Nintendo Reiterates That It's Not Interested In Virtual Reality Or 4K Support

They have a point at least. I think VR is great but it's just not at the level worth taking the risk.

Well yeah VR is a 'gimmick' and 4K has a very short shelf-life given that they're developing 8K... so it's all largely pointless (and to us PC users just a resolution). Ninty just gotta keep doing their own thing, it's what they've always done.

In my opinion, PS VR = Nightmare.(Imagine .Hack Anime, the player died by playing Virtual Online Games)
4K = Not Important Matters.
I'm enough with HD 1080p.
No need 4K, 120 Hz.

"Where are 4K TVs now?"

Um, everywhere. My in laws just bought a 55" 4K HDR set with Roku built in for $350.

Nothing new here from Nintendo, though. They showed similar signs of arrogance during the Wii era. We all know how that turned out once that fad fizzled out.

I think the key part of that is how much smaller they are than the other companies, so don't really have as much playroom for expensive tests like that.

If anything though, I see their technological "limitations" as a positive since it makes them think more creatively to stand out.

@gatorboi352 Yes 4K TVs are cheaper but content is still relatively limited. Nintendo has a good point that its not really smart to invest in something that has not yet seen mainstream adoption

@gatorboi352 To be fair though, this time the switch has the advantage of being portable - a department that Nintendo has always dominated regardless of specs

@gatorboi352 I think Nintendo is and will keep doing just fine haha. As long as they don't repeat another Wii U. Also what Minfinity just said for sure.

Personally, I could give too craps. I’ll take a good quality Nintendo game over a rubbish glorified tech demo.
I really don’t think it’s worth it for them to invest in even if there’s a certain crowd who needs to justify that new capable TV purchase. Also, too many wires with VR!

its a shame ... for me we own more than 5 4K tv's in the house ! i use mine for my ps4 pro and im enjoying it so far ... when i play my switch docked on my 4k TV i can see how low graphics is the switch comparing to ps4 or xbox and I can see small pixels TBH ... even on handheld some games are only 600p only ! which makes me happy playing DOOM on my ps4 and finished already no need to play again on my switch

anyway im happy with my switch as handheld more than enough but Docked NO !

nintendo always are step behind when its comes to new technology for examples WII used AV instead of HDMI like ps3 or xbox 360 ...

1more thing ... i bought PS VR on launch used it few times only ... and didn't touch it for a while now ... too much wires !! and not comfortable so yes i don't care about VR now but would be nice as extra

The difference in the user's experience between 1080p and 4K is negligible. The only folks who'll really notice a difference are serious First Person Shooter gamers, and they're hardly in the majority. However, the difference in processing power needed (and therefore cost to the user) is massive, and not really justifiable. I think Nintendo are right to use existing, affordable, mass-producible tech and get their games into more people's hands. Using Doom as an example, sure you notice a downgrade in visual clarity and framerate from PS4 and XBOX, but after 10 minutes you don't even notice. The thing you do notice is being able to PLAY DOOM IN BED! User experience trumps resolution/framerate any day of the week. I'm sticking with Nintendo on this.

Nintendo is halfway there on VR because the Switch does not need to be tethered, and the good headsets that rely on a slide in device (i.e. Google Cardboard) can be found for under $30.

So calling it now: The inevitable Switch Mini with have a VR application.

Funny the Switch would be the best vr on the market considering the joy cons great tech, that it could slide into a headset and all of it would be wire free........but I think they are right to avoid VR considering many people can't handle it without motion sickness.

4K is different, they will have to keep up on some level but $500 machines still struggle with it and consistent frame rates so I understand the apprehension of Nintendo of pushing into biggest fastest best tech

It was a weird question in the first place. Even if they said "yes, we want to do 4K", then it wouldn't be until Switches predecessor. By which time 4K will be cheaper and more accessible to casual users. Before then it was never realistic. Exact same situation as Wii was in when HD TVs were coming around.

@gatorboi352

"Furthermore, CTA’s research analysis shows 16 per cent of US households now own a 4K TV – up nine percentage points YOY – and 11 per cent of US households plan to purchase a 4K TV in the coming year. CTA’s 19th Annual Consumer Technology Ownership and Market Potential Study also shows"

It's better to provide sources rather than pulling facts out of thin air. Not sure what the current number is, but this was back in May. The reasoning Nintendo gave was it's not adopted by the majority, in which case it clearly isn't. 4K tv's are irrelevant anyways, if the Xbox One X can't supply a decent 4k experience what is Nintendo going to do.

@gatorboi352 Yes, we all know how that turned out.....a massive, massive success for Nintendo. :-/

But isn't the point he's making that a 4K Switch isn't feasible right now and the form factor is much more important that the resolution?

I think the Sales figures support his argument.

And as far as fad goes - Wii levels of success for the Switch would be incredibly impressive. Add to that - it's highly unlikely that it'll suffer the same interest drop off from gamers as they're investing everything they have in the software for the platform.

People will insist that their games need to be in 4K up to a point - until they can't resist buying a Switch because everyone else is having so much fun with theirs!

@Fake-E-Lee That's for the same reason I love my Switch !
I'm exactly on the same way of life/play than your.

To put that last point about HDTVs in the Wii era into perspective. If you look up the stats at this stage in the Wii's life about 1 in 5 US households had at least one HDTV. The newest stats I can find have UHD TVs sitting at ~ 1 in 6. So it's very much the same story. In theory it should matter as much for Switch as it (eventually) did for the Wii except it won't because the jump to 4K isn't as impactfull.

For VR I'm personally yet to be convinced that it's much more than an expensive gimmick. A gimmick that is fundamentally just a different kind of display. And when you look at it in those terms? It has a significantly smaller penetration rate than even UHD.

I just want them to invest in stronger home console hardware, then they can add whatever fancy gimmick they want. If their best games are too demanding to run at 1080p and a stable 30/60fps then they should look into better hardware. Portable devices have understandable limitations but that doesn't excuse home platforms.

@gatorboi352
"Nothing new here from Nintendo, though. They showed similar signs of arrogance during the Wii era. We all know how that turned out once that fad fizzled out."

You are Arrogant here as usual.
Surrender !
Switch will take over your arrogance !

I haven't made the jump to 4K yet, and likely won't anytime soon, so this isn't a big deal to me. VR is a fleeting curiosity at best until software is created that encourages me to go over to it.

This news shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Nintendo made it clear when they announced the Switch last year that 4K and VR weren't priorities for them, that 4K would push the cost of the system higher than where they wanted it, and that they were merely experimenting with VR. Based on early sales of the Switch, it's hard to argue against Nintendo's philosophy.

I have no interest in VR....yet. It'll be viable one day, but that's about a decade away.
I own a 4k HDR TV. Switch looks great on it btw.
My family bought my brother an Xbox One X for christmas, while he was visiting me we hooked it up over xmas break and played several 4K enhanced games and watched Planet Earth 2 on Ultra HD bluray. Overall, I was disappointed. 4K is about 3% better in resolution compared to 1080p. But the colors and light levels you say, well, you wouldn't notice the difference between 1080p and 4K unless someone told you there was one. The Switch is a great form factor, it's better than the 360 or wii u, and comes close enough to PS4 and Xbox One. This is not the difference of gameboy and a Sega Genesis. This is more like PS2 vs gamecube, except it weighs a pound, can go anywhere, and has some of the best games ever made.
The next Nintendo console will be 4K because 5 years from now tech snobs will turn their noses up on anything that isn't 10K, but I'm still not going to notice much of a difference.
Also: graphical style and prettiness is important, but you can get those without cutting edge graphics: look at BoTW.
-from a guy who thought the NES was just fine for arcade ports aka gameplay, gameplay, gameplay.

@gatorboi352 Delivering 4k content takes a lot of power which is something has not gone well for Nintendo when they compete in power.

I don't always agree with a lot of Nintendo's business decisions, but when it comes to this, I do agree that there's not a strong need to immediately jump into the 4K/VR arena right now. Maybe in a few years it will be a much different story. I think Nintendo should be working on boosting the tablet component of the Switch to display 1080p let alone 4K resolution on their next Switch iteration.

