E3 2016: Reggie Says VR "Needs to be Mainstream" For Nintendo To Get Involved

Nintendo are only interested in things that make huge amounts of money, and I really doubt VR is going to be that. VR is amazing, and I'll be getting a Playstation headset, but it's too dorky and too expensive to take off on Wii-like levels which is what Nintendo is after.

Nintendo will just sit back as always and wait and see. The problem is if it does take off then they will be 5 year too late to the party just like they were with online or HD.....oh wait!

I will never understand the fascination with VR.

VR is great in principle and we will eventually get to a point where it reaches consumer expectations, but I'm not convinced we're there yet... and Nintendo are right to wait it out.

The buzz for PSVR is there, and I can see it doing well initially, but it's once people get hands-on experience and how that translates into consistent use, public perception and continued interest that matters. Personally, VR makes me feel ill after about 20/30 minutes of use (I work with it everyday, and have used PSVR too) and that's a major reason why I'm not on board with it. I'm just glad I had the chance to experience it instead of dropping £350 on it come October!

@Peach64 "Nintendo are only interested in things that make huge amounts of money"

That sounds WAY more like Microsoft or Sony, not Nintendo, especially the "only interested" part. To me and many others, they are truly the only ones that still dare to take risks and try to innovate, albeit with varying results of success, but that comes with the territory.

But Nintendo does keep inventing truly new experiences that, at times, turns initial gimmicks into generally accepted functionalities, like they have done so many, many times before.

So, I'd rather say that besides making money (which every sane company should strive to do) they are truly in it to innovate, amaze and entertain. Difference is also that to them it's their core business, whereas the other two have many other sources of income, so they will probably care less where exactly that money is coming from, as long as it is coming...

It's expensive and it's an isolating experience. Two things that Nintendo are traditionally not particularly keen on. So it doesn't at all surprise me that Nintendo aren't interested. Yet.

It may be a wise move, but Nintendo needs to be very careful to not get left behind if and when it does become mainstream.

When it goes to AR and when the cost is low, you’ll see nintendo get in. They need inclusive, but not isolating things. And they want to sell it at normal prices.

I love VR and want the ps4 vr thing, but my money comes up short. And I’m not alone.

VR needs to be mainstream... when Nintendo isn't really doing many mainstream things anyway.... lol

Maybe once you can get decent VR headsets that are no bigger than skiing goggles for £100 or less, it'll really take off. To get to that point though these upcoming sets will need to do well for more than just their first year on sale.

At this point there I think there is one major factor that should make any consumer electronics company avoid trying to market current VR technology, and I imagine it's probably the biggest reason Nintendo isn't going to get into the VR business any time soon. That factor being that about 30% of humans get "VR sickness" from just a few minutes of using current VR headsets, resulting in nausea and usually vomiting. Needless to say, when 1 out of every 3 of your customers starts throwing up after trying out the expensive new $400+ toy they just bought from your company you are going to have a LOT of returns to deal with and lose some pretty enormous amounts of money in the process. VR is a lovely idea, but the technology just isn't there yet to be able to pull it off without making about 30% of people who try it violently ill. Nintendo was very smart to pass on the VR trend, and I think Sony will be in for some very difficult times once all the returns start coming in.

Reggie claimed Nintendo wasn't going to be entering the VR space anytime soon, and said that VR "needs to be mainstream" - is one of the dumbest things I have heard.

Reggie seems very conservative - as you would expect from someone lacking imagination and lacking the Nintendo spirit of trying new things first.

With this kind of thinking, there would be no Wii console, Wii U console or upgraded models of 3DS. If Nintendo copies Microsoft or Sony they will surely lose.

So what gives Reggie. Here is a plan for you - light a camp fire and sing boy scout songs instead.

VR is the new kinect. And we all know where this road leads.

Reggie is an outsider, I bet Nintendo HQ in Japan didn't told him anything, he has no clue what the NX is.

By the time NX launch next year, VR will be mainstream with 50 VR games from Sony and others for Oculus and Vive, as well as Google Daydream for mobile.

