]

Yeah Reggie, just like online games and hd weren't ready a few years ago right? Maybe Nintendo isn't ready...

I distinctly remember games being touted as HD but many games being upscaled native sud-HD resolutions with variable framerates and screentearing.

Now Nintendo has a console that can shoot for 720p and a solid 30fps at minimum (many if not most at 60fps) with vsync enabled for all their first party games.

Nintendo at least waited until they could be more honest about making the HD claim.

 

[Crazyorloco]

I mean, he's not wrong when he says it isn't ready yet.

I've no idea how Palmer and co. are going to fix the motion sickness problem, if it's even possible.

This is what's i'm thinking as well. I don't see how it's a burn when this hasn't even really taken off yet. Now online functionality I can understand. It's extremely popular.

Do things like oculus serve any purpose if a game isn't in the first person?

I want to know this too. I can see it's novelty wearing off quick.

And just because nintendo is not talking about VR doesn't mean they're not working on it. There is a bunch of things Nintendo works on that no one really talks about (holographic storage, swap-able buttons controllers, patents for gaming phone a decade ago etc...)

Nintendo hardware needs to get back to basics. The 3DS and Wii U just try to do too much within a certain hardware budget.

Imagine if Nintendo's portable had one big touch screen, even 480p. Supported modern game engines like Unity. Able to download GBA and DS games.

.

Just get an Android Tablet. For me I like having buttons. I think it's a better experience gameplay wise.

 

[bart64]

I disagree that online is all about giving a single player a deeper experience. I think its largely about social interaction, playing games with friends without needing to be present in the same location and of course the challenge and thrill of playing with or against other humans rather than computer AI.

Excuse me, i didnt mean single player, I meant playing with other people online but being alone in the room. I think vr is great for that, but nintendo has been largely about fighting the stereotype of the lonely gamer only having online friends. It's a bad image and it further isolates gamers from non gamers, but if the experience is powerful enough, I think it can cross those barriers.

 

[TAJ]

I won't go VR too at the moment because it would be too expensive for the customers and the devs.
For example, how much we will have to pay to have Morpheous+PS4?
600$ or more?
Just the dev kit of occulus Rift is 350$.

It also has diagnostic tools built into it that are pretty much useless to gamers.
And dev kits are typically overpriced.

 

[deltatheta]

Miyamoto spoke about VR again in an interview with Time.

What are your thoughts on virtual reality today, and is Nintendo doing or thinking about anything in this space? Are we at the right point, technology-wise, to see this become more than a novelty peripheral?

We’ve been doing our own experiments with virtual reality dating back to the Virtual Boy. And even to some degree, the 3DS was designed with a little bit of this in mind with its stereoscopic 3D. So we’re always looking at hardware and assessing what’s possible.

And of course we understand that the hardware and technology have begun to drop in price. It’s still not at a cost basis that makes it easy for everyone to purchase as a mass-market product. But certainly it’s dropped somewhat.

As game designers, we at Nintendo are interested in VR technology and what it can do, but at the same time what we’re trying to do with Wii U is to create games for everyone in the living room. We want the Wii U to be a game system that brings video gamers into the living room. As as I explained last night [Sunday, June 8], it’s intended to be fun not only for the person who’s playing, but also for the people who are watching.

When you think about what virtual reality is, which is one person putting on some goggles and playing by themselves kind of over in a corner, or maybe they go into a separate room and they spend all their time alone playing in that virtual reality, that’s in direct contrast with what it is we’re trying to achieve with Wii U. And so I have a little bit of uneasiness with whether or not that’s the best way for people to play.

So from Nintendo’s perspective, there’s interest in the technology, but we think it might be better suited to some sort of attraction style of entertainment, say something at a video game arcade or things like that, rather than something that one person plays alone.

It really doesn't sound like Nintendo has any plans to get into VR at this time, despite what Reggie says.

 

[Hindl]

The Oculus Rift is gonna be $350 to $400

To be fair to Oculus, no way in hell it'll be this expensive. The dev kit is $350, but launching a consumer version at that price will make Rift DOA. Zuckerberg pumped $2 billion into the development when it was already quite far along. I'm expecting the consumer version to launch at $250, maybe even $200 if they really want to bet on VR

 

[Zarovitch]

To be fair to Oculus, no way in hell it'll be this expensive. The dev kit is $350, but launching a consumer version at that price will make Rift DOA. Zuckerberg pumped $2 billion into the development when it was already quite far along. I'm expecting the consumer version to launch at $250, maybe even $200 if they really want to bet on VR

plus you will need a very good pc to use it.