Skip to content

GDC Survey: Developer Interest In Wii U And 3DS Declines As VR Interest Doubles

The GDC State of the Industry Survey shows that interest in developing for Nintendo platforms is currently at an all-time low. Just five percent of those surveyed said that they were busy working on projects for the Wii U and only two percent of developers said they are working on Nintendo 3DS games. This could well have something to do with the forthcoming Nintendo NX platform which will be revealed to the public later this year. The biggest increase in developer interest was for Virtual Reality and developers working on VR titles have more than doubled since last year.


43 thoughts on “GDC Survey: Developer Interest In Wii U And 3DS Declines As VR Interest Doubles”

  1. First it was mobile games and now it’s VR. I fucking hate the video game industry these days. It’s beck to the 80’s and early 90’s were consoles had 734785648476r784 add ons and weird controllers.

    1. I don’t expect VR to take off right away, especially with the Oculus Rift priced at $600, but I do think it will be the eventual future of gaming. It still has to be perfected though. The ideal VR system has to be completely wireless and has to work without having to be within a certain distance of a console. I think a lot of people would prefer being able to play games without having to be in a specific spot though. Think of mobile gaming with the power of a home console.

  2. Well, I hope those VR doesn’t flop, because the industry has been banking so much on them that if they flop, the only one that won’t lose a thing for it will be Nintendo, for the rest of the industry it could go to financial losses to bankruptcy.

    1. VR will get alot of money and be a big thing for like 5 years then fade away and the next fad will take hold of the casuals. Went from motion controls to now going to VR then will be whatever random thing is next.

    1. Nope. Nintendo do did VR with the virtual boy. It failed but they tries that already they always do something different. If anything they could focus on improving AR (Augmented Reality) like the 3DS had with AR cards.

      1. The Virtual Boy really can’t be considered a VR system. All it did was produce stereoscopic 3D visuals in a headset. It didn’t have rotational and positional tracking, didn’t have 360° field of vision, and didn’t have 3D audio. It’s not even close to the VR systems being produced today.

        Nintendo did eventually improve and gain success with stereoscopic 3D in the form of the 3DS. Proof that Nintendo can learn from their mistakes.

      1. It’s meant to give you a different experience with your games. Not LITERALLY put you into them. We don’t even have that kind of freaking insane technology yet. We should just be glad with the VR we’re getting.

          1. Nintendo Tetrarch Quadramus-NX

            >>>I’m looking forward to these VR devices, not because I want them but they will make the Wiimote accidents look like a joke>>>

              1. Nintendo Tetrarch Quadramus-NX

                >>>Never said anything against it, I just enjoy human misery even if by our own products *wink*>>>

      2. I don’t see how it’s relevant if it’s goggles or another device you need to use to immerse into the experience. It’s about what the device can do, not what it is. If the goggles can make you feel like you’re physically in a different reality, then it’s VR. If a huge box you have to enter can make you feel like you’re physically in a different reality, it’s VR. If the goggles/box can not make you feel like you’re physically in a different reality, it’s not VR.
        The way I see it, the device that’s the instrument for experiencing the tech does not matter when determining if it’s VR, as long as the tech implemented into it is working as it’s meant to for it to be called VR.

        1. Not to mention, you’re not just putting goggles on your head. The oculus rift tacks your position and head rotation to display what your character would actually see if they were to move the same way. It also has built in head phones that produce 3D audio. It’s about the closest thing to ‘true’ VR that we’re likely to ever get. Unless someone manages to build a machine that connects to our minds like the Animus in AC.

        2. its still pretty lame to me however u put it, it looks really uncomfortable and putting a screen very close to your eyes will probably cause problems sorry but i don’t wanna be blind at the age of 25

          1. Then you should put it like that next time (though you shouldn’t judge it before trying, but that’s another story, I suppose) as that’s your personal view on it, you’re not forced to like it, after all. But saying “putting goggles on your head is not VR” is factually wrong, it’s not an opinion.
            Though I’ll add that I don’t see how using VR headsets would make you blind, so that point doesn’t make much sense to me, but alright I guess.

              1. Hmm, I’d think (or, hope, haha) that VR headsets are optimized to prevent that. The screen isn’t the same like on a regular TV that’s meant to be looked at from a certain distance, I’d say.

        3. “I don’t see how it’s relevant if it’s goggles or another device you need to use to immerse into the experience”
          You sure about that? Because I can’t think of anything more inconvenient than putting heavy googles on your face for a long period of time. Think of all the people that use glasses but are not used to them, or how much people hate to put on a helmet of any kind. I know it’s not the point you were addressing, but I think it’s worth mentioning anyway. The shape of the tech greatly affects if it becomes a success or not.

