Virtual Reality ; will / should Nintendo make a move ?

nerdman

pig's gotta fly
#52
I feel the same about the display.

Instead of a TV, the screens are on your face. Instead of the control stick turning the camera, it's motion tech. It's an illusion.

I haven't tried one yet; maybe I'll be blown away. For now, the idea that the visual trick will make me "feel inside the game" is just silly.

One thing I really like from the headset is that it provides a stable field of depth. This will aid motion controls.

I wanted Nintendo to go with a upgraded wiimote instead of the Gamepad. It seems the consoles have moved on from motion control. If VR is what is keeping it alive, then sign me up.
 

Cubits

Well-Known Member
#53
The wii u can still do a 1:1 zapper with face-tracking 3d. It's not too late to reinvigorate the platform with that, but the longer they sit on it, the closer everyone else gets to market viability. It's an easy step between motion control and VR, and it avoids the existing drawbacks of both.

The vive uses a more complex version of the wiimote ir tracking (and the controller tracking is almost identical to my virtual boy concept!), but while you have the freedom to move, you're still at danger due to the wired tether. When that thing is wireless and cheaper (and eliminates laser shadows), it will be pretty awesome.

I'm still looking forward to when the technology is there for wireless ar/vr hybrids though, they're going to mop the floor with what we have.
 
Last edited:

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#54
The wii u can still do a 1:1 zapper with face-tracking 3d. It's not too late to reinvigorate the platform with that, but the longer they sit on it, the closer everyone else gets to market viability. It's an easy step between motion control and VR, and it avoids the existing drawbacks of both.

The vive uses a more complex version of the wiimote ir tracking (and the controller tracking is almost identical to my virtual boy concept!), but while you have the freedom to move, you're still at danger due to the wired tether. When that thing is wireless and cheaper (and eliminates laser shadows), it will be pretty awesome.

I'm still looking forward to when the technology is there for wireless ar/vr hybrids though, they're going to mop the floor with what we have.
See, I wonder if maybe Nintendo will use its streaming technology with the Gamepad, along with its glasses-free 3D tech, and its motion control knowhow to create a reasonably priced wireless VR headset.
 

Cubits

Well-Known Member
#55
Wireless is where it's at. Since the wii u is capable of streaming to two gamepads, I wonder how many pixels it can push at that quality. If it can get a reasonable res with a single frame of lag it is holding the key tech.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#56
Wireless is where it's at. Since the wii u is capable of streaming to two gamepads, I wonder how many pixels it can push at that quality. If it can get a reasonable res with a single frame of lag it is holding the key tech.
Yeah, and with a single frame of lag at 60fps, that's only 16ms (33ms @30fps), which is seriously fast.

With regards to pixels, the Gamepad screen is 480p so 854x480 resolution, which even doubled for each eye is still less than the amount of pixels at 720p (just over 100k pixels less).

In theory, the Wii U could be retrofitted to utilize a VR headset in place of the Gamepad using the Pro controller, and render what's on screen to the headset itself. As far as lag goes, it would depend on how well it can render two screens rather than one if it were a Gamepad. Maybe the lag goes up to two frames rather than one (if assuming one frame of lag per screen), which in Nintendo's eyes might not be acceptable enough.

We know the streaming tech of the Wii U is a type of WiFi connection purpose built for communication between the Wii U and the Gamepad, so if something was purpose built for the same application of a VR headset, it should work and work well.

But here's another thing to think about: the bulkiness of the current VR headsets might put off Nintendo since it requires a bit of mass (don't know how heavy or light Valve's or HTC's headsets are). Maybe Nintendo will wait until it could be similar to wearing those sunglasses that go over your normal prescription eyewear.

But even so, what about those who do wear glasses? Do current VR headsets have built-in diopters to accommodate different prescriptions (I hope they do)?
 

Cubits

Well-Known Member
#57
Yes, most headsets are good for glasses wearers these days, John carmack is as blind as a bat without his!

