Rumour: Nintendo Could Make Its First VR Announcement For Switch This Year

VR Zelda pls thanks

Eye strain here we come. Mom I’m seeing pixels.

Screen isn't high enough res for eyes being pressed up against it.

I guess it could work with some games but It'll likely be a cheap experience.

Please just let labo go. You tried, but it’s just...not really worth it

It's going to be similar to Google's Cardboard VR.

AND it's only going to work with the NEW Switch that will be smaller and lighter with a 1080p screen and higher refresh rate. This will make it competent enough to match PSVR.

Maybe Nintendo delayed Metroid because they wanted it to be VR.

It would be fantastic for something like Zelda Links Awakening (hey, maybe that’s why they went with that particular game and art style because it would play well in VR as a game that can run 120fps and maintain high resolution?)

I’d buy it. But it wouldn’t be something I would play day to day in my normal gaming regimen (except Zelda- I’d play that game start to finish in VR if I could- those little diorama style games play great in VR). I learned from the last two VR systems I bought, that while the novelty is incredibly amazing, it’s too cumbersome to replace normal gaming.

Teleroboxer 2!

Drives up slowly in salt truck

I'd rather Nintendo make a standalone VR headset like Oculus Quest. The Switch isn't that ideal for VR due to the resolution, JoyCons, and weight.

It's important that people try good VR otherwise it can hurt VR's reputation.

Oh no, here we go again.

I like my psvr. Yeah it's the budget vr but it just has enough realism to get immersion. I'd say that most psvr games look like they are ps2 games up to ps3 games with the blockbusters being in the latter category. I know nintendo has an art style that looks good in lower res but I don't think they can pull this off and have it be a good experience. Switch 2 is a possibility though.

Any time one of those rumor mongering tosses out something new sites that report on itshould all go into the record of said rumor monger but doing that would led to less clicks in the long term so this will never happen.

I have strong doubts about this one. I love the Switch. But the current hardware simply is not prepared for it. They could always try anyway, but I don't think results would be much better than it was for labo.

I mean, I don't doubt they're experimenting with VR in some R&D department somewhere. I also don't doubt they looked into it for Switch. But I don't see it being on our favorite little handheld, without a beefy pro revision, standalone VR like Oculus is doing, or an actual new home console alongside the Switch.

@FlyingFoxy that is what the Switch Oro and/or Switch VR Edition is for. High enough resolution.

As long as it's done well, I say bring it on!

I'll buy because I'm a Nintendo sucker, but honestly I can't see it working with the Switch's current specs. But I'm no tech guru so I'm open minded. I own the PSVR and if it can even come close to matching experiences like Astro Bot or Moss, I'm in! Plus there are some truly 'fun in the Nintendo way' games like Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes.

@Lizuka VR hardware doesn't make you automatically sick. It's up to developers what they want you to experience. It's also not particularly restrictive considering every game genre works in VR.

The appeal of VR in gaming is to immerse you in virtual worlds, to explore new-found freedom, to allow for more interactivity, to open up new genres and game mechanics, to socialize with others, to make you experience new emotions, to heighten existing emotions, to create a more connecting and personal story, and to bring some freshness to the industry.

Fan of Mario games? You'd very likely love Astro Bot. Fan of Mario Kart? You'd likely have a blast playing it in VR. Fan of F-Zero? Wipeout would probably be great fun for you.

Still waiting for my Quality of Life nightstand sleep monitor.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/07/nintendos_quality_of_life_project_lives_on

@DartBuzzer Daemon x Machina in 1st person would be a blast!

Mario Kart VR and a Wario Land Virtual Boy remake as launch titles for their VR headset would be excellent.

It wasn't delayed for VR capabilities.

A 720p screen, split in half running 30fps isn't VR capable. Well it could be, but you would get severe motion sickness.

If this rumor is true (I'll bet very strongly that it is not), then it won't be a pleasant experience.

I doubt we will be getting a VR announcement this year, but it shouldn't be a surprise that this is eventually coming since data miners already found a Virtual Reality tester in the Nintendo Switch.

I'll pass on this whole VR thing, its just not for me. Played it and gave it a chance, but it gets bored fast. Just give me a controller and some good games to play with it.

@The-Chosen-one What games did you try in the end? Playing it with the right software is key as it can completely shift the scales.

I tried the Batman game on PSVR, which was just not fun. Also played an FPS game with a gun controller. That one made me very sick. I don’t do well on planes or boats either, so likely VR will never be for me.

@Joekun I don't do well on planes or in cars and I never have issues. They aren't related.

The Batman game has never been a highlight at all, it's just a tech demo that no one really talks about. There are much better games in VR.

Yes, after the half dozen rumors about Metroid Prime Trilogy, SNES online, Spyro Trilogy, and Star Fox Racing lets all get overly excited because Nintendo is looking at VR.
Newsflash they're always looking into it, but it ain't coming to Switch in 2019 for the reasons others have mentioned above.

Gotta love the 'experts' on here, Nintendo aren't exactly known for releasing shoddy broken experiences, so if it is true, it'll work and it'll work well.

Metroid+VR is a match made in heaven. I would love to see others like F-Zero, Punch Out!, Zelda, etc. Truth be told I can think of no other game that would be as appropriate for VR as Metroid would be. Prime was fantastic as a first person shooter, but to experience it in VR is something I would love to see. Hopefully the rumors are true, but I’m still cautious that they won’t implement VR very well. It takes a lot to run good VR on PC, so the Switch has its work cut out. However if it’s one thing I have learned as a Nintendo fan it’s that they can do things their way and still be fun. I’m excited to see what the future brings.

@DartBuzzer Not sure how you can be so certain, but a lot of my family deals with motion sickness, and it sure felt like that to me. That game Farpoint really had me feeling awful for at least 24 hours. Glad it works for you.

@Morph Virtual Boy comes to mind here
To get decent VR you'll need 3D 1080p (3840x1080p), the Switch only does 720p in 2D. Which would be 640x720 per eye. That would be the same as strapping the entire 3DS screen to one eye.

On the main topic; as long as NO game would REQUIRE this VR I'm okay with it.

@Joekun Motion sickness in VR is due to seeing motion but not feeling it. The opposite of travel sickness.

Farpoint might have given you issues, but Beat Saber for example, would be fine, because there's no artificial movement.

@sanderev I know how VR works and you are referencing a console from nearly 25 years ago.

Lets be realistic here, they have either come with some sort of ingenious way to give a a VR type experience with the hardware available or the rumour is nonsense.

But the suggestion they are going to put out some sort of broken idea is just daft, they won't.

@Morph, even PSVR is acceptable at best. To get real VR you'll need a powerful PC and a headset with 1080p per eye. Thinking this would be comparable to PSVR is just stupid.

@sanderev who said its comparable to PSVR?

@DartBuzzer That’s two sides of the same coin. Of course I would do fine with games that don’t have movement that isn’t tied to my own. I would also do fine in a plane that’s parked on the ground, but that kind of defeats the purpose.

Lol VR, No thanks!

Strapping a screen to your face doesn't make it virtual reality

If VR is a possibility for the Switch then Mario Kart VR should be released, right?