I still don't get why people think 4K gaming is important. My gaming rig uses a 1440p monitor at a much closer range than my TV, and I can't imagine jumping up any further. People are way too obsessed over a number. I'd be way more interested in the Xbox X if it actually was being used to stablize frame rates in games, or to allow for better AIs, or more complex geometry, or any number of things that are actually impactful.

I have a new 4K set, but at normal viewing distances there's no discernable difference from my 1080P set. All "good" TVs are 4K now and that's why they sell; not so much because of the fantastic resolution (unless you are buying 80" or up), but because they are just the new standard. If the picture at normal viewing distances looks better on a 4K, it is more likely due to factors other than resolution (color, HDR, etc.). I never pay extra for 4K streaming or DVDs since at normal viewing distances, I just can't see any meaningful difference. So I'm with Nintendo on this one. I don't want to pay a significantly higher price for a Switch to get 4K resolutions when the benefit would be so marginal. As far as VR goes, that's my other hobby. I have a fully decked-out PC with an HTC Vive and roomscale tracking (at least $3000 in gear). To do VR right (i.e. more than just a novelty), its expensive and even with this equipment enthusiasts complain about low resolution and pine for the next generation. This is not Nintendo's space at all right now and I don't want them in it. If they want to make a simple "VR" viewer for the Switch in support of some novelty games (maybe a Virtual Boy collection), then fine; but I don't see it making any sense at all for Nintendo to compete seriously in this space for some time (though I would recommend their R&D department to keep on top of developments there for the day when it suddenly does make sense--which may end up being sooner than expected).

They're right on both .
VR is too awkward at the moment . Frankly works pretty well on smartphones (not well enough) but the whole setup for games is obviously ridiculous at this point .
4Ks is also ridiculous. Yeah people might be buying those now but when you can't watch TV channels in that resolution it means it is way behind. And is it even worth it. Internationally, some TV channels are actually still in SD. Millions of current TVs at houses everywhere are only 720p. Bull at the moment.

@Minfinity actually Nintendo has a market cap bigger than Sony's… not just Sony's games division, the entirety of Sony, Nintendo is worth more than the entirety of Sony. So while sure, Microsoft is larger, I'm not sure where they're getting this idea that they're the "little guy" from, just because they had a bad generation with the Wii U.

@The_Mysteron "User experience trumps resolution/framerate any day of the week. I'm sticking with Nintendo on this."

Erm Framerate does effect user experience. If you have an unstable framerate then ya it does affect the experience. Framerate also affects other things when playing a game, e.g button input delay. A lower framerate means a slower input for the game to register.

@gatorboi352 But VR already fizzled out, tho.

And this year we'll see even less stellar games than last year. And last year it was basically Resident Evil 7 just for one VR platform (thanks to Sony moneyhattin' that game).

@Kalmaro

This. They need to focus on Switch being a big hit after the flop of Wii U.

VR would’ve been a poor investment for Switch.

I don't care about VR or 4K resolution.

Gimme good games!

@Savino That's different. Motion controls and touch screens were part of their products. 4K is dependent on adoption of a product they don't create and have no control over.

We're nearing the point where resolution ceases to sell tech.

Sure, I'll most likely own a 4K TV in the next 4 years, but someone will have to sell me better eyes to get me to want to upgrade any further.

And sure, you need better res for the flashy new cinema screen TV's that are all the rage. But I don't want my living room dominated by a TV. I might go a bit bigger than my current 32 inch next time but from my sofa there will be no point in retina bleeding resolution.

I'm guessing that's why VR is being pushed so hard - tech companies looking for the next revolution. And if that's the case it's likely just a soon to be obsolete stop gap for a much more user friendly and exciting tech innovation that's being developed in a lab somewhere.

The upshot is they're going to need to invent a new number or acronym to shell us stuff we don't need.

4K adoption has been premature and silly. The vast majority of Hollywood busters are finished at 2K let alone 4K and people are already talking about 8K. Please.

8K TVs will be available far too prematurely, and broadcasters are relucant to embrace HD in Australia as it is (a lot of current and success programmes are still being shot and finished in SD!), with very few options for HD viewing on free-to-air TV (at bitrates so low that the quality difference is negligible).

I shoot in cinema 4K for prosperity, but with Blu-ray being shafted in favour of streaming and crappy quality DVDs, alas, I fear that enthusiasts will never be able to get their hands on UHD Blu-ray burners and blank discs at this point.

As a delivery medium, Blu-ray is still leaps and bounds ahead of the alternatives (and a hell of a lot cheaper too).

VR and 4K are both incredibly resource-heavy and require expensive and powerful hardware. I don't think investing in either of these are a good idea for Nintendo. They can make hardware versatility their "thing": it plays to their strengths as a company and is proving to be very popular so far. There's no reason for all of the current Big Three to be doing the exact same thing.

@Savino "Is it a good idea to invest in a technology before consumers do?"

Not only did that jump out at me, but I really feel like he contradicted himself in just the next paragraph -

"If we do the exact same thing than everyone else, we’re bound to die"

So, it's not good to go 4k b/c no one is there yet, but it's not good to do 1080p like everyone else b/c then they'll die?

Switch doesn't need to do 4k, neither will New Switch in a couple of years, but Switch 2 will, otherwise it will get zero ports from PS5 and X1X2 which will be built for 4k games.

And no, VR isn't worth it right now, though they seem to be enjoying Pokemon Go's AR, but the Switch is built w/ VR in mind, so New Switch Mini in 3 years could have an optional VR headset.

All of these companies are always looking into everything, that's what they have R&D departments for. Anybody remember when NL was awash in patents?

I'm fine with this, these are fads I'm glad Nintendo are bypassing. VR is cool, but unnecessary, and 4K should stay with PC with how hard it is to achieve.

I'm personally mostly happy Nintendo is NOT doing VR. Having tried VR a couple of times, I just feel way, way too disconnected from my actual surroundings (especially when also wearing headphones) and am constantly also just afraid of hitting something or someone by accident.

As for 4k, yeah, barely anyone even has a 4k television yet. And either way I couldn't care less if they didn't start doing 4k until the Switch's successor, or the Switch's successor's successor.

"If we do the exact same thing than everyone else, we’re bound to die because we are smaller than them."

I've said this to many people time and time again. All the people who clamor for Nintendo to make a so-called "real" console that has the same power specs as the competitors at the cost of their advantage with portability simply don't want Nintendo to succeed. When Nintendo chases hardware power and tries to be just like their competitors, they lose.

There's a big difference between owning a 4K TV, and sitting close enough to perceive the difference between 1080P and 4K. Most games aren't even using full 1080P and y'all often cry how a Switch/PS3/Xbone game that is just 900P or 720P is "perfectly acceptable". Wake me up when all games are 1080P then maybe I'll start caring that Nintendo isn't doing 4K.

So yeah, I'm cool with Nintendo not chasing the 4K gimmick. They're not trying to get everyone to replace their perfectly-fine 1080P TV like the TV manufacturers are... guess who's championing 4K? 3D, curved screens, 4K... it's all been pushed for the same reason.

Yeah that seems like a pretty obvious statement. We would have heard about VR if the Switch was capable. The 4K thing does really remind me of what happened with the Wii. By 2009 it was pretty commonplace to have an HD tv, and Nintendo fell behind really fast. Now granted, the step from SD to HD was a huge leap compared to 1080p to 4K, but still, if the masses embrace 4K, as they did with 1080p back in the day, Nintendo will be a step behind once again. It's just with the Switch, I'm not so sure it really matters cause the big selling point is the ability to play on the go. Just some food for thought to show Nintendo doesn't change the way they approach advancing tech.

Nintendo doing VR would be just a waste of money. Honestly, the Vive is a great piece of hardware but most of the games feel like demo's instead of actually being a game. It's fun and all, but just too expensive. Plus, it's not relaxing at all. Most of the times I just want to lie in bed, pick up a controller and play.

I don't own a 4K TV yet (maybe in the future), but Breath of the Wild looks beautiful without.

Switch looks great on my 480i 😁

No need for 4K yet. Even the PS4 doesn't need 4K and some AAA games look fantastic already.

