Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

[Nolan]

VR is not and will most likely never be a gimmick. It is cutting edge, new technology made available to the common man. Yes, it's expensive right now, but that's because it's cutting edge tech.

 

VR will improve and become cheaper over time, just like everything else (except Apple products. OHHHHHHHH...anyway).

 

I wouldn't write off VR this quickly.

Serebii beat me to it. For a while 3D HDTV was quite the buzz and cutting edge. It became better and cheaper but it was a gimmick.

I remember a lot of people saying that about stereoscopic 3D.

 

 

 

Yergh, you sadist :p The PS4 controller has the most uncomfortable analogue stick placements in my opinion. They're so far from the edges of the controller it hurts my thumbs to use. Pro Controller has it perfect.

 

Wait....worse than the Dualshock 1/2/3?! How tiny are your hands? I mean I have small hands but even original Xbox controller was comfy to use.

 

 

I don't see VR happening in a meaningful way on any console this upcoming generation. The Rift is a good example of why. Look at the requirements a extremely powerful PC, powering two screens (1080x1200 each) at 90Hz. The resolution needs to be high for typical reasons, but the refresh rate is far more important. The lower the refresh rate the far more jittery the experience will be which can and will in turn induce nausea and headaches.

 

Too weak of hardware, and the framerate won't be high enough. Most games have trouble enough as is hitting 60fps at 1080p. PC hardware is just getting to a good point for VR in its current form. Consoles would have to incorporate extremely hot and power hungry components to hit the VR target currently.

[dazzybee]

The Rift is less than £200 more than all of this generation's consoles at launch. It's not small change, obviously, but given what it's doing and what it contains within it (the technology, the screens, the physical products and hell the free games) it's not bad for a new bit of tech. It's hardly a ridiculous cost of entry. It's not cheap, but it's not unjustifiable.

 

Not that I think it's overly priced, I think it's fine, but playing devils advocate, you also have to factor in you need a pc of a certain spec too.

 

I don't have a Windows pc (because I'm not mental), so for me to buy one, and I would, I'd also have to buy a pc. No chance. I'll wait for Morpheus and hope it's as good!

[Dcubed]

I don't see VR taking off in a big way any time soon; especially not at the Rift's price (and the less said about the EU price, the better )

 

Also, I reckon that a lot of people will be less than impressed by the games/experiences on offer. I know I wasn't particularly impressed when I tried the Rift DK1 and DK2... It generally doesn't really change the way you play a game (though that one game where you sit in a classroom and have to look away at the right time is a pretty neat concept), since you're typically using the same controllers as usual. The headtracking is the main game changing feature and that isn't being particularly exploited much for gameplay purposes.

 

It isn't really very convincing IMO. Sure, it's 360 degrees/9DOF and yes it's 3D, but it doesn't really feel like you're there. It still feels like you're looking at a screen and are just playing a normal game where you move the camera around with your head.

 

And then there's the anti-social factor. VR has much bigger barriers to overcome than just price...

Edited January 6, 2016 by Dcubed

[drahkon]

Serebii beat me to it. For a while 3D HDTV was quite the buzz and cutting edge. It became better and cheaper but it was a gimmick.

 

So? Just because 3D HDTV didn't take off, doesn't mean VR won't take off...

 

Too weak of hardware, and the framerate won't be high enough. Most games have trouble enough as is hitting 60fps at 1080p. PC hardware is just getting to a good point for VR in its current form. Consoles would have to incorporate extremely hot and power hungry components to hit the VR target currently.

 

As someone who has tried PlaystationVR (or Project Morpheus as it was called then) and talked to a lot of people who had the chance to give it a go I can say that it worked fine. It worked pretty good actually.

[Emasher]

Yergh, you sadist :p The PS4 controller has the most uncomfortable analogue stick placements in my opinion. They're so far from the edges of the controller it hurts my thumbs to use. Pro Controller has it perfect.

 

I'm just glad I can use whatever controller I want for PC gaming (in the case that keyboard a mouse don't work very well). I'm in the awkward position of having different sized hands, so it's difficult to find a controller that feels perfect.

[Nolan]

So? Just because 3D HDTV didn't take off, doesn't mean VR won't take off...

Didn't say it wouldn't, but the comparison is there regardless. I think VR will be more similar to 4K HDTV myself. Very slow adoption but at some point it will be more widespread.

 

 

As someone who has tried PlaystationVR (or Project Morpheus as it was called then) and talked to a lot of people who had the chance to give it a go I can say that it worked fine. It worked pretty good actually.

 

Good to hear, what was the selection of games demonstrated though?

 

I know most games these days are still sub 1080p and upscaled, and even Sony is telling developers to try and achieve 90fps and that 60fps is the minimum. That's all I was getting at, and I don't see consoles being capable of pushing the eyecandy and the framerate for a time.

