Nintendo hasn’t been quiet on the VR front with the House Of Mario stating in the past that it thinks that VR isn’t quite ready and that VR titles aren’t yet ‘fun’. Well, Philippe Lavoué at Nintendo Of France has echoed these thoughts and doubts that VR appeals to the mainstream audience. Talking to French publication Les Numériques Lavoué states:
“I doubt they can appeal to the mainstream. Consumers are not patient with entertainment if you’re not able to deliver an all-inclusive package.”
As well as not being too fond of VR (at the moment), Lavoué offers his thoughts on the much talked about topic of 4K tech:
“As far as 4K is concerned,” Lavoué queried, “is it useful to invest in a technology that has not been adopted by the majority? Where are 4K TVs now? Is it a good idea to invest in a technology before consumers do? We can’t invest in everything. And what novelty would we bring compared to our competitors?”
I love Nintendo, but sometimes i seems like they never learn. I remember when Nintendo said something similar about transition to HD. Wii wasn’t HD console and I think it hurt Nintendo in the long run. Wii U was rushed because of that.
Maybe that was a mistake from a gamers point of view but it wasn’t from Nintendo’s. There is a big difference though between SD and HD so it is easy for people to see the value but HD to 4K is a much smaller jump so not worth it for most people.
Wii games on 720p screens were 1/3rd the resolution of the TV, they were almost 1/7the resolution on 1080p screens. Sure 4K is “only” 4x 1080p but 4K is 5.7x the maximum resolutions of Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild and 9x more than the 720p that Pokken Tournament, RiMe, Rocket League, Doom, and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 run at. That difference becomes more apparent without anti-aliasing too.
And like I said down below, statistically, everyone’s next TV will be 4K. I even know somebody who upgraded things in his house so infrequently that he still had dial-up and a CRT TV a couple years ago and even he has a 4K TV (and broadband if you were wondering lol) now.
@myownfriend – There’s a lot more to it than just how many times more pixels there are on the screen. As the pixels get smaller and smaller, they become much less discernible. You know this. You know the 9x times more pixels between 4k and 720p are less significant than the 7x more pixels between 1080p and Wii. There will come a point where increasing resolution will become a totally pointless affair. We’re not there yet, but we’re certainly seeing diminishing returns. Also the Wii out of the box lacked progressive scan (you had to buy component cables separately to get 480p, which most did not, though it made a huge difference).
Consumers will adopt 4K TVs as they are becoming cheaper. That’s not really the question. The question is whether mainstream consumers will *care* about 4K and so far I think the evidence is extremely weak.
“Sure 4K is “only” 4x 1080p”
No it isn’t. It’s 2x 1080p. They switched which axis they were measuring for marketing reasons.
The question though isn’t whether or not people will have 4k tv’s. The question is whether or not their gaming machines will create images natively in 4k (not just upscaled). The current industry suggests that this will be more expensive than almost everyone is willing to pay for a good few. Their current competition, the PS4, still struggles to death maintaining framerate at 1080 for a variety of games. Making a 4k gaming machine right now for an inexpensive product that kids are supposed to be able to get would be overkill and would kill their business. You’re criticizing Nintendo for understanding their demographic more than you. The Wii being Standard Def did nothing to hurt it. It was one of the most successful console of all time right up until Nintendo mysteriously abandoned it about two years prematurely.
the difference is, HD was new and there was no telling how well it’ll sell. while 4k has been out for years now and it’s still not mainstream.
HDTVs had been around for at least 5 years before the Wii came out. Smallville was being broadcast in 1080i when it premiered in 2001 back when the GameCube launched. The PS2 and Xbox even supported 1080i and even in 2001, the standard was 3 years old (though their is HD footage from. 1993). So yea, it wasn’t new nor was its future uncertain. It was just where the TV industry was going and that’s the case with 4K as well.
Look up an article about 4K TV adoption and you’ll see some as far back as 2014 stating that adoption of 4K outpacing the transition to HDTV.
“Look up an article about 4K TV adoption and you’ll see some as far back as 2014 stating that adoption of 4K outpacing the transition to HDTV.”
None of which has anything to do with gaming’s ability to process a 4k image in real time in a cost effective way.
there is a big different, HD was something a lot of people adopted quickly, 4K is not even mainstream and the jump from 1080p to 4K isn’t very big, unlike the jump from SD to HD, which had a massive diffference
To be fair, 4K is not remotely ready while adding nothing to the game fidelity other than increasing resolution rate on current games enough to notice more jags/pixels on screen and VR is a fad that adds nothing of importance to the gaming experience expect a selective few genre. How many games do you see supporting these gimmicks; yes, GIMMICKS that changes nothing to the current gaming offering? Hardly any of them. Plus, the only platform that can do true 4K is PC. Consoles are not there yet and we all know how Nintendo feels about VR…
Jojta, here’s the translation, since you seem to be confused
“The majority of people don’t want to spend a lot of money on a console. 4K would up the cost”
———————–
You interested in POWER, then get a powerful PC or X-box one X! Most of us don’t have a 4K TV..and most movies aren’t 4k. Lastly, a lot of Nintendo games are 900p.. what’s the point in upscaling?
Most modern movies and TV shows are shot in 4K or above. There are DSLRs that shoot 4K starting at around $1300 and there are cinema camera that 4.6k, 5.7k, and 6k for under $10,000 so even low budget films are shot 4K now. I have a friend whose a travel blogger and she even shoots at 4K. 4K TVs are only about a $500 and everybody’s next TV will be 4K if they don’t already have one. All of Netflix’s original series are streamed in 4K HDR and Youtube supports both as well.
As for the argument that someone can get a powerful PC or Xbox One X, wouldn’t it be better for Nintendo if they could say “Well the Switch isn’t for 4K but we do have a $400-500 console that you can get for that.” They could have had both covered. Honestly, they could have even had a home console that’s the same price as the Switch and it would be able to play Breath of the Wild at 4K with extra polish. Hell, people are able to EMULATE it at 4K with a $150 graphics card. That same card can run the PC port of Bayonetta 1 at 4K 60fps. Sure, that’s not the same as running something like Uncharted 4 at 4K but it shows that Switch games could run at 4K on a console that’s the same price as the Switch.
Bayonetta is a ps3 game, of course it can run at 4k on pc. and it’s not just the graphics card you need, you have to have a $200 cpu as well so it doesn’t bottle neck the output. plus 8 Gb of ram which is another $50. that’s $400 already and we haven’t bought storage, a case or even a power supply so you can even turn the computer on. and since 4k uses a lot of energy you have to spend money on heat reduction equipment. people use $1200 pc to run the inferior wiiu version of breath of the wild in native 4k 60 fps. not to mention the cheapest tv with full hdr is $800 and that’s a 48″ screen. and people already shown that 4k by itself when viewed by the average living room sofa distance doesn’t have any noticeable improvements to the picture quality. i know linus tech tips keeps getting annoyed that people say you can make a 4k compatible pc for $300 to $400 when those can’t even run games on ultra setting at 1080p 60 fps.
