Nintendo Switch Is About To Get Its First VR-Style Headset, But There's A Catch

"the Switch simply isn't a VR capable device."

Man.
You gotta get technical on me here, and then I'll get technical right back in your face.

Because while that statement has merit, it really isn't the resolution that is the issue here.

I see they've taken their inspiration from the Virtual Boy as far as appearances go

@RupeeClock
Both current versions of Vive and Rift have load-bearing overhead straps. Only Sony managed to do away with that eyesore.

The PS4 VR its resolution is way too low, I don't even want to know this will look without optimalised games..

Only $50? I'll give it a go.

@Saego
It will look blurry nomatter what. But without some samples of full-screen anti-aliasing, it will positively slash up your corneas.

@AlexOlney
Snake oil ?
For what ?

Okay even true VR devices have not won my over as worth it. Ghetto modding the Switch to literally be a screen on your face is...

Remarkably dumb.

@AlexOlney

No thanks, however I do have these magic beans....

I already have neck pain all the time. I don’t need this massive heavy (looking) thing strapped to my head.

Looks great. I wanna try it

A VR peripheral for a non-VR game console... I don't get it. What even is this? What is the point of it? This has scam written all over it.

I'm not even sure what sarcastic thing to say. I have been struck speechless by the stupidity.

50 bucks is a lot

Right off the bat, something about the shape looks wrong: The headset looks too deep to be truly practical in use. I expect it will be very front heavy and not great to use for extended times. And, as mentioned, it's clearly not a proper VR headset at all, so it's ultimately just a gimmicky alternative display add on that a few ignorant casuals will buy without really understanding what they're getting.

If we're talking about VR, what we really want is something pretty much just like this:

https://inceptionalnews.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/these-fan-made-nintendo-switch-vr-mockups-are-brilliant/

To be fair though--even though the actual physical design is clearly trying to look like some kind of VR headset to the casual eye (probably to dupe noobs into buying it thinking it does some kind of VR)--I don't really see anywhere where the company specifically mention it's a "VR" headset of any kind, or even uses the word VR anywhere at all. It's Nintendo Life that has applied that word to it in this article.

@RupeeClock
Oh yeah, it looks unpleasant alright. With you on that.

Ought to sell like hot cakes... er umm cow pies....

@bluedogrulez lol cow pies. and seriously WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY what next they will make one for to strap 24" monitor to your face.

@Pod
Cough cough Smartphone VR Cough cough iPhone 7 could do it Cough cough Switch is stronger.

@Pod Yeeeaaaah, I don't really trust you with tech if you think PSVR doesn't weigh you down

It's that VR Headset concept alright let's do this, But first you have to Built-in Camera and Microphone into your VR HEADSET only.

@ChrisET
Didn't say it didn't. Just said they were the only ones who decided to eliminate the middle strap.

@Pod
I guess Nintendo still don't have official plan to make it VR compatible and several reasons come to mind:
The switch isn't powerful enough for modern games as you need at least 90fps to avoid motion sickness
Gyros are only in the joycons so you'd need to keep a pair of joycons attached to the switch for it to work (although this isn't a problem, it would just require a 2nd controller or pair of joycons)
VR con't rely only on gyros. It also needs to locate your absolute position to be precise enough
Last: Nintendo doesn't have a good enough VR game concept to justify VR on switch

Also about the screen definition, some people have complained about seeing the pixels on the PSVR, so anti-aliasing wouldn't solve the problem since they actually see the red green blue dots. But I believe this to be BS from people who like to complain about everything.

If a Canadian company announced shortly after the Switch release, that it was selling cardboard cutout toys, similar to those we used to get on the back of a cornflake packet, only thicker, will be on sale soon, and at a price of about 20 packs of cornflakes. Toys that connect to the switch, the reaction would be.....well not favourable.

Without the appropriate kind of software to be used with it, I fail to see what's the point of this thing anyway, technical considerations aside. Unless the manufacturer is ALSO a development studio poised to make games that support it, then this is just a useless piece of junk.

Having Competition Oculus Quest VS Nintendo Switch VR Headset.

"Kids, don't seat so close to the TV!"

"Look mom, the screen is strapped to my face, I can see everything."

"But there's a catch" is this websites catchphrase

It's Not Official Nintendo VR is just concept making idea catchphrase suggest of mind-blowing. Think Nintendo think.

@Rhaoulos
You absolutely hit most of the issues here.

My biggest concern is that the tilt tracking on the joycon simply might not be fast enough. One thing is the framerate, where 90 seems to be needed, but fast reading of the tilt of the head is required too, or any framerate will feel off.

The JoyCon operate off wireless transmission even when they're attached to the unit, as far as I know, making me skeptical of the speed with which tilt can be operated upon and displayed.