@Morph it would need to be. Like I said PSVR is acceptable at best. VR on the Switch would be like smartphone VR but with a very heavy and bulky headset. And even then a lower resolution.

I could only see this work if they released a special Switch dock with a VR headset connected to it. And that would be the same as PSVR, but with less processing power.

If VR is happening, it would likely have to be on a Switch Pro or whatever they call it. They need a 1080p screen for it to be palatable.

@sanderev
If the Switch was outputting to a headset couldn't it potentially output at 1080p (the same as when connected to a TV) and not be shackled by the Switch's 720p screen. Nm I see you've considered this now.

While the Switch doesn't have the power of the PS4, Nintendo's games tend to have a more cartoonish look that could help and being free of cables is definitely a plus with VR.

I'm still more likely to go for an Oculus Quest if I decide that I want an affordable VR system, but I'd be interested to see what Nintendo comes up with.

@CaPPa that’s what I said. However the headset would still be wired. (To the dock)

@sanderev
Not as bad as PSVR though, the amount of cables was an instant turnoff for me.

I have a psvr and to be honest unless it's a game where you simply sit still and take in your surroundings it tends to make me feel sick an nauseous. Fortunately there are quite a few good games that fall into this category so I do still use it alot

Anything when the whole world around you is moving just doesn't seem to agree with me, racing games for example.

Mario Kart VR would require me to play with a bucket beside me

@sanderev You are missing the point, Nintendo don't think the same way as other companies. I'd be willing to bet that if we get something VR related from Nintendo at all, it wont be as we currently understand it.

Just like the 3ds wasn't expected for its time, neither will this be, I guarantee Nintendo will go their own way on this one.

Not for me, feels completely weird having to wear something like that on my head. Not even a fan of the 3D glasses at the cinema. I’ll stick with traditional gaming.

One way to get around the Switch's low resolution screen is make it only work in docked mode,with a special TV head mount. This would open up a new market for 3rd party peripherals such as neck braces and spine protectors.

My husband bought the PlayStation with their VR kit. I can’t play it. It makes me feel sick in a seasick/vertigo type of way, my eyesight isn’t great and I wear glasses, don’t know if that’s the issue but any fast movement on it makes me want to vomit!! For me VR wouldn’t be something I would be investing in for the switch.

@DartBuzzer
my younger brother has many games, that is where i played them, he decorated his room specially for VR i dont remember the names of those games but he has alot, i remember one horror game (scared the crap out of me lol)
I just like games on my tv with a controller like ps4, xbox or handheld like switch.
VR just didnt grab me yet eventho sometimes it's fun.

@JaxonH For a moment I though you were talking about a first person mode in Link's Awakening, but then I remembered I played Astro Bot in VR, so I could definitely see that working out. I'm not sure the Switch could pull it off though.

@Morph ''Gotta love the 'experts' on here, Nintendo aren't exactly known for releasing shoddy broken experiences, so if it is true, it'll work and it'll work well.''

Like voice chat?

Nintendo's MO since day one has always been social gaming: getting people together in the same room to play together, be it together or as a spectator. This it's the literal selling point of the Switch and why their online presence continues to suck.

VR just isn't part of that equation. Nintendo would never release something so antisocial.

I'll believe it when I see it, but Emily Rogers also said that the Wii U would get Mother 3 outside of Japan. Unless Nintendo decides to troll everyone who either didn't own a Wii U or sold theirs off by releasing Mother 3 on that system, I don't see that "leak" happening.

I really want Nintendo to jump into the VR space. But I’m not convinced the switch is the right way to do it. If Nintendo are working on VR hopefully it’s a separate system with a high quality screen. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely love the switch but I don’t think it’s VR ready. But hey Nintendo prove me wrong.

Guys, please. Don't just parrot BS from other sites. One of the reasons I like Nintendolife is there's at least some cultivation in terms of what you report. Seeing stuff like this, though? It's embarrassing. Read the original article - there's not a single shred of anything newsworthy in the whole thing starting from the unbelievably slippery first sentence.

_{Please mind your language - Octane}

I say it now. Metroid Prime 4 is coming by the end of 2020 (yes, sooner than expected), and it's bringing a new update to the Switch, a PRO version of it, and the VR experience along.

Emily Rogers has been known to lie, still not sure why people give her/them attention 🤷‍♂️

Emily Rogers has 0 credibility. Why would you even post this?

Will you make an article about a rumor I make up as well?

IF Nintendo does anything remotely VR with the Switch, I promise you it will be a completely different approach to the matter. So much so, that it will be good for a fun and interessting experience. I am certain of that. If you stick too closely in your mind to what you have come to expect from VR based on existing options, it's not surprising that you think it can't be done. I would agree with that. But Nintendo will always go a fundamentally different way. I am sure whatever technical limitation the Switch has, Nintendo will find a way to still create a novel and engrossing experience that everyone can get into. They will certainly not support what VR is now: A fun tech that's cool, but not for everyone. It wouldn't be Nintendo. Nintendo are open-minded. So am I. It will be fun to see what unexpected ride they will take us on next. Color me excited, with or without "VR" from Nintendo, for the Switch or with something dedicated. It will be different. And that's great!

The Vitua Boy Mk II. The phantom game console. So this is where it's been hiding.

@Morph O rly?
Playing with ‘friends’ online
Voice chat
Digital purchasing

These are all something that other companies do better

I love playing nintendo games in VR, they're some of my favourite vr games, but my RTX2080Ti and Vive just started laughing at my Switch when I opened this article..

@JackEatsSparrows and all examples of things Nintendo chose to do their own way

Imagine the world of Xenoblade 2 in first person vr... Would be the end of my social life. Anyway, I think Nintendo would surprise anyone with some dedicated hardware or with something different and it will be good. I won't think about the Nintendo vr like Sony or Oculus or classic stuff, they do it their way, and I am confident il will be good. I think that speculations, hardware comparisons and technical discussion at this point are completely useless and pointless, becouse no one of us know what form will have the Nintendo vr. Just wait and see.

I have no interest in VR, and seeing the sales of all the other VR systems combined I get the feeling the large majority of people have a similar opinion.

Pretty sure you can't do VR on a 720p screen and it be fun..people seem very keen and trusting on whoever is providing these rumours though. Guess they would need a higher spec system to make it work and that would be a good selling point for it. We will see. But really doubt VR can run well on the switch as it is

If they have a solution to the lower resolution, announcing something like “ Pokémon lets go: go park now have a VR option, Pokémon 2019 will have a vr option in certain areas, Mario kart get a vr mode, the memories in botw are now with vr and of course, some dedicated VR games such as Pokémon snap option and things like that, it will be the best selling vr kit ever maid within months from it releases

But if it will be a Labo.... well.... sigh.....

Aside from Google Cardboard, the only VR I've used was the PSVR. It was a fun experience, but the headset was sweaty, and the controllers were a but cumbersome.
As for the Switch, the screen resolution and frame rate are lacking, yes. But the joycons are so perfect for VR gameplay, with the HD rumble feature, the motion controlled gyroscopes, and they're the default option that come with the system, and not an expensive add-on.

I have a psvr and it can be amazing. But It’s limited by the power of the PS4 pro. The Switch VR would not be a great idea. VR experience is all about horse power.