Please Nintendo, stay away from VR. if for some reason it really looks appealing, I'm getting for a PC where you can upgrade the power. But the chances of that are 0.00000000001%. Won't say never, but I'm thinking in the clearance bin in early 2018 after it bombs.

I kind of agree with him. Having seen all the kit and the space needed for VR, as well as the cost I cannot see it taking off in a big way yet. I think they are pushing it too early, it needs to be refined a lot before it will really sells. I can see why people are excited about it but it still seems very gimmicky to me.

@Lizuka People were upset enough that Xenoblade Chronicles 3D was an exclusive and then even more upset that the SNES games are exclusive as well. I get the feeling that Hyrule Warriors 3D was probably meant to be a New 3DS exclusive due to the low run quality on the original systems. Nintendo as a note has always put out revision handhelds, they didn't do it with the GBA but have done it with the DS, 3DS, and GB.

Not to mention that it doesn't have any wowing factors here. Nothing in the VR looks very special even when using the phone as the VR headset.

I've played a couple of them but really.....its giving me a headache.

@peach64 you kind of sound like a Nintendo bully... alway when I see your name its negative talk.

Will you please quite with being only negative.

Too expensive as of now and with very few options to experience something right now, let's wait and see.

I enjoyed my time with the Vive. The lab demo is quite amazing. It is a really good showcase of what VR can do.

I want Nintendo VR, but I understand where they are coming from.

Since when something needs to be mainstream for Nintendo to jump in? It sounds more like NX is not technically capable.

VR wont be mainstream until it is actual VR. No cords, no controllers, when walking, running, jumping in your program feels like real life and we dont have the machines to do it yet.

The VR machines will sell well at launch but won't be successful yet as a gamers toy. If Sony, Oculus want to make money.....they need to push it for medical, military, police, etc training.

'Should "represent strong value to the consumer"'

Lol whut? Is Nintendo even allowed to say that anymore after how bad of a value their current systems are?

On a side note, I believe that those people hating VR so much on here would be hyped if Nintendo said they are supporting VR. How can you hate something you haven't even tried?

@VanillaLake
Some people try phone VR and think it's the same thing as a real headset.

@Peach64 ironically, Sony wants PSVR to be their "Wii moment"

When did Nintendo ever wait for something to become mainstream before adopting it?

Since when was dual screen gaming mainstream before the DS came along, and the same can be said about using the wiimote. By Reggie's logic, neither would have come to market.
The only reasons I can see Nintendo not doing VR is because there are other companies that are doing it instead, and the fact that the tach isn't cheap enough yet.

@aaronmclaren but the power needed to run games with it would benefit Nintendo's current business, getting gob smacking games out to the public, that's why the Vulcan API and AMD.

i reckon if the current sets take off (Vibe, Rift, PSVR) then i can see Nintendos next system (whatever comes AFTER NX) would have a VR system

but i really can't see VR being a mass market item yet because it's too expensive at the moment, a VR set costs as much if not more than a console does we are talking over £600 if you want PSVR for example because you have to buy a PS4 too (and before anyone say that the PC versions are cheaper, don't forget you have to have a powerful PC as well and those cost money too)

currently Nintendos target audience are kids so VR really is NOT worth it for them just yet i feel

@dizzy_boy he meant touch screens

@FullbringIchigo just like Sony with their PlayStation.

@AVahne Probably. Also, console VR is optional, is just an extra game mode, a different way of playing (or seeing) the game (in big games like Resident Evil 7, I mean). It's like the 3D feature of Nintendo 3DS. What's wrong with that?

@AVahne Yeah, the mobile vr does even compare to the real head sets. Please don't believe that is VR people. haha

The Vive gave me legitimate "wow" moments, which I haven't had with a piece of technology in a long time.

I think Reggie was saying, when he said VR had to "mainstream" was in terms of cost to the consumer. Once the technology is cheap enough to reproduce, which it is not at this moment, which is what is stopping it becoming mainstream, then Nintendo will consider it.

AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT.
VR is way too expensive as of now to be "mainstream". I don't feel the need to see the Mushroom Kingdom around me, I feel my TV screen will be enough, thank you very much.

@Gobelee Yep, mobile phone VR = diving googles + mobile phone + sealing tape.