Phones are capable of weighing <120g these days, so I can't see why vr helmets can't be massively lightened by production miniaturisation. We're currently at the ipad 1 in terms of production efficiency, everything is a separate component and wired together. Once it's all on the same board we'll have a much slimmer and lighter profile. Getting the bulk of weight as close to the face as possible is as advantageous as reducing weight outright (which is why my concept split the battery and housed it in the wings).

There are a couple of headsets which project the image straight into your eye. They're promising for the improved visual field, reduced distortion/pixellation, and reduced required unit thickness. But they're a new field and don't have the refinement of screens.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#59
I am a little late to posting here, but I would say: Yes-Nintendo Should make a move BUT first they need to straiten out their other assets first. VR has huge potential, but rushing in without a solid foundation will be disastrous.
 

Aki

Well-Known Member
#60
NO.

I'm not buying into the whole VR thing. For one, you look retarded wearing all of the head gear. Second, it's too much. Just give me a traditional controller, not a wannabe iPad aka GamePad, and I'm good to go.
 

Cubits

Well-Known Member
#61
As long as you're in your own home, why would you have to give a shit about how you look to other people? Plenty of people walk around looking retarded, and while I'd never hire them for it, what they do at home is their own business.

Also, you can use this with a traditional controller, it replaces the screen, not your control. For things like racing or flight sims, what we have now is pretty much perfect (I've owned everything from trackir to edimension glasses, and second gen OR). For other genres there are definite hurdles, but that's why we have so many people coming up with so many potential solutions, it's evolution.

No one's going to take away your controller for a long time, but it will go one day. You can start kicking and screaming now, but you'll just tire yourself out prematurely.
 

Ex-Actarus

Well-Known Member
#62
That's incredible, it's been 2 years ago since this thread and things have evolved a lot... So here some updates :

- Sony and Valve are now officially in the VR headset business, it's not a rumor anymore
- Valve partnered with HTC and their product is name " HTC Vive"
- After being called Morpheus, the Sony VR headset will be named simply "Playstation VR"
- Oculus Rift has been bought by Facebook. Now the company name is "Oculus" and their product "Rift"
- Microsoft will be an exclusive partner with Oculus
- Samsung also entered the VR race with their headset, the "Samsung Gear VR"
- The Rift is the first gaming VR headset with an official price and release date. The Rift will cost 599$ ( Headset + Xbox One controller + Sensor + Cables + 2 free games for preorders )
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
#65
I'm not at all convinced about VR in video games yet. Mainly the price point and the headsets.

This may be a case of seeing is believing for me.
 

Ex-Actarus

Well-Known Member
#66
My excitment for VR is growing rapidily. Both Oculus and Valve have shown some incredible looking motion controllers.
I'm not at all convinced about VR in video games yet. Mainly the price point and the headsets.

This may be a case of seeing is believing for me.
Yes I'm starting to get excited as well. I would love to play Eve Valkyrie.

Having said that, pricing is such a concern. I wasn't expecting 600$ really. I though we would get VR headset as expensive as consoles at best. I guess pricing could go down fast, look at 4K tvs.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#67
That's incredible, it's been 2 years ago since this thread and things have evolved a lot... So here some updates :

- Sony and Valve are now officially in the VR headset business, it's not a rumor anymore
- Valve partnered with HTC and their product is name " HTC Vive"
- After being called Morpheus, the Sony VR headset will be named simply "Playstation VR"
- Oculus Rift has been bought by Facebook. Now the company name is "Oculus" and their product "Rift"
- Microsoft will be an exclusive partner with Oculus
- Samsung also entered the VR race with their headset, the "Samsung Gear VR"
- The Rift is the first gaming VR headset with an official price and release date. The Rift will cost 599$ ( Headset + Xbox One controller + Sensor + Cables + 2 free games for preorders )
At those prices, VR sets may go the way of the 3D TV. I can't believe this sound bite is relevant again:


That's six-hundred buckaroos on top of the cost of a high-end gaming PC, or a current gaming console. Of course the value proposition is not so bad if you think about the fact that a VR set will likely be good for at least two generations of gaming; at the same time, it makes just as much sense to wait a few years for better and cheaper VR sets to hit the market, once competition from different manufacturers forces them to step up their game.