Heck, I'd wager not even 50% of the big games on the PS4 and XBOX1 make full use of 1080p resolution, much less 4K!

And I doubt a majority of the Nindies--currently the Switch's bread and butter source for games--care about 4K.

My phone has the capability to render 4K resolution, but almost none of the apps (and movies on my device) are 4K, so it's a relatively useless function on my phone.

At the moment, 4K is an expensive gimmick for tech-hungry people (both gamers and developers). I'm sure down the line it'll be cheaper and standard, and only then will it be worth investing in for Nintendo.

Gameplay>all else. I’d argue the reason the 3DS had early struggles and the WiiU failed were their central gimmicks didn’t add enough to the gameplay experience. Similarly, there isn’t YET a strong enough case for 4K or VR adding enough to the gameplay experience VS cost to consumer. Touch screen input and motion were built cheaply into the DS and Wii hardware and so captured the imagination of the public. Same with the Switch concept.

@gatorboi352 He didn't refer to the locations of 4K TVs. I believe that he meant the market share of 4K TVs.

@MoonKnight7 My phone is VR capable.

And unless I'm in a hurry to play a VR game (99.9% of the times a tech demo not named Resident Evil 7), I'm not interested in playing dat.

VR is at this point a pointless gimmick.

Maybe in a few years (decades) it will be a good gaming option.

Honestly, even if Nintendo doesn't adopt it, I wouldn't be too shocked if we saw a 3rd party company release a VR game on the Switch down the road. A cheap plastic headset to hold the Switch to your face is really the only accesory you would need. The dual display can be done through the games programing itself, and a joycon in both hands is way more convenient that the PSVR controller wands. And with HD rumble as an option, I can see it being pretty interesting, even with a 720p resolution. Heck, this could even be done as a port of a 3DS game.

@MoonKnight7

You answered your own question. SD looked very bad, always. They used gimmicks to make it appear acceptable.

HD looks very good. 4k looks very good.

The point being there is literally next to zero advantage.
What determines market trends is how the average consumer reacts and advertising.
The average consumer see's comparisons of HD and 4k and are like hmmmmm... looks similar? But SD to HD, WOWOWOWOW TAKE MY MONEY!!!

Yup. 1080p was a technical improvement over 720p that visibly improved resolution at the sizes that screens were increasing to at the time (50 or 60 inches), whereas 4K functions more as a specification than something that addresses a practical need. For folks buying 100" televisions, 4K is important. Where it is becoming even more important is in VR where 4K per-eye at 90fps will ultimately be needed to ensure that pixels are rendered small enough not to be clearly visible (as they are in todays HD VR displays). But for ordinary TVs up to about 60", 4K of resolution is technicaly over-spec'ed for most use cases, so unless you game from 2 feet in front of your 50" television (which I'm sure some do), the added resolutin provides litttle practical benefit.

I don't agree with the 4k deal. The VR stuff, i can agree with. I believe they're making the same mistake they did when Sony and Microsoft jumped to 720p and 1080p, leaving Nintendo in the dust at 480i and 480p. Anyone that's been keeping up with Ninty recalls the issues they admitted to having jumping into HD and the resources required for the Wii U. If they learned ANYTHING from their past, they should at least play around with it so it doesn't surprise them like SD to HD did.

I agree for the most part. 4K is still very limited. Way too soon to explore in products. Most they'd do right now is eye-ball what they'd need under the hood to do it.
VR's a different matter. The tech isn't quite there (though a more powerful Switch would be the cleanest way to implement it) and it's place in the market isn't exactly the next sure thing in game media.

Interesting read. I'll say this much-- 4K will insert itself more and more over the next couple years, so I hope by that time, perhaps Nintendo will release a new iteration Switch that's faster, with more memory, more power, and capable of running 4K TV/1080p handheld... or at least "consider" the notion. Technology-time moves very swift.

I want Nintendo to keep doing what they do. My PS4 collects dust because I don’t have time to sit in front of a tv for hours to game. But my switch( and 3ds before )gets used daily, throughout the day, and adds up to a couple hours. I am on lunch break playing rocket league on my switch. Better then thinking about playing ps4.

I don't think the comparison from the SD-to-HD-jump to the HD-to-UltraHD-jump is quite apt. The jaw-dropping difference - at least from my perspective - is just not there, and that's even if you are focused on 'proper' 4K/HDR content. Honestly, HDR makes more of a difference than 4K, but at the same time, support for it seems to be even more fishy for the time being, with different standards and different TV-technologies being used to varying effect.

I'm glad Nintendo is not chasing these trend, but I'm equally glad they finally managed to jump unto the HD train for good - even as far as portable gaming is concerend. The Wii was a real tragedy in this regard. Alot of great art direction in games like Xenoblade was wasted on low-res assets and rendering ... truly a shame. Basically, you were doing yourself no favors at all, if you chose to NOT play it using dolphin. Same pretty goes for the 3DS, although at least in that case, there were benefits to the equatin, like broad support from developers, who were not yet willing or able to invest into HD development for their (niche) titles. The 3D effect of 3DS would have really, really benefited from a higher resolution though ....

Speaking of which, this makes it kinda odd to hear Nintendo talk like that. I mean their 3D tech wasn't ready for prime-time until the N3DS hit (with that incredible narrow view angle for proper a proper 3D effect on the original 3DS), yet they went ahead with it.

Still, I think they are right on the money certainly as far as 4K is concerend. It might be quite possible the tech of the future (although I find AR to be a lot more compelling in generel, but whatever), but for the time being, it's not going to be the next-big-thing many of it's supporters make it out to be.

It's too expensive, it's too inconvient and in it's own way to anti-social, plus the killer apps are few and far between, even now that we are a couple of years into the hype.

Having said all tht, it is inevitable that 4K/HDR will in the long run do away with traditional HD content. Prices will come down more and more, content will be come more readily available, standards will unify and implementations will be harmonized.

No doubt about the PS5 and XboXOne2 will also help push 4K further and further into the mainstream, and games will look more spectuclar with good HDR implementation becoming more and more common place. This is not going to happen over night, I mean hell, people are still buying DVDs from what I can tell, so even as far as that is concerend, there is plenty of time for Nintendo to think about if and when they will be do anything with 4K/HDR.

that's all just marketing speak. of course they're researching 4K/HDR/VR/new things no one's ever heard about. and if/when they come up with a concept that different from and better compared to competitors they will release it.

I think there is a good point here overall which is that what the Switch is trying to do doesnt need 4k or VR. It is its own thing.

If they were going for a pure home console and they weren't future proofing it then it might be another matter. VR is genuinely great but this first iteration is really a niche product, just like HD tv's and 4k tv's were at launch. 4k gaming is also great but, again, really in its infancy for adoption.

I think Nintendo would do well to keep VR in their focus.
The technology has already advanced to a mass-compatible state as I've seen several times now. It's easy to pick up and use for people who have never played any games. That's exactly up Nintendo's alley.
And the Joycons (their shape, motion controls, HD rumble, IR sensors) are perfect for this.

The only thing keeping VR from being a mainstream product right now is the prize; it's not the VR headsets themselves.

Nintendo wouldn't even have to do much, they'd only need to release something like Google Daydream - a really affordable device - for the Switch and develop great first party games for it as always.
If they'd do that Nintendo could actually become the driving force behind making VR mainstream.

@gatorboi352 It's not arrogance, the Switch just came out, it's a portable console, it's not that powerful, and VR needs even more power than 4k. 4k is not a $30 off and on switch that can simply be flipped and like magic a system has 4k and VR support at the same quality graphics.

@Nintendoforlife

It may not be adopted by the majority of people in the US, but what about the majority of gamers? It seems to me that someone willing to spend $300+ on a console is much more likely to have upgraded their TV already. I mean if the Switch sells 100 million that's like a global attach rate of 1%. So they shouldn't have bothered with it right?

It's the wrong question though. The question should be can Nintendo make a product that would make money in that market. Lots of companies do well in Niche markets.

@bluedogrulez I've had the same thought about a slide in headset for a future switch product. Here's the problem. My phone has a 2k screen and I use Google daydream. VR gaming is still very limited and the graphics are poor. Nintendo would at a minimum need a 2k screen, but it's just not possible at this time to make the accompanying processing muscle to make such a device affordable. My phone is the cheapest device for a bare minimum experience and it cost me $400 and that's without the $80-$100 it cost for the Google Daydream.

In the "real" VR world (HTC Vive/Oculus Rift) just the graphics card needed to push the desired 90fps per HD display in the HMD can cost twice the price of a Switch. Lower-end "VR" is a cool novelty and PSVR isn't too bad for what it is, but unless you've tried something like Space Pirate Trainer on a high-end roomscale system, you haven't really experienced VR's real potential. Nintendo is successful right now because affordable hardware was available for them to nail the console/handheld thing and are producing great games. The hardware needed for Nintendo to nail VR wouldn't be remotely affordable to anyone who buys Nintendo right now. In a few years maybe, but definitely not now.

Well said.

If a 3rd party or indie developer produced a slot in headset, and VR game for the switch who would buy that? I would be intrigued. In theory it seems a very simple idea, I'm sure it's not, maybe someone will try it.

It's funny how I agree with Nintendo but their hypocrisy is obvious. I think VR gaming is still too early and hasn't been adapted fully yet and I guess after the Wii U era, they're scared if their version of VR won't be selling well. Either way, I'm glad that they're just focusing solely on games.

A silly move imo, but with Switch selling so well, it would be hard to convince Nintendo of that. I mean, I don't expect it should release a VR headset in the VR near future, but it really should be taking it a lot more seriously as far as I'm concerned. VR is basically the most important new entertainment platform/media in decades--there's not been something so paradigm-shifting happen in gaming since it first went 3D back the PlayStation/N64/Saturn ers (well, I guess the whole smartphone thing)--and not at least understanding that already seems a bit blinkered and short-sighted to me.

It really all comes down to one thing; Money.

If the technology is likely to impact returns, then Nintendo has no interest in it. The Wii was an SD machine but it meant that they could manufacture it cheaply and thus they raked in the coins by the Tanker.

Now, many people seem happy enough with regular HD fidelity as they either don’t care or have another platform to scratch that itch.

VR sounds fun but I have yet to be convinced to drop £300 on an accessory. As for 4K, if it had been possible but increased the Switch’s cost to £400-£500 then frankly I’m glad they stuck to regular HD.

@Savino
I don't think you get it. For Nintendo it's about coming up with new tech that can be available to the mass without big entry barriers. The Wii didn't require anything but a TV (of any kind) to play.
VR is a different story. I think the only reason they're not interested in that tech at the moment it's because it's only available to enthusiasts. In a few years, I'm sure they'll get on board. VR needs Nintendo!

@rjejr I think you are misunderstanding something there.
"Everyone else" are the other companys, Sony and Microsoft.
What they are doing (or trying to do) right now is making 4k compatible consoles, with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X.

So to correct the sentence you wrote:
"So, it's not good to go 4k b/c no one is there yet, and it's not good to do 4k like everyone else b/c then they'll die."

@cleveland124 Once again what's the point? You need more CPU power in the console otherwise the 4K quality is a waste of time. Take PUBG for example, while terribly optimized it only runs at 30 FPS at 4K rez on the Xbox. What is the point of a 4K console that runs games like crap at 4K?

@Ben_Rage_V2 @gildahl @Bod2019: Nintendo is all about gaming experience over technical specs, so my comment is not about Big N rivaling the Hive or using 2K screens. More like Bod2019 suggests, less expensive, basic but interesting into VR experiences (like Civil War VR, playable with Cardboard and an iPhone 5) I could see happening on a "Switch" device. Something like that could catch on amongst Nintendo gamers, especially younger ones, and totally create chaos in VR pricing.

People also forget that resolution is relative to screen size. A person could have a 4K TV that is under 40-inches; but they would only benefit from the extra resolution is they were sitting in a prime position (which would likely be too close to be realistic in a home).

My take as someone who has both PSVR and multiple 4k TV: VR is fantastic... In short bursts. Can't imagine playing vr for more than half an hour at a time but it is great tech and fun with the right experience.

With 4k there just isn't enough content at the moment. The content that is there is great but most won't even notice a difference unless they're side by side. Only reason we have 4k TVs is because we needed new sets last year and the 4k/hdr models were only slightly more expensive than the 1080 ones so why not.

All that said I don't want nintendo to really focus on either even though I enjoy both. There are plenty of options out there for people that it's important to but much rather have nintendo do their own thing,as they have at it seems to be working fine for them.

"Is it a good idea to invest in a technology before consumers do?"

Sorry, but this is a dumb stance. You have to invest in new technology so when it does go mainstream, you're in prime position to take advantage of the demand. Otherwise you'll be playing catch up and miss the boat.

4K and VR could be fads, however, neither are in decline at the moment. Both WILL get better and both WILL become more affordable. God help Nintendo if they become the standard.

@bluedogrulez I understood what you meant. I'm simply pointing out that it's impossible for Nintendo to create such a device that's affordable. You can't have VR with even reasonable graphics without a minimum of 1080p in each eye. Mathematically that means a single screen that slides into a headset would need to be, at minimum 2k, which is twice that of 1080p. Anything less than that would make the graphics look like SD or worse. Have you tried PSVR? I like it a lot, but graphically it's inbetween ps2 and ps3 and that's with 1080p in each eye. It's already hard enough to read text with 1080p in each eye. The switch has a 720p screen, literally 1/4 the resolution of what is minimally required. It's just not there yet.

@Nintendoforlife

"if the Xbox One X can't supply a decent 4k experience"

It's better to provide sources rather than pulling facts out of thin air.

@Anti-Matter I had a Switch for 6 weeks. Borrowed it from my brother. Played Odyssey, didn't really do much else with it. Have no desire to buy my own.

@GC-161 "But VR already fizzled out, tho."

This is simply not true. VR is bigger than ever right now.

(And I could not care less about VR)

@according to Forbes, Sony has 7 billion more on them. (32.8 vs 40.1).

@Savino its I can understand the 4k part (people need to invest in 4k sets), but VR is something the videogame companies make. Either way , they will eventually take on these things, for now I am enjoying my Switch.

@gatorboi352

"according to my online research, only 23 Xbox One X games (out of 100+ enhanced titles) have 60fps gameplay" - IGN

4k is everywhere, but then it’s Nintendo, it took them ages to release a console that supported HD. But with the Switch being a hybrid, 4k isn’t something that would be possible right now. I do wish the Switch supported HDR though, as that makes a bigger difference than going from 1080p to 4k.

I agree. It's not always a good idea to jump headfirst without thinking of the market and the future of the product as well. The Virtual Boy is a perfect example of that.

> This will naturally change over time - just as people shifted from SD to HD during the Wii era.

Not the same thing, at least if there's a shift it won't be for the same reasons. There was a huge difference between SD and HD, not so much with HD and HD-er. If most people end up getting a 4k TV, it's only because it's what the market is selling.

In my humble opinion, 4k TVs (not monitors) are kinda pointless, unless you are sitting closer to the TV than you should be based on its size (if you need to move your head to view the whole screen, you are too close).

Were it not for HDR which sadly is only available in 4k TVs, I'd have zero interest in getting a 4k TV.

@Savino "I dont even remember where my dock is anymore, "

How do you charge it?

That's a joke, I'm sure you just plug it in to charge it. It is also why I think there is a market for a $229 or $199 Switch w/o a dock.

I don't have to a PS4 Pro, but I really need to start playing H:ZD. I wanted to wait some time after I finished Zelda b/c I didn't want to keep comparing the two. Still no PSVR, maybe next Christmas.

I have a good 4K set but the reality is it doesn't make much difference, certainly when in motion. The problem we have is that any extra power these consoles now gain is immediately wasted in resolution increases and marginal texture improvements but we're still stuck largely at 30fps in many games. Thankfully Nintendo actually seem to avoid this more than most and release many 60 fps games these days. Now HDR is a much bigger game changer, when playing Horizon last year I couldn't believe the difference that made to the look of the game and that is one technology I hope to see them pursue

I'm not interested either. Expecially in VR because of two reasons: VR for the most part is intended for first person games and I hate first person perspective, and also I would feel anxious with a device that alter so much my perceptions of what I have around me. Games are good as long as they feel like games and I have complete control over them. VR is a little too much for my taste I think it could even give me panic attacks - no thanks.

Totally agree. Even more so that an affordable 4k solution for the Switch is pretty much impossible at this point. The majority aren`t even interested in 4k....they just upgrade to it because that`s what is being offered on the market. Personally, I couldn`t even care less. I`m still running with my two 1080p plasmas and have no plan to upgrade them any time soon.

As for VR....pfff....glad Nintendo isn`t wasting much of their time on that. Its a gimmick when it comes for gaming and will remain a niche market.

The PS4 Pro, PS VR, and Xbox One X have not sold well enough to convince me (or Nintendo, evidently) that 4K and VR are that big of a deal.

Grabs popcorn, waiting the butthurt graphics fanboys

@Kirgo Yeah, you may be right, "everyone else" is certainly open for interpretation. Doesn't really matter to me though what any corporate mouthpiece says, it's almost always lies or old info. They almost never have anything to gain from speaking the truth, so why should they? I mean, it's usually their #1 job to make the company look good, not bad.

I think it's interesting that VR has been hyped as the next big thing all the way back to the early 90's (Remember that one "Batman the Animated Series episode where Batman fought Riddler in a VR world?), yet only now is the technology finally starting to reach a feasible state for mass consumers.

They do not need to. Nintendo is pushing handheld gaming along.

SONY just moved 5.9 million PS4s in 5 weeks and 55.9 million pieces of software . SONY and Steam have the 3rd party support and the install base to push a novelty like VR right now.

I could see Nintendo supporting 4K or even 8K eventually, but I agree that for the time being that that particular avenue may not be worth putting a lot of energy into.

As for VR, that's more of a gimmicky trend that needs to come a long way technology-wise before I personally consider investing in it. It's rather niche right now, so Nintendo's decision doesn't surprise me.

@Tyranexx
If you've spent some time doing roomscale in a Vive or Rift, then I'm fine with this as an opinion. However, if you've only experienced "VR" in a phone-base gadget or even PSVR, then you really need to demo a high-end set before calling it gimmicky. I was underwhelmed with phone VR (which is gimmicky), but absolutely bowled over with roomscale. This is the real deal and is where the real excitement is in VR. Remember when you first tried a ViewMaster. That's phone VR. Remember when Flynn got sucked into the virtual world in Tron. That's roomscale VR.

How about a working on a system that can actually get to 1080p before talking about 4k.

I like Nintendo but their stubbornness to embrace new technology (their online multiplayer is still mediocre imo) is infuriating.

that's cool by me, I dont care about VR or 4K, both expensive and just not that much needed.

also, im fine with any amount of dumbing down it takes to get current gen games onto the switch because the switch version is still what i would buy. the race for highest-res graphics isnt what it used to be, we've kind of reached a point where its just not that important anymore. 720p 1080p 4k, meh, whatever, can i just have my game now? ill take it any way, its fine, seriously.

M. Lavoué has a point. Remember Sony’s foray into 3D television? Anyone remember anyone’s foray into 3D television? 🙄

I really can't be bothered to get a 4K TV right now. Glad Nintendo isn't charging us extra to include tech most of us don't care about.

@gatorboi352 Maybe not his point, but you can't provide a decent 4K experience without decent games.

@gatorboi352 Well I meant SW support has taken a hit in 2018.

VR needs "meaty" games ala Resident Evil 7.

I don't see more of that any time soon.

Another argument against 4K- These games on XBox One X are so freakin huge. 100 GB on average. I personally hope Nintendo stays far away from this....

@gatorboi352 ohh wait everyone!! His in laws bought a 4K TV!! That must mean everyone has one!!!

I don't have a 4k tv as it has no use for me since I don't watch many tv shows and movies and even if I did, 4k content in my country is basically nonexistent. I have a powerful pc that can handle 4k no problem and I play everything on the highest settings in 1080p and I'm ok with that. Oh, and VR is a gimmicky fad.

Well Nintendo found their money making market so there's no point in abandoning it and going with 4K or VR at this point. Besides 4K and VR are still at a stage where they could still falter.

@PorllM You mean successor. I agree it won’t be until future consoles when the tech is more reasonably priced. And it really doesn’t matter to Nintendo and their gamers anyway, they’ve always been behind when it comes to specs. It’s all about software for them, while providing a unique experience.

@gatorboi352 I've got a spare 350 where can I but this amazing deal?

For VR, that probably brings up bad memories for Nintendo with the Wii poisoning the well for hardcore gamers, so to speak.

As for 4K, the TVs and monitors aren't that expensive (Best Buy and Microcenter frequently have sales around here for $299 4K TVs), but it takes a lot of horsepower to achieve that kind of resolution. The Xbox One X doesn't reach that standard in most of the games on it at this point, so the PS4 Pro and Switch have no chance to get there. There's also not a lot of content available for that standard yet either. The Switch also has the unique portability factor that excuses them to a point, but they should be seriously considering whether they can invest in the hardware for 4K resolutions on their next console.

That's right Nintendo! I know you're reading this! Keep giving us the GAMESSSSSSZ. Thanks for Dark Souls btw!

This makes total sense. We have plenty of options for VR if we want it. Nintendo should continue to be the company that does something a bit different. If they do eventually get into VR; it would be with ideas unique to Nintendo and not simply a copycat of Oculus/HTC/PSVR with a different controller.

As for 4K; yeah at this time most people don't have a 4K TV/Monitor just yet. Not only that but honestly the difference from 1080p to 4K is more like the jump from 720 to 1080 at first glance. It is not like the feeling we got from standard to HD.

@Gerbwmu

This isn't true. The fact it could be head mounted and has wireless controllers isn't the issue. Maintaining 90fps is. In order for proper head-tracking and to avoid sickness, you need to maintain a constant 90fps. You can get away with some dips with ATW but no way the Switch can handle than. The graphics would have to be PS 2 level.

@EpicBadge

Eventually this will be the norm. 3D is the natural way we perceive the world. It's only a matter of time where the technology makes this a reality in all displays (without glasses).

Much in the same way self-driving cars will be the norm in probably 20 years.

@Savino I think the point was they don’t want to include technology ppl don’t already have and would have to buy separately. Yes, touch in DS and motion in WII were first(ish) to their kind. But they were included with the consoles. So it wasn’t like ”this thing COULD do motion controls IF you were to buy a motion controller and a transmitter”.
I think this gen would have done just fine without 4k and vr.

@Savino My Switch rig is a 2X4 piece of wood with a slot cut in it, a few holes drilled out, sitting inside a car DVD holder. I'll get you a pic later.

A way that Nintendo could approach VR in the near-term is not to produce a VR piece of hardware themselves, but rather regard existing VR systems as a special kind of television. They could use this approach to bring some kind of unique or crossover gaming experiences to existing VR platforms. For example, it is already possible to play the Switch in VR using a capture card on my PC, but only in 2D (as one would expect). Without too radical an investment, I would suppose that Nintendo could create a means by which even a present-day Swich could be plugged into a PC and by offloading to the PC's GPU, re-render their games in VR with enhanced presence.

@link3710 i think resolutions on graphichs are just like megapixels on camera-lenses. Make the numero higher and ppl instantly think it’s loads better.

I have a Switch and a PSVR and have to say the PSVR feels way more innovative. It's truly next gen

I totally agree with Nintendo. I don't care for VR. When 4K starts becoming the norm and we move on from 1080p, that's a different story.

@Nintendoforlife

BOTW runs 30 fps. Is that game garbage 900p? Should Nintendo have opted for the Switch to be 480p so it could hit 60 fps?

In 2 years they will absolutely need a 4k capable machine..but yea not right now

Real translation, we are way to scared to do VR, 4K because we would flop like we did with wii u, also please understand we are only just getting used to HD and we haven't a clue about online infrastructure, also please forgive us for the ridiculous voice app because we didn't know how to build it into the switch hardware, please understand

No VR is honestly a shame for me. It would be really cool to have VR modes for games like Metroid Prime 4, and Mario Kart.

imagine how cool pokemon vr would be though.

@gildahl: I'm not saying that VR, if handled correctly and developed way past the stage that it's currently at, will never be a viable gaming platform. I'll be honest when I say I've never seen a Rift or Vive demoed (I'd have to travel pretty far for that), but by gimmicky, then yes, I'm referring to phone VR and PSVR. Videos, obviously, don't do any of those true justice. My point is that the technology will need to be refined/improved/perfected (for one, I don't have the space for it), made more affordable, and have more developer support before the masses really pick it up.

@cleveland124 The point I'm making is it doesn't make sense to invest in those docks until 4K is closer to industry standard. Consumers are not clamoring for Mario Kart Deluxe in 4k, they just aren't. If you disagree with that, we'll just to agree to disagree.

PS. The vast majority of Nintendo first parties run at 60 FPS, in the case of Fire Emblem Warriors they even allowed you to lower the Rez for 60 FPS to be enabled. Nintendo places value in frame rate.

4k is pretty close to industry standard now for TVs and blu-rays.

I expect a 4k up-scaling dock by 2020, after there's a couple more years of buy-in for 4k TVs, but VR is probaby not on the docket after the travesty that was the Virtual Boy.

@Yorumi I've got a 65'' and I can definitely notice a difference from my older 1080p TV.

@marandahir
It also depends on your distance from the tv. Check this article: https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Good, VR is a gimmick that makes me feel nauseous. I have had a PSVR since it was introduced and I can count on hand the amount of times I have used it.

As for 4K, it is clearly the future but Nintendo is wise to not worry about it for now, it's more of a next gen thing.

@Wolfgabe The problem with 4K is that when it comes to gaming we are only now just barely getting able to make it work smoothly without costing an arm and a leg. Give it a few more years and we will probably see it become far easier, cheaper, and smoother. Especially considering how the Switch is a portable and we are barely able to make it work right with more expensive home consoles.

I think by the time Nintendo is ready to release a Switch replacement they should be able to make it capable of 4K without any issues.

@Nintendoforlife

I'm sure some people would line up for a 4K Switch the way some people lined up for the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. That wasn't my point though. It's stupid to say that Nintendo isn't looking into these things because there isn't enough market penetration. Because A, that's exactly what Nintendo does as an innovative company. And B, we all know that 4K is quickly becoming the standard and some Nintendo console will have 4K support. It's also likely VR won't go away and some Nintendo console will have VR.

Just say the PR thing, "We are really excited about the Switch and all the features it brings to the market." No elitist we are smarter than everyone wasting their time on 4K and VR BS. Nobody is saying Nintendo needs to release a 4K Switch tomorrow, but when they say things like this I get the feeling they still don't understand the market at all.

Also, if you like frame rates you should love the Xbox One X. Many games are giving you the option of solid frame rate 1080p rather than 4K.

@gatorboi352
Hah...!
Pity of you !
I bought Switch with my own money and i enjoy it with my first 10 Switch games.
I bought it on 24 Dec 2017.
You just still soooo Negative with Switch.
You refuse to admit the greatness of Switch despite there are still some flaws.

@quinnbad Market Cap is just a market cap - exactly that. It goes up and down. It's true that Nintendo has a larger market cap than Sony. That means that if you buy all the outstanding shares of Nintendo on the market you'd get more money because the stock is more valuable - it's a better investment. But it's not the only factor to determine what is larger and what is smaller.

Nintendo is much smaller than Sony in other senses - less assets, less divisions, less employees, less revenues, less actual business. The problem of Sony is that it was mismanaged, right? Compared to Nintendo at least. It got too big so the risks outweigh the assets, the public stock is not increasing like Nintendo, and its total market capitalization is therefore smaller, but Nintendo is 100% right that Sony is in fact larger.

You are right about Microsoft - both its market cap and in other areas it's bigger. Bigger ,slower to adapt, dumber but bigger.

4K is a little more debatable, still niche, but there's some adopters, but VR is a gimmick and sucks, so yeah, not worth it.

@dumedum that's a fair assessment and you're right, in terms of assets and capital, etc. Sony dwarfs Nintendo. However, the very fact that the company of Nintendo is worth more to investors and the global market than the physically bigger company of Sony is still noteworthy. I believe I read that currently the only division of Sony which is posting profits is the gaming division (it may have been something other than profits). Technically this should mean that Nintendo is in a much stronger position to experiment and in a stronger position to follow trends that may lead to nowhere, such as VR, since Sony needs to be conservative and risk averse in their only profitable division, gaming. Still, at the end of the day, Nintendo do as Nintendo does. I'm not bothered with VR since it seems like a total fad to me, like 3D was, and I don't plan on owning a 4K TV any time soon so…

@cleveland124
" That wasn't my point though. It's stupid to say that Nintendo isn't looking into these things because there isn't enough market penetration. Because A, that's exactly what Nintendo does as an innovative company. And B, we all know that 4K is quickly becoming the standard and some Nintendo console will have 4K support."

1. Nintendo is an innovative company that's correct, and everytime they do they bet on themselves it will be successful. With 4k you're betting a foreign technology will be successful that's the difference. Until they feel like 4k is something families, not just hardcore gamers but families find neccesary they aren't jumping in.

2. From my previous post: "The point I'm making is it doesn't make sense to invest in those docks until 4K is closer to industry standard." You claim in your above post, that once it becomes standard Nintendo will take part in 4k. And that's what I've been saying all along, so what's your point?

"Just say the PR thing, "We are really excited about the Switch and all the features it brings to the market." No elitist we are smarter than everyone wasting their time on 4K and VR BS. Nobody is saying Nintendo needs to release a 4K Switch tomorrow, but when they say things like this I get the feeling they still don't understand the market at all."

I don't see anything elitist about saying "4K isn't mainstream, and our competitors clearly have a head start in the space. So we see no reason to jump in disadvantaged, just to fight for a slice of a niche market." Neither do I see anything elitist about pointing out they're concern with VR, as in my opinion it's a gimmick that's about 5 years from being remotely viable.

"Also, if you like frame rates you should love the Xbox One X. Many games are giving you the option of solid frame rate 1080p rather than 4K."

And that's my exact point, why would you invest in something people are purposefully turning off because it decreases their enjoyment of your product?

I'm not too worried. Switch games still look excellent in 1080p. We didn't complain about Super Mario Galaxy's SD graphics ten years ago and I don't hear anyone complaining about Odyssey's today.

@SilentHunter382 You're right off course: an unstable framerate certainly affects your experience, but what I mean to say is that a solid 30fps compared to 60fps is not a deal breaker. After a while you don't notice. People are still playing four player Mario kart 64 and the framerate on that is atrocious.

@Savino those were both released in an "all-inclusive package".

@gildahl @Alikan

What you guys are saying about 4K is backed by scientific facts. Our eyes basically cannot process the difference between 1080p and 4K at even moderate distances. I think they said with a 60' 4K you have to sit at about 3.5ft to see the difference. Honestly its frame rate that matters over resolution. I would rather see 1080p 60fps become the standard before 4K.

Really things N said several years back imdicated they wanted a 'platform' like apple/droid where they could maintain compatibility and continuity. Switch offers that especially now with its wild early success. I expect a mini-portable only Switch to replace 3DS and they could also have a $150 mini home Switch. Switch 2.0 can support the existing Nivida TegraX2 and be fully BC so the mid gen upgrade is probably already designed.

Best thing is their market position is fairly secure. M$ is not gonna touch hybrid. $ony might want to but they lost their asses on Vita and what are they going to create that isn't a copy. They can't get drastically better hardware without a much higher price point and thermal and battery still remain constraints. The company best positioned to compete is Apple. Problem is they aren't Nintendo and have no real game devs, add to that their ecosystem won't support full price games so what will be published. Switch is in a great spot for a long time to come as long as they evolve the tech and why wouldn't they.

"With 4k you're betting a foreign technology will be successful that's the difference. " Nintendo didn't invent motion control. Nintendo didn't invent touch screens. Nintendo didn't invent portable devices. Heck the Switch is basically a Sheild2. Nintendo always bets on themselves with the ways they use foreign technologies.