It’s a PS3 game that will still apparently be running at 720p60 on the Switch. Plus I also mentioned Breath of the Wild which is only 900p on Switch.
All that stuff you said would apply to a PC but that’s not true for a console… actually the $200 CPU thing isn’t even true for PCs. The CPUs are just doubled up modules of AMD’s laptop CPUs from 2013 and CPU usage doesn’t increase with resolution. You can find people running newer games with the Pentium G4560 and a GTX 1050 Ti, the aforementioned card.
As for the pricing, that’s not how consoles are made. Nintendo hasn’t had a system with a non-unified memory architecture since the SNES so they wouldn’t need to get a separate pool of RAM for the CPU, they would use the same memory and memory controller that’s used by the GPU. Actually the CPU would be sharing the same die as the GPU (it would be an SOC) and PCB. A 500 GB HDD would be like $20 and WiFi controllers would be a few dollars.
But I realize that you’re just talking about what it would take to build a PC and no you don’t need to spend $1200 to play Breath of the Wild in 4k. People are running BotW at 60 fps in the newest build of Cemu using a Core i3.
You can get an i3-8100, a GTX 1050 Ti, a 500w PSU, a 1 TB HDD, 8GB DDR4 RAM, a motherboard, and a mid tower case for $530 and that’s just something I put together quickly. That will allow you to emulate BOTW at 4K and it would be able to run Battlefield 1 at 60 fps with Ultra settings at 1080p so I don’t know where you’re getting your info from.
I have a 4K TV, too, and I can notice the difference.
Also, I should mention that the only difference between the Wii U and Switch version of Breath of the Wild is a 56% increase in resolution so when you’re running the Wii U version at 4K with higher resolution shadows, it negates the only disadvantage it had and far surpassed the small advantage the Switch version has.
I should also point out that the scenario you made up suggests that someone doesn’t have a PC at all that they could use parts from AND that they don’t have a 4K TV already AND that you need every single one of those things to experience any of the advantages of something better than the Switch.
Anyway, you kind of misunderstood my whole point. The point was that Nintendo could have made a system that can run Switch games at 4K in HDR without making a system that’s anymore expensive than the one they’re already selling.
“As for the argument that someone can get a powerful PC or Xbox One X, wouldn’t it be better for Nintendo if they could say “Well the Switch isn’t for 4K but we do have a $400-500 console that you can get for that.””
No. No it wouldn’t. The costs of developing and supporting a console would *far* outstrip its usefulness. The vast majority of consoles launched at that high a price were failures, this new machine wouldn’t even have unique titles that took advantage of its capabilities. The only possible audience would be hardcore a/v enthusiasts, and very small demographic not known for being Nintendo fans.
“Sure, that’s not the same as running something like Uncharted 4 at 4K but it shows that Switch games could run at 4K on a console that’s the same price as the Switch.”
Ok. Find one, anywhere. Find me a $300 machine that plays those games in 4k that comes fully assembled. You won’t. Now why do you think that is?
Maybe because those machines you’re referencing also use much more expensive processors and memory than home consoles? Just a thought.
“You can get an i3-8100, a GTX 1050 Ti, a 500w PSU, a 1 TB HDD, 8GB DDR4 RAM, a motherboard, and a mid tower case for $530 and that’s just something I put together quickly. ”
You’re just displaying how desperately you have no idea what you’re talking about. For one, you don’t have an operating system yet, but that’s just the tip of the ice berg. Nintendo isn’t some guy in his garage building a passion project. They need to make mass marketed consumer devices. That’s more expensive.
They need to design a new and unique striking case, they need to develop marketing campaigns, they need to pay for quality control and testing, they need to pay for supporting, and a new format for accessories, licensing things internationally, cut out one of their other products to get retail space, and on and on and on. That $530 machine you built would cost 800-900 at retail which is precisely why you *never* see those kinds of machines marketed to the general public. The people interested in spending 800-900 on a finished retail device want the absolute best anyway and are buying 1500+ devices. I’m quite thankful Nintendo has better business sense than you.
Just reading through your response you really have no idea how to achieve 4K on a PC. You can’t just throw parts together and expect it to work.
As a professional in this field, you’re stupid.
What the hell happened to everyone’s reading comprehension?
No. No it wouldn’t. The costs of developing and supporting a console would *far* outstrip its usefulness.
Since like 1991, Nintendo’s supported two system with completely seperate libraries and completely seperate architectures. So from a development standpoint, the initial cost of development is the only real extra money.
The vast majority of consoles launched at that high a price were failures, this new machine wouldn’t even have unique titles that took advantage of its capabilities.
As were all of the handhelds that can play console games that can hook up to a TV and cost $300… until the Switch came along. And in what way would it not be taking advantage of all it’s capabilities?
I did misspeak when I added the $400-500 bit. The only reason I mentioned that is because I would assume they wouldn’t want to have two systems that are priced the same. Also the Xbox 360 and PS4 both launched at $400. After that, the only console that launched at $400 was the PS4 Pro, which is selling decently for what it is so I where you getting that most $400 systems don’t sell well?
The only possible audience would be hardcore a/v enthusiasts, and very small demographic not known for being Nintendo fans.
There are a lot of people out that who have no interest in portable gaming I would feel they’re getting more bang for their buck if all of there money was going toward the console experience. Plus, if the JoyCons are too small for their hands and they have interest in playing some of them games that require a microSD card then the price of a Switch, SD card and Pro Controller is already about $400. A more powerful console packaged with a pro controller and HDD would remove those hidden fees for them and one priced at $300 or $350 would just be cheaper.
Ok. Find one, anywhere. Find me a $300 machine that plays those games in 4k that comes fully assembled. You won’t. Now why do you think that is?
Maybe because those machines you’re referencing also use much more expensive processors and memory than home consoles? Just a thought.
That’s just a poor point. I remember last year telling people that a Tegra X1 was capable enough to play Wii U ports in handheld mode and people said I was full of shit and they didn’t believe me until the Switch came out and literally did just that.
I can tell you that by comparing architecture alone the base PS4, which I managed to get for $210 brand new with Uncharted 4 and The Last of Us HD, would get at least most of the way toward running Breath of the Wild in 4K. It’s CPU is more capable than the Switch’s so it would clearly have that covered. As for the GPU, you can compare the Switch to the PS4 by comparing the TX1 to the GTX 950 which benchmarks nearly identically to the HD 7850 (which is the closest PC equivalent to the GPU in the PS4). The TX1 has a Maxwell GPU with 2 SMMs in 1 GPC and it’s max clock is 768Mhz, while the GTX 950 has a Maxwell GPU with 6 SMMs in 2 GPCs clocked at 1024-1188Mhz meaning that, on architecture level, it’s 4x more capable than the TX1(4.6X if you’re using the turbo clock) in raw computing performance and . That’s just as far as raw processing capability with 2.66-3.1x higher texture and pixel fill rates, if that were the only thing that mattered than the Switch would absolutely be able to run BotW in 1080p but it’s bandwidth limited so it’s limited to 900p. The GTX 950 has 106GB/s per second of memory bandwidth which is 4.1x as much as the Switch’s 25.6GB/s and the PS4, which is what we’re really comparing it to here, has 176GB/s which is 6.87x more than the Switch.