Speaking for myself, I'll definitely be waiting a few years before getting into this.
 

FriedShoes

MLG
Moderator
#68
these HMDs deserve to die. I'm already helping a television manufacturer devise a stealth attack campaign on these dreaded awful gimmicks.
 

nerdman

pig's gotta fly
#69
I'm not paying that price for a VR helment. I will wait until the price comes down, the motion controllers are released, and there is actually a sizable library of games.

When these things happen, I will splurge on a VR room. VR + motion is really the biggest jump in gaming since 2D to 3D. There are so many new mechanics that aren't possible on old hardware. It's exciting.
 

Ex-Actarus

Well-Known Member
#70
I think VR headset could bring back in the way the Arcade business.

Remember guys why there was Arcade in the first place ? Because arcade games had graphics that were not possible to get at home. We had to wait the Dreamcast, so see games pretty much in par with arcade games. And it did end , consoles were so powerful - and affordable - that I killed the arcade industry.

I think it will be the same with VR headset, it will be so expensive that if there is a VR headset arcade style place where I can pay 5 or 10 box to place 30 mins, I'll do it !
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#71
I think VR headset could bring back in the way the Arcade business.

Remember guys why there was Arcade in the first place ? Because arcade games had graphics that were not possible to get at home. We had to wait the Dreamcast, so see games pretty much in par with arcade games. And it did end , consoles were so powerful - and affordable - that I killed the arcade industry.

I think it will be the same with VR headset, it will be so expensive that if there is a VR headset arcade style place where I can pay 5 or 10 box to place 30 mins, I'll do it !
I can dig this idea. A VR cafe could also be a thing, bring back the cybercafe era.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#73
Do they have motion sickness fixed?

Plus, I'm still not convinced. It's too pricey and TV gives you more freedom.

It's like 3D glasses for TV, it didn't catch on, because it's weird and not comfy enough.

VR business may take off, but it's too soon to become something that can compete against mobile and consoles.
 
#74
I think Nintendo is unique in that it has already created whacky worlds, intriguing universes and beloved characters. Putting the player right *in there* with those worlds and characters would give Nintendo an advantage over other game makers who don't carry that superiority or brand power in world making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
#75
If Nintendo could produce a quality VR headset for under $200, then maybe it would have a chance. That said I don't see it taking off unless it is made available from the start of a new console and subsequently supported by Nintendo to prove its viability. As is, I don't see Nintendo jumping into the VR market within the next 5 years.
 

TheAmazingLSB

PLEASE UNDERSTAND....
#76
Still too expensive imo.... Though I could see Nintendo opting into a partnership with NAMCO to perhaps produce some kind of VR arcade cabinet game....

I don't see Nintendo getting into the VR market this gen.... At least on the console front.... But I'm sure they are looking into the tech for future endevors....

They have been for many years....
 
Last edited:

Koenig

The Architect
#77
Elaborating on my thought process after a bit of time to think on it.

VR is a superior way to play many kinds of games, but the key problem right now is the price. Any peripheral above $60 will severely limit the number of people who are going to buy the games meant to support it, and the number of people able to buy it only decreases as the price goes up. Very few developers have the disposable income to make a game specifically designed to make use of a VR headset when the number of people who actually have one is so small. Until the price of VR sets comes down significantly, to the point that it can either be purchased relatively cheaply by the consumer or outright included with a modest system by default, I don't see it taking off any time soon in the console market.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#78
Nintendo did just say in the investors meeting that they are interested in exploring VR again.

Nintendo is reportedly exploring a return to virtual reality, with the company's president Tatsumi Kimishima describing VR as "interesting technology" in a recent earnings calls. According to a report from the Financial Times, the Japanese firm says it's researching virtual reality but has no specific plans to launch any products any time soon.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/2/10893266/nintendo-virtual-reality-vr-return

So it's extremely unlikely we'll see anything this generation (do we have generations anymore?) but who knows in a few years.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
#80
Let me just say this: how cool would it be to Metroid Prime 1 in VR. Right hand is for shooting and big movements. Left hand holds control stick to move/jump maybe. Movements with head to look around.
That would have been even more amazing in a fully immersive VR scenario.