Emily Rogers is an awful human being, a liar, a SJW who LOVES to censor people.

It is absurd that Nintendo Life is reporting this.

@Joekun It doesn't defeat the purpose if there's a big enough library that you enjoy. I know people who bought (and feel validated with their purchase) a headset just for Beat Saber.

But anyway, there are comfort options for artificial movement usually, and you will likely get used to it with exposure to it.

@shaneoh Strapping a screen to your face is a pretty silly description of VR. This is like describing the Switch as a piece of plastic with circuit boards. It doesn't do anyone favors.

Yes. it's technically a screen with some more components strapped to your face. But that doesn't have anything to do with the end result. The screen disappears when you are using it.

If VR can trick the brain, it's VR, end of story. And it's already tricks people that they are somewhere else, so by definition it's VR.

Concepts like personal space, cramped spaces, natural 3D audio doesn't exist outside of VR. It's tricking your brain at a fundamental level. If someone in a multiplayer 1st person game gets too close to me, I don't really care, no one does. If someone gets close to me in VR, I back away. It feels uncomfortable with them in my face, because I want my personal space, just like real life.

@The-Chosen-one Well you said it was boring at first, so I'm surprised you're saying it's sometimes fun now all of a sudden.

@RadioHedgeFund You don't seem to understand VR. It's a very social technology. There are games with party modes where people take turns, and these are literally the life of many parties. Bring Beat Saber to a social gathering and it's almost definitely going to be a big , fun event. You can have asymmetrical games as well which let people play with each other locally, with just one headset required.

And lastly, you have VR multiplayer, which is the most social form of multiplayer or online communication that exists. The problem here is Nintendo aren't exactly embracing things like voice chat, so it's hard to see them embracing this much. But if all of a sudden Nintendo did have a VR social space, they would be ahead of everyone else in online social connectivity since PlayStation doesn't have a dedicated space yet.

@SethNintendo How would Civ be pointless? It's literally a game about building, establishing, and conquering. This is a key fit for VR which would make you feel like a godlike figure floating above continents, manipulating things on a tiny scale.

People love playing around with tabletop games and the sense of scale in VR. Therefore, if done right, people would love Civ VR.

@DartBuzzer I bought psvr in December. Four of my friends tried mine and all bought it. While games that have you walking around quickly can make me woozy, there are plenty that don’t. I’ve said before but Moss and Astrobot are better then anything Nintendo released last year. VR is great for shorter play times. There is definitely room for games like that. I don’t need to play a 100 hour epic in VR. Sometimes you just want a fun game to play quick. I bought the headset, two controllers, camera and two games for 249.99. People will pay $60 for a port of super Mario Bros U. You can get a bunch of great games for really cheap on VR because they go on sale all the time. Rush of Blood was like 4.49.

Why oh why can’t people accept that it’s just not for everyone. Constantly ramming it down people’s throats won’t make any difference.

I'm pretty sure they're just talking about that head tracking thing Nintendo patented. Basically a camera tracks glasses, without lenses, that you wear and it controls the in game camera movements so that looking around in the real world becomes like looking around in the game.

@BenGrimm I haven't seen anyone do that in this thread.

@DartBuzzer

It’s begun already and in every article that includes VR, lets not pretend otherwise.

Yeh.....No. I'm afraid the switch just doesn't have the internals for a VR display. I think I saw somewhere that the LCD controller overclocked to around 75Hz before giving up. The PSVR at 90Hz is not great for motion sickness but get by for most people is more seated games. At 75Hz most people will start puking. Also at 720 it will not be a looker but I think the main issue is Nintendo will not want to have kids the world over throwing up on their Switches

@BenGrimm Quote something that fits this then, in this thread? I see nothing. In other threads, sure, but not here so far.

@sanderev well perhaps that would make it about on par with the image quality of the 240 horizontal lines on the 3DS !

Hope not and it would've been best if all 3 go their separate ways (Sony focuses on VR, Microsoft focuses on services, Nintendo focuses on being able to play games anywhere).

Maybe Metroid Prime 4 would be their first VR game for the Switch? Not saying it would ever happen but it isn't totally impossible. Head tracking as Samus, the ability to use HD rumble for the blasters and weapons and the immersion of being in an isolated planet would be perfect for VR not to mention the head tracking camera is perfect for the scanning feature.

I was really impressed with PlayStation VR , way better than what I expected. I did feel a little queasy with some of the games . Short bursts are good And I can imagine a Nintendo spin on VR would be great ! No way would they release another virtual boy flop . They would only release something if it was good

I think this is a total misunderstanding of what they may be doing. The reasons why are as follows:
1) The Switch lacks the video output to properly do real VR
2) The Switch is too heavy for a "Google" like setup.
3) Battery life would suffer greatly and Nintendo would not accept that.

My guess based on available information is that it may be a Labo kit or Labo like 3D glasses. This is based on the patent filed for a 3D TV application by Nintendo and the recent report on another news site of a new Labo kit coming out that would be a complete surprise. This seems like a Nintendo way of approaching it and a way to enhance and extend the Labo brand.

In addition the Joycons would add extraneous input to aid the feeling of VR "like"

@Tirza
Here is someone who clearly does not care for her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkrMVmA_3mU

@Octane I think Moss looks more like Link's Reawakening than Astrobot. There is a first person Link mode in Nintendo Land when you play as the person with the Gamepad that could lend itself to VR.

Actually if Nintendo makes a VR thingy I imagine Nintendo Land 2 would be their first game. That game was probably already underway for the Wii U so they would just move the Gamepad part to VR.

@rjejr Well, yeah, just third person in general. Both games have that similar feeling of getting up close with small characters. A first person mode would ruin that effect; especially the tilt shift effect in Link's Awakening. Not every VR game has to be first person, that's what I meant!

@Octane I know what you meant, I just meant Link in a Zelda game could be either 1st or 3rd person. Isn't Skyrim VR basically BotW VR?

@rjejr Kinda. First person Skyrim looks pretty bad imo; especially in VR. I also hate how many first person VR games have the mandatory teleport, instead of just walking around. Makes it feel like an on-rails game or something like that. It's so stupid, you're finally able to immerse yourself in a game, but then they'll lock you to certain positions and you move about by awkwardly teleporting. That's why I prefer third person games to be honest.

@Octane You probably haven't played Skyrim VR on PC with graphics mods. Also, Skyrim VR supports multiple control schemes: Teleport, Smooth Locomotion and regular gamepad/MKB controls.

More VR games are doing smooth locomotion now, but yeah, it is annoying when certain games only do teleport. Though, in the case of Budget Cuts, the teleport movement worked really well in that game.

@yuwarite Didn't know it was out on PC; I only know of the PSVR release. No idea how movement works in that game though, I was more talking about first person games in general. I know Deracine uses the teleport system, and that put me off real hard. The Last Guardian VR experience uses it as well. It's so weird, because it completely ruins the immersion for me, and that's what VR is all about.

@Octane Skyrim VR has had teleport and artificial movement at launch on both PSVR and PC. On PC, you also have mods to allow for armswinging locomotion and walk/run-on-the-spot locomotion. Graphical mods make the game look much nicer on PC too.

Many VR games now have artificial locomotion at least as an option.

labo cardboard vr

I'll sit this hype train ride out until I hear more.

@FlyingFoxy exactly. If VR, then there will need to be a high res Switch. With maybe tegra X2 and at least 1440p on the same size device. But please: smaller border?

STAY a Rumor. VR for all it's hype is just that hype with little developments to support it and the cost of the hardware more or less help stump the growth of VR. If you want good VR get a Gaming Laptop or Desktop that can pump out 4K VR that will kill any consoles it goes against it.

@SwitchForce You do realize that the overwhelming consensus in the VR community is that PSVR was the best supported system in 2018? It had plenty of great titles coming out.

Sony have been supporting it quite well.

@Retupmocnin the switch is already 1080. In handheld mode vr would be pretty useless

@DartBuzzer you do realize that it's not selling also right?

@Dirty0814 It sold 3 million by August, and is likely close to 4 million now. It's selling consistently and would be meeting overall expectations.

This isn't comparable to something like Switch selling tens of millions of units a year. Swich is a 9th generation console with 47 years to look back on. PSVR is a 1st generation headset with 3 years to look back on. Clearly expectations are going to be widely different.

@DartBuzzer
"You do realize that the overwhelming consensus in the VR community is that PSVR was the best supported system in 2018? It had plenty of great titles coming out."
Wouldn't be the first time a small subset of the gaming community had an opinion.

"Strapping a screen to your face is a pretty silly description of VR."
Silly and yet so apt.

@shaneoh Not sure what your point is here. A consensus is a consensus. It's painfully obvious too.

Would you also agree the following is an apt description of Switch?

"A piece of plastic, with a screen and circuit boards that has other bits of plastic that slot in and out"

Yeah, try selling it with that product description.

Now this rumour actually excites me, especially the stuff we've heard about it being a Labo thing. I honestly think this could be a system seller if done right. I really want to see Nintendo getting into VR.

@DartBuzzer
Yes and the consensus amongst flat earthers is that the world is flat. A group of people who mainly/only played games touted as "virtual reality" would think that their system is the best supported. Painfully obvious indeed.

"Would you also agree the following is an apt description of Switch?"
Doesn't correlate with what I said, now if you had said that having a video/audio out function doesn't make the Switch a home console, then I'd agree.

Really don't like people saying negative things about VR do you?

@Retupmocnin No need for it to only work with a new Switch. I had a VR headset attachment for my iPhone 4, which is actually about half the resolution of the Switch even, and it was still perfectly serviceable. Sure, VR on the current Switch is going to be low resolution, but it's perfectly doable. And, since it's fully untethered and has dual 3DoF motion controllers using the Joy-Con (including HD rumble), it really could end up being rather good as a cheap entry in VR for sooo many people. Yeah, I can actually already picture this Nintendo Labo VR Kit, and think it's going to be rather sweet!

@DartBuzzer Yeah, but if it's positioned as another Labo kit then I think Nintendo really can get away with it feeling very much like a low budget entry version of VR, which could still be a lot of fun in its own right, especially if Nintendo puts some proper games/experiences on it that really show it and some of their beloved characters off. Right now I'm actually rather hyped for the potential of this thing as a cheap way for many people to experience VR in a fun form factor. And, just the idea that build it yourself too, in true Labo fashion, just makes it even more fun and compelling imo.

@CaPPa ? One cable was a turn off? How many was acceptable...

@Trajan The resolution really isn't a factor in what causes motion sickness.

@shaneoh You misunderstand me. I'm talking about the VR systems only, not Xbox, Switch, or PS4.

There's a fine line between saying negative things about VR, which I do myself because I know the limitations of the hardware currently, and doing what you're doing.

You just bash VR in these threads without reason. I mean literally, you just said keep saying strapping a screen to your face isn't VR. It's belittling the tech, and is just an overall jaded, outdated, bizzare view that only makes you look ignorant.

@shaneoh Eh, it does if they stick it in a Google Carboard-like headset (with included lenses) that you strap onto your head, display the games in stereoscopic 3D, track your head movement with the Switch's inbuilt motion sensors, and use the Joy-Cons as dual 3DoF motion controllers (with HD rumble too).

@Antray1984 Well, you're actually wrong. You can't do high end VR on a 720p screen, OK, but you can certainly do fun VR. It's just in low resolution, but still perfectly enjoyable with games designed with this limitation in mind. And Nintendo is a master as making games look good with simple, clean 3D visuals, which is right up VR's street.

Actually, contrary to some of the dismissive remarks, I believe motion/travel sickness and VR sickness ARE related. It's an issue with the inner ear in both cases. For instance, in a car your body is stationary in a vehicle while the world moves around you, and this contradiction causes problems for those who are sensitive to it. It's why if you do get travel sick it's better to sit in a front seat and look straight out of the windscreen rather than in the back with a seat-back filling your vision.

It's okay to be interested in VR. It's also okay for some of us not to be. Those of us who suffer from these problems - with travel, with FPS games and so on - know our bodies and what we can withstand better than the VR evangelists do. The latter shouldn't feel compelled to convince other people to like the exact same things that they do. I'm not having a go at anyone, but if you suffer from eyestrain/migraines/motion sickness anyway, being told that your concerns are irrelevant and for the good of gaming you have to keep subjecting yourself to something that makes you feel ill so eventually you'll be less ill over time, is a bit irritating. There is a religious element to the true VR believers I think, who act as if they have to spread the gospel and convert the rest of us!

I'm glad for the people who like this kind of thing that it seems like they will soon have another avenue to explore in a style of gaming that interests them. I'll have to give it a miss, though.

@SethNintendo Actually, VR can make almost every type of game just cooler. I was playing Catan in VR the other day, and it was basically like I was playing a board game in a room with a bunch of mates. Even playing Chess in VR is a load of fun because can be doing so while sitting in a games room on a starship floating through space--as is the case with the Chess VR games I have. Most people really don't understand just how versatile VR is and what it can bring to the table, across pretty much every single gaming genre.

@BarFooToo If I could use my iPhone 4 for VR--and I did indeed have a VR attachment for my iPhone 4--then the Switch can be used for VR. Sure, it's not going to be amazing, but if the content is handled right then it could still be a great cheap entry to VR for a lot of Switch owners. I think a Labo cardboard version of VR for Switch really could be a very cool idea. People won't be expecting cutting edge by the very fact it's Labo. So as long as Nintendo is smart bout how it does things, and it has a few cool games/experiences that really show off the VR aspect, it really could be a potential system seller imo. And I think it might even end up being a lot of fun for many people.

@MaaadMatt If it were related, I would have issues as I almost always get travel sickness.

And just a FYI, eye strain and headaches are eliminated with light-field displays and mostly mitigated with varifocal / multifocal displays. Those will be rolled out as time goes on.

At that point, no one would have issues if they are in control of their own movement or otherwise use teleporting, which still provides loads of uses for VR in gaming, entertainment, and in other areas. Motion sickness is also curable to an almost universal extent if you drown the vestibular system in white noise. Expect that to be in headsets as time goes on too.

@DartBuzzer Everybody is different and has different levels of sensitivity and susceptibility to different conditions and illnesses. Just because you're fine doesn't mean everyone else will be. That was my point. As was the idea that it's okay for different people to think differently and we don't have to insist on converting them to our way of thinking. Just like what you like and be happy.

I have an Occulus Go at home, which have the highest resolution screen of all the "mainstream" VR units out there (PSVR, Rift, Vive). And even with that great resolution, it's still not enough (for my tastes) to qualify for something truly convincing. It makes for a fun toy, don't get me wrong, and it can be immersive at times, but we're still, right now, a long way to get VR to a point where it's more than a "cool experience" and nothing else.

Occulus Quest will be better, but still the same screen resolution. The Go is right now at what I consider the "magic price point" where it's not too expensive for what it provides, and is relatively affordable for the masses. It works well because you don't need any setup, no need to hook it to anything, you just put it on and you play. This is a product the masses could go into easily.

But the masses aren't buying "en masse". The word I see all around is that VR "is very cool, but I don't need it".

Things could change, but while I like what VR can offer, most people out there just don't care that much.

@Realnoize Yes, your headset has one of the highest resolutions, but bear in mind that it doesn't even have proper 6DoF on the headset, and only comes with a single 3DoF controller too, so it's not exactly giving you a true representation of what even current VR is really capable of when going all out. Being able to move and twist and lean your full body and point and aim dual guns at the same time and stuff in a game like Superhot is just on another level of VR form what something like the Go is going to give you. But the Go is good for the most casual VR experience that gives you a basic taste of some interesting VR stuff--it's pretty good for watching 360 videos or remote viewing sports matches and concerts and stuff like that for for example--and it even does have some cool VR games too. But even something like the Oculus Quest would show you VR on a whole other level in so many ways, playing games like Beat Saber and Dead and Buried and Robo Recall and Rec Room and Superhot VR and Lone Echo and Stormland and so on.

@MaaadMatt Which is exactly why you can't say they are related.

@DartBuzzer
"I mean literally, you just said keep saying strapping a screen to your face isn't VR."
And I stand by that statement, it's accurate.

If what I'm doing is "belittling" the tech, then what you're doing is aggrandising it beyond what it really is.

You've got a block function if you find my opinion truly upsetting.

@DartBuzzer Some people have inner ear problems and the severity and sensitivity differs from person to person. Sensory conflict is a theory behind VR sickness and therefore it could be worse for some people than for others. I don't see an issue with this assertion. I'm trying to be civil. Clearly you don't want to compromise or 'agree to disagree' here and life is too short to argue with a complete stranger over trivial matters, so I'm bowing out now. Have fun with the rest of the commenters. Cheerio.

@shaneoh It isn't accurate. That's your fairy tale description of VR which doesn't agree with the rest of the world's already established definition that basically everyone agrees with.

How am I aggrandizing it? By counteracting you downplaying it?

Consider that it's not uncommon for people to lean on virtual tables, place their controllers on virtual surfaces, to completely forget about real life (known as presence), to have the concept of personal space. These fundamentally impact the brain. In each scenario, your brain is convinced it's real.

Then consider all the emotional impact the tech has. Put someone in Google Earth and it's not uncommon for them to cry. Put someone in VRChat and they can suddenly live a whole new second life and have truly human connections that technology has never been able to provide. Considering what the technology can do, I'm hardly overplaying it.

@MaaadMatt There is always going to be a small subset of people who are unable to participate in some, or all of a technology's uses. There are people that literally cannot do gaming. So why are we singling out VR after I mentioned that these things can be fixed to a point where it reaches a relatively similar subset of people again - which in turn means that it's really no different in the long term.

@DartBuzzer
"It isn't accurate. That's your fairy tale description of VR which doesn't agree with the rest of the world's already established definition that basically everyone agrees with."
"You and a small minority of people think of it as a brain interface, along with the general public that has yet to try it."
You've already established that most people don't agree with your definition.

"How am I aggrandizing it? By counteracting you downplaying it?"
Your following two paragraphs are perfect examples.

@shaneoh Let me rephrase. Most people who know what VR headsets are, and have used them recognize it as VR.

You can say that's goalpost moving all you want, but that was my original intent.

Perfect examples, how so? It's like you cannot picture VR being useful in any way. Speaking about just one of those examples, socialization, we had phone calls, texting, voice chat, and now VR communication. Anyone who has ever communicated in VR knows that it's at that level, where it's a new paradigm of communication like the examples I gave.

Considering how you know, those all changed the world, although voice chat less so than the others, it should be pretty obvious what VR socialization would do for the world too, especially when you consider it improving like so: https://giphy.com/gifs/1zJDOltoBlwLZ2lRhK/fullscreen

So, if one use case of VR is so world-changing in it's capacity, how am I overplaying it?

@DartBuzzer
"You can say that's goalpost moving all you want, but that was my original intent."

Total goalpost moving. It still doesn't align with the overall general consensus of what VR should be.

"Considering how you know, those all changed the world"

There's #3

@shaneoh You believe that if you want. Doesn't stop it from being false. I know my own intent. Apparently you easily misunderstand me.

Oh, and so you wouldn't say instant communication anywhere changed the world? I think it's pretty clear that you either like to argue for the sake of arguing, or otherwise downplay the most obvious, well-known concepts. Say what you're saying to anyone with at least some decent level of capacity for thinking and they'd laugh at you for how ridiclous your own thinking is.

Those didn't change the world? Come on. What's next, computers didn't change the world, vehicles didn't change the world?

@BetaWolf I'd change that to relief. Though really it has to be done right. People aren't going to fall for it that hard if it's similar to Oculus Go.

@BetaWolf
"Out of curiosity, which VR headsets have you tried?"
I've gone better than just a headset, I've used a Virtusphere. It's a step in the right direction for actual VR, but still not even close.

"I'm going to be beyond frustrated when people finally try VR just because Nintendo makes a headset, and people are like, "Oh, it actually is more than a stupid gimmick!" lol"

Don't worry, I'm not going to change my mind because "Nintendo did it."

@DartBuzzer
Noone is talking about VR communication the way they talked about the telephone. Only the most fanatical are viewing it as serious, world changing technology. It hasn't changed squat.

Windows Mixed Reality connected to Nintendo Switch of result not working as well. I Tried It.

@shaneoh Facebook sure are. That's the entire reason they spent billions in the first place. Also, you have to give more specific timing because opinions change, and it's not uncommon for big technological shifts to go ignored until a tipping point is reached.

It also doesn't really matter what companies think in regards to VR socialization. It's what can be objectively measured. Most people thought the Internet would be a fad afterall. Nintendo also thought gamers weren't interested in online back in the early 2000s.

From an objective sense, VR is much much closer to real life socialization than anything else. It's also objective that we are social creatures, generally speaking. Therefore, it's pretty obvious it would be a hugely useful change for society.

Objectively speaking, being able to in the near to medium term future actually replicate human beings to an indistinguishable degree would be of value to so, so many people in both business and personal sense.

@DartBuzzer
"Facebook sure are. That's the entire reason they spent billions in the first place."
"It also doesn't really matter what companies think in regards to VR socialization."

So disregard the first line?

"From an objective sense, VR is much much closer to real life socialization than anything else."
It's on par with a video call

@shaneoh I answered your question and proceeded to talk about how there wasn't really much point in asking. That doesn't mean the first line is disregarded.

Ah, so you've never actually socialized in VR I see, at least nothing that actually shows it working well.

Please explain how it's on par with video call when I can actually a) feel like someone is inches away from you on a physical scale. b) can do lots of activities ranging from dancing to playing cards, drawing with each other, watch movies together naturally. c) interact within distance of each other naturally using body language. d) make actual eye contact with eye-tracking. e) have the concept of personal space where people start backing away if too close.

I mean there's even more. It's clear as day that it's much more humanized, much more real, and much more useful.

You're not staring at each other in a video call. You are staring at a screen. It's not nearly as personal.

@DartBuzzer
You're saying that Facebook is talking about it, but it doesn't matter what companies think. So yes disregard it. Disregard it anyway because they have a vested interest in its perception.

I'm not writing an essay on how those things can already be experienced with just a webcam. You might just be staring at a screen when talking to someone over skype, but I'm making eye contact.

@shaneoh

@shaneoh No, you are not making eye contact. You are making eye contact with a screen, whilst trying to make eye contact with the person on the screen. Fundamentally different and not personal compared to making actual eye contact in VR.

You are wrong on all of the 5 points I made. I mean seriously, lets take an obvious one, how the heck can you have personal space on a screen? Seriously, explain that. if someone gets right up to your screen, you don't back away, it doesn't invade your personal space one bit.

@BenGrimm I love how you insist on siding with people spreading falsehoods and can't deal with people correcting others. Like I said earlier, people are free to have their own opinions but if someone is throwing random made-up points about VR, then they are merely spreading misinformation, which is precisely why so many people are confused about VR in the first place, because the media has done a great job at spreading lies.

Spreading lies is anti-consumer. Siding with people who spread lies makes you no better.

@Dirty0814 The current Switch screen is 720p, moron.

@impurekind You obviously never tried real VR. An Oculus Go cost only $199 and will give you 2560 x 1440 fast-switch LCD and 72hz. Using an iPhone 4 with those tacky attachment is not VR, at least get a Samsung GearVR. There is a huge difference.

@BenGrimm
If I trap them in the holodeck they'll forget all about me (and realise what actual VR is compared to what we "have" now).

@BetaWolf
"When VR and AR catch on, people will be doing AR calls with holograms of their friends in their living rooms."

When there is something to catch on to, not just a screen strapped to the face, I'll agree. But until it starts to match public perception of what VR should be it'll be a niche (and misclassified) product. As for how companies and therapies are using it, they're just gameifying a process to engage the user and get the desired result. It's not about immersion in a virtual world, just making a boring procedure slightly less so.

@DartBuzzer
You need to look at human behaviour if you think that those 5 points aren't there for webcam users

" Like I said earlier, people are free to have their own opinions"
Unless we disagree with you, in which case, death.

"Spreading lies is anti-consumer. Siding with people who spread lies makes you no better."

No more anti-consumer than labelling products as VR.

@shaneoh "When there is something to catch on to, not just a screen strapped to the face" That means nothing at all in response to their comment. They said people will do AR calls with holograms, which is done exactly the same with a screen as it would be done with a brain interface, except for maybe thinking of them to call them.

You're also clueless on how companies are using it.

Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. You're having trouble separating the two.

Labeling products as VR is somehow anti-consumer now? Here we go again, the brain cells keep eroding away.

All I can say is you have no knowledge of VR, or maybe it's tucked away somewhere and you just like trolling. You've been proven wrong time and time again in this thread. These kind of opinions will be laughed at in the same way people thought the Internet would be a fad, or vehicles wouldn't replace carriages, or that computers would never find use.

@impurekind the low resolution combined with the low frame rate.

If they just want to turn the switch into a single screen 3ds they can so that, but nothing like superhot will be on it.

@Realnoize impure kind is right. Super hot vr is really neat and super immersive. But it is a novelty. However as we know novelties are right up Nintendo's alley. And this is much better than forced touch or motion honestly.

@DartBuzzer
"You're also clueless on how companies are using it."
As you've not given me a spiel on what they're really doing with it, I'd say I've hit the nail square on the head.

"Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. You're having trouble separating the two."
Pot, meet Kettle.

"Labeling products as VR is somehow anti-consumer now? Here we go again, the brain cells keep eroding away."
Sorry, I know how few you have to spare. Calling these products "Virtual Reality devices" is false advertising, which is about as anti-consumerist you can get.

"All I can say is you have no knowledge of VR,"
Hey Pot, did I introduce you to Kettle yet?

"You've been proven wrong time and time again in this thread."
I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, fortunately I'm not wrong here.

"These kind of opinions will be laughed at in the same way people thought the Internet would be a fad, or vehicles wouldn't replace carriages, or that computers would never find use."
Just like they'll be laughing at you for calling what we have now VR.

@shaneoh You think companies are using it just to make things less boring? That could be noted as one reason in some cirumstances, but it hardly describes the whole usecase across the board. It's been proven that VR lets you retain information better, and has a higher chance at invoking empathy. This feeds into use cases like education and training. Companies are also in some cases using it to communicate. That isn't because it's more fun than a video call, it's because it's more human, and as time goes on, much more convenient and useful.

"Sorry, I know how few you have to spare. Calling these products "Virtual Reality devices" is false advertising, which is about as anti-consumerist you can get."

Says you. Just about everyone else who's used such products? They agree it's VR. The definition, everywhere outside of Sci-Fi (still sometimes in Sci-Fi), meaning everywhere that is grounded in actual real vocabulary agrees on one definition of VR, and that's what we have today.

@DartBuzzer
" It's been proven that VR lets you retain information better, and has a higher chance at invoking empathy."

As I said, because they're gameifying the learning process. People learn better when they're feeling engaged with the learning process.

"Says you."
Wow good comeback. Right up there with "I know you are but what am I?"

"Just about everyone else who's used such products? They agree it's VR."
So everybody, except those who don't, think it's VR, gotcha.

@shaneoh They are not gameifying it automatically. They can choose to do so if they want, but I've seen Walmart's training program. They put people in 360 videos, which are clearly not going to be gameified. If you took people on a class trip to Egypt, you can choose to gameify it, or you can put them in that Nefertari app which has no game elements to it at all.

"So everybody, except those who don't, think it's VR, gotcha."

Who cares if they haven't tried it? Their opinion means nothing. Imagine if everyone suddenly said lab-grown meat didn't taste anything like real meat, but they've never tried it. How silly does that make them look? About as silly as you.

@DartBuzzer
"They are not gameifying it automatically. They can choose to do so if they want, but I've seen Walmart's training program. They put people in 360 videos, which are clearly not going to be gameified. If you took people on a class trip to Egypt, you can choose to gameify it, or you can put them in that Nefertari app which has no game elements to it at all."

Just because you're not jumping on Goombas, does not make it an interactive experience for the purpose of enjoyment (and in these cases, learning).

"Who cares if they haven't tried it? Their opinion means nothing. Imagine if everyone suddenly said lab-grown meat didn't taste anything like real meat, but they've never tried it. How silly does that make them look? About as silly as you."

You're confusing using the product with the perception of what a product should be and do. Perception of what VR should be is more complicated than strapping a screen to your face. No more than our few trips to the moon mean we are capable of space travel. It doesn't align with perception.