 

From the other link, actually a very interesting video.

[drahkon]

Good to hear, what was the selection of games demonstrated though?

 

Two tech demos (sorta) which used the Move remotes.

 

One was set in a medieval castle the other was a futuristic racer. The latter looking and running absolutely incredible.

 

This was 1 1/2 years ago. I assume it got better, especially as more devs got their own kits.

[Josh64]

You have to be in a complete Nintendo bubble and unaware of the wider gaming public if you think a Nintendo Direct will reach as wide an audience as a proper press conference.

 

As far as the NX is concerned, I think Nintendo could pull off another handheld but will be royally screwed if they try and release another console. They should ride out the Wii U and start again in a few years time, trying to release a console this late into the Ps4/One generation would be as disastrous, if not worse, than the Wii U - especially given their recent software output. The big hitters, Mario Kart and Smash, have only recently been released so we can't expect them and it seems their other franchises have been watered down - Metroid is pretty non-existent in this day and age, Donkey Kong is a 2D platformer (the genre is dead to everyone but core Nintendo fans) and Mario has been reduced to small tile-based levels as oppose to proper 3D worlds.

 

Unless Nintendo really up their game in the software department or miraculously get third-party support, there's no way the NX can do better than the Wii U.

[bryanee]

 

Believe!

 

lol oh man that's a blast from the past. Whoever dropped that video just before E3 was a master troll.

 

Nintendo have to get a new console out. They cant ride the Wii U for another couple of years, where as I think they can ride the 3DS until late 2017 with some proactive price drops during the latter stages of the this year.

[dazzybee]

If they release handheld and a home console which both play the same games, then it could absolutely work for nintendo. Even without third parties the sheer volume of games they could make would be great, people could buy whichever console they wanted, same games would work. Handheld also acts as an additional controller if required.

 

The theory behind this could prove very successful. Throw in ps4 equalling and 3rd parties could come too. It's 'possible' it could really work!

[Sheikah]

Didn't say it wouldn't, but the comparison is there regardless. I think VR will be more similar to 4K HDTV myself. Very slow adoption but at some point it will be more widespread.

 

The difference between 3DTV and VR is that one is what humanity has dreamed about and pined for since the early days of computers, while the other is what manufacturers figured we would just warm to.

 

As long as there exists that passion for VR there will always be a market, and more importantly, enthusiastic people developing the technology.

 

For those that think this is an impossible dream or unlikely, citing 1080p60fps issues of modern day - just look back twenty or thirty years and see what games looked like then. Heck, even last generation most console games were 720p30, while at least now many are 1080p30 or beyond. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to expect massive leaps in technology within 10 years to support VR more adequately.

[Retro_Link]

Some of those same people laughing at the price of Oculus have spent literally hundreds of pounds on Amiibo... some of you may well have been able to afford an Oculus for the amount you've spent collecting those.

 

One persons Amiibo collection is another persons VR headset. So whatever.

[Ronnie]

The difference is ten quid for an amiibo is a fair enough price, whereas 500 quid for an Oculus is just laughable, no matter how advanced the tech is. And that's before you throw in another 100-200 quid for the controllers. It was a long shot that it would be a mainstream hit, now it has no chance. IMO.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

The difference is ten quid for an amiibo is a fair enough price, whereas 500 quid for an Oculus is just laughable, no matter how advanced the tech is. And that's before you throw in another 100-200 quid for the controllers. It was a long shot that it would be a mainstream hit, now it has no chance. IMO.

 

His point was that if you bought lots and lots of amiibo, which a lot of amiibo owners seem to, it can add up to hundreds of pounds.

[Ronnie]

His point was that if you bought lots and lots of amiibo, which a lot of amiibo owners seem to, it can add up to hundreds of pounds.

 

I realised that, but you could make the same argument over pretty much any product. Anything can add up to £500. My point was amiibo are fairly priced, the Oculus on the other hand will never be a mainstream success at that price point. No one's laughing at the cost of an amiibo, but there are plenty of people laughing at the cost of an Oculus.

[Nolan]

For those that think this is an impossible dream or unlikely, citing 1080p60fps issues of modern day - just look back twenty or thirty years and see what games looked like then. Heck, even last generation most console games were 720p30, while at least now many are 1080p30 or beyond. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to expect massive leaps in technology within 10 years to support VR more adequately.

 

It's already supportable on a PC with top end GPUs, and a high framerate is tantamount to a enjoyable VR experience. I don't really see the upcoming console generation as having the raw power to achieve the best graphics unless they forgo any resemblance of power/cost efficiency. While improvements are being made (14nm is around the corner) I'm not sure what's coming will be enough.