@ROBLOGNICK You are wrong, he also said "it should represent strong value to the consumer".

Like if they cared about strong value to the consumer these days...

@VanillaLake "You are wrong, because he also said "it should represent strong value to the consumer"."

Erm, strong value as in value for money? The cost of VR at the moment is anything but value for money for the general consumer.

@ROBLOGNICK Okay, now I see what you mean, but I think he is just sugar-coating.

My... current problem with VR is the same as the Wii's early life

so far there are a few "real" games that use it, a lot of the VR exclusive content reminds me of the Wii and Kinects library. Case in point the demo of Fallout VR: You can "walk" around only in the play space to move further you have to point the controller and press a button to teleport to that spot.

To me the current VR isn't the complete package, now those Omni-directional tredmill + motion controller... that looks like VR (and tiring)

@abe_hikura I agree that it is a new thing. It's interesting, but no need to rush and jump in for a high price, personally. Just wait to see what it offers in the future. Same for 4K.

On a personal note, there's no way I can afford VR right now. I literally just bought a PS4 last year and the VR system is more than what I paid for the PS4. Gonna wait it out for a very considerable price drop, and that "must have" game.

As far as Nintendo, I never trust what they say anymore. NX could be VR compatible, and he's just staying tight lipped on the matter. I worry though that if they aren't taking it seriously, it'll be history repeating itself. Remember when they thought HD gaming wasn't going to take off for many, many years? The Wii was looking pretty bad by 2008 because they chose not to get on the bandwagon.

I think the system at least needs to be capable to support it. You're about to release a new console when your competitors are pushing new tech. If it does take off, and Nintendo's system can't do it period, they'll wish it did.

I don't see VR succeed in the video game industry. Even if it does, it's gonna be a fad, just like the Wii. VR will never replace traditional gaming on a TV.

Although, I can see VR succeed in other fields, such as medicine, space, military, etc.

Two things: Nintendo wants games to be inclusive and enjoyed by everyone in the room at once. VR is very isolating, and since couch co-op games are its top selling games, wouldn't fit very well.

Second: the problem with VR is the controls don't have a very good scheme that fit it, and unless you are making a lot of first person games (Nintendo doesn't), it is hard to make games for it.

To me current VR doesn't really innovate with anything, all it really does is let the player play first person without the TV and privately. To have true VR, the player must be the controller and the gameplay must be virtual such as this:

I can deal with 3ds 3D but most of the time it's off. VR seems like a lot of money for something that is just good for about a few minutes of gaming a day. And I don't know if I could look at it without getting sick. I probably won't but I am not paying close to $1000 or over that to see with the good headsets.

VR won't be mainstream until we have tiny OLED VR glasses, or perhaps even cybernetic implants. It's going to take a lot to make VR mainstream, I suspect this recent attempt is going to fizzle out too, soon enough. And who knows if any of these companies will still be around by then.

I think VR will be a fad in games, it is way to expensive and it isolates the player from everything around him.
It may be useful for other areas, like medicine, space, etc.

While this doesn't indefinitely deny the VR NX rumor, I was kinda hoping it were true: not because I'd actually want VR tech in whatever the NX is supposed to be (I couldn't care less about VR). I was hoping potentially for the tech inside the NX because that would've been a surefire way to make certain the NX would be packing some pretty decent hardware for a change. (You wouldn't be able to run VR with any of Nintendo's recent systems. Well, not without them smoking and burning a soul-hole through the atmosphere.) In any event, VR tech isn't needed in order to implement decent specs for a system. But yesterday's Ubisoft article definitely has me concerned about Nintendo going in the bleeping casual direction YET AGAIN. I hope that's speculative overreaching but knowing the kind of crap Nintendo's been up to the past 15 years or so, I wouldn't put it past them... Kimishima-san, please don't go down Iwata's decrepit path of gimmickry and chasing after the same crowd that's left Nintendo high and dry the past couple systems...

@Kriven The SP is just a Gameboy Pocket in comparison. As many technologies they were planning to put into it were put into the DS instead.

I see Nintendo jumping on board when AR (augmented reality) reaches some maturity. The aspects I want most from VR and AR are collaborative in both gaming and work application and AR is just much more useful that way. The tech in Hololens shows a taste of this but is hamstrung by the small view portal and the portable hardware limitations and the higher cost it forces. Will be very interesting to see what Microsoft comes up with by end of 2017 for VR.

Anyway, Smash bros. with friends playing with the characters jumping all over your room and furniture? Mario Kart in VR? Metroid Prime 4 in VR? Treasure Tracker where you play with friends in the same room observing and interacting with the environment from all sides? Mario Party where you play mini-games where you are in them. All mainstream ideas that require significant advances (especially cost).

Not gonna lie, I don't see VR taking off that big anytime soon. There's just some serious problems I see with it: the price, the fact that only specific games could work with it, I don't really think most people would be able to handle having a giant screen strapped to their heads for too long,the fact that it creates isolation from everyone around them, and, yeah...I don't see it taking off that well.

Makes sense. VR tech is expensive for the consumer and the manufacturer. They're not going to want to pump out money getting these made if few people are gonna buy it or afford it.

dear "TrollReach64"

aside from you fishing for comments I would like to add that there are mutiple expensive accessories that need to be purchased in order to actually use the PSVR...which to be honest PS move and PS eye were never properly or fully utilized nor mastered because it was quickly dismissed and this is what you place your faith in?

I will be behind VR when a console is fully dedicated to VR so I can get unique new creative games instead of yet another remaster hd vr of an already remastered game with little focus on gameplay and more on how the can get more of your money without having to create something new

@VanillaLake = A recipe for numerous Darwin Awards.

@Tempestryke Is that sarcasm or a compliment?

(Ir sarcasm, I would kindly ask you to respect my opinions).

Occulus is at 600 $, HTC vive at 900 € => VR is not for everybody although you make a cheap VR headset which we don't want.
So yes, Nintendo ! Just leave the VR until technology has made enough progress to make your own.

If you wait for it to become mainstream, you're already behind the curve. So much for innovation, right? It's bizarre how Nintendo shifts from taking wild gambles to being ultra conservative.

With VR, it's about taking those awkward baby steps. That's the only way the technology will ever improve. If you just wait for someone else to perfect it... well, you let them beat you to it. I'm not saying I'm dying for VR from Nintendo, but I think it's a bad attitude to just dismiss it. Nintendo has a history of doing this sort of thing now. They're always satisfied with being BEHIND the times. I guess the N64 and the Wii were anomalies.

Im not interested in VR. Maybe im too old already.

I'm happy to hear this. I for one have zero interest in wearing a headset for an extended period of time to play games. Had the 3DS required glasses to work I don't think it would have been successful.

@edcomics Nintendo is only dismissing it publicly as an upcoming product. This doesn't mean they aren't trying things out internally. Nintendo is coming off of a failed risk and VR is a super expensive one with a lot to lose. We are not at a time where gamers are willing to take gambles on more than one VR solution for the next year at least. It's just not a sensible risk to take and we are nowhere near any type of demand from gamers for platforms to offer it.

All that said, I think VR is going to stick this time and there will come a tipping point in the next few years.

Are the go-for-it-people or they-are-stupid-people also the no-gimmicks-people? rolls eyes

@c1pher_c0mplet
Which is the casual system this gen? The PS4.
If you want sales you can't only rely on "hardcore gamers".
And the NX is very much the child of Iwata.

These condescending comments towards casuals are quite disgusting.

@retro_player_22 The Vive is completely capable of doing everything in that video haha

While not becoming mainstream during this generation, VR has come to stay this time. We have the tech and computational power to run it properly now. Whoever think is a fad either never tried it or is in denial mode.

There is no chance that the entertainment industry will miss what it will make the industry itself so close to a drug addiction...

How is VR, the biggest gaming gimmick I may have ever seen in my life, something the "hardcore gamer" crowd embracing? I literally can't understand it. "Hardcore gamers" HATED motion controls, but now that literally the exact same product (PS Move) is being used as a controller with PS VR, somehow it's just peachy. I don't get it. Every time Nintendo does something unique with hardware, it's a "gimmick" and adds nothing to the gameplay experience, and it's terrible. I can't get past seeing VR as little more than a massive tax on performance that gives people motion sickness and makes them jump around and swat like idiots (using the very same motion controls people hated with a passion by the end of last gen) but with a sensory deprivation helmet on..... and yet..... the "hardcore" crowd is all-in on it. Just.... what???

Please. Stay. Away. From. VR. Nintendo.

When everyone finally gets their little pretend Holodecks only to discover they're fun for 10 minutes and then eventually collect dust, be the company that's offering actual value in gaming hardware with rock-solid games and no pointless fluff. The Wii attached Nintendo's brand to a passing fad with motion controls for over 100 million customers..... don't do it again, and especially not with a trend that is extremely expensive to produce. Between the high-end hardware required, and the computing cost of rendering two viewpoints at 60+ fps (remember how much everyone blasted Star Fox Zero for its graphics, which were sacrificed to achieve the same effect between 50-60fps?), it's the worst kind of expensive for a gaudy parlor trick.

VR also does little to add to the vast majority of Nintendo's biggest money makers; seriously, how do third-person action/adventure games, and especially 2D/3D platformers, stand to benefit from VR? Or should Nintendo make all its IPs into first-person titles to make them more "immersive" and fit the new hardware, thereby earning a wave of complaints about it being a "gimmick" and ruining their best games and series? It just makes zero sense for Nintendo.

If the NX is VR, it will take a LOT to convince me to get on board, and I better not be forced to play games wearing a helmet, because I won't be doing that.

@VanillaLake

It was a joke since so many people text and drive or cross streets while looking at their phones. I wasn't being disrespectful.

I personally have little interest in VR, but on top of that, I doubt its potential for becoming mainstream at all. Right now, it's restrictively expensive (especially on PC's), has no game that shouts "this is why we wanted VR!", and is just plain inconvenient. Those first two problems may change with time, if VR manages to catch on, but the last problem will remain. Putting casual use, like with Samsung's Gear VR, aside, how many people will want to strap themselves in to play a major game for hours on end? For some of the VR sets, you almost need to dedicate a room to the device to use it fully, too. I definitely think there's a market for VR, but I don't think it's a mainstream market. I do think, however, that it could become widely used in professional training and education in the future.

At which point you'll probably be too late to the party to matter, unless you put out something that's utterly mind blowing, which I don't feel confident you'd manage in these times.

Motion controls added maybe $25 to the cost of the Wii, and the Gamepad added maybe $50 to the cost of the Wii U.
Meanwhile, VR would add at least $400 to the cost of the NX. Plus, it would be optional, so very few people would actually get it for the NX, so Nintendo would have to spend a lot more dev time satisfying a small minority.

@BensonUii Old... ? But... but...
Well, at least not as old as Link, although he does still look a lot younger than he's supposed to be. Perhaps I should also go take a bath in a crypt for a couple of years...

To all sceptics and/or attackers of VR, most of which will probably never even have tried it in the first place, simply because they don't "want to wear anything on their head" or whatever other rather flimsy excuse.

I was somewhat skeptical too not that long ago, but when given the opportunity I decided to give it a try and I must say I was quite impressed and I also really enjoyed it, even though some of the graphics left something to be desired.

Here are some in-depth articles for the more open-minded amongst you. They also tackle some of the objections that people seem to have like a VR headset being too bulky or heavy and such:
http://time.com/4172998/virtual-reality-oculus-rift-htc-vive-ces/
http://www.wareable.com/oculus-rift/oculus-rift-review
http://www.gizmag.com/best-virtual-reality-headset-oculus-rift-review-hands-on-2016/41264/

My dad always used to say: "first you have to taste something before you say you don't like it" and there's a lot of people here judging on first appearances only...

And I don't know how many of you saw this video at this year's E3, but that too is a good example of the added value of VR in games, and it also shows that it definitely doesn't have to be a solitary experience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=romB8e5nMp8

Does this guy ever shut up? Seriously has he ever said anything insightful? It's always something unintentionally controversial and makes no sense. You'd think Nintendo would be all over the concept of VR since it's a bold step into gaming.(One that can succeed of fail.) I understand the last time they focused on VR it fell like in atomic bomb and they probably don't want to touch it ever again. Problem with that is that was twenty+ years ago... Times have changed. But then again, "Times" is something Nintendo can't see to get with and this is yet another clear example of Nintendo proving that they refuse to adapt to the times.