          1. The device being potentially uncomfortable for people who wear glasses doesn’t determine if it’s VR though, which was the point I was trying to make. If at all, it determines its level of convenience and, well, comfort.
            But that being said, I certainly look at the whole thing a bit more sceptically than some others seem to do, even though I’m interested in the tech too. I’ve actually talked about this in another article a week or two ago, and yea, there’s just so many things standing in the way of VR becoming a mainstream success. Starting from the uncertainty if it’s even going to work at all for people with defective vision, as there’s a million different reasons causing defective vision, and it’s hard to believe the developers could take care of each and every one of them to make it work for everyone. Also, motion sickness and other conditions of the sort. Many people won’t be able to use it for a long period of time, or at all, simply because the body doesn’t tolerate it.
            Just the fact that the device relies entirely on the human body’s perception causes so many reasons why the device might possibly not work for so many individuals to rise. As I’ve said, I’m pretty interested in VR myself, but I just don’t think it’s going to turn into something commonly found in people’s households due to the reasons above. Also not to forget: the price. The Oculus Rift costs $600-$900 depending on where you live, and it’s hard to believe your average consumer would drop so much money on something that is, in fact, nothing more than a peripheral – especially without having tested it out beforehand. Other developers will probably go with a similar price, the lowest I can imagine is $300, and even that is quite the bit of money for a device that still needs a console or PC to go with it for it to even function.
            So, to sum it up, along the many possible problems the human body can have with a VR headset, the price also is an important factor that’s going to prevent VR from taking off as many people wish it would. In its current state, I don’t see it becoming more than a premium product for the “rich” who can afford to drop so much money on a peripheral. It’s too early for it to become more than that, and it might even be too optimistic to expect that to ever change. Only time will tell, I suppose.

            This turned out longer than I expected, sorry about that, hah.

            1. Not just for people who wear glasses, but for people in general. I don’t think people are comfortable with stitching a screen to their faces for long periods of time, but I suppose they’ll adapt.

              Besides that, I agree with everything you said (including being interested in the tech). VR has a pretty tough road ahead of it, but I think it will survive no matter what. It’s been THE futuristic dream for decades now (maybe with the exception of space travel for commoners and flying cars), so even if this early attempts crash and burn, someone will pick it up and revive it again in the long run.

              1. I haven’t tried out any VR tech myself and don’t personally know anyone who has, but from the videos and articles I’ve seen on certain devices so far, I haven’t heard of anybody complaining of discomfort yet. The Rift will supposedly weigh less than 400 grams (about 0.88 pounds), which is by no means heavy, and is designed to be worn over most glasses sizes. While I’d agree that it looks like it can be uncomfortable or disorienting, I’d say we can’t judge it until we try it out for ourselves. Hopefully developers will make more opportunities for the general public to try these things out, and if it gains enough popularity they can improve and perfect the design.

                1. I didn’t want to focus so much on the potential uncomfortable design (it is quite light, yeah), but on it being a hassle to wear. You know how some people would rather uses contact lens instead of wearing glasses? I was thinking of something more along those line.

                  Using a Nintendo-related example: would you rather play Tropical Freeze with the gamepad or with the pro controller? Because if I’m in a situation with it’s either gamepad or nothing, I’d sometimes rather not play at all.

                  1. Fair enough. I see your point. I’ve never played Tropical Freeze though. Is there something about it that makes playing on the gamepad harder, or were you talking just overall pro vs gamepad?

  3. Expected. Emerging tech will always get more interest, especially compared to 4-5 year old consoles that are on their way out, one of them barely selling, and when there’s other platforms (PS4/XB1) gaining plenty of new customers… and also being the newest/most recent gaming tech.

  4. So…nothing new? VR is the next fad for casuals. I’ve been telling everyone this for how long now? Over a fucking year now lol.

      1. Either Reggie or Miyamoto said last year that they don’t think VR is worth working on at this time. I forget how it was worded exactly. But based on those words, it seems unlikely. Then again, Reggie isn’t the most trustworthy person, so who knows.

  5. While I do think VR sets will sell pretty decently, i still think most people want to play games on a a tv, where they can be aware of their surroundings. Playing a VR game would be really cool for about an hour, but I cannot see long sessions of play. I will probably end up buying one, but I just cannot see myself playing games on a VR headset over my flat screen.

    Back to Nintendo, I hope the NX is a success. Because honestly, even though Nintendo still has a lot of money, if they fail with the NX it would be extremely hard to win back any gamers with another home console. I don’t ever underestimate them, but the pressure is on. They have to deliver a stellar home console, with stellar games. They need Galaxy 3 or Mario 64-2. They need Metroid Prime 4 in 4k resolution. They need to step up to the plate and knock it out of the park. The public will not accept anything less… I will not accept anything less.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: