Virtual Reality. VR. Oculus and so on. It's one of the biggest topics in the tech world and, particularly, in the dedicated gaming scene. Or perhaps that should be the enthusiast scene. I've read headlines saying 2016 is the year of Virtual Reality, make or break time. Is it really its final chance? No, no it isn't.
Much of the conversation around Virtual Reality refers to its two decades of development and struggles to assert itself, and a narrative has emerged of this being some kind of last chance saloon. Cowboys wearing the Vive, Oculus Rift and PlayStation VR have apparently moseyed into view, staggering slightly and perhaps feeling a little dizzy, to convince the world once and for all that they're worth purchasing for hundreds of dollars. As far as I'm concerned, though, this is the first time VR has gotten serious; it's getting column inches and buzz that all those older units and concepts could only dream of.
My contention, though, is that we're a good few years away from a mainstream audience caring one jot for these headsets, if that happens. They're still ifs, buts and maybes, but I'm pretty confident that these units will be a 'success' in terms of shifting a few million units, and then reality will dawn and the companies will sink investment into the actual last chance for Virtual Reality - the next generation of headsets that are much lighter, less power hungry and more affordable.
So, I want to give my perspective - opening myself up for hindsight ridicule if the NX reveal has a VR component - on why I believe Nintendo's statements that it's not interested in the concept right now.
I've read some valid arguments that Nintendo's taken punts before on innovative experiences and control methods, but even disregarding the fact the company's distanced itself from VR, there are clear reasons why this is different. For one thing, it's too darn expensive.
When Oculus came out with a $599.99 price tag for its first commercial unit - for which pre-orders sold out, as there's a keen market of tech-heads - some gasped. It was a couple of hundred dollars higher than I expected, perhaps, but I always expected the thing to cost more than even the most expensive games console. The reasoning is simple, the technology is still young and a tad experimental. I remember trying the first dev model of the Rift and thinking it was a bit of a mess. The screen resolution was low - which doesn't help at all when trying to avoid nausea - and it was both heavy and uncomfortable. I feigned a positive impression to be polite as I was surrounded by web developers and tech enthusiasts - I was mildly impressed by the technology, but not the experience.
It's come a long way since then, as it's clearly been streamlined and has far better screen technology. Yet with that comes the cost and a hefty dose of reality. Sony and HTC are shying away from pricing their units as yet, probably because they've observed the reaction to the Rift and are frantically trimming features, negotiating manufacturing discounts and seeing how much of a loss they can swallow on each unit. It wouldn't surprise me if Sony tries to hit the $300-$400 area, to make it seem to consumers like they're actually buying another PlayStation console.
There are cheaper options, of course, but they come with their own limitations. The Samsung Gear is about $200 but requires specific Samsung handsets and related apps, so the overall cost of entry is higher and the experience limited. Those looking for a cheap and cheerful equivalent can always get a Google Cardboard for about $20; this is far more basic technology but is good for a gimmicky virtual video tour, for example.
So pricing is a problem, in terms of the high price that comes with the full VR experience as applicable to games, or from the perspective of cheaper systems that have limited scope for gaming. How VR works and engages gamers is the next, and probably most vital, issue at this stage. I think a good video report that shows what's exciting but also flawed about Virtual Reality was from E3 last year. One of the presenters for BBC Click looked at various options, was impressed, but at one point literally falls over while demoing PlayStation VR.
That sequence demonstrates the positives and negatives. There is undoubted potential, but the clunky headsets and the realities of interacting with empty space are tough to ignore. Even the nature of the demos and early games show an industry in its infancy, with set-pieces or simplified activities the norm. Forget talk of 20 years of VR, these are experiences that are experimental and rough around the edges.
The fun factor is also a problem, which will be at the very core of Nintendo's thinking. Besides a number of users reporting nausea or vision problems with VR, it's a clunky and isolating experience. It may be cool at an expo or within a development studio, but to make a mainstream breakthrough it needs to be sleeker and more convenient. Considering Nintendo's focus on multiplayer fun and including the full living room in playing games, this counteracts all of those instincts. Nintendo of America's Reggie Fils-Aime also talked about it at E3 2015.
We have knowledge of the technical space, and we've been experimenting with this for a long, long time. What we believe is that, in order for this technology to move forward, you need to make it fun and you need to make it social.
I haven't walked the floor, so I can't say in terms of what's on the floor today, but at least based on what I've seen to date, it's not fun, and it's not social. It's just tech.
Of course, Nintendo may try to utilise VR in its own quirky ways in future, when it's affordable or can be tackled in innovative ways. In 2014 a particularly off-the-wall patent from the company was focused on glasses that could make 2D images appear 3D (which is sort of how Google Cardboard works) and to have other devices deliver a more literal portrayal of 'virtual' reality. We're talking peripherals that blow air in your face or project light to reflect the game, but as it's a patent it's a mere fantasy - or a prototype if we're lucky - until shown to be otherwise.
With Nintendo always keen to be inclusive and encourage multiplayer, that patent at least seems more likely than a chunky VR headset. There's also the possibility that Nintendo will consider other emerging technologies, with augmented reality also on the rise in the technology entertainment sector. Ideas that change the way games are experienced which can also be enjoyed in a group seem to be more Nintendo's style.
Virtual Reality, ultimately, may have a mainstream future, not just in games but in communications and how people consume entertainment such as TV - though if 3D glasses are a hard sell, headsets will be even tougher to promote. There's notable enthusiasm in the development space, too, with this year's GDC survey showing more and more studios working with the technology. The day may come where owning a VR headset is the equivalent to an extra controller or a Wii Balance Board, and we may regularly pop a sleek and light unit on for a bit of immersive gameplay.
Yet that day isn't quite here, due to a combination of factors including price, execution and the prototype nature of the technology. If it's not affordable and practical Nintendo will likely put it in a 'maybe' pile- something to revisit in the future.
Which brings me to my final point. I've seen the Wii cited as evidence of Nintendo taking a punt on newly immersive technology. Yet the key point is this - the Wii Remote used long established and affordable technology in clever ways. That's partly the reason - along with the modest power of the system itself - why the Wii could be sold for less than its competitors at launch. Cheap technology was used in an innovative way - the idea was cutting edge in terms of the impact it had on gaming, but the Wii Remote's innards were relatively simple and off-the shelf.
Virtual Reality isn't well established, efficient or affordable technology, at least not for immersive gaming. It's not yet ready for the Nintendo treatment.
I am very excited about VR and might be the reason to buy ps4/ps vr
VR is going to be absolutely huge and the more people that try it, the bigger it will get. This is not just a screen in front of your eyes folks. People really need to stop making that comparison. This is full on, stereoscopic 3D. You actually feel a great sense of depth which leads to a sense of immersion never seen before in the gaming world. I'm absolutely pumped. This is not a gimmick. This is a revolution in gaming. I'm convinced VR is here to stay.
I am afraid VR will be developed as a gimmick. I would play a VR Assassin's Creed over anything "forced". Compare it to 3D in movies. The best 3D is the one you don't notice; when it's not forced.
I also have no doubt Nintendo will embrace the technology when the time is right for them. As of right now I'm looking forward to the NX and getting myself an oculus.
VR is at least a decade away from being viable for the general public.
It's fair to be excited, and the end potential is pretty cool. But the reality, right now and right here, is that VR isn't even worth talking about from a mass market gaming standpoint.
But hey, when has reality ever stopped people from throwing money at stuff that isn't really worthwhile?
No thanks on "Virtual Reality." My "Real Reality" is quite wonderful. The march toward transhumanism cannot come soon enough for some people.
i would lay down and watch a movie through Vr Glasses
Now here's an actual new discussion! Got tired of the repeat NX discussions.
I think VR can be huge, but for gaming it will be a while before it becomes mainstream. It'll be for enthusiasts only at first.
Outside of gaming, VR has a lot of potential for businesses and in the medical field.
I tried an Oculus Rift but really didn't like it. Not because it didn't work. It really did, and that was uncanny. I think I prefer to have my fantasy clearly embedded in reality, rather than essentially replacing it.
There's so doubting the levels of 'immersion' VR brings, but... for now, I can't imagine myself actually wanting it. I find it really jarring having to try to spatially calibrate myself to two places, or jump between one and the other. I even feel uncomfortable just remembering the experience.
I'm not sure how unique I am in this though. I could never really empathise with people who found the 3DS uncomfortable to use after all.
Totally agree with the article.
I think you guys left out the part where only like 1% of PCs currently can even handle the Oculus Rift's tech specs. Or if it is in there, I missed it.
If VR survives, it's going to be thanks to the adult film industry, not gaming.... with that said, because of it and the target demographic, it has a chance for success.
I have a hard time imagining VR replacing traditional gaming with a controller as the main method of gaming. But maybe I think that because I've never actually experienced the Oculus Rift or any VR game really.
Check this out.
Also, as said in the article, it'd be unwise for Nintendo to pursue VR right now.
I've got a PS4 and I've tried some of the current VR tech - for me it's got a long way to go before I will bother buying it. Maybe on PS5 in 8-10 years time or even later. It's a fun tech experience, but nowhere near where it needs to be to be a mainstream product.
Legend of Zelda on Oculus. The user said he got queasy. I think they would need to fix the vomit factor. If they do that, I'm in.
So a game in VR wants me to turn my head to look backwards or just look around? You know what's easier? Just using a analog joystick. Words in a book are cheaper and just as immersive. This VR business will fail just like it did in the 80's and 90's. People to young to know better are the only ones who think this will be amazing and change everything. Even in the porn industry this will be very niche. Do you need Dolby Atmos to enjoy porn, because it's still good muted and in black and white.
Goes back to playing Shovel Knight....
VR: vomit reality. No thank you
Nintendo won't touch VR because it probably won't make any money. Most of these attempts at VR are tech geeks chasing a dream. I've tried it, and it's brilliant, but people are not going to spend that much money, and are not going to want to wear that stuff on their head. Commercially it's going to flop (I really, REALLY want to be wrong about this).
Nintendo might bang on about it being against their ideals, but they've made plenty of games for people to play alone before. It's all about the money, or in this case, the lack of it to be made.
Yeah, it's far too expensive for Nintendo to jump in now, which is extremely disappointing because as far as I'm concerned VR is the biggest and most exciting thing to happen in gaming (and entertainment in general) since the days of the N64—and pretty much every single person who's actually tried a modern VR experience agrees (especially on the likes of the Vive Pre and consumer Rift):
That's just a few random examples. And actually listen to how those people are gushing about the virtues of VR. No one actually gushed about 3DTV, with glasses required, like that.
Also, the VR tech is coming on leaps and bounds now, working through many of its perceived issues, and fast too:
All this kind of stuff has me far more excited than anything I've seen Nintendo hint at with the NX:
I mean just imagine a virtual reality version of the Virtual Console that's just like the New Retro Arcade:
What is NX going to possibly have that can get me as hyped as a full frikin virtual arcade that's capable of playing pretty much any retro game I can think of, including all of Nintendo's old titles, I wonder. . . .
PS. The fact that the reporter in the BBC video actually tried to lean on the virtual desk, almost falling flat on his face, is just testament to how immersive the experience was. For a brief moment he was experiencing Presence: http://www.inceptional.com/2015/10/02/heres-the-first-draft-of-my-brand-new-novella-presence/
I've never used a VR headset before, but I'd love to try it. Not for 600 bucks though.
I grew up in the 90s and for some reason there was always this 'VR is here' vibe - even though there was no VR! Regardless, I think it would be way past cool if it were to take off.
The only reason VR isn't fun at the moment, Reggie, is because Nintendo aren't doing it!
What's NeXt? Holograms? Ha ha ha ha
Nintendo's first VR Game: MiiMario. Play as Mario. Be Mario. Look like the kid in the dentist's chair.
Seriously, IMHO, no system will ever catch on that makes you wear a cumbersome headset. I did like my Wii U gamepad acting as a window into a VR in parts of Nintendoland, but that did not really catch on either.
I can't wait for the day the Nintendo debuts the New Super Virtual Boy Pocket 64 3D Advance!!!
No but seriously I have almost no interest in VR tech right now. I think the Virtual Boy was cool but it was a novelty. VR will still be a novelty today. It won't be big for years to come. It will be big someday but today is not that day.
VR is the next 3D - it will not be successful anytime soon.
Actually, if the opposing first-parties keep focusing so hard on VR and Nintendo doesn't, this could give Nintendo the chance to keep up with the graphical aspect of the console wars. Better graphics, better third-party support.
@freaksloan There is a huge difference in 3DTV where you have to wear stupid glasses, which no one really wanted to have to wear and actually detract from the experience slightly, and virtuality reality where the experience IS having the headset and it basically gives you something that is untouchable on any other entertainment medium/platform out there.
No one really asked for 3DTV with stupid glasses required. Loads of people have been waiting for VR as it basically exists right now, since the '90s.
And the biggest factor that differentiates the two is that after watching a 3D movie (glasses required) most people walk away thinking it was OK but that's about it. Most people who try current-gen VR walk away evangelising it (and this is just early days):
Old folk even border on tears after trying it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ8Xj_I3aNU&index=21&list=PLgzzAlT_CcFfyTE2R8dnHKns8-9IUzzO2 (and they're only on a crappy DK1)
3D is actually the future, but 3DTV/cinema that requires the glasses is garbage. VR is, however, a whole new paradigm in entertainment, and it even includes 3D anyway, and motion control, and whatever the hell else.
That's the difference here.
VR will find its niche, but it will never become mainstream.
Humans for the most part hate wearing glasses to see properly and hate wearing protective headgear.
If people are reluctant to wear necessary glasses to see properly, what makes you think they will embrace VR?
Let's not forgot $150 is considered expensive for glasses to see properly, I don't see them spending the money on VR.
VR just isn't something most people will wear willingly and admit to it.
There is no way in hell any society will accept VR headsets, when every society looks down on you for wearing necessary glasses.
VR won't take off in gaming as long as EA and other major 3rd parties are refusing to invest in it.
Since motion controls are the main and best input for VR, gamers will hate it as they have all motion control based systems to date.
The gamer hatred is real and it is quite strong.
VR will find a market or two, but it will never be mainstream.
@Xenocity VR will be mainstream, at least as mainstream as any console is considered right now, and the only thing to seriously debate is exactly how long it will take to reach that level.
That it will eventually reach mainstream penetration, I'm not even open to entertaining a debate. It is basically preordained as far as I'm concerned. Just like I can say we will eventually have men on Mars, fact. Now, I can say these things are facts, and you could debate it, but the fact is they will happen at some point, and debating it now isn't going to change the facts once it does happen. I'm just comfortable saying something is fact before it's actually happened in linear time when I'm absolutely sure it will happen.
One day, you will be able to go into the average gamers room and very likely see a headset sitting on their table, right next their consoles, handhelds, smartphone, PC, and/or whatever other gaming and entertainment type gadget they have.
I say no more than 10-20 years for VR to go mainstream—as mainstream as we think of modern consoles (and consider, the Wii U is sitting at around 10 million user base as I type)—but it will still be very popular among gamers, entertainment types, and tech-heads long before that.
I still disagree.
We were promised that virtual pets of 1990s would permanent replace real pet ownership for good in the early 2000s
Also console gaming is supposed to be dying as mobile is taking over rendering consoles obsolete.
Tablets and big phones are supposed to kill PC ownership by the end of the decade if the predictions hold true.
VR will find a market, but it won't be as big as console gaming let alone handheld gaming.
VR just isn't mass market compatible, let alone something the masses will care about outside of technophiles and a few other industries.
In a few years I think there will be a horrible reckoning when Apple Watch has a bigger number of users than all of VR put together.
@Xenocity "every society looks down on you for wearing necessary glasses".
Come on now, it's 2016. The idea of making fun of people and looking down upon them for wearing glasses is such an outdated trope it's not even funny.
The only part of society that "looks down" upon glasses anymore is insurance companies (eyesight isn't usually covered, as it's considered a cosmetic).
@Xenocity I know you disagree. It won't change the future.
I strongly doubt this whole Virtual Reality business will ever become popular in the mainstream, it's just not... right. It may be fancy technology and do some impressive things, sure, but what's the point if you come out of it with a alight feeling of nausea and isolation? Of course the analysts and 'hardcore' fans will obsess over it because it's new tech - that's what they'll always do. I just think it's far too hard a sell to become popular with the general public. I know for sure I'll never be dabbling in this.
It's not the future and there is no way to accurately predict how well VR do.
But in the end glasses, helmets, welding masks, sports masks and helmets, biking helmets, etc... are hated by the masses who refuse to wear them.
People hate wearing headgear and it is a known medical fact.
The only thing is certain is that blackberry is doomed.
VR is most certainly the future of the industry, the concept is intimately related to the entire purpose behind video games which is to immerse yourself in a virtual world and a common futuristic fantasy in pop culture. VR is the next logical step in gaming, period, much like 3D level design revolutionized gaming back in 5th gen VR will do the same for future generations. Also, I can see VR being popular among the exercise audience as it would allow you to exercise with your entire body in ways that you couldn't on the Wii or Kinect. So I'm not worried about the lack of a mainstream audience for this thing.
Most reasonable people will tell you that if Virtual Reality takes off, it's not going to happen in 2016, simple because the technology is too new, so I don't see why it would be any different for Nintendo. However, gaming companies and games developers who support Virtual Reality early to cater to the currently niche audience, while they may not make a substantial profit, may get their foot in the door when and if Virtual Reality takes off, and already be an established and recognized brand other companies will have to compete with if they are just entering the market.
@GloverMist I still find it funny, and sad, how so many people, especially so called "gamers", simply have no clue as to what they are witnessing with VR.
It's almost as if they can't see the woods for the trees.
They talk about things like nausea in VR. Two years ago many people got sick and dizzy trying the average VR headset for maybe ten or twenty minutes. Today they can go on a headset for an hour long gaming session and feel basically fine. They talk about people walking into walls and tripping over things in VR because they can't see around them:
What do imagine is going to happen from today, 20 January 2016, until say 20 January 2066?
Do you think VR is just going to stand still?
What about if we jump forward to 3066?
Or do you actually believe in a few years time VR will just disappear off the face of the Earth forever or something like that?
Ya know, like how it never came back after the '90s. Or how 3D cinema never returned and never got somewhat better after its appearance in the '50s (or whenever it first appeared). Or how no one ever touched motion controls again after the Power Glove. Or how games just disappeared from existence after that big crash in the '80s (when some people were calling them a fad who's time had passed). . . .
Christ, some people still think the last big push in motion controls flopped (Wiimote, PS Move, Kinect) and that they were a gimmicky fad—even though every single main VR headset it about to give birth to a whole new generation of vastly superior motion controllers (in VR and AR), and in some cases simply revitalise a last-gen/current-gen motion controller solution that didn't actually go anywhere at all (Move, on PSVR).
I'd take VR over a gimmicky screen in the controller any day of the week.
@EngieBengie This, a million times over. But, I'd put a VR controller with a touch screen in the simulation, just for those times where I want to do Super Mario Maker type stuff in the game.
To be fair, I actually love the screen concept on the GamePad. It has some genuinely brilliant uses, like intuitively creating levels in Super Mario Maker, or drawing in Art Academy: Atelier. I just don't think Nintendo came anywhere near close to doing it full justice, apart from a few random examples.
It's still strong and alive.
It's well known that employers are very reluctant to hire people who wear glasses, preferring to hire those without glasses as it has been proven in surveys and research.
It has been proven by medical research that people are put of by people who wear glasses and headgear.
It has been also proven that people who wear glasses and/or headgear will get less dates.
It has been proven that wearing glasses and headgear greatly diminish the amount of people who are willing to socialize and make friends with you.
It also shown that people are less likely to vote for someone wearing glasses and headgear.
There is a huge negative stigma in society for those who wear glasses and other kinds of headgear as study after study has shown!
Anyway it may still only be saved by the Porn Industry, they are a major factor behind most of the newest technologies.
@Xenocity Yeah, and still hundreds of millions, if not thousands of millions, of people wear glasses all day every day.
If VR even close to that kind of [reluctant] user base it's WINNING!
@MarinoKadame Oh yeah, and there's porn too.
@Yorumi I feel bad for, but you stats are pulled out your *ss. lol
If I count the people in my flat, my family, my friends, and any random acquaintances, I don't find anyone that is like you when it comes to getting terrible headaches in VR.
Think my social circle just got really lucky?
Now, I'm not saying some people don't have big issues in VR. I'm just saying it's going to stop VR selling just as much as it stopped the 3DS selling. If you get me?
Them and I wear then begrudgingly!
We also hate the price of them, especially if they cost more
I never said VR wouldn't sell, I said it won't be a big mainstream seller.
It will probably find it's main market in the industrial and space sectors of the economy.
Though a few million will buy it for personal use.
@Xenocity I think VR will, in the not too distant future, be on parity with modern consoles when it comes to sales numbers.
Now, that won't be only gamers who are using it, but also many industries outside of pure gaming too. But, VR will be selling in the kinds of units that would give it success no one would be ashamed of.
Basically, at some point there will easily be as many people around the world using VR headset as currently use games consoles (there's around 70 million current-gen home consoles in total out there right now). And if we are allowed to say games consoles are mainstream then VR will be mainstream too.
"focused on glasses that could make 2D images appear 3D (which is sort of how Google Cardboard works) ". No, it isn't, Google Cardboard displays two 2D scenes, one on the left and one on the right side of the screen(with lenses to increase the screen size for our eyes) to give a 3D effect, with headmovement detection from motion sensors moving the camera's inside the apps/games , just like all of the other VR headsets.
@Yorumi Actually, I think many people didn't use the 3D on the first 3DS systems because in all honestly it was kinda crap, certainly in my experience. Since the New 3DS, however, the 3D has been greatly improved, and from all the accounts I've read, most people who own a New 3DS now play with the 3D turned on most of the time.
My only singular issue with VR is that I can't afford it right now. When I can, that will probably be close to a time when Nintendo is ready for VR as well.
VR is cool, but it's still too expensive and the technology isn't quite there for it to go main stream yet. The market for it is bound to grow. I can't see it replacing consoles, but it could become an alternative for some.
I've not tried a VR console, so perhaps I'll think it's better if I gave it a go.
Granted, I've only tried VR once, but the idea of shoving some massive piece of garbage on my head and flailing my arms about to play a game seems utterly horrible. Buttons and a screen will be just fine, thanks.
@Hale-Bopp Yeah, that's basically my only real issue with it right now.
If I had the money I'd be ordering an Oculus Rift as a type. Or, I might wait just a wee bit longer, just to see what's up with the Vive.
@crimsontadpoles I think that's the case with most people who are saying it's a gimmick, a fad, won't be a success, is rubbish, is niche, and all that kind of stuff.
I'd like to see how many of the people basically claiming VR is nothing special have actually used a proper current-gen VR headset (particularly the latest Vive Pre and Oculus consumer models). . . .
Christ, I've only used a DK1, and the experience wasn't even that great (mainly cause the headset wasn't set up right and I was rushed as other people wanted to get on), but I've got enough sense to put all the pieces together and see exactly where this is all going in the next few years.
And I'm frikin excited beyond belief for VR.
@Joetherocker Buttons and sticks can only take you so far in gaming, the industry needs to be able to go beyond what they can offer in order to evolve. Seriously, if this kind of attitude existed back in the 90's we'd still be playing 2D games with D-pads.
@Bolt_Strike Even so, playing with a controller works great in VR too. It's so much more immersive seeing Mario right there in front of you and looking around by moving your head instead messing around with an analog stick.
On a side note: Zack and Wiki come out on VC tomorrow. It's $20 and it is an amazing game. I remember getting it for $9 at Gamestop. It is worth 20 beans, but I think it's still overpriced.
I think the porn Industry will perfect VR but for now I give it 5 more years.
@SuperWiiU Yeah, I'd still actually like to be able to use normal controls and stuff too—thank God that basically the best traditional controller ever made comes bundled with every Rift—but just in glorious stereoscopic 3D, 90fps, 100 degrees of view, 1:1 scale, motion tracked VR.
@Kirk I really dislike that they force that controller on Rift consumers. It just increases the price of the set, and most gamers already have one or something they like better. It should've been an optional extra.
@DarkKirby That video was perfect.
@SuperWiiU Palmer already said the the controller doesn't really and anything to the price. The headsets are so expensive as is that adding a few extras, which maybe only increase the price a tiny amount, is actually a good idea in this case.
Also, without the bundled controller, VR kinda would be a bit of a gimmick. The headset is sweet but without a proper controller its novelty would wear off fast, as just looking around doesn't really offer any deep gameplay experiences. This way you can play console quality games, in terms of visuals, gameplay, and controls, and that's true for every single person that gets a rift. It also assures developer support, consistent controller implementation, and stuff. I guess with the Rift everyone could have just used their keyboard and mouse, but the controller is going to make it feel like a higher quality experience all round.
It's actually a very good business decision in this case; not a bad one.
Trust me, a Rift out the box will literally be like buy a brand new console. It's a complete experience, with the hardware, controller, store and services, and games. That's what takes it out of the realm of just being some rubbish peripheral and puts it into the realm of being a whole new product category in its own right.
VR is like the kinect... just waiting for it to go away cause it's a bad idea
@Maggots Tis ignorance that talks here.
Virtual reality is really cool, but it'll probably just end up being a luxury item for a decent amount of time. A vast majority of consumers simply will not be able to afford it. Seriously, I was fortunate enough to get both a Wii U and and XBOX One over the past 3 years. And considering I still want a PS4 and NX... and I still have college tuition to worry about... yeah, if Nintendo went with VR, I doubt I'd be able to even afford it. I'm not dissing virtual reality either; I think it's a really cool concept. I hope it does well, I just don't want Nintendo to associate themselves with it right now for the sake of me being able to play their games.
@Kirk Could be...
Or maybe.... just maybe... VR is a bad idea... and that's why it just doesnt work even after 30 years of trying.
@Maggots But it does work, and that's why everything you're saying is total junk.
It's like all those posts I made above, with so many genuinely great links, are just totally wasted. But, just for you, here's some videos of pretty amazing VR experiences:
And a whole bunch more:
And here's what people who've ACTUALLY used it have to say about it (and ACTUALLY LISTEN to what they are saying):
Now, how about actually watching some of those videos and maybe a learning at least a tiny bit of stuff, so you can pretend you have the least bit of knowledge of what you are talking about.
Or, are you happy to just keep spouting the same ignorant junk?
@Maggots VR isn't a bad idea by any means, it's a very good idea. The entire point of video games is to emulate reality, which VR can do better than anything that currently exists.
@Bolt_Strike Well, that and to create worlds that you can only imagine in your wildest fantasies, and let you explore them too.
@Kirk Exactly, and that's also something VR can do better.
I find first person perspective games disorientating enough without it being in a wrap around helmet. To me this is a dedicated hobbyist's toy, but I doubt your average family will get much out of it for the cost of it.
And to be honest, I've already spent 350 quid on a box that hasn't lived up to my expectations called the PS4. Nintendo are better at giving us a relaxed way of playing their fun games that doesn't split opinions and headaches.
@Xenocity Well, the Blackberry thing we can agree on.
Those would be considered third person experiences in VR (despite you looking at them through your eyes in first person, like you do in real life every day, with everything you look at)—although you'll still have to wear the headset and suffer that stereoscopic 3D, 1:1 scale, 90fps, world being wrapped all around you.
Will VR be the future? Probably, but the current bulky, wired headsets are just holding it back.
What if Nintendo having done the Wii U wasn't simply for that asynchronous gameplay bit, but was a first step towards VR freedom by getting wireless streaming down @ 60fps?
Whatever happens, Nintendo won't be the first to market. They've burned their fingers on VR before so they will probably take a wait & see attitude. And i think they are 100% right to do that. As long as helmets or visors are needed, it's not ready for the mainstream
software drives hardware. and there is no compelling software on the horizon let alone currently. the gfx cards necessary are also beyond the ps4/xboxone and probably NX. the media are really letting people down by rehashing marketing and being so uncritical.
i'm more interested in augmented and secondary displays. immersion does nt require technology it requires artistry
@Kirk I have used it... I've been to E3... There is no practical use for VR STILL... its all impractical and expensive... its just not a good idea in it's "wear a headset be isolated from the world" form. maybe one day it will be a good idea... but not in this form. I'm speaking from nintendo's perspective as well.. for them... It is a terrible business idea... something like holo-lense is a far better idea... as far as VR goes... until someone makes anything worth playing It will never catch on.
Sure VR as a technology is a cool idea... VR as a game doesnt work still... It's not fun... it's just... NIFTY
IMO, VR will take off in other industries, but AR could be the next big thing for gaming. Especially for local multiplayer.
@Kirk I'm calling BS on Palmer's statement. It does add to price, and adds weight increasing shipping costs(which are very high, especially abroad).
@SuperWiiU Yeah, it probably adds about $20 when you factor in the fact it's obviously secured some bulk deal with Microsoft.
When the headset is costing $600, and most people have to buy a new $1000+ PC too, I really don't think including the controller is the problem.
The extra $20 is far outweighed by having a single control solution across all users. And the fact it happens to be one of the best controllers out there is all the better.
@onex You have it the wrong way around. VR is a far superior solution for gaming than AR. Both will have their place though.
@Maggots For Nintendo it's not a great idea right now, simply because the cost is prohibitive.
You are however very much projecting your own issues onto VR rather than seeing the bigger picture.
It's like levelling the same complaints at 3DS because some people can't see 3D and even many kids aren't supposed to use it—yet, 3DS has already sold nearly 60 millions units. And VR as a tech is an order of magnitude more exciting than the 3DS.
There are already many great GAMES coming to VR. The two that are bundled with it are literally system sellers (and they'll just keep coming):
You just don't want to accept that, for whatever reason—but most people who've played them aren't telling a different story.
@Kirk lol superior solution for YOU, maybe. Mainstream audience? AR has a far better shot since it doesn't isolate the user from others.
I'm not interested in a gaming mode that completely cuts me off from my surroundings. I'm drawing the line with VR. It just seems like something to be used for therapy and that's it.
I've wanted VR to happen for the longest time. Although, now that I'm older and I'm in a place in my head that I actually enjoy, the whole VR concept will always seem like a gimmick. Sure, it's pretty. New tech always is. But getting the mainstream to accept such stark isolation? You've gotta be dreaming.
Stark... now an Iron Man VR could be cool, I won't lie.
@XCWarrior Don't forget about all those erotic visual novels (as well as normal VN), this tech would do wonders for those as well, it may be a niche market but those games do sell.
Speaking of isolation, VR isn't antisocial at all. The social aspect just works differently than normal. You can socialize with other people face to face in the game world, and you can socialize with your friends if they have their own VR device. You shut yourself out from the real world, but not necessarily from each other.
When The VR market starts to really blossom I'm sure Nintendo will be thinking about putting a set out there. As far as I'm concerned VR is where gaming is headed and Nintendo will have to out a set out there. I don't think VR will replace the current format of having the screen several feet in front of your face but it will be giving it a run for its money.
Nintendo needs to make a current gen system and getting third party back long before doing VR
@KrakenSoup if there was a like button for posts you'd have one from me.
In the normal consumer's mind, they will look at VR as a peripheral, and they will not pay $600 for a peripheral.
I never really cared for the idea of VR though that could have been tainted by Disney Land's version when I was younger and Star Trek with the holodecks. Even more so to wear something on my face to play a game seems weird. I even hate wearing headphones and will only wear them when I am talking to people... which isn't nearly as often as it used to be. Though in the end, VR will probably pass and the next new thing will arise a few years from now after 80%+ of VR's use it'll turn to porn.. trust me, it'll go there. I see more news and more videos about VR porn than gaming now and I mostly use gaming sites.
What planet are you guys on.
Some of the best virtual reality gaming experiences can be found using Nintendo games.
These games were not designed for VR, but some actually work quite well, and a few so far may even be the definitive version of the game.
DolphinVR by Carl Kenner is a fantastic hack of Dolphin - the Wii and Gamecube emulator - to make Nintendo games compatible with Virtual Reality such as the Oculus Rift.
Its been an incredible effort by a small group of gaming and VR enthusiasts.
Nintendo are definitely missing an opportunity here.
Vr is excluding you from your environment. Not something for Nintendo in philosophy.
Check out holo lens from Microsoft. That concept would work wonders.
"Nintendo and Virtual Reality Aren't a Good Fit in 2016"
So YOU think! We'll just wait and see! Nintendo could give it their own spin, it might work (maybe).
@onex Trust me, for gaming VR is superior in almost every way to AR, by virtue of the fact that by its very nature VR can put you in basically any kind of world you can imagine, whereas AR must include our boring old world in the equation which limits its versatility in that respect (otherwise it's not AR anymore, it's basically VR). Anyone who knows even a little about how the two solutions work should be able to clearly see this. For other applications AR has its strengths, but VR is the vastly superior game format. Well, unless you're right into cheap, throwaway gimmicks, like shooting some guys hiding behind your couch or whatever.
VR means first person-only games, so Nintendo is automatically cut off this business. Or maybe the reason we didn't have a Metroid or a F-Zero on the Wii U is because we'll play them on the powerful NX with a VR set! Yeah, for sure!
@andreoni79 No it doesn't
Those would be considered third person experiences in VR (despite you looking at them through your eyes in first person, like you do in real life every day, with everything you look at).
VR gets me warmly nostalgic for the 90s in the same way the latest attempt to shove 3D TVs down consumers throats reminded me of the 80s. A Lawnmower Man sequel anyone?
@electrolite77 Your wish is my command:
@Kirk You mean the NX won't be the definitive home console? Think about: it will run Nintendo games in glorious HD and even those PS4/XBOX third parties games!!! Oh wait, this is what we thought of the Wii U...