So yea, if Breath of the Wild was ported to PS4-level hardware, it could very likely run at 4k.
You’re just displaying how desperately you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I absolutely do.
For one, you don’t have an operating system yet, but that’s just the tip of the ice berg.
That would up it by $110 for an OEM copy if they don’t already own a license of Windows 10. That puts it at $640 which is still far lower than the $1200 that was suggested.
Nintendo isn’t some guy in his garage building a passion project.
I never suggested they were. I brought up those parts just to counter the claim that a gaming rig that can emulate Breath of the Wild in 4k and can play newer AAA games at 1080p would cost $1200. I never said that Nintendo orders parts from Newegg or anything.
They need to make mass marketed consumer devices. That’s more expensive.
Marketing is clearly an added cost provided they don’t market it alongside the Switch but it’s not something that adds to the bill of materials or the price of the system.
They need to design a new and unique striking case, they need to develop marketing campaigns, they need to pay for quality control and testing, they need to pay for supporting, and a new format for accessories, licensing things internationally, cut out one of their other products to get retail space, and on and on and on.
As I said before, because the systems would share most of the same library and features, that can be co-marketed which saves money. Quality control and testing would costs that they need to recoup not something that adds to cost of a system. Those two things are different. It would not need any new format for accesories. If the idea is that its a console-only version of the Switch then there would be accessories like screen protectors and different docks would not work with it but any accessories for the Joy Cons or Pro controllers would not need to be changed at all. Retail space absolutely would be an issue, you’re right about that, but it was something they were already willing to do with the 2DS, 3DS, 3DS XL, New 2DS XL, New 3DS, and new 3DS XL so this would be far less of an issue.
If Nintentendo wanted to make the best use of their shelf space then they could have made a handheld that used 3/DS styled cartridges that could play 3DS games and a console that could play those same games with better visual and perfomance. The process there would allow them to go from Wii Us + Wii U games + Multiple 3DS version + 3DS games to New Nintendo console + New Nintendo handheld + New Nintendo games. Instead they still have the 3DS and it’s games and the Switch and its games… but I digress.
That $530 machine you built would cost 800-900 at retail which is precisely why you *never* see those kinds of machines marketed to the general public. The people interested in spending 800-900 on a finished retail device want the absolute best anyway and are buying 1500+ devices. I’m quite thankful Nintendo has better business sense than you.
Wrong. It would be cheaper. As I said, Nintendo does not shop at Newegg. When you buy parts at a store, your’re covering the cost of materials, manufacturing, packaging, and the retailers cut. You’re also paying for all the things that allow for modularity/upgradabilitty like PCI-Express ports, CPU sockets, DIMM slots, SATA controllers for multiple hard drives, USB headers, PS2 port, on-board audio, BIOs chips, southbridges, etc. and all need to fit ATX standards.
When a console is made, especially now, they use an SOC or APU with no thought to upgradability, just cost effectiveness, performance, power, and heat dissipation. The reason I first only mentioned a $150 grapphics card is because modern modern graphics cards already have a decent amount of what is needed for a whole console. The GPU itself contains GPU cores, a memory controller, a security processor, display controller, video encoders, and decoders and an audio DSP, while the rest of the card has memory, cooling, usually an few video outputs including HDMI, DVI, and DisplayPort, and a direct connection to a power supply. Obviously, it’s not an SoC or APU but customizing it by pairing back the display outputs, removing the disabled SMMs, adding a 4 core ARM CPU, and adding IO for storage and WiFi controllers isn’t go to significantly effect the silicon area so it wouldn’t increase cost much. Also most graphics cards are the price they are because the retailers, the card makers (MSI, Asus, EVGA, PNY, Gigabyte, etc), and Nvidia all need to make a cut so the actual starting manufacturing cost of that card is much less.
Have you seen the estimated bill of materials for console before?
Here’s one for a 2TB Xbox One S https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/microsoft-xbox-one-s-makes-a-play-for-the-big-time-for-only-24-more-teardown-shows.html
Right right away Nintendo would be able to reduce costs because Nintendo uses cartridges. Blu-ray drives are bulky, use more power, and cost more than a cartridge slot. A cartridge slot costs maybe a dollar, while a Blu-ray drive costs $20-ish so there’s an immediate cost savings there.
The smaller size would allow the size of the system as whole to become smaller which lowers the cost of mechanicals, electromechanicals, and manufacturing. Just look how much of the system is its blu-ray drive.
https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/2k2ZOFC4OCYEwZVJ.huge
Blu-ray drives use watts of power while cartridges use milliwatts so a cheaper power supply could be used. And of course, you can get rid of the HDMI-In, remove the second WiFi module,
Just reading through your response you really have no idea how to achieve 4K on a PC. You can’t just throw parts together and expect it to work.
As a professional in this field, you’re stupid.
I didn’t just throw parts together, Mr. Professional. If you knew how to read, you’d see that those parts I put together were a cheap CPU that’s been proven to be able to EMULATE Breath of the Wild at above 30fps and GPU that has been proven to EMULATE Breath of the Wild at 4K at 30fps (using OpenGL to emulate GX2). Thus it’s very clear that a version of Breath of the Wild actually made for the hardware would run better at those specs and that was the whole point. The point was to show an example system that theoretically run SWITCH GAMES at 4K, not current AAA games at 4K60 with max settings. 4K is just a resolution.
Of course, you’re welcome to teach my a lesson.
Pay Mike T no mind. I think he’s drank too much of the Nintendo kool-aid. He once called me an idiot because I told him if a person can buy a Switch that they can easily buy a 4K TV, too, since they do go for 400 bucks or less if you look hard enough. I even showed him links to a bunch of 4K TVs for dirt cheap. 4K televisions are already less expensive than they were a year or two ago.
Yea, a lot of people drank too much of the Nintendo Kool-Aid. I’m a huge Nintendo fan but I think a big part of being fan is being able to criticize a companies faults. Otherwise, I’d just be a member of Nintendo’s marketing department whose working for free.
I agree in both statements
The VR isn’t simple to take control and also you have to make sure people will buy it and gets fun. Only few games take my attention for the Oculus Rift
4k TVs are cheaper now. I got a Samsung 55″ Series 8, beautiful and crisp. Worth every dollar.
The cost of reliable 4k game processing is a different ball of wax.
I don’t recall 4K TVs around $700-1500 being “cheap”. Not the good kinds.
I was surprised when I was shopping around just yesterday and I could pick up a 49” 4k LG brand new for $370. That’s pretty cheap for new tv territory. Still, the point stands that cheap 4k tv’s doesn’t translate to cheap 4k gaming. The screens aren’t the problem. It’s generating the content for the screens.
Must be a shitty 4K TV then or it’s sale was pathetic.