Concerning the framerate, there isn't much reason to assume that the maximum update-rate on the screen is 60, so 90 should be possible to achieve with some compromises to visuals.

But just how many?

I do believe people who say they can see the individual RGB diodes. They're not hard to spot in all current VR HMDs. The lenses enlarge some of them quite a lot.

Personally I consider this less of an issue with proper anti-aliasing applied. But if the Switch had to do 90fps -and- do 4 to 8 AA samples, we'd be playing games with characters resembling those from 4D Sports Boxing. If anything at all.

And as you say with the spatial location, that bit would need to be left out almost entirely, though stuff like leaning could be allowed, which is the amount of movement you're allowed in most animated VR Short Films. And spatial movement of the body isn't required at all in something like Beat Saber, but the tracking of the hands needs to be ultra precise.

Ultimately, an eventual Super Switch, Switch On, Switch Deluxe, or whatever would be more suited for anything like this, as VR in general has several more issues, quite a few of which still haven't even been solved by the makers of the expensive units.

@ImagineerNik
It is literally a phrase that uses the word catch.

For VR games, this seems worthless.

For Virtual Boy emulation, perfect. Would love to play Teleroboxer with this if Nintendo ever gave it compatibility.

But it’s not proper VR because the games aren’t built for VR, it’s just low-res 3D graphics right? I mean there is no head tracking, you can’t look around like in VR, you’ll have the same view whatever angle your head is at. Does that really count as VR?

The issue is the switches motion read comes from the joycons, so if head motion is to be tracked the joycons would have to be attached.. so I'd guess you'd need two sets and for the games to support such a thing.

Looks at it
“This will not work”
Buys it anyway.
Also I’m confused, can it be pre ordered for $25 which is half of $50 or $50 and when released it will $100
Also @Pod I can verify the joycons connect wired to the switch when in handheld mode. As airplane mode only works with wired connections like the joycons in handheld

The only thing that would make me feel weirder than wearing a VR headset is wearing a VR headset that isn’t VR.

@Pod
I believe the joycons gyro and reactivity won't be a problem here. Once hooked on the switch, they don't rely on wireless anymore and they are technological marvels.

You could probably get over the spatial location with a whole kit that would work like the psvr (a few lights or sensors on the headset and a camera near your TV).

But I am pretty sure Nintendo won't consider VR as long as they can't make a proper game. They won't risk releasing a gimmick that will flop as hard as the virtual boy because they only have experimental games. They'll probably do as they did with open world games. They left it to everyone else to improve the formula and they blew everyone's mind with BotW.

I think the day Nintendo launches a VR console or accessory, it will be more than worth it with full first party games that won't look like tech demos and that will set a standard for AAA VR games on the console.

Yes, I think Nintendo is waiting for the tech to catch up, as we’re only just now getting all-in-one VR devices. If they do it, it will be an amazing new Mario and will have to be of high enough resolution and low enough latency to not get anyone sick. But I do dream of that day, because if there’s any game worlds I would love to live in it would be Nintendo’s.

This is not that day.

I don’t understand how this color tech makes it 3D, and couldn’t they just have rendered split images to achieve stereoscopy? (Maybe resolution would just be way too low?)

There’s a reason Facebook spent millions acquiring Oculus (500 million on that lost lawsuit alone, lol): good VR requires years of careful R&D and several prototypes just to get anything close to playable. I don’t have confidence in this no-name company to achieve anything resembling even Gear VR quality.

"Colour switching technology" and "smooths the pixel count"... This sounds like such pure nonsense and yet I'm insanely curious to see it for myself.

I don't want to sound negative here to all people who still think VR is "teh futurez" in terms of entertainment, but we're still very far off from that. VR for entertainment purposes is still very niche, and depsite all those games getting out now supporting VR on various platforms, these games were planned and made during the last two years when VR was supposed to take the world by storm. Most big studios are now ceasing or drastically reducing their investment in VR gaming. There will always be some interest from smaller studios as VR is still something interesting to experience, but VR is faring barely better than the 3DTV craze of the past.

VR will still be around for creators, and some specialized fields who can use the equipment to improve their ways of doing things, but as far as entertainment is concerned, people just aren't buying. Cost is, of course, a reason (good VR still costs a lot). Also think that a lot of those "motion control" trends of the past (Wii, PS Move, Kinect), failed too because they didn't really improved gaming, and many people didn't want to move around to play some games, they just want to pick a controller, sit down and relax.

And I'm sorry, but all these "cheap" VR solutions are doing VR a disservice. People try these, and then see a really, really bad version of what VR could be and then think that this is what VR is. Many people think that what their phones and a cardboard VR unit can provide is the same thing as a VR setup costing over $1,500 (inclusing the cost of PC here). Even the PSVR, including the cost of the PS4, is very pricey for a product that is not all VR could be.

In fact, I think that aside from cost, it is this type of cheap VR products that actually drove the masses interest in VR down by giving a bad impression of VR.

The advertised faux 3D effect is an instant turn-off.

It will probably look much like the "3D conversion" effect of 3D TVs, that simply make 2D images look lumpy in predetermined spots (which can unintentionally make foreground items appear to be warped inwards and so on).

I don't understand why people would want to watch such deformed images.

If the device can be used as an alternate control scheme and/or truly support VR (albeit with its extremely limited resolution) I would have been all over this.

This product, while appearing to be superficially promising, looks like a scam and will only turn people off from true VR gaming (as the plethora of faux-3D films have, similarly, put cinema goers off from true 3D experiences).

@Rhaoulos no, I can guarantee to you that the pixelation in VR is a real issue. I have the Oculus Rift and even with the higher resolution the first thing I noticed when putting it on was I could see sub pixels and the gaps between them. It took me nearly an hour to be able to ignore it, it really is that big an issue. Sadly this won't really go away till we have 4K VR headsets are possibly beyond that (I've heard the Pimax 8K which has 2 4K panels in it still suffers from this effect). There is also backlighting issues. The Switch only has an LCD panel (I think it even uses a TN panel) which means blacks will look more like grey in VR. All other VR headsets use OLED and they still suffer from light blooming from lit pixels (If you have ever used an OLED smartphone you may have noticed this).

I can only see two states of reviews for this accessory. It will be as good as the Virtual Boy or it will be good as... the R-Zone.

I don't understand how this is getting serious technical debate. This contraption can't do anything. There's no use comparing it to smartphone VR, since for that, the smartphone is doing the VR. This thing can't make the Switch do anything, it's just a head strap.

Even I’m not convinced.

Well, NL will have to review it, and when they do, I demand Fast RMX be a trial game on this thing. That’ll be my deciding factor

Switch VR now gives you 4 ways to play.

Docked mode
Handheld Mode
Tabletop Mode
Neck Injury Mode

So....it's a foot long headset that holds a 720p display away from your face. It simulates 3D not by rendering twice, but by somehow color shifting the image presumably through two different complicated lens systems to reflect it into each eye, maybe slightly skewed, thus the huge focal length to the display, and presumably uses optics to blur the image to mitigate aliasing........

Yeah, everything from the idea to the design to the price is laughable.

@Rhaoulos
You're probably right.
Nintendo won't be doing VR until the right game idea and more optimal tech is there.

I've just been in charge of setting up a VR expo for over a thousand visitors, and while the current state of VR is fun, it has a ways to go before the audience grasps it, the technology is refined, and the game designers agree on how to do even simple things like menus.

Concerning AAA VR though. None of the currently most successful VR games look anything like AAA productions. Perhaps Robo Recall, but it's an outlier for the time being, though I'm sure that won't continue to be the case.

So basically, a Virtual Boy-eque headset for a more mobile (yet certainly more accident-prone) tabletop mode with no tables? While it has been long reiterated that PSVR isn't actual "virtual reality" nearly as much as it is an advanced first person camera accessory, its entire point is to make this camera work, replace the need for right sticks and gyroscopes with a complex headtracking picture adjustment. This thing's description offers to put the screen up close to the eyes and try to emulate some 3D (years after 3DS did it way more comfortably), but is there any mention of how it intends to access and adjust the camera control scheme? In the library of "compatible games" where gyro camera is still mostly an optional aiming mode and the only two titles which I think use it by default are both third person shooters?

Then again, if they strictly advertise it as a "headset", then it's fin- clicks link oh wait, they don't, "VR 3D" is in the page's very name.

At the risk of relapsing into the condescending fanbrained part of myself, I dare wish the industry would come to a more coherent and preferably unified understanding of what VR is, or at least what our generation's hi-tech VR surrogates are supposed to do. Again, the subject of this post really feels like an attempt at a Virtual Boy successor instead. And again, 3DS has already long succeeded (and evolved) everything it made sense to. ^^;

I love my PSVR! I wish more games were made for it, but I can’t imagine going for a VR system that was weaker than it. No thank you!

@Heavyarms55

Yup I agree. It's quite bootleg indeed..

@SuperWeird Samehere. Seems like a fair price. ...Here’s hoping the developers show it some love.

Lol naw. I don't enjoy long periods of time on PSVR... Let alone whatever this would do.

"...but there's a catch!" - Clickbait 101

@SARankDirector
Alright, then. Just played around with the things alittle. I had assumed they were charging through induction when attached to the system, and that this meant communication was still kept wireless.

But naturally, that kind of information can be transferred via induction as well, rather than direct copper wiring. Otherwise Wacom drawing tablets would be cumbersome to use. I think I had a mental lapse there.

Any product that sets out from the start to draw comparisons to Virtual Boy is probably not a product I'd like to invest in.

@business-scrub May I please blame Canada now?

@Rafke can confirm switch tablet itself has gyro. tested via Labo garage.

Here's my Modification Homemade for Nintendo Switch Labo VR Prototype and tried to wear this.



Here's the Problem: So I tried wearing VR Headset in 30 minutes as the result not comfortable because Switch console is little bit heavy and neck got tired while bending of head feel like dizzy is not reliable of healthy support. If you get some rest we can use that later on. You might be stressful. As the Resolved Ergonomics needed potential for Switch VR will be wait soon at the next new model designer.

@AlexOlney Can't wait to see you wearing one of these goofy looking things on your face for the inevitable NL video review!

Cool idea but not interested, I feel VR will be dead after this gen anyways.

I don't know if the author of this article will see this but this thing is a scam and shouldn't be promoted like this.
https://egpu.io/forums/thunderbolt-enclosures/the-most-funny-egpu-i-ever-saw-in-kickstarter-ex-core/

Interesting but I'll wait for a review from someone who wears glasses 24/7 like me before buying anything.

What are you going to do with it? The system is just starting to get a good library of normal games. You can expect to see VR at the end of it's life cycle if ever.

I can't wait until people get over the VR gimmick and kick it to the curb like they did with 3D movie theaters and televisions. There are so many other promising technologies we could be exploring.

It sounds like that CyberFX thing that came out in the 1990s that was essentially a giant Fresnel lens in front of your eyes. That didn't work at all, and nor will this...

@Saego That's because the ps4 is to push the resolution on the VR headset and the tv so it has to output 1080p on the tv and whatever the res is on the vr headset which takes a lot of power. The Switches vr just has to output on the switches screen which is like playing in handheld mode with games like rocket league or Mario Kart. The switch vr would look a lot better since doesn't need to extra horsepower for the tv as-well

@Realnoize You're actually off base here. Valve are making 3 AAA VR games. Insomniac are making 1. Respawn are making one. From Software is making a AA game, Ready at Dawn have made a few and are making more AA games. Epic are making more, Ubisoft are making more. I mean I could go on and on. There's still loads of devs doing it.

This is still early days. Unlike 3D TV, companies will forever push VR until it snaps into the mainstream because it has the ultimate entertainment potential.

@retro_player_22 And why is this? Investment is still going fine and the tech can only get exponentially better. Every large improvement in a specification for a VR headset dramatically improves a game. If we're already seeing games near the 90 mark on now, imagine how great it could be with 1. Better games in general and 2. Improvements from the tech.

I predict VR will be a least 10-15x more popular next generation.

@Mountain_Man There is nothing more promising than VR, sorry to say. Also, tell me, do you like Mario games? Because Astro Bot just released and is being heralded as the next Mario 64. Nintendo's games would fit VR perfectly and you'd be drooling all over them.

Nintendo 3DS: 240 resolution and fans be like "this looks amazing!"
Nintendo Switch: 720 p resolution and fans be like "this looks like crap!"

@DartBuzzer VR is the next 3D television. People will lose interest once the novelty wears off.

@Mountain_Man People will never lose interest in VR. We're talking about a technology that can, in the near future, allow you to replace physical displays with a virtual theater with your friends in the same virtual space as you as lifelike avatars. The ability to move inside 360 videos, the ability to visit any real world location as if you are physically there, and lastly... gaming. It's going to revolutionize multiplayer gaming forever with player-driven avatars and fluid interaction between humans.

People like you only hold back progress.

Interesting to say the least...

I received this message and please read it and avoid getting this! This device is a scam

Adam King
39 minutes ago
This company is known for marketing a fake gpu unit and trying to scam on kickstarter. That headset looks top heavy, and claims to make 3d every available Switch game. For $50 it's supposed to upscale every game into 3d? I'd save your money. The owner actually lied and said he had a licensing deal with Nintendo at one point. This is likely nothing more than a way to make your neck hurt by holding the Switch 6 inches from your face. Just looking at it makes me laugh.

@DartBuzzer "We're talking about a technology that can, in the near future, allow you to replace physical displays..."

First of all, VR goggles won't replace physical displays because they ARE physical displays, just strapped to your head and sitting uncomfortable close to your eyeballs. Secondly, strapping VR goggles to your face is an inherently isolating experience and will always have limited appeal because of that. This is part of the reason why 3D movies and television failed. Humans are social creatures by nature and tend to feel uncomfortable when there's something between them and the person they're interacting with. No amount of technology will get around that.