"You claim in your above post, that once it becomes standard Nintendo will take part in 4k. And that's what I've been saying all along, so what's your point?" I've agreed that they'll do it but disagree with the way they said it. My point is it's dumb to condemn technology that will become standard. From a marketing position it just solidifies you as the cheap system.

"I don't see anything elitist about saying"
Customers expect games to graphically improve over time and you just told them you aren't interested in improving the graphical content of games. What does that accomplish for Nintendo? How does it sell the Switch? It doesn't and becomes fodder for websites like this. A PR answer about Switch features or nothing to announce is better because nobody can twist that into your company being cheap or inferior compared to competitors.

"And that's my exact point, why would you invest in something people are purposefully turning off because it decreases their enjoyment of your product?" Framerate improvements don't decrease the enjoyment of a product. And it gives the consumer the chance to pick what they enjoy more. It's simply options and in no way decreases enjoyment of a product. Again, if the Xbox One is terrible tech for gaming you might as well not own any console because the Switch has many compromises. The Xbox One X still has some. That's reality of technology. Just like the N64 was a great step towards 3D gaming, but terribly compromised because of the tech of the time. It doesn't mean the N64 was a terrible console though.

For real though, what difference does 4k make? I've seen 4k displays in stores, but they really don't look any better than 1080p, maybe I need to get my eyes checked because I don't get it.

Whilst I agree VR is not worth them investing in at the moment, 4k TV's are extremely affordable now and it does provide a huge improvement to image quality. The only reason they don't support it is because the hardware is not capable of 4k gaming which is understandable considering it's a 6" tablet. It's just their way of saying this fact without the normal consumer seeing them saying "our console isn't powerful enough to support 4k" which gives off a negative image.

At this point, I've lost all faith that VR will ever amount to anything more than a novelty.
Nintendo's probably looking back at the Virtual Boy and thinking, "Meh; been there, done that."

@gatorboi352 4K tvs Being this cheap might not be as common throughout the world and HD (720 or 1080) is. Nintendo is a global company, who’s gaming experiences push the envelope of the industry, just not the way Microsoft and Sony does. It’s not about numbers, it’s about fun.

@gatorboi352 I don't know anyone who owns a 4k tv. The majority of households do not. Nintendo is correct.

For me, ther eis no point in upgrading my tv to 4k, it doesnt really look much better than my 1080p tv, and certainly offers no value when it costs twice as much.

A $350 4ktv must be a real hunk of crap because you cant get them that cheap anywhere in Australia.

I totally agree on VR, its not fun except when done on a high end pc which is simply out of reach to most households, including mine.

The biggest issue with it, is that kid a puts on a $2000 head set attached to a $2500 pc and kid b sits there saying my turn my turn my turn. Not fun for anyone, least of all the parents. Nintendo knows this and they know how to make fun.

I don't know who Nintendo France is kidding, but 4K TVs are relatively cheap these days, and the market is flooded with them. It is hard to find a good quality TV that is NOT 4K.

4K and VR go hand in hand. You want higher resolutions than 1080p because the screen has to fit both the left eye and right eye image in the same amount of pixels. So essentially you're only seeing half of 1080p in each eye. And because you've got the screen so close to you're eyes, you're going to notice every pixel.
I've used a basic VR headset on my Samsung S7 which is 1440p. A good VR demo is still impressive, but I wouldn't want less resolution. I can already see the individual pixels.

EDIT: I still agree that Nintendo should not pursue either 4K or VR at this stage. Gaming on the Switch would be pathetic at 4K, and I don't think Nintendo should take a risk on VR until we see how popular/accessible it actually gets.

Nintendo got away with freaking 240p resolution on 3ds. All games were pixelated and blurred.So 720p or 1080p feels like heaven. The problem with Switch isn't that it can't deliver 4k, its that its much weaker than other 1080p consoles like PS4. And current level of VR is a gimmick that will never take off like 3d tv's were.

Totally misleading article title here. Nintendo is saying they will follow their own path to success. That’s not even close to saying “not interested in 4K or VR”.

Did NintendoLife fail to fully read what Nintendo said or something? NintendoLife’s totally misinformed article here seems to suggest this.

@Nintendoforlife fail.

I'm still convinced VR is a fad, as cool as it is.

Nintendo will probably get around to 4K with their next-gen console years from now. It's just a resolution upgrade, not unlike 480p to 720p in the mid-2000s.

I haven't experienced 4K gaming yet, so I really don't have an opinion on it. I do find it hilarious that after Sony and Microsoft were touting 4K gaming last year, Nintendo still made the better games that got a lot more awards and critical acclaim.

As for VR, still not sold tbh. I just wonder if it'll still be a thing in a few years when the game lineup and setup improves. Sony has an awful track record when it comes to supporting peripherals and even their last handheld.

VR will become mainstream when that movie "Ready Player One" launched in March.

We have yet to see Microsoft or Sony announce any ambitions to join the hybrid gaming system "bandwagon", despite the Switch's resounding success. Why is that? Because they have limited resources and different ambitions.

So if Microsoft and Sony won't do what Nintendo is doing despite the Switch being so successful, why would Nintendo do what Microsoft and Sony is doing when the PS4 Pro, XBO X, and the dedicated VR gaming headsets have been met with much more limited success? Because they have limited resources and different ambitions.

I'm sure Nintendo will make the jump to 4K someday as their future hardware naturally improves, not because they want to jump on the 4K bandwagon for marketing purposes.

In my opinion PSVR is the greatest innovation of this gen (Switch second).
It's hard to describe it to someone that's not tried it, but it really is just incredible.
I would like Nintendo to get into VR, because that would push the tech and garner even more mainstream attention. At the minute it's just Sony that's actually pushing it into the mainstream. The others seem perfectly happy in being the luxury choice, but that does very little for the medium and only strengthens Sony's control over the market.

Consumer VR is still in its infancy, but 4K TV's...?!
I don't own a 4K TV, but everyone I know does. Also the stats show that the market are increasingly adopting 4K.
That does seem a bit ignorant by Nintendo. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that 4K has taken over.

'If we do the exact same thing than everyone else, we’re bound to die because we are smaller than them. With the Switch, we offer different uses, adapted to players’ pace of life. Its advantage is being able to fit into your daily life.'

Kudos on him. That's incredibly reflective and almost baffling to hear from a man as high up as him.

@Fake-E-Lee I think you nailed it. My last console was a N64, all my gaming has been PC based. I have a switch because it gives me options I can't get elsewhere. 720P and 30fps is more than enough for me, the portability is key, anything else I don't care about as it's not why I bought the switch. Nintendo seem to understand why they are selling so many units, and the message is spot on, that's why so many people like me are now console owners again

@gatorboi352 That your in laws just bought a 4KTV does not mean the whole world bought one.

@mikegamer honestly I think even the "butthurt graphics fanboys" see Nintendo's point. 🤣 4K will have its time, just not now that 1080p is already more than enough for 99% of games out there. No point in demanding 8-bit and cartoon inspired games be viewable at 4k anyway.

But... but didn’t they demoed a set up with Mario kart VR? C’mon we all know that will be the first game for the switch successor that will have VR at 1080 and 60 FPS per eye... not mentioning Metroid 5

Wise decision. Im not into virtual reality yet. Played the most expensive ones and felt dizzy after. I want nintendo to follow their road as they are best. Make great (legendary) games and unique consoles to blow people away.
next i want a more powerful Nintendo console to make those awesome commercials again "Now your playing with power" hahah.

@Yorumi "Good. I don't want a game that runs like a slide show just so I can brag about how many pixels I can't see. Devs can't even make most games run 60fps at 1080p, 4k is exponentially worse. The best part though, unless you have some MASSIVE tv you can't even tell the difference."

Yep! Pretty much what I was going to say.

@Cosats he speaks for the entire world.

It's really easy to agree with Nintendo here. 4K TVs are a mess right now. There are multiple versions of HDR for each manufacturer and most adds input lag for gaming unless it's HDR10 (which only the newer models have). Besides that, the bump in resolution really is marginal for gaming. I will say 4K movies with HDR look fantastic, but that's about it.

VR is also a mess right now. The strongest seller is PSVR and that honestly looks too blurry, it could look like watching a 3d movie without 3d glasses. And there are wires everywhere...all for the purpose of closing yourself off to everyone in the room and ruining your vision. Nintendo is not about that.