I disagree with the 4K statement. They have to support 4K next console generation, or else we could have another Wii U on our hands. It’s fine right now to not support it, but I believe consumers will adopt to 4K around 4-6 years from now, when the next home console will most likely arrive.
As with the VR, I agree. It’s just way too expensive for the average consumer to buy. Add to the fact that there are next to no good games on VR, most are just shovelware or ports such as Fallout and Skyrim.
there are talking about current market, not next generation market. of course eventually 4k will out phrase 1080p, but it’s not doing it in 2018. especially when a $500 console can’t run most games in native 4k anyways. most games are 1080p upscaled to 4k
There’s already a lot of people with 4K TVs and you can get them cheap.
And as someone with an HTC Vive, I can tell you that there’s a lot of fun to be had with VR even if there aren’t a lot of AAA games for VR right now. I’ve had a lot of fun just walking around a virtual arcade and bowling and playing basketball.
Had Nintendo made a console with VR in mind, they likely could have provided a VR experience on par or better than PSVR but cheaper. They could have been a lot of people’s gateway to VR.
Also if the intent is for Nintendo to continue with the hybrid concept which is still getting it games that run at 720p or barely at 900p then there’s absolutely no way their next system will hit 4K. Sure it’ll support it but the bandwidth, fill-rate and processing power will still be too low to actually run games at 4K. You have to remember that some of Switch’s specs are not much better than consoles that came out 11-12 years ago.
RE7
Star Trek VR
Farpoint
Skyrim
Doom VFR
Starblood Arena
Don’t stop or you’ll explode
Sparc
Battlezone
Eve Valkyrie
DriveClub VR
Dirt Rally VR
Rigs
SPorts Bar VR
Rec Room
Until Dawn
Batman VR
Almost half of the titles you listed are just ports from a different perspective (to my knowledge, tell me if I’m wrong): Batman, Fallout, Skyrim, Dirt Rally, DriveClub, Doom, RE7. The rest is borderline mediocre.
You’re wrong about Batman. I didn’t mention Fallout. Farpoint is a very unique and apprently awesome FPS shooter with awesome online, and works with the Aim controller. Doom is a unique game made from the ground up as well. Also I’ve heard Drive Club, Dirt Rally, and RE7 are all better in VR. Skyrim is low rez and a little finnicky, but still very much worth playing on there over anywhere else.
You’re also wrong about the rest being mediocre. Many are better than the ones I just talked about. SO only 4 were ports, and those are 4 of the best games on the consoles, not shoddy rush jobs.
They can do 2K for all I care and it makes almost no difference compare to 4K. All we should be caring/worrying about is if the games are worth our time/fun to invest on the consoles for it. That’s all. Resolutions and shit like that should be a pitiful worry only for PC goers.
I guess I moreso meant “the next console SHOULD be 4K” because I am in the same boat as you. As long as I’m getting good games I care less. Still though, I really don’t want a rehash of the Wii U.
There’s nothing wrong with certain games being ported to VR experience or having VR modes if they work well. I guarantee that any of you would love a VR mode in a future Punch Out game.
There really doesn’t seem to be much really fun games for VR anyway
I already posted this below, but
RE7
Star Trek VR
Farpoint
Skyrim
Doom VFR
Starblood Arena
Don’t stop or you’ll explode
Sparc
Battlezone
Eve Valkyrie
DriveClub VR
Dirt Rally VR
Rigs
SPorts Bar VR
Rec Room
Until Dawn
Batman VR
One of the games I spent the most time playing last year was a VR game, Werewolves Within. I had tons of fun with that game.
Rec Room VR is also fun.
There are many great experiences on VR, I’d say. Most people just aren’t willing to risk/invest the time or money because the fact is, you really have to try a VR game in order to see if it’s really worth it or not. You can’t really judge anything VR outside of actually experiencing it in VR. Trailers, write-ups, etc. just don’t do the medium justice.
I don’t care for VR in its current form. Tried it, didn’t like it. Very gimmicky. No appealing games outside of RE7.
I still don’t own a 4K tv. But both of my brothers do. I really don’t see a big difference between 1080p and 4K. I hooked up my pc just to test out some games in 4K. I don’t see what all the 4k hype is about. I’ll only upgrade to a 4k screen once it’s necessary.
You’re wrong about VR. And you’re wrong about no games.
RE7
Star Trek VR
Farpoint
Skyrim
Doom VFR
Starblood Arena
Don’t stop or you’ll explode
Sparc
Battlezone
Eve Valkyrie
DriveClub VR
Dirt Rally VR
Rigs
SPorts Bar VR
Rec Room
Until Dawn
Batman VR
And that’s just top of my head. Many dirt cheap over the holidays, some are even free. ALl are worth checking out, none of those are BUllshit gimmicky experiences except the last two, but both I’ve heard are worth experiencing anyway.
You keep posting this list as though it’s very impressive. It isn’t.
I’m not wrong at all. It’s my opinion. VR couldn’t be less intriguing to me. The whole concept of strapping a screen to my face just isn’t appealing. Like I said, I didn’t enjoy it at all when I tried it. And most of those games you mentioned don’t appeal to me lol. The tech just isn’t sophisticated enough yet imo. And I don’t think it will be any time soon.
megamansurvives I think the same about vr games. Ultra realistic games aren’t interesting for me as I play to enjoy the games, not because it has the latest technology and latest graphics. That’s why I enjoy games like Megaman X1-X7 (I haven’t obtained X8 but I will get it, hopefully in a complete X Collection ), The Legend of Zelda (all of them), Metroid Prime Trilogy, Donkey Kong Country games (and DK 64) and Pokémon games (most of them).
I think when the cost of VR and 4K have been reduced enough, then Nintendo will use them and with Nintendo being experts in innovation they can bring the full potential of VR to give us great entertainment and enjoyment.
May I ask what game you played and what headset you were using when you tried it out?
Still a bit backwards thinking Nintendo, move forward, 4k and VR are a fact of life in the gaming world. If you don’t have nothing good to say about something, don’t bother saying it. Just because you couldn’t make it work.
||There is a difference between existing technology and its appeal to the masses, most do not have a 4K television nor do most enjoy VR gaming on a hardcore basis, and there is also no connection between stating something grounded in facts and the lack of technological progress, Nintendo could make it work whenever they want to, it is just folly to do so now…||
Nintendo is a company that once lead the charge on touch screen gaming, motion gaming, and even microphone input in gaming. They’re the ones who made them mainstream without the public even knowing those things could happen. Seems dumb that Nintendo doesn’t want to lead the charge with VR.
||We are leading with the Hybrid program, if they want to promote VR for the next true handheld console then by all means they should as long as they innovate and make it a solid experience for hardcore warriors instead of just adding it because civilians ask for it…||
Problem is, who the fuck asked for VR in the first place? Yu-Gi-Oh fans? lol
That’s not gonna work then. The way you would implement VR on something like the Switch, even if it had better specs, would require a very large headset for the screen to rest in, optics to focus your eyes and optics to shrink the screen, and then it would need some way to track it’s position.
