Topic: Is virtual reality bad for Nintendo?

@skywake
If persistence is such an issue, then how is Wii U running Panarama View, Wii Street U or allowing users to move the GamePad to control Samus' ship, in Nintendo Land. Based on what you just said, those shouldn't work, but they do. Also, routers already send a compressed 1080p signal, and the GamePad isn't even reliant on internet speeds.

There's too many assumptions in this thread. I'm personally taking the wait and see approach.

Like what exactly? I'm not against VR, or anything, but it's ironic that people expect VR to become a thing, while 3D doesn't, and is still an aspect of VR.

The way I see it, VR is taking 2 steps forward, but the first step to 3D hasn't been successful.

The 3DS is as close as you're gonna get to VR, as of now.

imo i think vr is a super cool sinking ship financialy speaking. i think sony and facebook are going to make it rain untill thier bank accounts cry and everyone involved will loose alot of money on this in the end. ninty should avoid this one.

There are plwnty of limitations on VR that will cause problems with a lot of games. VR will not take over, and peraonally I don't see it getting any bigger than the Micro-Console fad

@skywake ah okay I see what you're getting at. I knew the screen was in no way good enough being magnified. The rift at 720p has enough of a screen grid as is. I can't even imagine 480p.

@SCAR392 The high persistence doesn't usually matter as the screen isn't the only thing being processed by your brain. You still have the surrounding room and objects staying in place. When you have the headset on you want a low persistence. With the headset on, all your brain is processing is whats on screen and if it doesn't move as fluidly as it does in a normal reality you will get nauseous. With the current Oculus Dev kit that's out I still get nauseous from time to time. That's also why you tend to want at least 60FPS when using a VR headset. Correct me if any of my information is wrong.

Overall I think it will be a tougher sell as they are currently selling it separately. I think what will ultimately decide its fate is the selling price. Although if a company releases it with every console then it will take off. Imagine if Xbox had a VR headset with every console instead of a kinect. A Virtual Reality headset is a much better selling point in my opinion.

I'm honestly surprised these sets aren't wireless, to begin with. Considering you're turning your head to look around, I would imagine wires are are going to be a pain.

@astroshamu
So the content is 60FPS, but they only show you 30 of the 60FPS?

I just saw your edit... If you want VR, you still need a camera. Just imagine wearing the VR headset, and using Move with the PS Camera. All those things are part of the same idea. You can't really say one of them is more important than the other, because then that contradicts the whole thing.

@SCAR392 I'd imagine wireless would have too much of a delay, which would again cause motion sickness. Personally I haven't found the wire annoying. It tends to be guided out of the way by some attachments on the headset.
*Edit: I get what your saying along the lines of the Move and Kinect. Though those are still optional controllers. You can have one without the other if you had to choose I would choose just having the Headset over just having the motion based Controllers

@astroshamu
Dude, if lower persistence is required, that means you aren't seeing 60FPS. If the PC is running VR content at 60FPS, but the persistence is lower, the actual amount of frames being shown is lower than 60FPS.
If what skywake says is true, only 30FPS are being shown, but the rate at which they are showing them is 60FPS.

You can't even use Move w/o the PS Eye, so ok... I agree they're optional, but why even move around with the headset, if you don't want to move your hands and use the camera for additional tracking? It literally a contradiction if you don't realize how important those aspects can be to a VR "experience".

That's basically what I was saying. It's kind of like Art of Balance for Wii U. The physics run at 240hz, but the visuals run at 60hz(presumably):
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/02/exclusive_shinen_mul...
Detail on the last bullet point.

Is the GamePad strapped to your head? Can you still make sense of your surroundings? Is it like you're in the game or does it feel more like you're looking at a screen that's a couple of feet infront of your face?

We're talking about a signal that would be sent with minimal compression with very low input lag. We're not talking about a movie you download from iTunes and you then buffer for two seconds to make sure playback is smooth. We're talking about an image being rendered and having to be displayed on the screen within milliseconds or it's too late.

Unless you're putting money into a very high end (read: $200+) wireless radio there's no way to get that sort of performance. We've seen the sort of range/performance the Wii U gets with 480p, it's good but just pause for a second and look at the dirt on the ground while playing F-Zero. That's with a fairly decent radio. You expect to be able to pump that upto 1080p, 5x the number of pixels, AND get an image with less compression artefacts? You're dreaming.

This doesn't deserve a response

@skywake
Meh. I'd have to see the feed to the display, myself. What about wireless HDMI?

Give this mega expensive, $100 tablet a reason to actually exist first... They have Miyamoto working on it, and there's a strong chance EAD Tokyo Group 1 are working on something....I don't think Nintendo have packed their bags yet...but who know's what they're doing, and what will come of NFC and the 2nd screen tech they have??

Virtual reality, like motion control gaming before it, is a gimmick....Nintendo in the current home console generation, needs to provide exciting and new gameplay with the gamepad at the 'core' of the experience. The Wii U will never reach anywhere near the popularity of the wii, but we haven't even seen what they plan to do with the gamepad to introduce fun and unique gameplay. We will have a clearer picture in the next 3-6 months of what Nintendo plan to do with the gamepad. Whether it's a game changer or not is another matter.

I suspect, there's every chance what Nintendo shows off proves to be very exciting and unique, but it will still potentially be ignored by the broader population, because their tastes are fickle, and swing with the prevailing winds. Also, Nintendo's advertising and messaging is somewhere between awful and non-existent. They have seriously been their own worst enemy. Who know's just who the Wii U is meant for??? I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Is a set of competing standards. The most impressive ones are in the 60Ghz band which basically requires line of sight. Think about it, the first HDMI spec was a cable that supported ~5Gbps and only allowed 1080p at 60Hz plus audio. The nicest WiFi access points right now can do ~400Mbps. Quite a bit of a gap there......

Anyways, you're talking about getting the Wii U GamePad to do this job. Those guys build these headsets with the intent of doing VR specifically without the hassle of having to worry about display bandwidth. Keep dreaming.

@skywake
I wasn't saying the GamePad could specifically work as a headset, with 3D and a higher resolution. I was mainly looking at how these VR headsets are working, how the GamePad is working, and trying to figure out a better situation for the headset. How far is the wired cable going to get you, anyway? If you need to be within the line of sight of a wireless HDMI transmitter, I don't see how it would be any more of a hassle than it already would be, if not less. I wasn't even considering cost.

I guess we'll have to see how this goes. In a market where cosumers haven't even accepted 3D content as standard(besides the 3DS), I don't really see how this would fair any better.

Nintendo was the first with VR with the Virtual Boy. it didn't work out. They moved on.

hmmm

Could've fooled me

Wireless could work but it's not going to be easy if you want to keep the quality up. It's not a matter of just throwing a 5Ghz adapter on the thing and calling it a day but it can be done. For the time being though these VR experiences as they will be sold have you sitting down on a chair with a HDMI and power cable running to a PC. The ultimate solution will probably have the rendering done on a module strapped to you somewhere. In terms of the way tech is moving that's easier to do at the quality they want than wireless transmission.

@skywake
I was saying the GamePad can do VR, as is, considering it isn't strapped to your face, but if your idea of VR is having a headset, then ya. All they would to do is map the head movements to the 9-axis in the GamePad, That's why I brought up Panorama view, and Wii Street U. In Wii Street U, specifically, you hold the GamePad and move that in whatever direction you want to look. Add in the Wii Balance Board for in game walking, and you have a form of VR.

This is why I've been saying that people underestimating/undermining motion controls and 3D, have been contradicting their own wishes by accepting these headsets, because it still incorporates the same technology.