Sorry for my pessimism about Nintendo, but my Wii U is collecting a lot of dust lately. And I'm forcing myself to finish XCX which sadly went from Goty to Doty; it's hard to dedicate it some hours when my PS4 backlog is full of great games that one can easily find for half the money the big N asks. My six months old PS4 already has 6 games; my bought-on-Day-One Wii U has 13.
VR is going to bankrupt every company that takes it on. They are all dead in the water. They just don't know it yet.
@Henmii Nintendo already has their foot in the door of virtual reality. With the gamepad - those metroid levels in Nintendoland show that they are really close to that sort of immersion. But the other companies haven't been spending their time working on making "Fun and Entertaining" games - they've been focused on making Real Looking games. So when they do make full-on Virtual Reality AAA Games (none have been made so far - the only VR games are glorified demos) they're gonna face the reality of not knowing how to make a game "Fun". And everyone will bemoan VR - but the problem will be that the experience itself won't meet the hype. The funniest thing about everyone's hype is - they are simply curious. It is fine to be excited. But that excitement can cause people to see things a little bit rosier than they actually are. VR is going to doom every company that takes it on before it is ready. And I don't see it being ready for another 2 years minimum.
@andreoni79 Hey, I hear ya, man.
VR isn't a good fit for anything at any time. It's another gimmick that's going to die off quickly like 3D did.
"wah wah wah you just need to try VR!"
VR's too expensive to buy one just to "try" it and see if you like it, which is why it's going to die, just like 3D did which was also too expensive to try (outside the 3DS which just confirmed most people's feelings that 3D was a waste of time that causes headaches while making games look worse).
@Kirk Just because some people need/like a new controller and some of the other unnecessary Rift extra's, doesn't mean they should be forced on all costumers. An optional barebones kit could've saved easily over 150 dollars(including shipping). Most of the early adopters already have a Rift compatible PC. My PC isn't a up-to-date 2016 monster PC, but was still fully compatible with the Rift requirements, so the only cost was the Rift. But I just want the glasses and cables, the other stuff is garbage to me.
I get what you mean, but I wouldn't call the Metroid levels you mentioned VR. For that it has to be "beamed" straight to your eyes (by wearing VR glasses).
As for the "fun" aspect, every game-developer can make a game fun if they really try. But with VR you have the problem of movement. For full immersion you should have the space to walk around freely, something you won't have in a normal room (not enough anyway, you'll bump into stuff).
We'll see how it goes. People laughed about 3D, yet every movie is in 3D now (because they can ask more money that way). On the contrary, Google-glass flopped immensely. One things for sure: Almost EVERY company on the planet is working on VR. Many will fail sales-wise, only 1 or 2 may survive (if lucky). One of them may be the Facebook-one, but you can bet that will only be used for nonsense such as Farmville (you know, casual free-to-play nonsense).
I actually think with a 35 million-selling console it's extremely stupid for Sony to be going down the VR route and am in complete agreement that it's not something Nintendo should pursue just yet. And I'll be honest, if NX proves to be a massive success I'd hope it means the company avoids VR even longer. Just focus on the successful, money-making product and leave the VR nonsense to other companies. Add-ons are a horrendous idea and end up splitting the userbase. Nintendo is always at its best when it focuses on games and nothing more and that's what it needs to do for NX. Beyond the whole add-on aspect though, there's just a lot about VR that makes it iffy. Some people won't ever be able to use it for health reasons, I know I simply of no interest in it in general, especially if I have to wear a headset and I'm not the only person who thinks like that either. I do VR can find a nice place for itself but if it's going to be the future of gaming, I think that's a mistake.
@SuperWiiU Listen, selling the Rift with an official controller is in this case like selling a Wii with a Wiimote, Wii U with a GamPad, an Xbox One with an Xbox One controller, or a PS4 with an DualShock 4.
Now, it is true that because the Rift is connected up to a PC that everyone could just use the mouse and keyboard to play games, but the fact is that Oculus clearly sees the Xbox One pad as the primary controller for its headset, in the same way the Wiimote was the primary controller for Wii and the GamePad the primary traditional controller for Wii U and so on, and so it has included the Rift's primary traditional controller in the box (seeing as the Touch controllers are not even available yet).
If Oculus took out the included controller then I believe it believes it would be delivering an incomplete and lower quality product. I believe Oculus believes that overall the mouse and keyboard setup is not the optimal "traditional" control experience for its hardware—and it's very clear it's trying to put together the best all-round package possible at launch to give this device the best chance of success possible. Hence, there is a proper traditional controller included in the box with this new hardware platform. It's that simple. And the fact Oculus struck a deal with Microsoft is exactly why it managed to do this without adding another $60 onto the price or whatever. It also means that 100% of users will have this controller so all developers can feel 100% secure in fully supporting it, which is a very big deal and would be an issue if the controller were just an optional peripheral (as you will see when the Touch controllers launch. Although, I'm sure a lot of Rift owners will get those, touch because).
This is really not one of those situations where not including any controller in the box would have been a better idea. Oculus knows playing a Rift with a keyboard and mouse is not going to give people the high quality control experience it wants with its new VR platform, and getting that wrong right out the gate would be one of the biggest VR fails of all time. This is all very well thought out, but you are just looking at it from the wrong perspective to see that.
Try to understand: The Rift is not considered a peripheral by Oculus. It is considered its own platform. The only reason it even tethers to your PC is because they can't yet make a powerful enough self-contained cutting-edge VR headset without the extra power of an external PC or console for now. But, rest assured, the Rift will at some point dump the PC. The Rift is being pushed as a new console, a new product category, and not just some peripheral for your PC. So it would be utterly stupid of Oculus to package it as such for now. They won't be selling it without the additional parts for now (and maybe never)—as they specifically don't want people mistaking it for some gimmicky peripheral you can just throw in a closet a few months down the line once you bore of the novelty—exactly like Nintendo isn't selling a barebones Wii U without the GamePad. The Wii U is the combination of console and controller. The Rift is the combination of headset, tracker, and a standard controller (with additional Touch controllers coming down the line too). That is what you need to grasp.