I was playing Guild Wars 2 with my son this past weekend. We were able to look across at each, see each other's facial expressions, enjoy a laugh together; in short, it was a shared experience that we could never have had if we were staring into VR goggles.

@Mountain_Man Physical displays meaning anything that isn't head-mounted. And yes, comfort is a concern today. But tomorrow's problems are not today's problems. VR will reach sunglasses level and be absolutely comfortable to wear all day. Will wearing nothing be more comfortable? Yes, but then you can't get your own IMAX theater and visit your friends across the world, even whilst on a plane journey.

As for isolation, you're not following VR much are you? Oculus already demonstrated mixed reality in VR. The headset scans your surroundings in real time and overlays it into VR. Eventually this will be a reconstruction that is lifelike. Then you can see someone on your real couch perfectly at the same time as a friend's avatar on a virtual couch. There will be no barrier between the real and virtual worlds; they will simply be one.

So you're actually wrong on this one. VR will be the most socially connecting technology ever made. Because you connect at distances with true intimacy and in person as well with what I just mentioned.

And just to add one final thing: There are already asymmetrical VR games where one person uses a headset and others use a gamepad.

This company is a scam. They also had a pregame gpu

@DartBuzzer No matter how "lifelike" it is, you will always be acutely aware that you're looking at your friend through a digital display.

@Mountain_Man You will be consciously aware (sometimes - you'll totally forget every now and then) but your subconscious will treat it as real all the time. The point is that it's all the same. The photons hitting your eyes can be real or artificial, it makes no difference.

This company is a known kickstarter scammer. They had a portable gpu on kickstarter that had one mysterious huge donation and then 24 other backers who pledged pennies. They never did release it, and now they do this. The owner of this company falsely claimed at one point to have a partnership deal with Nintendo, and had shills on Facebook right now who claim this headset is amazing but can't post one pic proving they even have one. Claiming that wearing that top heavy thing on your head will convert all games on the Switch to 3d is asinine. They technology they claim to have doesnt even make sense. I have some magic beans for sale if you'd like some. Just pay for shipping.

Have fun puking your guts out in 30fps VR land.

@ChrisET Cough lower resolution cough

Ryan, maybe maybe edit this to warn people that it's most likely a scam..

@CarsonCool there is no way a Switch VR would look a lot better than PSVR, the PS4 is significantly more powerful than the Switch not to mention the Pro. The resolution for the PSVR is 1080p and that extra image sent to the TV is done by an extra box which basically just splits the signal and simply displays what one of the eyes is seeing in most games.

A Switch VR would be quite a downgrade form that in so many areas, if Nintendo were to do such a thing it will likey be as some sort of successor to the Switch

@Skylancer727 OK I didn't know about this. The closest experience I had to VR is playing for 10 minutes with a google cardboard and a Galaxy S6, which has a QHD OLED display and I wasn't bothered by the screen or pixels but it is probably because the lenses are of poor quality and make everything a bit blurry.

I am interested in VR since it is kind of a futuristic technology, but it is way to expensive for very few short games. Also it is still at its early stages and improving a lot since manufacturers are adjusting the technology. For the Rift or Vive, you don't even know if it will be compatible with future games. You might be missing a few sensors on the first few generations. They haven't agreed on a standard, they have exclusive games... On windows!!! It's like having a PC game only compatible with a specific screen or controller.

I know I was a little off topic, but I think VR is at its early stages and won't be viable for a few years, if not a decade. And the technology is currently too expensive for a Nintendo console.

Sounds terrible TBH

@NEStalgia I've never heard of these guys, but they claim to be Canadian so go right ahead.

I made an account specifically to comment on this article.

The product will most likely be a scam again. ExKlim has a trackrecord for starting up Kickstarter campaigns with false/impossible promises. At the start of the summer this year, they had a kickstarter campaign for an external graphics card product which failed miserably because of lack of knowledge/false claims/fraudulent product placement.

The eGPU community greatly lashed out to these guys and uncovered their scams. You can check the entire thing out here:
https://egpu.io/forums/thunderbolt-enclosures/the-most-funny-egpu-i-ever-saw-in-kickstarter-ex-core/
https://www.reddit.com/r/shittykickstarters/comments/9306hb/ex_core_egpu_suspended_from_kickstarter_so_they/

Don't fall for it!

When you strap a phone to your face to do vr it divides the screen in two and renders separate images for your right and left eye. Why would you think strapping the switch to your face would make it do that? It won't.
VR involves stereoscopic 3d. Switch's strap on headset isn't VR.

@nolil
Thank you for skipping the chatter and bravely going in there!