But as for VR now, no thanks.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#81
what!?
Maybe two kinds of games and it can probably make its own genres but no, I dont see this.
Granted FPS are the ideal match for VR, but almost any form of camera perspective would work well with VR imo; the only type of game I don't see it benefiting is top down perspectives.
 
#83
I like the idea of VR being optional, mainly due to the high price, and Nintendo don't usually develop their hardware around optional accessories. So I don't see it happening with the NX.
 

thekiller7

The Seven and Only
#84
I like the idea of VR being optional, mainly due to the high price, and Nintendo don't usually develop their hardware around optional accessories. So I don't see it happening with the NX.
ditto... I'd actually rather have it as an option for the next next gen. I feel the tech is not fully ready for VR and it will take a gen or two or even three to finally perfect VR. I myself am not ready for this as well. I'd much rather play games on the big screen than wear a helmet for now.
 
#85
I am not sure, have you seen the specs it takes to run VR for pc. I think it is a bit to early for consoles to be getting VR and having it properly supported.
 

Irish_Shinobi

Metroid and Irish Enthusiast
#86
If they do go through with this, I expect Metroid, Legend of Zelda, and Pokemon to be the top contestants for VR candidates

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
 

nerdman

pig's gotta fly
#87
My expectations for VR have plummeted. I was never a huge supporter, but I was at least willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore.

I always knew about motion sickness with VR, but didn't think much of it. I knew of people getting motion sickness with 3D games on regular TVs. It turns out the motion sickness is actually a huge deal for VR.

The problem is rotation. If the eyes detect rotation but your ears do not, then this sends mixed messages to the brain. Cue nausea. This means rotating the camera with the right stick is a bad idea.

Not everyone will get sick, but enough people have that developers are staying the fuck away from these techniques. This definitely presents a challenge because the majority of our games rely on rotating the camera left and right.

It also creates a problem of locomotion in 3D games. How do you move the character around in a 3D world if you can't rely on normal control stick methods?

This is why we've seen so many VR games that are about moving around in set space. When all movement is truly natural, then you won't get sick. The problem here is that small space to move has greatly limited the types of games you can make.

VR enthusiasts don't even seem to understand either. I've heard "Metroid Prime in VR" pitched so many times, but they don't even realize that game wouldn't work in VR. People would get sick.
 

tekshow

Active Member
#88
Has anyone seen the reception of PlayStation VR? It's pretty much all there, the motion blur, sickness, and gimmicks. Doesn't look like it's for me at this point. In fact Greg Miller is saying it's going to maybe take two to three years for a quality experience to come. It doesn't really rival traditional gaming, VR is a supplemental type at this point.

I'm not willing to pay $500 bucks for supplements to support the health of my body, I damn sure am not buying a one off peripheral to sit next to my tv most of the time.

I think I'll build a solid PC instead.
 
#89
Has anyone seen the reception of PlayStation VR? It's pretty much all there, the motion blur, sickness, and gimmicks. Doesn't look like it's for me at this point. In fact Greg Miller is saying it's going to maybe take two to three years for a quality experience to come. It doesn't really rival traditional gaming, VR is a supplemental type at this point.

I'm not willing to pay $500 bucks for supplements to support the health of my body, I damn sure am not buying a one off peripheral to sit next to my tv most of the time.

I think I'll build a solid PC instead.
For new adopters, the entire experience just for PSVR, which I think is the more affordable of the bunch, nears or exceeds $1k. Jesus.
 

tekshow

Active Member
#91
For new adopters, the entire experience just for PSVR, which I think is the more affordable of the bunch, nears or exceeds $1k. Jesus.
If you don't already have a PS4 that's the buy in, but there's a ton in the wild already. Sony will be praying their attach rate is high enough to warrant making games for the thing. Somehow I feel like it's more of a passing fad...