This gives me so much hope for the upcoming NX console and the company as a whole knowing it's still being run by these reluctant old men. It's great isn't it?

@Tempestryke OK, thank you.

How can somebody say that VR is the biggest gaming gimmick they have seen in their lives before even trying the technology? Oh wait, because Nintendo is out.

The biggest gaming gimmick I have seen (and used) in my life is to look at the GamePad and touch the screen to open doors while playing on the TV Super Mario 3D World; Captain Toad and Star Fox Zero weird and over-complicated controls with GamePad gyroscope; shaking the Wii Remote for controlling DK and Mario moves, and so on.

Proper (not the mobile phones with diving googles) Virtual Reality gaming is now expensive but once it starts rolling and being optimised is going to get a serious business. If Nintendo is discarding it already is probably because NX is not technically capable. And if some overly enthusiastic Nintendo fans are discarding it it's because they are just indicating their submission to Nintendo's business decisions once again.

There are early VR demos and mini games and people think that's all VR has to offer. Wrong. VR can be an additional way of playing any game in the future.

I love how must of the people who are all about VR never grew up in the 80's and 90's when the fad then was VR (and laser discs). It was supposed to revolutionize gaming, and entertainment...it didn't, and it probably won't now. There were cool concepts and uses for it back then as well, most of which are the same as now, but alas it wasn't meant to be.

There were plenty of companies that were all about VR, and many made it to consumer's homes, but it just one of those things that never quite caught on, for obvious reasons. There is point in total immersion that just doesn't work quite right with VR. Which I'll just grab my popcorn and watch as they all come roaring back once again 2 decades later. The saying that "There is nothing new under the sun." is quite apt when it comes to this resurgence in the VR craze. Us older gamers have seen it before, most likely we'll see it once more, maybe it'll be better the third time around but as it stands now it is pretty much exactly how it was some 20 years ago.

I'm not a total curmudgeon, I think that the only system that has merit is the halolens but that is technically AR.

VR has amazing possibilities, those who claim otherwise probably haven't tried it properly yet, and it's the only gaming technology outside of Nintendo that I've found exciting in the last decade. But it's still too new for a struggling company (marketshare wise) like Nintendo to follow when there's clear limitations with it at the moment, price being the biggest, and IMO the "you can't understand/appreciate it until you try it" factor the second biggest. The Wii's motion controls weren't mainstream when they came out, but they didn't have these big limitations from the start.

@Nin10doh The VR of those days is WAY different than what we can have now. Back then it was an idea, a promise, now it's a reality. There's plenty of areas where VR is pretty awesome right now, but game devs are just struggling to figure out what to do with it, specially with games.

@nab1 Back then there were actually a handful of games, like today, and entertainment vehicles for it. Hell even the Army was using it as a way of therapy, and training for its soldiers, again like today. The funny thing about it then was that some weren't as big and bulky as they are now. The price point is still the same, if not slightly cheaper, back then it was around $500-$600 for a set, depending on the company.

Game devs were struggling 20 years ago also with concepts as well. Like I said: Nothing new under the sun. A lot of the critics of VR aren't just fanboys/girls of actual reality, we've just seen it all before.

@Nin10doh I respect your opinion, but I think you're holding on too much to an argument that doesn't hold up anymore on it's own. Just the display technology alone has changed so much since to where it's not even the same thing, not to mention motion sensing or just the basic understanding of how our eyes work and how to best fool them. You cannot compare anything made at a consumer level (and perhaps not even military) back then to what we have today.

@nab1 I respect yours as well. What doesn't hold up? The fact that devs are still struggling to make out what to do with VR, or the price point? My argument was never the technology, of course it has changed drastically over 20 years, it had changed drastically over 5 years.