@Sabroni
(apologies for lengthy and perhaps even irrelevant reply)
You're absolutely right that this isn't VR, or even meant for VR. The Website mentions only "3D viewing" as well.

This present article mentions how the device divides and directs certain shades from the screen to each eye via "color switching technology".

So there is most likely no bisection of the screen in play, and likely no lens-reliant illusion of a hemisphere screen going on at all. More likely, a simple set of lenses will make the screen appear a bit further away (ala Sony's PUD-J5A) while a tint will separate out the colors.

Anyone wishing to display 3D on these merely need to composite two separate renders of a frame from their game with the specified color coding, before it goes to the screen. And film services wishing to display 3D could stream the content already composited.

However. Seeing how the Switch's built in LCD screen is unlikely of being capable of outputting two differently polarized images from the same location, this won't exactly be state-of-the-art, and the whole thing is likely to look, well, awful.

It will be worse than early polarity-based cinema viewings, although likely not as poor as anaglyph 3D, with the green/red (or blue/red) separation.

Alternatively, they could decide to alternate between full-screen images for each eye, which is what active shutter glasses for home 3D sets utilized. That would cut potential framerate in half (which isn't bad for a 24-30fps film of course, when the device can easily do 60), and would impose the issue of gaudy image tints at the same time, but it would save processing power for games at least.

If that's the route they're going, I'd say stick a pair of active shutters in there and let people run games in proper color but 30 FPS. Though nothing is really stopping developers from supporting such a feature as is, for those five-six tech geeks that still keep their active shutter glasses around.

@Mountain_Man
You can't win arguing with these people, man. My own brother is one of those people who get a hard on whenever anything VR is mentionned, he's convinced that VR is going to take over the world or something. And there is absolutely nothing you can say to convince him otherwise. Thing is, I'm not even disputing the idea that VR is cool or interesting. It is. The problem is not that.

The problem is that the masses are just not interested in it. VR, by its nature, is much more suited for evenemential setups. Stuff you plan as an activity, pay for the experience, and be done with it. Like going to the movies. Doing rides at a theme park. Sure, home-bound VR setups are attractive to some, but like 3D movies, they're a lot more successful as activities you plan to do (going to the movies), than as in-home products.

All those games that other guy mentionned are in development right now, were planned since some time already (when VR was touted as the next big thing, selling by millions soon), and those companies aren't going to drop their investments for products that are probably well underway. Right now, many developpers at conferences are saying that there are practically no new projects being considered for VR right now aside from those actually in development, because the market isn't making those projects profitable. Truth is, as far as VR for entertainment is concerned, there is still no profitability point on the horizon for major content developpers, and THIS is a big part of why VR isn't going to hit the masses in any meanfingful way anytime soon. Tech reporters are saying it. Developers are saying it. But somehow, VR fanboys say these are all "lies" or "not what I'm seeing".

@Realnoize There's no chance of VR not changing the world though. It's going to be one of the most powerful technologies our species will ever have. I mean just the social aspect alone will completely change how our world works. Smartphones and the internet already connected us worldwide. With VR you can connect people as if they are physically together with no difference aside from sense of touch. (which can be filled in for those who want/need it with full body haptic suits)

You can record memories, literally. Put a 360 6DoF camera in your birthday party and you can then hop into it in VR (whilst being able to move inside the party) and relive it again.

I mean there are so many world-changing aspects of VR that your brother is absolutely right.

Simarily, we know PCs and Smartphones are world-changing and yet the masses did not care about them at all in their own early days, like today with VR's early days.

VR is not at all more suitable for environmental setups. I already listed 2 examples that demand you to soak it all in within your own home. You're not going to go to a VR arcade to socialize with people to relive your birthday party now are you? Neither are you going to use it as a computing device by going to an arcade.

You make a point about the market not supporting the ROI you expect, but that was the same for all technologies at one point. As time goes on, the chicken and egg problem will be solved; Valve might be the ones to do that.

@Pod
Yes it is, resolution is the issue. Daydream already proved that this hardware can drive a VR setup. The poly count is low, but it works.

@StevenG
I respectfully request that you explain this matter a bit further.

@DartBuzzer,
You know, wake me up when we have holodecks. lol!

Look, I know VR will continue to be developped, but it will mostly happen, I believe, in areas other then entertainment-based ones. It may still succeed in that area as a niche product though, but the truth is that most people out there (the masses) aren't really interested in it.

Not saying it's not cool or anything, but most people don't get a convincing answer to the question of "Why should I buy into VR?". Even I, don't see a reason compelling enough right now. Again, not saying it's not cool, just saying that something being cool isn't all there is to it to make the masses take interest.

Mass-adopted technologies nowadays mostly all share a common aspect : Companies were able to make money of of them relatively quickly. And all tech that fell by the wayside did so because these same companies weren't able to profit from that quickly enough and ceased development on that front.