Because of the precision and lack of latency it needs, the few ways you would do that on a hybrid system all kind of suck.
For example, it could be equipped with a normal camera and IR camera that would track its position relative to surround objects by running computer vision algorithms in the background. To even attempt to do this well, without sucking up GPU resources and killing battery life, it would need an AI accelerator on-chip. Even then, it would rely on texture objects surrounding you and it would not be able to track the controllers positions.
They could alternately try to do what the Vive does and use a web of IR sensors on the HMD and the controllers which would determine positioning based on synced up flashes from base stations which would be hooked up to HMD via a wire. They can also try the Oculus approach which is the opposite of the Vive in that IR cameras are tracking IR LEDs on the HMD and controllers. To manage the wires and connections to the base stations, it would require at least 3 wires to be tidy. One from each of the base stations and another going from whatever they’re connected to, to the headset. This could be a done with a newer version of the dock working as a hub for that and, in the latter example, possibly work as an IR camera. In the Vive example, the processing would have to be done in the headset and controllers while the Oculus example could theoretically track the IR dots with processing in the dock. The benefit to both of these ideas over the HMD camera idea is that they’d be able to track both the headset and the controllers while keeping the HMD powered via the dock. Their biggest downfall is that the IR sensor/light arrays would need to be attachments to the JoyCons since significant any modifications to them would not allow base stations to see the arrays or would compromise their portability.
Another way would be to use two antennae arrays within the headset that track the angle of arrival with surrounding WiFi and Bluetooth signals. That would allow the headset to track everything using routers as base stations but requires full 2D angle of arrival data to be computed 360 degrees in azimuthal and elevation axes which is really computationally expensive for a portable device. You also have the issue of moving WiFi access points like people with cell phones which need to be accounted for as well as interference issues from walls and RF reflections. Using a specialized dock designed with the aforementioned antenna arrays and some DSPs, it would not only be able to track the HMD and controllers but it would allow it to limit angle of arrival data to less than 180 degrees along the azimuthal axis and about 100 degrees along the elevation axis. It would then use the offset of the arrays and cross section of the angles to determine depth. Then it would have to send that to the HMD via a wire again so that the info can be combined with IMU data so that the CPU can set up the positioning of the next frame.
The last way would work kind of like the power glove but in reverse. Three base stations and the controllers would be set up by the console via Bluetooth to emit certain ultrasonic frequencies or patterns and an array of microphones on the HMD would determine position based on which microphones are hearing what sounds and at what volumes. The issue here is that ultrasonic frequencies that we can’t hear may still be heard by most pets and would drive them nuts.
||Well I never said that the next handheld console should be a hybrid machine, I simply said that if they are going for VR one day, that it should be focused on VR solely from the start…||
I see but my main point is that VR is way more compatible with a console experience.
||If you are talking about having a console with VR as essentially an accessory to it, then it would be convenient at most with a solid experience…||
||But if High Command truly wants to market VR, then a VR handheld, or should we say headheld console with VR breaking new grounds much like the the 3DS did with glasses-free 3D, then that would set us apart from the rest while keeping our Nintendo purity intact once again…||
I’m not saying that that VR should simply be an accessory to the console. You can do a lot to design a console with VR in mind to keep cost down and improve the experience, but the requirements of VR are such that proper VR will only really work for a console/PC. That’s why I went through all the effort to explain how it would have to be done in my previous post. VR isn’t just orientation tracking like in smart phone VR.
Room-scale VR, which is what allows you to move around the environment and even do simple things like lean your head in or determine a controllers left, right, up, down, and back and forth movements, requires positional tracking which needs outside reference points that the main system, the headset in the case of a handheld, needs to access with extremely low latency in order to avoid making people feel sick.
Smart phone VR technically requires external reference points for it’s orientation tracking too, but luckily the point of reference that accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers use are universal (planetary really) things like the direction of gravity, the rotation of the earth, and magnetic north. People HAVE tried to just use an accelerometer to have objects track there own positions but it only worked for a few seconds before errors started to build up exponentially which would give the player the sensation that they’re being thrown through the VR world at faster and faster speeds and that WILL cause them to feel sick.
For positional tracking, you need something to work as base stations. There are some ways that a standalone headset can attempt to do positional tracking without wired base stations but they’re all noisy and require quite a bit of processing power and redundancy to get rid of that noise and introduce more variables. Considering mobile devices are inherently starved of processing power and a handheld video game system already needs to use a great deal of it’s computational power and battery life actually playing games, and you can see why VR isn’t really well-suited for a handheld.
There is an enormous misunderstanding among people who love the Switch that a hybrid system can handle any type of gameplay thrown at it (just with simpler graphics) when that simply isn’t true. Motion gaming always needs known point of reference, the more known points of reference you have, the more you can do with motion gaming. That’s why the Wii’s sensor bar allows for the Wii Remotes to do some forms of motion tracking that the Joycon’s can’t do. In fact, you can reverse the positions of a Wii Remote and sensor bar and do the exact kind of positional tracking that the Oculus uses, as is demonstrated here.
That’s actually exactly what the New 3DS does to track your eyes. When your eyes are lit with IR, they glow and become a sensor bar for the camera. If you were wondering, yes, the 3DS does have everything need to giving you the 3D window effect but it requires that developers have access to the eye tracking data.
||Then a similar idea could be use for our next machine if his lordship intents to use VR as the main purpose…||
||This generation however is all about The Hybrid, we must keep and increase our momentum as much as possible, VR would only slow down our progress right now but otherwise yes, for next time it should be considered, unless they haven’t already, especially since the technology will be further along obviously, being easier and cheaper…||
I’m glad you’re seeing that the hybrid concept doesn’t work for everything but why wait until next time? Obviously, if people feel the same way about the Switch at the end of it’s lifetime as they do now, then there will be some expectation for the next Nintendo system to be that way. So they’d have to have a hybrid AND a dedicated console. If that’s the case, why not do that now? The next Xbox and PlayStation may be announced in two years and built with VR in mind. If Nintendo waits until their next system, then it wouldn’t be a selling point for them so much as a feature they’d get shit for not having.
Because when they did, it didn’t prove to be popular or vital for many years and even right now when you think VR is mainstream, there’s hardly anything or anyone supporting it, same for 4K gaming on console because it’s too early. As for VR, I’m not paying $400-600 for a fucking goggle that has awkward graphic/framerate flaws and can risk getting people tripped over or hit something or can cause elipsy.
Have you used a VR headset? What graphical or framerate flaws do you think VR has?
For starters, display issues. Look at RE7 for example with the disembodied arms and UI flickering and/or disappearing behind certain objects.
So you think that’s inherent to VR?
That and the install base is small plus it cost too much for a VR goggles. $400-600 my ass.
Neither graphical issues nor high price point is inherent to VR. The Oculus Rift is only $400 because it includes the HMD, controllers, and two base stations. If only one base station were included, it would still provide an experience about as good as PSVR it would cost cheaper.