My whole point was there still isn't much depth to VR, as of yet, and a lot of its limitations are still very apparent. A lot of people will see those limitations before blowing a lot of money away on a headset, but some won't until after the fact. If people thought the gamepad was a gimmicky they are in for a not so pleasant surprise.

And again the halolens is has greatest potential of anything that is currently being offered or upcoming, it has many practical applications and uses. No so much as a gaming device but there a few things for it that look promising.

@Gobelee Capable but can it do it? Like I say for VR to be mainstream it had to be true VR, that means no more relying on console or PC, it had to be it's own platform like some kind of virtual in-world kinda thing for example something like the Danger Room in X-Men where you can just enter, turn on the program and you are whisk within a virtual world fighting or shooting at animated objects or characters. That to me is true VR, not something you would put on a headset and have your eyeballs dipped in flash. So if you want to enter virtual Final Fantasy world, you could turn on the FF World program and your entire room would transform into a FF world, you will get virtual armor and items as well and travel and fight virtual battles. That's the VR I meant, not these headset fad.

@Nin10doh That I can agree with, and it's one of several reasons why I think Nintendo is wise to stay way from it, at least for now.

Leaving aside the tech and price, when it comes to gameplay, I think one of the main issues dev are struggling with is movement, or better, how we're used to moving in traditional games and how to translate that to VR, if at all possible. There are some interesting experiments within the limitations, like the new VR Psychonauts, that work around it a bit within the game's narrative, but I think it'll be a while, if ever, that we get the "Super Mario 64" of VR that shows how it's done. For now, in my opinion VR it's best for sitting or simulated cockpits, and surprisingly it seems to work quite well in 3rd-person games as a camera control.

@VanillaLake It's pretty easy to say that the currently available VR is extremely gimmicky because it doesn't actually add anything to the games or allow a gameplay mechanic to be realised.

Is requiring a headset covering your face, while also wired to a box to work not gimmicky? Is requiring powerful hardware but requires the games camera or movement to be limited to prevent the player from puking their guts up all for some extra immersion not gimmicky?

The Gamepad in the Mario games(NSMBU, 3D World) allow additional features and in NSMB allows a player who isn't confident to contribute by summoning blocks to help players), in Mario Maker it's a intuitive tool for building levels compared to a regular controller. People whine about the Star Fox Zero but atleast it's control scheme introduces gameplay that couldn't be done in SF64, Assault or Command. Even games that don't centre around the Gamepad it improves the pacing of the gameplay since you don't need to pause to access your inventory in certain games. Say what you want about it but atleast it does something to realise functions in games that otherwise would be clunky(Mario Maker), allow more people to play(NSMBU) or expand a gameplay mode(All Range mode in Star Fox Zero).

However If you think the Gamepad is gimmick I don't believe you think that current VR is less gimmicky. How has current VR actually enhanced the actual gameplay of an existing genre other than "I kind of feel like I'm there"? It's just two screens close to your face to create a 3D image and tricking your senses at the expense of creating a significant amount of issues with movement in first person perspective.

@Dr_Lugae Say what you want, it doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. The moment you're telling me that the GamePad is well used in Super Mario 3D World the moment I stop believing you.

@nab1 There's the rub, I didn't flat out mention it initially but movement (i.e. walking) is one of the biggest points of VR that have the greatest limitations. Unless you want to buy one of those gaming treadmills also.

I agree that the best thing for VR is something with limited movement, something like a fighter pilot sim. Then again what's the point in just having a sitting simulation when I can be doing that very thing by sitting on a couch looking at my tv, all the while being super comfortable.

I believe someone said it best, in the midst of our posts, that a truly great VR experience would be something like the Danger Room, or the Holodeck from Star Trek (I added that last one). Anything other than that is just us wanting something before its time.

@Nin10doh I haven't played it personally, but I've heard and seen good things about Oculus' EVE: Valkyrie game. One of the things that VR adds to gameplay, aside from the immersion, is the fact that your view is disconnected from your aim. That is to say, you can shoot and go forward like any space-battle game, while looking around for enemies. I think that sounds pretty good and useful. If we extrapolate that to Star Fox Zero's use of the gamepad for a similar purpose, the game could be made better by VR than just looking at a screen from the couch.