It's never about the tech in itself, which could be awesome. It's about how well (and how quick) you can make profit out of it.

A good technology takes YEARS to establish itself as a new norm. And when a technology is dependent on content, those who create the content need to be profitable as well. Right now, VR is still a huge money pit for both manufacturers and content providers, and there's no indication of that changing anytime soon as the customer base just isn't there, and isn't growing fast enough to change that.

And something being cool and awesome isn't an argument in itself. History proves that performance, high-quality doesn't sell. Convenience does, and often, at the expense of quality and performance. What sells isn't what's best. What sells is what the masses feel is more convenient to them.

Scam! Scam! Scam!

@Realnoize You're basing this on a time too early to tell. This would be akin to saying people will rarely use PCs or Smartphones for entertainment back in the 1970s and early 2000s respectively. Now billions use them for entertainment.

The general consumer in those two time frames would not have jumped on board because it was too early for the average person to be affected by them. So while most people are not interested now, this tells us nothing about 5 years or 10 years from now.

You say you don't have a reason to buy it now. When VR is more advanced, you will start to care because it can profoundly improve any individuals life.

As it turns out, ROI for PCs took ages. Like almost 10 years before any serious money was being made! It's been 2 years since the tech industry made a shift to developing AR/VR so it's far too early for them to abandon ship - infact they generally all reaffirm their commitment long term.

VR will be a convenient form of entertainment and life style. Why? Because with sunglasses that let you replace any screen you have complete convenience. You can lie in bed in the perfect position, you can use it on a plane, you don't have to sit in one exact spot in your house just to use the TV. You don't need to move a TV if you want to watch somewhere else. You don't need to travel nearly as much because you could work in virtual environments and visit friends virtually. The former can be a full replacement in various cases, but the latter is not a replacement just to be clear.

Heck even fitness has a lot to be gained in VR. People don't like exercise, at least usually. Or I should say they don't like the boring nature of it. Beat Saber is already well known for being great for exercise and VR can be a common source in the future. What's not to love? Stay healthy whilst playing games and exploring virtual worlds.

@carlos82 I meant that it wouldn't look really that different, sure it's in portable mode which is a lot less powerful than docked but as I said, the reason the vr headset on ps4 looks a bit crap is that games like driveclub have to run at 60fps to not make you motion sick. Of course, games like Mario Odyssey are already 60fps but since the game is mostly not 720p it will look pretty pixelated. I would say if Nintendo makes one themselves they can make it to where the switch runs in docked mode through a battery built in the vr headset but they will need to worry on not making it very heavy. But if they can pull it off then having the jump from 400gflops to 1 teraflop is a pretty jump when looking not even an inch away from the screen so stuff like Mario Odyssey can be at 900p.

This headset looks EXACTLY what I begged Nintendo of America for about 6 months ago. Thanks Nintendo!

My eye is burning just thinking about this.

Yikes price seems a bit steep for junk, you can get one of these for your phone for $5. It isn't like the headset itself has VR tech in it.

@Pod Google's daydream system is powered by SoCs with similar capabilities. This very similar hardware with a better display drives both 3 and 6 degrees of freedom VR systems. The piece that is missing from the Switch is a very high resolution low latency panel.

@NTELLIGENTMAN NINTENDO IS NOT MAKING THIS. THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT EXIST.

@CarsonCool I see where you're going but the screen won't output higher than 720p so it will always be blurry. If they were to do it then a dedicated device would be a better fit or some form of updated Switch. Also as far as PSVR is concerned you're right about Driveclub particularly as the standard version was built around 30fps in the first place. Games like Battlezone and GT Sport though look really nice, even more so running on the Pro.

I like the tech and hope it continues and would live Nintendo to join in with stuff like Mario Kart but nonsense such as this device won't help VR's reputation

No thanks. I'd love to play in VR but this is not the solution.

@StevenG
Aight, I hear you, and I agree that the issue here isn't the power of the device. The issue is the general configuration of technologies.
Of which I would still say the screen isn't the primary offender. I'll explain.

The internal rendering resolution can still be as high as you want on the Switch. With a 50% bicubic (or bi-linear) down-sampling from 1440p internal renders, you would match the 720p screen on the Switch, and get an information-rich image with acceptable anti-aliasing. This image will compete rather well against images rendered for native 1080p, with post-process anti-aliasing, which is what you will mostly see on PSVR or Rift. This option could work because bicubic and bilinear interpolations are very fast and crisp for exact 50% reductions.