@Henmii They're actually working on solutions to the movement problem. Have you seen a device called the Virtuix Omni?
@Kirk Listen, the Rift is not a console-like device. It's just the monitor. A lot of people interested in the Rift already have the console, the controllers, the works. They just need the monitor/TV. And at lot of people don't like to be forced to buy a controller and other periperals along with their TV, especially when they already own those or just don't want them(on a side note: the PS4 and 360 controllers are actually preferred by most gamers over the X1 one). And the Rift isn't the only TV available either. Optionally selling those along with it is fine, but forcing it on every single costumer is just backstabbing their supporters. If they want to make it a self-sustaining platform, they can just release an add-on(like the touch controllers thankfully are now) or a seperate release. It will always work as a device for the PC, and a lot of people don't want the other platform-based BS forced down their throat. Facebook may have their own ideas for it, but most of the early adapters aren't interested.
@SuperWiiU Oculus sees the Rift as the entire package (and it has said as much on multiple occasions), not just some alternative screen for your PC. VR is not just some peripheral. It is a whole new product category. And the ONLY reason the Rift even connects to your PC is the current power/size/cost ratio, which is only an issue for the now. In time, VR will exist entirely separate from the console, PC, or whatever else is in your living room. The Gen 1 Rift could be argued is just a peripheral for your PC—in the same way someone might argue a TV is just a peripheral for you console or visa versa (if they were a moron), or that the Apple Watch is really just a peripheral for you iPhone because it's basically tethered to it—but VR in and of itself is a category unto itself, and that's its future.
Oculus knows what it wants the Rift to be and it's selling it as such.
If you just want some random VR headset to plug into your PC, that's nothing other than the display and gyros (no dedicated game/App store, no dedicated controller(s), no dedicated first party support), then you can find something like that for a couple of hundred bucks on Amazon or something. But that's not what Oculus is aiming for with the Rift.
I think all of this is worth considering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBaOpfSL2YQ
I don't think after gambling on VR with Nintendo's next system will be a good idea. The gamepad has proven that putting something in the box that developers don't want to be bothered with, will kill the system, and if not, the market gets further fragmented. I don't know. I'm unconvinced, and think this would be a death sentence for Nintendo.
I really like move controls (just like skyward sword) but I have to say I could not play more than a couple of hours a day (I really got tired!) ... and that game only required arms' movement.
I am wondering how exhaustive can be a VR game experience, if the user has to play literally with his entire body.
I really like move controls (just like skyward sword) but I have to say I could not play more than a couple of hours a day (I really got tired!) ... and that game only required arms' movement.
I am wondering how exhaustive can be a VR game experience, if the user has to play literally with his entire body.
Excellent editorial. I love the picture of the guy smiling with his virtual reality specs on. Virtual reality probably won't work for me. 3D is a gimmick that movies have tried and it's useless. All its managed to do is raise movie prices. Same goes for virtual reality. A very expensive gimmick. Now if it was more a holodeck experience....
I'd like to see a Samsung Gear VR type addon for the NX portable. Pair it with a wiimote+ for fun times at a not-ridiculous price.
I'll get a VR headset just for the porn alone.
The Virtual U isn't the NX is it?!
Personally, Virtual Reality has little appeal to me. I can immerse myself in a game without the need of a device that isolates me from the world around me, a world that might want to call me for dinner... or that the house is on fire. Wearing headphones is worrying enough, without also blocking out my vision as well.
I don't need a VR device to understand the world I'm playing, to imagine or feel that experience, I can do that with the current state of gaming, or reading a book, or just thinking to myself. Immersion to me can be achieved through simply making an enjoyable or emotional experience, it doesn't need to place me into the world to achieve such an experience.
As a person who needs glasses, VR headsets don't appeal to me. I wouldn't be able to enjoy it without the aid of my glasses and the headset wouldn't fit comfortably on top of them...so that's my reason for not really being excited!
If Nintendo were to dip into VR again, I think it would becloser to the end of this decade.
@Henmii well, no not every movie is in 3D - and 3D in film is terrible. So yes, I still laugh at 3D in movies. It is trivial and useless. It harms the film. Makes the picture darker. 3D is stupid in film.
Meh, VR just seems like an excuse to sell us hackneyed gameplay with a "Now in VR!"-sticker stuck on it, i think i'll pass for that.
Besides, i wear glasses, and have a lazy right eye, which caused a weird disconnect between my two eyes, which makes both movie- and 3DS 3D effects close to unnoticeable for me, so it remains to be seen how a VR headset will work for me...
Well maybe not all films, but a lot of films (at the cinema). I agree on the darkness: A dark movie gets even more dark in 3D. And I find 3D distracting, probably because I have to shove those glasses over my normal glasses. I love my 3D on the 3DS though.
No, but yeah I can see people working on that. We are constantly moving forward, technology-wise.
But its true: Its hard to live up to the hype. I remember that you could scan in all kinds of objects with the Microsoft camera (on Xbox-one) and use for example a true baseball-bat as a baseball-bat in a baseball-game, but did any developer use that feature in a fun and good working way? I haven't heard much about it since. I didn't follow the XboxOne news that closely though, so I could have missed it.
Oh dear. It's bad enough wearing a wired headphones at my pc, but having a wired head set and moving around on the floor is asking for trouble. Someone will either have a nasty accident, or will yank their PS4 on to the floor lol.
Please learn to ignore eachother, if not I'll be issuing some temp bans.
@Santa thanks for deleting his comments finally. What started off as some form of on topic discussion basically end up with me getting replies full of nonsense, abuse and profanity. Was getting very hard not to write something that would result in an instant ban.
Tap here to load 127 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...