@aaronsullivan You're not wrong, but I'm talking more about a general attitude that seems to pop up from within Nintendo. There's one particular item I can't quite remember, but it was something about a Nintendo rep scoffing at HD graphics. We have Iwata scoffing at downloadable demos. It's both a fear and a stubbornness that ultimately results in Nintendo looking very old-fashioned and stale.

I don't expect Nintendo to jump on the VR bandwagon. That's not what I'm saying.

It does tie into something I've noted before, which is Nintendo giving up on technologies or "gimmicks" far too earl — or at least not developing them properly. Video games are, by their nature, a sort of virtual reality. What "Virtual Reality" refers to is the fully immersive audio/visual almost full-body experience. Nintendo actually took steps toward that with the Wii U Gamepad in the Panorama View videos and Wii Street U. They also used stereoscopic 3D with the 3DS and improved on it with the New 3DS. Even the Wii/Wii Motion Plus technology has VR applications.

I admit the technology isn't perfect. It never it. It can always improve. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Nintendo to take certain steps forward when they've already stuck their toes in the water.

@nab1 True, but the linchpin is that is only works for that certain aspect of games, which would only appeal to a select few. We'd all love for VR not to be "best enjoyed" from sitting on a couch, because, again, what's the point. There are only so many games that can utilize VR well and they are usually all in the same category, or sub-category of genres. Not that they aren't fun, or that I wouldn't play the hell out of it, but it'll get tired very quickly.

@MarioPhD
The gaming community is just full of hypocrisy. That's really all there is to it.
The same people who complain about a gimmick will then be all about that or another gimmick, depending on the situation. Like which company is involved.

I don't think VR would be for me. I'd try it, but I'd probably have to take it off after 1 second. lol

@retro_player_22 Oh, so you just want X-Men technology to be real. Got it. haha. If you havn't tried the head set, at least give it a whirl.

I get what you are saying, and hopefully we get to that point some day. I'm sure we all want a holodeck in our house.

@Rin-go I would be fine with trying it for a demo, for sure. Like many things in the games industry, however, you'd think people would know by now that massive hardware shifts tend to be met with little more than a bunch of glorified tech demos which fail to impress or matter when the novelty wore off. Sony built their current-gen empire on being the low cost, no-BS gaming system with the most power to play games..... so it's shocking to see them risking it on such a massive gamble. By the end of next year, Nintendo could be in a great position if they go back to making great games in unique ways without relying on anything too crazy on the hardware front. VR excitement will come and go, people will eventually wake up to it being a neat little trick that simply isn't conducive to playing games as we have for decades, and people will be looking for something more straightforward, traditional, and fun. I hope the NX puts Nintendo in a position to mop up on that front.

I don't get Nintendo. They are obviously innovators in the gaming space introducing things like motion controls, second screens, etc., but they take the 'wait and see' approach far too often with other important technologies, things like HD visuals, online and VR. They want to be bold, but conservative at the same time which ultimately leads them to fall behind the competition. It's almost like if they didn't come up with the idea themselves, it's completely unimportant. In that regard, I feel like they don't genuinely have gamer's best interests at heart. Why can't they be innovative while also keeping up with other industry trends? I get that they don't want to be just clones of their rivals, but they don't have to be. They could still provide gamers with up to date tech while also creating other new, fun and innovative ways to play their games.

@MarioPhD
I think I'm quite open to "gimmicks". The GamePad really made me excited. I actually hope they'll keep motion and a second screen. It makes for a much more steamlined experience. Just look at Super Mario Maker. I hope no one would prefer to make courses with a "standard controller". O_o;
The thing with VR is that it's not for everyone. The price is too high and it can cause health issues. And gimmicks that aren't packed in usually don't fare too well.

@BeardedSquash
Easy. Because they want to have a healthy business. It seems that the XBox devision never made any profit, but Microsoft can take it, because they have other things to rely on. Nintendo doesn't quite have anything else.
I think they said that they decided against HD, because at the time there weren't as many HD TVs in homes and no one knew if they would take off. What if they hadn't?
Looking at the gaming industry now I feel that the push for HD was much too early.