I would assume a greater issue to be whether the motion sensor input from joycons is fast/precise/optimized well enough for low-latency 90fps visual feedback. That, AND the fact that no room-scale tracking is in place at all, for the system itself or for the joycons. They can track rotation and acceleration reasonably well from a fixed point, but rather few of the popular VR games would be functional with that alone.

On top of this comes the necessity of keeping one joycon attached to the system, as the Switch itself has no gyros, meaning developers can't assume a player to have two hands available in-game. They could choose to demand you have extra joycon available, but that is a dangerous road to go down for limited markets.

And on top of THAT comes a whole host of other issues that all current VR sets are still experiencing, among the heavier ones being the complete absense of pupil-tracking. This means the virtual world is incapable of noticing which objects are closer or further than your point of attention. Meaning they can't be blurred, to simulate them going out of focus. This can quickly tire out your eyes, and makes virtual spaces feel uncomfortable to many people. Also harms depth perception.

Concerning screen latency, I'm unsure why you would believe the Switch screen to have any deal-breaking issues, but I'm all ears on that front. It's an LCD after all, and most of the older ones capped out at 75Hz refresh, somwhat short of the defacto 90 for comfortable VR.

Well. Anyway. Sorry for rattling on. If you have info on the Switch screen that I haven't been privy to, I should love to hear it. But what I'm really saying here is that that even if the Switch screen was brilliant, VR on the device would still be an impractical hassle.

@Saego wanna find out how it looks? Just cover yourself with a blanket and hold the switch 10 inches from your head. That's how it'll look.

@Pod
Because it is an LCD, no LCD on the market has low enough latency. Only OLED so far can do that.

Hz is not the issue at all, that's a measure of refresh not input latency.

720p also means the pixel pitch too way too high. Welcome to screen door city, population you.

@StevenG
Okay okay.
In regards to the assessment on resolution you bring up here, quite many Google Carboard projects ran just fine on phones with 720p screens, and I dare say many of those phones had LCD screens as well.

The technology isn't optimal for VR, but it REALLY isn't the primary issue, when all the other issues remain unaccounted for.

Putting a 1440p OLED screen on Switch would NOT make it capable of running any of the currently popular VR games for Rift and Vive, unless you hooked up an array of extra equipment anyway. And at that point, a separate HMD with a screen of its own is also an option. The screen as is can provide sub-optimal VR. The JoyCon cannot do anything considered proper VR at all.

Now, I don't know what kind of experiences they're creating for Daydream. As I understand it, those are supposed to mostly be hands-free experiences? At least not what people typically understand as games.

Cardboard does not require low latency. Nor was screendoor a major problem for still image viewers, which was much of cardboard. Cardboard was a tech demo, a dead end. Stop considering it.

Did I say it could run those games? No, I said daydream games.

Daydream is not primarily handsfree. Actually many are what you would consider games. Seriously if you want to pontificate about a subject, investigate it first.

@Pod

Cardboard does not require low latency, movement speed was only very slow. Nor was screendoor a major problem for still image viewers, which was much of cardboard. Cardboard was a tech demo, a dead end. Stop considering it.

Did I say it could run those games? No, I said daydream games.

Daydream is not primarily handsfree. Actually many are what you would consider games. Seriously if you want to pontificate about a subject, investigate it first.

Virtual Virtual reality is probably one of the best VR titles in existence.

@StevenG
Apologies, I should do my research. However, I have just been displaying Google's Spotlight Stories VR Films to hundreds of exhibition guests on phones from the Google Cardboard era, and it worked out just fine.

And we do once again return to the same point I have been making this whole time.

The screen is not the primary issue.

The Switch has no motion-input devices that would allow what a game like Virtual Virtual Reality requires. You would be able to SEE the game on the screen, even if it wouldn't feel very good (for more reasons than just the screen door/resolution/latency) but you wouldn't be able to track your head and hand accurately at all.

I'm not saying the screen is good. I'm saying the Switch has bigger issues what VR is concerned.

in the "current" version of the Switch, a VR headset is useless, the gyroscopic sensors are in the Joy-Cons, which to play you would have to leave on the unit and buy an extra set of controllers to play...

@Pod
Those phones in those devices have an accelerometer. The switch has those in the controllers. Leave one set on the switch, and another set in the users hand. Tada!

Spotlight stories are not interactive in any real sense and yes the lag of the displays caused a lot of motion sickness in that era.

@StevenG
Yes, this is what I have been getting at. The Switch could maybe do something similar to Spotlight stories. Which is also what daydream projects were pitched as a year and a half ago, when Google were part of it.

Any kind real interactive VR, the Switch would not be able to do. And the primary issue is not the screen. It's the controllers.

@NOELQUEZON no need, Nintendo has an app on the way for that. Currently only available on the brand new unreleases iPhone 12. Because, you know, it's the vision Nintendo has for our future. /sarcasm