Sheikah

There may be a portion who would like to play locally but in all honesty, local play has fallen out of favour so that's already a very small subset excluded from the 'would play VR' group. Many people might prefer local play, but how many of us have the chance every day to meet up with people to play locally? Online is so much more convenient and widely applicable these days. I think a lot of your points can be countered by pointing out that we don't yet know the potential of it here - if it can one day deliver an amazing experience, then I think people would do it, regardless of whether they normally communicate with people around them while playing. I'll go back to the cinema example here - people are willing to go to cinemas in the millions to sit in silence, not communicating with people next to them, in a darkened room, to watch films in a superior way. Now, I can't guarantee VR is going to be developed to be so amazing people would sacrifice communication for it, but I think it would be short-sighted to say there are people that simply wouldn't do it. If it's made to be awesome and great games are made to work with it, I'm sure people will adopt it. Regarding genres of games that wouldn't work, did you check my other post? I theorised that games as we know them may be liable to adapt to whatever future technology comes along. After all, games we play now differ considerably to those that were all 2D like 20 years ago. Whether it's playing as single players on a football pitch with your friends, or platforming in a way like Metroid Prime. We can only guess what the future holds, but I certainly wouldn't say outright that VR is not going to be the future, unlike some here.

Haven't played it since Christmas. Got Smash and played it with some friends and my brother a few times, but we got bored of it pretty quick. Just felt like the same game as before, really. Not even a proper story mode to flesh it out a little. The next game I'll be playing is Zelda or Xenoblade, whatever is first. Shame there's so little coming out for it.

I've always noticed that? Many games these days are sequels, offering similar content. Nintendo are the biggest offenders on that front. Thankfully there's a good number of games coming that are looking new and exciting soon though! Nice to see you here picking up on such a point many days after it was made, though! Not pushing your agenda here by any chance? Btw this isn't the Nintendo forums, so feel free to speak your mind.

It could be that in the future, many of those types of games could be developed to function in first person. We essentially view the world in first person anyway, so it makes sense that we could find a way of doing a platformer or sport in first person. Right now, the way we play a football game is to see most of our players on a field at once. But what if this technology demands evolution? Imagine that you take charge of one or two players in a football game and team up with several of your friends against a German team. That's almost a tantalising prospect. I also remember that platforming sections sorta worked in Metroid Prime. The biggest sector of gaming right now is probably first person games and that needn't be restrictive - first person ranges from COD to Skyrim to Metroid Prime to Minecraft. I see the potential, I just hope they can develop it further. I take your point that people were also excited about Kinect and the Wii Remote, but I personally believe this is on another level. The concept of VR has been repeated throughout books, films and anime series, and I'm sure most of us have dreamed of it. Perhaps the best way to describe it is this - the Wii Remote was something that we didn't really know we wanted until it was here. VR is something we've always known we've wanted. That we can imagine and hunger for such a technology arguably illustrates how likely we would buy into it, if the right application came along. And maybe, just maybe...we'd stick with it.

Stop it, now you're just making an ass of yourself.

I should be on from 8 onwards, maybe 8:15 to be safe...

Lots of people play games with headsets on already while in the same room as others, cutting them off from easy communication with them. I don't really see that as an issue. An awful lot of people game alone, too. I happily await the future to prove you wrong. I'm already on a roll with regards to the mobile announcement today. VR has been the dream for as long as anyone can remember; near full immersion in a game. If they can crack if, I firmly believe this could be massive.

Nah, it's all about online gaming now. You hear all about how many games don't even have local play options anymore. You could say the same thing about headsets - that people won't use them as they can't talk to people around them. Truth is, people use them. And a lot of people, a lot of the time...game alone. You're also assuming that the experience wouldn't be good enough for people to go to the extent of donning a headgear. Of course people would don a headset if VR turns out to be awesome (which it kinda sounds like it is shaping up to be already). People go to cinemas and sit in dark rooms where they can't talk in order to enjoy films. People will also do this if it's a worthwhile experience they can't have any other way.

As they're still keeping their console division, what does this have to do with allaying the concerns Daft levelled at the system? All you've done is shown they've done it, but not remotely in a way that would challenge Daft's point.

Really, you don't think it could one day be the future of gaming? I'd say that desire to be immersed in a world almost entirely favours the possibility that it could one day be the future of gaming. At the very least, in its current stage it is bowling people over. In terms of what games it could apply to, it seems like it would work with almost anything (if you still retain character movement with a joystick and use the headset for on the spot turning combined with hand/arm movements). Who knows where it could lead?

No doubt VR's not going to become the de facto method of gaming any time soon, but I don't doubt it'll be huge the future. In contrast to Wii's motion controls, which in their current format have mostly died out. I'm not sure what you mean by the extra peripherals thing - you mean you want them to bundle the headset with the console?