 

For the Rift the recommended(required?) GTX970 pulls around 250W at full load and runs at 69C thats in an open air PC. I don't think it's impossible for consoles to be doing VR but I do find it very unlikely without large compromises in various areas. Be it graphics or cost or heat. Without more time it's hard to achieve goals in all of those.

[Retro_Link]

@Ronnie Amiibo are just as much a 'fad' as VR may or may not turn out to be however. And yet they've managed to garner hundreds of pounds of people money. You're right in that you could put this to any product, but exactly, it's completely up to people how they spend their money and where they deem value to lie.

 

Why do you call the price for the tech laughable?

 

Personally (well, because I can't afford to), I'd never spend £1000+ on a cutting edge TV... but people do! And maybe that's the market Oculus is looking towards. The average gamer isn't the primary market.

 

(also Ronnie what's your PSN ID?)

Edited January 7, 2016 by Retro_Link

[Sheikah]

I realised that, but you could make the same argument over pretty much any product. Anything can add up to £500. My point was amiibo are fairly priced, the Oculus on the other hand will never be a mainstream success at that price point. No one's laughing at the cost of an amiibo, but there are plenty of people laughing at the cost of an Oculus.

 

It's not about the individual cost per unit, because that argument is naturally biased towards what you're arguing in favour of. It's that one guy may choose to funnel hundreds of pounds into amiibo, and ultimately have a load of toys, while one guy may choose to put all that money into one new piece of tech. It's easy to laugh at a very expensive single item while completely ignoring how easily similar amounts of money can be blown on things that some would believe are even more frivolous spends when taken collectively.

 

Also...I don't think you can argue that just amiibos are fairly priced. Do you have intimate knowledge of the cost of the included tech in the Rift, along with development costs? The cost for this may well be fair, but I'm no expert. Saying it will never be a mainstream success at that price point, though, is a bit of a pointless comment. Of course it will not stay at that price point - so what is your point?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

I'll Pm you Retro

 

It's not about the individual cost per unit

 

On the contrary, it most certainly is about the cost of each individual unit, otherwise you can choose any arbitrary number and apply it to amiibo. The average amiibo consumer hasn't spent £500 on them, and regardless, I'm talking about value and impact on the marketplace. Amiibo is priced competitively, Oculus isn't, and the latter already has huge hurdles to overcome to ever be considered a worthwhile purchase for the average consumer even before price comes into it.

 

Also...I don't think you can argue that just amiibos are fairly priced. Do you have intimate knowledge of the cost of the included tech in the Rift, along with development costs?

 

I'm not saying the tech involved isn't worth the cost, just that as a consumer product in an emerging market, it's too much to be make a splash. It has shades of that hilarious $599 PS3 conference at E3 a number of years back. I also wonder if you would be as forgiving had this been a Nintendo VR headset selling for £500 with additional £100 controllers (for each hand).

[Mr_Master_X2]

VR will take off...just not anytime soon. You can't really compare true VR to 3D tv's either. VR has applications in the sciences, and job training, and VR business meetings etc. VR is here to stay, but as a true gaming device is a long way off being what it should/needs to be.

[Serebii]

The Rift is less than £200 more than all of this generation's consoles at launch. It's not small change, obviously, but given what it's doing and what it contains within it (the technology, the screens, the physical products and hell the free games) it's not bad for a new bit of tech. It's hardly a ridiculous cost of entry. It's not cheap, but it's not unjustifiable.

 

The rift is, yes, but you also need a decent PC to get good use out of it too, so add another £500-£1000 onto that.

 

Edit: Whoops, already been brought up

[Goron_3]

VR is not aimed at the mainstream just yet, it's too expensive. It's being aimed at tech enthusiasts and those that are willing to buy into such concepts. Do some research on the law of diffusion of innovation - the whole VR concept is about building towards the future.

 

The costs will have tumbled by 2020.

 

Anyway, we're getting an Oculus Rift for the office pretty soon. We've had an older model for the last few months and it's mind-blowing.

[Serebii]

VR has some fantastic uses, and is fun to use (though when I did start feeling iffy after about half an hour when I tried it early last year...hopefully it has stabilised), but its gaming usage is fairly limited. It's limited to first person games else what's the point? And first person titles aren't all the industry has.

 

It'll be a part of the future of gaming, without a single doubt (although not as soon as people think), but it most certainly won't be the future of gaming. The scope, while large, is limited.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Serebii

[Hero-of-Time]

Can we get a thrip in here? The past two pages have been pretty much VR talk and probably more suited to the actual VR thread. We seemed to have gone off track from the NX banter.

[Kav]

What do people believe/theorise the NX will be then and what are you reasonings and also thoughts as to how it could get Nintendo back in the game?

 

I can't see anything other than a hybrid selling well, or even reasonably, for Nintendo at the moment. As much as I try to think what they could do and how they'd push it, nothing other than it being a hybrid gives me reason that it would sell.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Kav