"Who cares if they haven't tried it?"
I never said the ones who haven't tried it, I'm talking about the ones who have tried it and are disagreeing about it being VR.

@DartBuzzer

And I love that when people tell you their first hand experiences wether it be motion sickness, not fully immersed in the experience, the clunkiness of the device, the actual game/experiences not being good enough you ride roughshod over it all and try to explain it all away as if it never happened or will be all great in many years time. The problem is we’re not talking about the future we’re talking about the now.

@BetaWolf
Don't worry, I don't expect a holodeck experience, I'm not a complete idiot. Ultimately it needs to engage all sense (on however a rudimentary level), in order for it to be virtual reality. Otherwise any device with some form of output could technically be called a virtual reality device. I think that's a fair point to call the tech VR, it's the mid point between what we have now, and (currently) unrealistic scifi expectations.

@BetaWolf He actually does. He expects 5 senses to be stimulated otherwise it's not virtual reality. This includes taste, and apparently if you can't taste, it doesn't fit the bill.

@DartBuzzer
Ah I see, you possess a special form of telepathy that allows you to read the minds of anyone thinking about VR. Most people have 5 senses, take one away and their reality will be devastated.

@BenGrimm No, I give people pointers towards the future without devaluing their opinion of what it is currently like. I also correct people who say 'X will never happen given an infinite amount of time'.

People often look at VR and say, nope, that can never work. You seem to be fine with that. Since I actually value the integrity of information, I step in. You have a problem with this. For whatever reason, you do not like facts being corrected by me.

@shaneoh You said it yourself. Now you're moving goalposts.

@DartBuzzer
"without devaluing their opinion of what it is currently like."
HAHAHAHAHA. Good joke. I couldn't pull it off while keeping a straight face. And I'm great at pulling things off.

"You said it yourself."
Betawolf was talking about me expecting a holodeck sort of experience, which I don't.

@DartBuzzer

Like I said the future means nothing, people will talk about their experiences now. Plus I’m not sure how you can correct someone on future events when you don’t know what’s going to happen yourself?

@shaneoh "A pair of sunnies isn't going to convey touch, taste and smell. Until they manage to implement all five senses, then it isn't a virtual reality."

You also said that taste of food isn't even enough; you need to be able to kiss someone.

Your conditions for it to be suddenly VR are utterly preposterous. You even said you don't fall into the trap of needing it to be the Holodeck, yet you bring up foreign Sci-Fi concepts like being able to taste virtual food. That's pure sci-fi fantasy at this point. Everything else isn't for the other 4 senses, but that is.

@BenGrimm People will also lock in the future as if they have the facts when they don't. This is happening often in this thread, the other threads on this site, and everywhere else on any forum discussing VR.

"Plus I’m not sure how you can correct someone on future events when you don’t know what’s going to happen yourself?"

There are literally fixes to things that are in consumers hands in a matter of months. Most of the problems for VR can be solved very fast, because a lot of it has been figured out and is just about getting it ready for consumers. Much of it has been shown off already; it's not just empty promises.

Like Google Cardboard and the VR experience on Smartphones? Yeah that could work.

@BetaWolf
I love the concept, what I've tried just doesn't match the concept and has been unenjoyable. It's not a wish for it to fail, despite what some might think.

@DartBuzzer
"You also said that taste of food isn't even enough; you need to be able to kiss someone."
Wrong, I said taste is more than just eating and listed an example. Get it right.

This would be terrible. Even my Oculus rift resolution isnt that great. The Switch screen is only 720p and that has to be split between each eye, it would be painful. Plus the screen is only 60hz and has a lot of motion blur, so as a VR screen not only is the resolution too low, the motion blur would make people feel sick. Not to mention the specs when the Switch is in handheld mode.

@Hughesy I think the Oculus Rift's resolution is perfectly fine for its $350 price point. But yes, the Switch is unfeasible for VR; either they're releasing a beefier Switch or this VR headset won't use the Switch's screen. Ultimately though, this is an Emily Rogers rumour, so it's best to take it with a grain of salt.

@Nintendocom LOL

I own and Oculus Rift and am developing a fps game on it as a type:

https://inceptionalnews.wordpress.com/fps-for-pc-vr/

In fact, if a better programmer than I was making it, I expect my VR fps game could actually run on Switch VR (presuming it is what I think it will be) and be pretty fun with it.

My point in using the iPhone 4 VR example was simply to show that the Switch too could do basic VR with a simple "Cardboard"-like attachment and whatnot, but still totally workable at that. especially when combined with the dual Joy-Cons and the like.

@Hughesy Oculus Rift DK1 was about the same resolution as Switch. Gear VR is 60Hz. And I'm sure the Switch is more powerful than the original Gear VR's Galaxy Note 4 too. All of these things/limitations that you and other people are bringing up don't mean Switch couldn't do VR. It wouldn't be amazing, obviously, but as a Labo thing, which is what the latest rumours say it is, I actually think it would be perfectly serviceable. When you combine a simple VR Labo headset setup along with the dual 3DoF Joy-Cons, there's enough there to make it worth say $50-$100 for that Labo VR Kit, especially if Nintendo includes some genuinely cool VR games/experiences, no doubt about it. For what it is, it could actually be very cool, and a potential Switch system seller at that.

@Deljo
Have they changed the PSVR setup? It certainly wasn't just one cable when it released.

Wii music you say?

I can confirm the rumour and add some additional details missing from the original untrustworthy source: Nintendo VR will require two Switches, one for each eye to get the desired resolution and additional processing power. The Labo component includes a cardboard neck brace, so your head can cope with the huge weight. A second Labo project includes a cardboard sick-bucket. Instead of cameras to track movement accurately, this will be done using the Labo backpack/robot set-up, and lots of string.

Unfortunately I cannot reveal my souces...

What about those supplemental computing/processing devices Nintendo Patented a while back.

If they made them small & affordable enough, wireless, and very compatible with the Nintendo Switch wirelessly(and it was safe health wise as well as technologically possible) then physical Switch VR games could come with local Processing boosters or Game/VR Cubes. (or they could be sold seperately, also linked cable connections could be available and optional)

The VR cubes could also come with their own rechargeable batteries so that they are portable like the switch, granted powerful components might burn through battery quickly and require sufficient cooling but if Nintendo could produce them and sell them at a reasonable price then it could be a way to optionally push the switch into VR should it catch the switch user's fancy or they decide to make the investment. So maybe if possible, playstation VR level quality or lower but with the added benefit of optionally wireless syncing, portability, and cheaper affordability.

Size would be important, if they could shrink VR cube down to half the size of the gamecube or more maybe it could work. If the VR cube only provided modest additional power (lowest possible processing boost to Switch's own processing capabilities for VR games) then maybe overheating and affordability would be more managable.

People need to understand that the switch is a custom made device they could make a headset with a 1080p screen built in and the switch could power it and it could be like psvr where they have a proprietary device that handles some of the cpu/gpu load there’s lots of possibilities

@SimplyCinnamon53 why do you think it wasn't worth it?

@impurekind but isn't the switch resolution still awfully low for VR, especially given the screen size?

@Mr_Horizon It's low, and it's not going to look great, but it's perfectly serviceable.