And therein lies the problem; you're relying on it being successful like the Wii was in order to sell the games off the back of it. That level of success was madness, and don't expect that again. The golf game sold because of motion controls and the golf club peripherals, which are now pretty much dead. And even with all the Wii's success, FIFA didn't sell as well on it. Now they don't make FIFA at all for Wii U. Your argument is 'if the console sells well, FIFA will sell well'. I don't think it will, particularly. People do not view Nintendo's consoles with their behind the curve attitude towards online as a good place to play these sorts of games. Also, Nintendo don't market themselves as being a platform for these games. Have you ever seen a football game and a PlayStation advert on the pitch?

Wii had good support as there was a large install base due to the popularity of motion controls and Wii Sports. It would be unwise to assume they will have a miracle success again on which to float. Also, even the success of the Wii did not make FIFA continue to sell as well on Wii as the other consoles. The only way the next 'Wii' would have even a chance to sell FIFA as well as the other consoles would be if Nintendo repositioned their image and had parity on console features and online. And why would they do that, if their best selling games are Mario and their policy is to be family friendly? Even if they did all that, why would people who buy Sony or MS consoles for FIFA normally switch to buying the next Wii? People have built up friends lists, accounts, and most of all...these are the sorts of people who are stubborn. They like sticking to a particular control scheme and brand. How would they even go about making their console appear to be the 'go to' for sports? So long as the majority buy these games on PS4/X1, why would they bother making sports games for Nintendo's consoles anymore? It's a difficult situation and I see moneyhatting early in a console's life as no more than a temporary fix.

Oh wow, really? We're going to go down the road where you pretend that's what I meant? K. You know exactly what I meant; sports games as in FIFA, not a game that was designed for and bundled with the Wii. Hardly anyone was buying the Wii U to play the latest FIFA, and sales were dire. How about you provide some sales figures of Wii U FIFA titles? I'm betting you won't, because it'll prove just how utterly clueless you are. Picking out Wii examples also smacks of desperation; motion controls are for the most part dead now, and the Wii U doesn't sell like the Wii so there's no install base on which to sell other games.

Not bad relations, just not necessarily good ones. Nobody associates Nintendo consoles with sports games, so nobody buys the console for them. So why bother bringing the games to them? That's how the line of thinking goes - how do you go about breaking that? I've read reviews on a fair few blogs and they're pretty much all saying it's absolutely amazing. Not just great, but genuine levels of 'oh my fucking god this is amazing'. That kind of excitement tells us an awful lot; these guys see games day in day out, to get that excited about something must mean it really is special. Obviously there will be limitations - Steam's VR requires you to move around, how are they going to make that work in a confined space? It's uncertain how that would ever work but even fixed view VR (e.g. Morpheus) combined with a joystick for movement would be a huge step up. I personally think many people have dreamed about having a VR experience where it feels like you're really in a game, so I don't think people would be too averse to wearing a headset.

PlayStation just brought in £3 billion for Sony. Amazing statistic, really shows how well it's doing.

Could we do a hard mode first with @Shorty as swordbearer? He tends to get less lag issues, wouldn't want us to spend hours again.

Based on the absolute amazement of people that have reviewed VR, I'm pretty convinced it is the future. It's what we've always fantasised about anyway. I honestly don't see it happening.

I fully expect it to be as powerful as the PS4. Which they'll release, not long before the PS5 comes out.

I am, sign me up. Tonight good with everyone? Half 8?

Leave it out, I understand him just fine! Some of the rest of you, on the other hand...

It's never an inspired direction until it actually happens. Shit, really? I thought they were just saying it was a bad idea, not denying it would ever happen.

Ohh, can someone please dig up that discussion where myself and others were saying how perfectly an adapted Mario game (e.g. a runner) would work on tablets and whatnot? I remember some people were very adamantly denying its potential.

@Wii - And yet in the way you used it before, it doesn't really work. Mario Party tends not to review too well but could easily be enjoyed by 4 friends more than, say, Journey. What does it even matter, at the end of the day? It works to show you extremes like the example you just gave, but really, what do people actually use it for on these forums? Most of the time people bring it up in order to cement that their opinion is 'right' in the face of somebody else's opinion. That a game rated maybe 5-15% higher or so than another must be the better game. What does it really mean if I prefer a game that's rated 80% instead of like 93%? Both are highly regarded games, isn't that enough? And maybe some games don't fare well in the scoring system, or maybe some game is highly polished and features gameplay that scored well before. Then it'd score high, even if it wasn't particularly new or exciting. Discussion on this forum is much better when you explain why a game is great rather than going "oh this looks shit, only 70% on metacritic" or whatever.