Even the $350 PSVR would be cheaper if they didn’t have to include the breakout box for asymmetric gameplay. The breakout box includes an SOC for 3D audio processing, DDR3 memory, 4GB eMMC flash, an HDMI splitter, an HDMI in, two HDMI outs, USB, 12v power, a fan, EMI shielding/headsink and of course the case. Had the PS4 come with a second HDMI out to begin with, then it would have saved them the cost of that completely.
Though, I think part of the reason that PSVR even costs as much as it does is because they CAN charge that much. Consider the fact that a PSVR setup can already use and track the controller that comes with the PS4 and that Occulus is able to includes two controllers and base stations in a package costing almost just as much money.
Again, how does ANY of that warrant VR as a new standard for gaming when there’s hardly any support and install base to back it.
Who the hell said it’s a new standard? It’s a new FORM of gaming. It’s like motion controls… in fact it IS motion controls but more advanced. For a game like Mortal Kombat for example, there’s not a single use in the world for motion controls or VR, but there are tons of games that play very nicely with VR like the Elder Scrolls games for example. Then there’s games like Super Hot VR which are VERY popular that are made infinitely better in VR.
I’m not one of those people who thinks all gaming is moving toward VR and yearns for the day I can play Mario Kart or a 3D Mario game in VR. I have no interest in VR being tacked onto games where it doesn’t work. Controllers are an excellent way to simplify complicated action games while VR and motion controls are do a great job adding a lot of depth to simpler concepts.
Anyone who is interested in seeing gaming progress and expand should embrace new forms of input especially when they have so much potential.
There are so many examples through out there years of traditional game consoles adopting concept of VR without actually be VR. Remember all those light gun games? That’s a form a VR. Just imagine House of the Dead, Time Crisis, or Duck Hunt in VR.
Think about what VR actually implies, then look at Skyword Sword and tell me that Nintendo’s attempted to give you 1:1 control of the Link’s Sword wasn’t a headset-less version of VR. Of course, that didn’t work very well because the same technologies that make VR possible (both position and orientation tracking) are required for something like that.
Right now, not only isn’t Nintendo taking a really dumb approach to adopting new technologies but their current system couldn’t do VR if it tried. That’s dumb.
Except Motion controllers don’t cost as much as a fucking smartphone or more than a brand new home console itself. Also, Nintendo’s take on it is what made it ACCESSABLE. VR is not standard, shouldn’t be seen as such and will never been standard in this form. VR being more advanced?! lol Whatever you’re blunting to get high, I want some. lol
Except Motion controllers don’t cost as much as a fucking smartphone or more than a brand new home console itself.
Hey genius, maybe think for a second? Let’s see what’s needed for console designed with VR in mind. We’ll use the Switch’s hardware as a starting point and then modify it into a standalone home console and a separately VR headset.
First, we’d move the SOC, memory, eMMC, WiFi/Bluetooth controller, microSD slot, cartridge slot, and cooling into the dock. The SOC already supports HDMI 2.0 but doesn’t use it. Since it’s in the dock now, it could use it so this removes the need for the DisplayPort to HDMI 1.4 converter and CMOS flash in the dock. So that saves a few bucks and the dock is a smaller, standalone home console that now supports which supports HDR. So the home console experience just by taking stuff away. We could technically get rid of the MicroSD card slot, too, and just allow someone to use an external HDD. That would save even more money.
The JoyCons each have a gyroscope and accelerometer which is almost a whole IMU. Just add a magnetometer to each and they’d now have a full IMU and it added maybe one dollar to the cost of each JoyCon. At this point you’d already have a setup that can sell at stores that capable of doing everything the Switch can do in TV mode. It’s pretty much an Nvidia Shield Android TV with JoyCons instead of controllers that come with the NSAT so it could be sold for $200.
Now lets turn the nearly empty screen enclosure into a VR headset. At this point it would have a 720p screen, an audio codec, speakers, a headphone jack, a power management unit, a 4310mah battery, and a USB 3.0/DP1.2 matrix switch. Because we need low-latency and the SoC already supports DisplayPort and output to two displays, we’ll be connecting the display to the system via Display port over USB 3.0 which can provide power so we don’t need the battery or the power management unit that’s need for charging. That saves maybe $5 dollars but we still need to add an inertial measurement unit (accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer) so cost savings would be closer to $2. We’ll also remove the speakers because audio will go through the headphone jack which saves maybe another dollar. So the whole thing as become a little lighter and cheaper, but now we need to deal with the screen. The 6.2″ 720p LCD display is too big and low-resolution for VR. Even though it’s 720p, it’s still decently dense for an LCD screen so it cost maybe $30-40. A 5″ inch 1080p OLED screen would be useable enough for VR and if we can use the bill of materials for the Galaxy S4 for reference then one of those with gorilla glass and a digitizer was $75 back in the 2013. A standalone VR headset wouldn’t need gorilla glass or a digitizer so it would cost less but we’ll assume $75 anyway and assume that the Switch’s screen is on the cheaper end, so that adds $45 extra dollars. That display is likely the same display as the PSVR btw.
We’ll say this whole setup has maybe a $90 bill of materials at this point but it’s still pretty much an empty tablet. You can get a headset enclosure for your smartphone on Amazon for as low as $17 with Amazon and the company that made it getting a cut. So lets assume it costs them half as much to make, add 10 IR LEDS (the same amount in a Wii sensor bar) and say the whole thing costs $100. That’s not how much it could sell for. That’s it’s rough bill of materials. At this point, the headset and the JoyCons are capable of tracking absolute orientation but not positioning. The headset at least has some way to be track at this point but the JoyCons don’t. What we could do is slide the JoyCons into an attachment that is a ring of LEDs like the Occulus controller with the JoyCons powering them. Lets say these cost $5 each. Now the bill of materials is $110.
Lastly, we need some way to track the position of these things. Here there’s some options. If the aforementioned stand-alone console was made to stand up like the current dock does, then it could be eqipped with one or two of same IR-camera that’s in a JoyCon-R and it would be able track positioning at least as well as PSVR. If that were the case then no additional hardware would be needed and the VR accesories could be sold for $150-200. That would make the price of the console + VR equipment just $350-400. Again, that’s the console, the JoyCons, AND the headset together. The other option are to include standalone IR cameras used for tracking, which would obviously increase the selling price by at least $50 or it might be possible to use a JoyCon-R for tracking.
Now I’m not saying this solution would be as good as the Vive or Occulus Rift, but those solutions all use at least two 1080p OLED screens that can refresh at 90 frames per second, include two position trackers, and don’t have the ability to integrate into a specific ecosystem. The solution I just mentioned would have allowed Nintendo to have VR solution with headset that has similar resolution and framerate as smart phone VR but with the motion controls and headtracking on the level of the PSVR and early Occulus for a much cheaper price. In fact, the console had IR camera’s included then the IR attachments for the JoyCons could come in the box as well because it would still allow non-VR games to have way more accurate motion controls.