@Mr_Horizon I’m not totally against labo, but 1 it doesn’t seem to sell that well, 2 It kind of hurts the company’s image since people think it’s overpriced and too kiddy. 3 The games don’t review that well, 4 people just end up getting bored with it quickly and have no where to store it.

So in my opinion I feel they just need to give it up.

VR to me from the small inventory of games for it from Sony or Oculus doesn't justify one buying them or spending the price for hardware to just get VR. I see it better suited as a learning Tool in a Education settings or Job Training. Other then that VR has so far only being seen as a VR Gaming and hasn't applied itself to outside applications to push a VR inclusive experience. Also Sony VR can't be taken Outside and same with Oculus-Now if the Switch can do that and interact with the Outside work. That would be a Game Changer.

@SwitchForce Nintendo would be beaten to the punch, as Oculus Go can be taken outside. Oculus Quest is the real deal and can be taken outside. Meaning, it does everything a high-end headset can do and it's not watered down in tracking.

Oculus Rift is the one that's tethered to a PC.

Companies are already applying it to things outside of gaming. Walmart is using VR for training in all of their stores for example. Google and some others are starting to get it into education. Oculus Go has sporting events, concerts, plays that you can watch with lots of people in a big social gathering. I use BigScreen on Oculus Rift to watch movies in an IMAX theater, sometimes as a way to meet new friends. You have plenty of social apps now too, I'm sure you've heard of VRChat. You have stuff like Google Earth for visiting the world too. Welcome to Lightfields is an app that puts you in truly believable real world environments. If the resolution and field of view were higher, it would be completely real.

@DartBuzzer "Nintendo would be beaten to the punch, as Oculus Go can be taken outside."
And that is the only thing but so far they are the only one to blame for their failure to get more people or lower the prices. If you haven't forgotten when they first came out they delayed and delayed release and this was to the Supporters not consumers. That should tell you something.

@DartBuzzer "Oculus Quest is the real deal and can be taken outside. "
You talk as this is here but the Real Deal is now but I don't see that anywhere. Don't talk real deal til everyone can buy and use it. Switch is the Real Deal here and isn't going away or having delay after delay production.

@DartBuzzer "Oculus Rift is the one that's tethered to a PC."
Even Steam has more options and if Oculus can't what Steam can do that won't go far.

@DartBuzzer "Companies are already applying it to things outside of gaming. Walmart is using VR for training in all of their stores for example. Google and some others are starting to get it into education."
That's the biggest thing that consumer market will save VR otherwise for gaming they so far don't have enough to get Game Developers to come aboard.

@DartBuzzer "I use BigScreen on Oculus Rift to watch movies in an IMAX theater, sometimes as a way to meet new friends."
So does this mean you don't have Oculus Rift at home.

@DartBuzzer "You have stuff like Google Earth for visiting the world too. Welcome to Lightfields is an app that puts you in truly believable real world environments."
As I already said but you forgot already it works well in a Education settings and Training but you made it sounds like I didn't say anything like that.

@DartBuzzer " If the resolution and field of view were higher, it would be completely real."
Don't make me laugh-but thanks for knee slap.

Bahaha surely not. I mean it's above thought I am sure but it's just not deliverable, especially with the current hardware.
I will need more info to be sold on it. I mean I am all down for a Switch Pro but I high powered consoles has never really been Nintendo's stick and if they think they are gonna go half in on this I think they'd be mistaken. VR on a 1080P panel is hard to sell.. VR on a 720P panel.. 😂
I mean what's the deal. I can't see any win, it's not gonna work on the current hardware and another console would be expensive, irritate the fan base and won't stack up against the competition. What's the USP for Nintendo on this one.
I don't wanna shoot the horse before the gate but I'd be lying to say I saw any success in it. 🤔

@SwitchForce Not what what you mean with Oculus Go. It has a low price. It's exceeding sales expectations too.

Oculus Quest, yeah it's not out yet, but everyone who has demoed it has spoke about how good the tracking is.

What is your point about Steam? Oculus Rift can access everything on Steam.

"So does this mean you don't have Oculus Rift at home."
What? I just said I use my Oculus Rift at home watching movies with people.

Google Earth / Welcome to Lightfields aren't only related to just education. These are telepresence apps which is a whole use case of VR outside of education. (but can still be important for education like for virtual field trips)

" If the resolution and field of view were higher, it would be completely real."
I can tell you've never even tried the app I'm talking about. Everyone agrees it's indistinguishable from reality aside from the headset specs. This is because it's literally a real life capture fully intact.

https://youtu.be/a-JX3ZPi720?t=206

See? Lifelike.

Hell, there's someone who tried the new Varjo VR-1 headset (enterprise only headset) which is so high clarity that they described as realer than real life at one time.

@DartBuzzer "Not what what you mean with Oculus Go. It has a low price. It's exceeding sales expectations too."
I don't see it showing on Amazon or BestBuy or Walmart retail that tells me it's sales aren't exceeding. If so where are you getting these numbers from?

@DartBuzzer using it for mapping places is one thing to find places. But one should actually go there to experiences the world more. They are image of real life not Real Life experiences - it doesn't pass mustard here.

@SwitchForce https://www.vrfocus.com/2018/09/oculus-go-exceeded-expectations-states-carmack-reveals-future-upgrades/

Carmack is also never one to mince words.

"using it for mapping places is one thing to find places. But one should actually go there to experiences the world more"

Ideally, yes. But I'm sure you know how expensive travelling is. It's also not instantaneous, some people physically can't travel, and you can't share that experience with people if they are not physically with you.

These won't even be just 'viewings', they will be experiences. If you have a 360 volumetric video live recording of a concert, then you are experiencing something happening at that moment in time. Combined with perfect 3D audio, you would basically get the same experience as being there for real. You could even have VR-specific visual effects which I can assure you, as someone who has attended virtual raves, are out of this world when people go down the rabbit hole with it.

I guess we got a VR spokesperson under the name of DartBuzzer. Traveling is the best form of experiences from screen shots on VR. Nothing will replace In Person Real Life Experiences and you don't have to go far just step outside your front door. I already read in another PC magazine I trust to read that Rift had lost some programmers due to philosophy idea differences. So VR tech hasn't overcome internal differences on how it's used.

@SwitchForce Nothing will replace the entirety of real life, but as I said, most people can't afford to travel often. Some can't travel at all. Reality throws up roadblocks.

Therefore, in times where it's just not feasible, VR steps in.

"and you don't have to go far just step outside your front door. "
The Eiffel Tower is not outside my front door. My local town is boring. It's boring for a lot of people. It's also easier to find more common interests with people online than in person.

However, some things will replace real life for people. IMAX theater and night clubs, while they won't be absolutely ancient history, there are going to be people that only do that in VR because you can eventually get a richer / more stimulating experience as virtual worlds don't care about real world physics.

" I already read in another PC magazine I trust to read that Rift had lost some programmers due to philosophy idea differences."
This happens in many companies. Not everyone is going to be on the same page for the company vision. I'm pretty sure you're referring to Brenden Iribe leaving Oculus because he wanted them to pursue a Rift 2 headset that bruteforces the technology at a high price, to get it out sooner than later - rather than wait for advancements to make a Rift 2 cheaply.