@iMarkU

Interesting article. We're about 8 feet from the TV, and it's a 65'' screen, so according to its chart, 4k should look identical to 1080p at that distance. We didn't just upgrade the resolution, though, we upgraded the size, so that might be part of why it looks so phenomenally better. But I still think I can notice more details. I think any closer and the TV would feel too big, though.

4K is nice and I do now have a 4K TV that I really like. But going from 1080 to 4K wasn't that big of a jump. When I got my first HD TV it was such a massive improvement! Mind blowingly better! 4K is a bit better, and I do like it. But it's nothing like going from standard to HD was.

VR is an overpriced gimmick that has yet to do anything to make me want to buy it. I have a couple friends trying to change my mind, but they haven't managed it yet.

@marandahir there is a small chance that there is a bias there. You know you upgraded your television, so you could fool yourself into thinking it looks superb (placebo effect). But this only applies to the resolution story. It could also be that your new tv has HDR support or is a QLED screen. These increases the color gammut and clarity of the images rather than the sharpness.

Point that I wanted to make is that 4K gaming is a waste of money/resources for most of the households. I would rather have a more detailed world, better graphics, higher framerate or better lightning over a better resolution.

@Savino Well, nintendo invested in that technology and was part of the console is not like they assumed that the consumer already had it and only delivered the console without the motion controls and stuff

I prefer portability over power. If I wanted power I would get a PC instead of complaining about a console maker, since the console maker will never match a well optimized PC.
See the Xbox One X - it still has problems with 60 frames per second, while a PC can do that and more at 4K.

@SomeWriter13 Well, there are still a lot of butthurt people over it.

I guess they learned 3ds lesson well.

I agree with the VR part. Until it's a communal experience without bulky hardware it will be niche. But 4K is something that is becoming highly affordable. I recently bought a decent 4K TV with HDR support for £350 - that's less than my old 1080p Bravia cost a few years back.

@Proust I have a 4K TV, but no 4K content. (no movies nor games.)

The bigger issue here is the content part. Like what others have mentioned here, developers are struggling to create 4K games that also run at 60FPS. There are a few, of course. Mostly AAA games whose main selling point is graphics. But there are plenty of games that don't need 4K. Heck, many games don't even output at 1080p optimally. So until developers make 4K their standard, there isn't much incentive to jump up just yet.

I will eventually go 4k when I feel it is worth it. Let's face it though, even the xb1 and ps4 pro aren't even that comfortable with 4k. There is always a performance hit between resolution and FPS. Pc is the only way to experience 4k but even with my decent rig I would take a smooth 1080p experience over juddery 4k gaming. So yes I think if the switch lasts 4ish years then I definitely think they chose better out of hybrid over 4k.

@Ainz What better hardware? the switch has one of the best mobile processors on the market from Nvidia, who happens to be at the top. Besides, it's a lot more complicated to just slap better hardware on a platform.

@deucezulu22 Did you even read what I said? The Switch as a portable device is clearly held back for realistic reasons, but I want to see a more powerful home console. I'm not interested in 4K or VR but having 1 or 2GB of more RAM on a non-portable device would go a long way for their games. Breath of the Wild (as an example) has blood moons for a technical reason (clearing up RAM) alongside the in-game explanation.

@Savino You might want to revise your comment, motion and touch were parts of the console package that do not require HUNDREDS of dollars investment in expensive VR headsets and 4K TVs. Nintendo has a point here.

@Ainz I read what you wrote and my point still stands. The switch has LPDDR4 RAM which is very expensive, adding more would of raised the cost. Surely Nintendo's next system will be just as powerful, if AMD and Intel keep pushing in the mobile sector, and Nintendo decides to do a Switch 2. The leap from the original switch should be significant.

Now whether it will hold up to the PS5 and Xbox is another matter.

@deucezulu22 I think you really dont get it. Being a portable device limits the potential of the Switch regardless of what you see inside it otherwise the current one we have would be beefier. But forget that, I wasn't even talking about the Switch, I'm talking about a proper home console which the Switch is not. Mobile hardware will still fall short of more grounded tech for the near future based on current trends. I simply want to see a future console invest in more powerful hardware not a Switch 2.

If the switch had these features listed day one much people would not own a switch,its that simple.and even if it was powerful as a pc they say it has no games and its kiddie.for me i'm just playing a video game wether it look real or not as long as it keeps you interested

@Anti-Matter I doubt that VR will kill anyone, not in the way you are suggesting.

I was very surprised by how immersive I found PS VR. I was a hardcore sceptic. However, since trying it first-hand I do believe that once the graphics improve, the spacial freedom increases and the tech is cheaper to develop for, VR will return as the dominant format for video games. If you haven't experienced it already, go out and do so immediately.
It is incredible, and brings games to another level, much like the jump to 3D for Mario 64.

Resident Evil 7 is terrifying and incredible with it.

@gatorboi352

um the ps4pro BARELY runs 4k and the xb1x isn't much better.

being a PC guy i agree with N here. i don't think the res matters. i'd honestly rather have a higher fps than resolution after say 720 (and on the small screen 720 is fine imo).

as for VR. yeah, we'll see. they're starting to bring higher res units out so we'll see if this catches on. imo it's like 3d movies. fun but not required.

@HappyMaskedGuy

ps vr is like looking through soup. yuck yuck yuck.

@sword_9mm I agree, the clarity isn't great. But the VR effect is startling.

@Savino
Yeah that part of his statement was a bit doofus and spoken on impulse. But I agree with the rest of the comment. VR and 4K Screens are unappealing to me.

I would actually play the Switch more often if Nintendo allows cloud saves though.

Nothing to be disappointed about. All mobile VR is crap. PlayStation VR makes the N64 without modifications look sharp.

Switch neither has the power for VR or 4K so it is pointless.

4K is still a waste of time for most.

No 4K makes sense. I always find it a bit ridiculous for console games attempting to push the highest visual clarity at the expense of framerate.

In 5 years time that "great looking game" will look dated and will still run poorly for what would become dated visuals. Whereas an "ugly game" with good performance will always play great. I'd sooner replay Mario Galaxy with its 480p/480i 60fps than if it was 1080p/30fps with frame drops.

Until VR becomes affordable for everyone, why bother? PLAYSTATION VR is insane expensive. It's very FUN, but definitely not at the point where it's in the mainstream. I think VR will be awesome in about 5 to 7 years, but for now, the tech, demand and price point just isn't there.

@Ainz I get exactly what you are saying. Given Nintendo's position, it doesn't make sense to go back to a traditional console. Especially when your competitors are doing the same thing. More than likely will be a Switch 2 in 2022-3.

I think they are missiong a very big trick here. The Switch is the perfect size to fit into a cheap headset just like you do with your mobile phone. The Joycon were built for virtual immersion and the rumble feature could really come into its own. Metroid Prime 4 with 3D would change the world.

4k is pointless anyway, outside of fps you cant notice a difference but VR will more than likely be the future of gaming when it becomes more refined and mobile, to not invest in it now is a bad idea.

There is a hidden concept outside of the actual virtual reality aspect and thats the ability to play anywhere anytime, something the switch can do, when vr becomes more refined and doesn't require such a cumbersome setup then i think we will see that concept come alive more, being able to play vr games in a park or bring the headset to a friend's ect... But outside of gaming vr can and in the future will be used to hold business conference's across the world or help families to talk to each other long distance like on skype but skype-vr.

Im all for going back to a time when life was easier, but thats not going to happen, VR is the future, its not a fad that will die out because the military and corporate science sectors have been working with it for years, we will start to see it in other places in our lives soon.

@iMarkU I definitely agree that on the "more detailed world, better graphics, higher framerate or better lightning over a better resolution."

@dimi not really 240p, it is a bit different and of course x2 in 3D and looks really amazing in 3D. Looks crisp, clean much better than what people would imagine having 240p on TV. Games like RE:Revelations or Luigi's Mansion looks almost like HD on 3DS.

"Is it a good idea to invest in a technology before consumers do?"

Yes! Why should we invest if you won't? You're the one who has to invest first.