Also, Nintendo’s take on it is what made it ACCESSABLE.
I just mentioned a way that Nintendo can make VR accessible and affordable while using VR technologies to augment non-VR games. Like seriously, most of the hardware needed for VR are included in the Switch already, it’s just that all the parts are in the wrong places. Hell, what Nintendo calls HD Rumble is a linear resonant actuator and it’s something also found in VR controllers. Why? Because Nintendo adopted it from VR controllers.
VR is not standard, shouldn’t be seen as such and will never been standard in this form.
Sorry, but that’s just dumb. When Nintendo introduced people to motion controls, they introduced them to their first tastes of VR. When your understanding VR and it’s concepts are as limited as yours, it’s tough to understand that.
VR being more advanced?! lol Whatever you’re blunting to get high, I want some. lol
It IS objectively more advanced. You’re just being ignorant as hell right now. I’ll repeat it for the millionth time since you have bad information retention. The JoyCons only track relative orientation and position (with drift on the azimuthal access). Wii Remotes Pluses can track do the same but they can also do some level of absolute positioning withe the sensor bar. VR controllers can do absolute orientation and positioning with no drift.
I know technology is confusing to you considering you’re the same guy that thinks the Switch is nearly as powerful as the Xbox One, but if you’re gonna have a discussion about tech, you’re going to have to learn a little more about what you’re talking about.
“Nintendo is a company that once lead the charge on touch screen gaming, motion gaming, and even microphone input in gaming. ”
All of which they were able to market on devices that cost $300 or less for everything you need to play.
” Seems dumb that Nintendo doesn’t want to lead the charge with VR.”
They did. Remember the virtual boy? Nintendo learned, and now get to point and laugh as VR dies a slow agonizing death. Have you actually seen VR sales numbers?
“Still a bit backwards thinking Nintendo, move forward, 4k and VR are a fact of life in the gaming world.”
What kind of bubble are you living in? People who have actual 4k gaming and VR are a TINY part of the market. Much less than 5%.
Just gonna respond to you here because I can’t up top.
The Virtual Boy is not VR! It’s just a not-even-head-mounted 3D display that they marketed as VR. It has nothing even close to position or orientation tracking in the system and all the games were sprite-based. Of course it didn’t sell well. They literally lied about what it was. If your VR systems entire library of games could be played on the 3DS and be a huge improvement over the original, then it wasn’t a VR system to begin with.
Seriously, I remember when the Wii was announced everybody was losing their minds thinking about all the ways that motion controls could be used in games. Now that VR motion controls can actually deliver on what we thought the Wii Remotes can do, now you don’t care because Nintendo told you not to. Instead you’d rather gladly spend $80 on the lateral improvement of the Wii Remotes. You guys were thinking about all the cool ways that HD Rumble can be used, VR solutions have had it for years but “Nuh uh Nintendo does it better.” You thought the Wii U gamepad and its asymmetric gameplay was cool. VR offers that but “Nah, the Switch has one screen so I’m over that.” You guys thought the 3D on the 3DS was so cool but as soon as Nintendo started launching handhelds without it you were like “Yea, fuck that. I never liked it anyway.”
You guys will shit on the new types of gameplay that VR could provide by adopting, enhancing, and combining literally all of those things and claim there’s nothing interesting about it YET Nintendo releases a tablet with tiny removable Wii Remotes and you call it revolutionary and act like it’s going to open up all new forms of gameplay that we’ve never seen before.
I’ve learned cronotose isn’t a Nintendo fanboy. But he does seem anti-Sony to me at least; (I could be wrong again.) *shrug* Whatever, though. It’s his opinion.
I haven’t upgraded to 4K yet, but when I was replacing my TV in the basement, which I use for my older consoles, there were tons of dirt cheap 4K models. The only reason I saved a few bucks on a 1080p was because it’s only ever used for those console games.
4K TVs are here to stay, and they’re the new norm at retail, but 4K content is seriously lacking. I don’t think consumers see the need to replace their whole media collections for the relatively small upgrade. It’s just not as convincing as the jump from 480p was… plus 4K’s strengths are in closer viewing. So PC gaming on a 4K monitor is much more important than on a console.
I don’t get why so many people care about 4K because there isn’t much of a difference between HD and 4K in terms of how it looks. I agree with both of Nintendo’s comments. Sure VR is something I would like to see from Nintendo but at the same time It’s very obvious it still isn’t ready. Hopefully VR technology will finally be ready soon because the world has been waiting a few decades now for VR to finally be ready.
VR is ready. It’s out there. It’s great! But it’s also in its infancy. We have to think of VR right now like gaming in general in the 80’s. It’s a new beginning and unfortunately because we are so used to high fidelity gaming at this point in life, we don’t want to look at VR so much because it feels like a regression. It’s still in its early days. But with the billions of dollars being invested in its future and the coalitions formed to make sure that VR progresses from here, it’s sure to get better and better in the future.
Side Note: Go look at native 4K content on an OLED or QLED TV and come back to me about not being able to see a difference.
I don’t really care about the difference between 1080p and 4k. It’s barely conceivable by the eye.
But let me bring a unique perspective here. I have everything. Most recently PSVR. It’s amazing. Star Trek VR is amazing on it. SKyrim is pretty incredible too, though I beat it on 360 and don’t really wanna do it all over again but def the best way to experience skyrim if you haven’t yet. There’s tons of good VR games released on PSVR already, like hundred of games, a good 50 of which are actually worth checking out. ALready! I have a huge game library of VR games cause of the holiday sales, more than I even have time for, especially since XBox is my main. But it’s a helluva good time, really immersive and fun and intense. I guess I’m glad Nintendo isn’t doing it, cause it’s nice to have more variety. But I no longer think VR is whatever. And I did right up until I impulse bought the skyrim bundle on sale beginning of december. My mind has changed 100% Just the cool online multiplayer things you can do, really socialize and interact with people in some really cool games and spaces. It’s insane.
These games are all on the PSVR, all off the top of my head, and all worth checking out, I’m not even kidding. ONly the last two are gimmick experiences, and I’ve been told they’re worth checking out regardless.
RE7
Star Trek VR
Farpoint
Skyrim
Doom VFR
Starblood Arena
Don’t stop or you’ll explode
Sparc
Battlezone
Eve Valkyrie
DriveClub VR
Dirt Rally VR
Rigs
SPorts Bar VR
Rec Room
Until Dawn
Batman VR
The problem with VR remains the same as it always has. It’s too expensive to be a requirement of a console itself, and expensive add on accessories never get software support because publishers want to develop for all potential customers, not just a few. Until VR is cheap enough to be the entire console, it can’t penetrate into the mainstream market.
It will though. For those too young to remember or even those old enough but losing their memory, this is just like how it was with home consoles in their early stages. But look at the market now. It’ll take time for VR to improve and the adoption rate to go up but it will. Pretty confident that VR is here to stay.
Nintendo, you still have a lot to learn. You have great games, and the Switch being a handheld/console hybrid was a brilliant move that is more than paying off. But a problem you consistently have is you underestimate potential for new hardware platforms and don’t jump in like the rest of your competition.
You also underestimate your influence in the market. Even before the Switch during the Wii and Wii U era, the other companies took notes from your success. Note how VR often times uses motion controls similar to your Nintendo Wii. Yeah, its more refined, but I would hope a $600 device a decade later could improve on an earlier concept.
Imagine the strides in VR if you were to get involved! Sony and HTC mostly rely on 3rd party companies to make their tech a success (which is why the Vita failed), but Nintendo would sell VR like hotcakes as long as you supported it with a healthy amount of games! The Virtual Boy was a mistake, but you tried to jump into the tech too early. Now the times have caught up with the idea and your next device after the Switch would be the perfect time to make this leap into either 4K or VR, or better yet, why not both!
They better do 4K with the next system if said system is coming in the next 5 years. If not, get ready to fall behind in 4K development just like you idiots fell behind in HD (another contributing factor as to why Wii U was such a fucking failure as you guys were playing catch up with everyone that was doing HD years before you did it.)
As for VR not being fun, you’re an idiot for saying so. Some of the few that have bought VR seem to be having tons of fun with the tech. That said, the only thing I have a problem with VR over is the price. I’d rather not pay 300 bucks for VR. Especially now that I have to replace my Switch (if I replace it.) Not to mention I still want an Xbox One at some point for Rare Replay.
Anyway, let’s just admit these reasons they don’t do 4K and VR are excuses; nothing more. In reality, they don’t want to do them yet because the competition has done them first & because Nintendo hasn’t come up with any ideas on how to be innovative with the tech yet so that they can be DIFFERENT from the competition.
It’s clear to me Nintendo has been scared to do the same thing others are doing for the last decade & few years because the last time they tried to do the same thing the others did they. Fucking. LOST!!! Gamecube had it’s ass handed to it by the PlayStation 2 in both console sales & game attachment rates.
They are also liars when they say they don’t care about the competition or competing with them. They’ve always been trying to beat the competition. Quadraxis might be role playing but I think his character is a more true representation of Nintendo than many of us realize. Scary… Isn’t it?
*shrug* But whatever though. As long as it doesn’t interfere with my gaming, fuck it. Do whatever you want, Nintendo. *ends this comment with an unrelated video of the awesome Raul Julia*
CRAP!!! Forgot to add the video! lmao
“In reality, they don’t want to do them yet because the competition has done them first & because Nintendo hasn’t come up with any ideas on how to be innovative with the tech yet so that they can be DIFFERENT from the competition.”
Or, *much* more likely, both concepts require selling a more expensive device than they’d like for the demographic to which they’re selling. They want to get the people who don’t want to pay for 4k processing or VR, i.e., most people living on earth. 4k and VR are competing for the same gaming audience that always plays games. Nintendo wants to tap into the audience that doesn’t buy a system every gen. Building a 4k or VR machine would be boneheaded for doing that.
https://media.giphy.com/media/5nSIq98xwgkbC/giphy.gif
That’s the same kind of retarded thought process that made the wii and wiiu laughing stocks. how is nintendo still thinking like that a decade later. why is it so hard for them to adopt current technology like everybody else. I don’t, nor will I ever understand this company. the only bright side to nintendo is that they make enjoyable games. most of the times.
The Wii was Nintendo’s best selling console of all time. The only way to consider it a laughing stock is to be using subjective, rather than objective forms of measurement.
It’s a laughing stock because the game attachment rate was trash compared to the console units sold. Sure it’s the best selling console of all time but best selling doesn’t mean most successful in this industry. For example, would you say the Wii was the most successful if out of the 100m owners it has, only 5 of those owners bought a single game? You’d be a lunatic to say yes.
” For example, would you say the Wii was the most successful if out of the 100m owners it has, only 5 of those owners bought a single game? You’d be a lunatic to say yes.”
Fortunately, that example is ridiculous and I don’t have to say yes because it has nothing to do with reality.
New Super Mario Bros. Wii sales: 30.11 million.
Combined sales of Halo 3, ODST, and Reach: 28.36 million.
There was nothing wrong with Wii software sales. It was just abandoned as a platform early in comparison to the other platforms, giving them years extra to out do it in lifetime numbers. The Wii, as I said before, was objectively a huge success by every measure. The only basis to say otherwise is by using what you personally like as a basis of judgement.
According to google, the PS2 is the best selling console of all time as it didn’t get discontinued til 2013 so it managed to sell over 150m consoles. Wii only sold over 100m & was discontinued a couple of years ago, so it won’t ever surpass PS2’s sales. So if you are using that to say the Wii is the most successful, you’d be wrong. And while many games on Wii sold very well, it’s game attachment rate to consoles sold ratio is still pretty bad from what I hear when compared to consoles before it like the PS2, Gamecube, SNES, N64, etc. With both of those in mind, Wii is not the massive success so many believe if Google & what I’ve heard are to be believed. But whatever. I don’t have the patience to prove Wii isn’t as great as you believe so if you by some chance find some article somewhere to prove your right & I’m wrong, I honestly won’t be able to dig further & find something to prove your article wrong. Even if I’m wrong, whatever. For me, Wii is still one of the worst consoles I’ve ever owned as it barely had any games that interested me & sadly became my Netflix machine for most of my time owning it.
Not for nothing. But I found all these comments refreshing to read. Not a lot of trash talk just a lot of people trying to educate. Nice job guys !
I’m happy with 1080p and don’t see the point in buying a new tv if have one that works. 1080p impressed me when it was new but 4k doesn’t. I just don’t see the point I’m wasting money on 4k until it is significantly cheaper.
I’ve seen 4K for as low as $200 these days.
VR is the real deal
VR is in the market but it is similar to Microsoft surface table which no one knows now, the idea of interactive touch screen, now we have touch screen on everything but not microsoft surface table, they are not fit for the current market as is, soon it will be developed in a way that will coup with our way of living without having to feel isolated which is the main problem for why the VR is not catching fast.
Interesting read, and I think Nintendo is being strategic. I fully believe the Switch was meant to become a stand-alone VR solution (you can look up drawings drafted for the Switch to essentially behave as Google Cardboard does for iOS and Android. Labo anyone?)
However, as many were commenting about TV resolution, I think the Switch simply is not ready for VR. It has a resolution of 1280×720 (split for VR would be roughly 640×720 for each eye without considering lens), which is incredibly low resolution for VR (compared to 4K and 8K. VR looks best at a higher resolution, even if most gamers would settle for SD, HD, or 4K on their regular TVs.)
Furthermore, there have been a considerable lack of great content for VR, even if that is changing over time. With a lack of content for a high cost system, customers won’t buy. Customers don’t buy, developers won’t support, which leads back to a lack of content.
Like the video game crash of 1983, I believe Nintendo really could revitalize the VR sector, but only if the opportunity and market is ready for it. They last attempted it in 1995 (a year before the N64) with the VirtualBoy, and they won’t make that same mistake again.