@theMightyME and that google device is right in line with where I think VR is going. At last at this early stage in the game. It's like headphones for your eyes and you add in motion controls. A big screen? Aren't those cheap these days, sure a 60 inch TV won't cover your entire field of vision, but a 4K set is now less than a $1,000 and is definitely the better investment.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#92
If you don't already have a PS4 that's the buy in, but there's a ton in the wild already. Sony will be praying their attach rate is high enough to warrant making games for the thing. Somehow I feel like it's more of a passing fad...

@theMightyME and that google device is right in line with where I think VR is going. At last at this early stage in the game. It's like headphones for your eyes and you add in motion controls. A big screen? Aren't those cheap these days, sure a 60 inch TV won't cover your entire field of vision, but a 4K set is now less than a $1,000 and is definitely the better investment.
that google daydream visor is about $129 I think.... and that includes a motion controller... the phones that use it need to be at a certain spec and include specific sensors, and the unit itself has additional sensors... everyone has a smartphone these days and the average android flagship has a 4k display on the phone.... It would be cool if companies amde use of stuff like this for larger scale 3d too.... like if you could play pc vr games using your phone and a daydream visor, or a phone and a galaxy vr (samsung) that way you get rid of the cost of an expensive kit and instead run the game on your pc and use your phone and the visor for the screen, audio, and sensors... if they can get it wireless, even better.... that way the entry price to VR is just $130 more than what you already have in your pocket and at home
 

tekshow

Active Member
#93
... that way the entry price to VR is just $130 more than what you already have in your pocket and at home
Totally, more like impulse buy, and it fits the "buy a peripheral" model that will move some units. I think phones are picking up more gaming, I can't stand touch controls but there's a lot more parity in the marketplace these days. There's full fledged games on there and a lot of the bug indies seen on console/PC. It won't take long, and gaming tablet will be a thing.

Getting a controller and a headset for $130 to have a more complete experience is pretty solid. I'd be more apt to game on it with any kind of supported controller for sure.
 

tekshow

Active Member
#94
Update!

Definitely not ready. After all these years. After the Virtual Boy and the SEGA Activator, VR still sucks! It's motion controls for your head.

My wife, don't get mad, brought me home a PSVR bundle last week as part of the R&D job at the company I won't name. We get to keep it, and she got most of the launch games except the one I wanted, Eve.

After running a box of cables around the room, where my goal has been to hide the wires, I felt like I had completed a chore into the right of passage for VR. Honestly, setup was a painful hurdle, and also the realization that now there's two move remotes, a VR box, and my dual shocks that all need to be charged via USB. Especially since Sony makes it hard to charge with a wall adapter.

Once setup was finally completed I strapped the headset on my face. It's mostly comfortable except for the embilical cord that runs back to the PC box. Another juggle is when various fakes are started with a dual shock and then ask you to grab your move controllers. The downside here is you can't see anything so you have to feel blindly around the room of lift the visor.

As far as gaming is concerned it's decent, one thing it can do so give you perspective. Since you're IN the game the close ups and character interaction are life size, I have a 120" home theater screen, but VR is truly life size he characters are as large as you are. With that size comparison comes a screen door effect, or SDE. I can't NOT see it so I'm not sure how the press has praised it. I've calibrated my unit and fiddled adnauseam. Recently I heard Greg Miller say on a podcast ho fuzzy text is, it may not be due to OLED screens being flush against the face, but the viewing area. The illusion is better when in a fixed perspective, however just like I mentioned people are as large as life if a person is in your face the only way to really view them is to look head to toe. That scanning with your head, and actual vision is part of the enjoyment, up right now it also breaks the illusion of PSVR as objects in the field blur and pixelate.

The harsh verdict is after a couple hours of gaming, I had no sense of physical nausea but have no interest in partaking in the launch of VR. I guess if there's a stellar game I'll pick it up again. It's a lot like the DS finding its legs, but with a much higher price tag. I certainly would not be happy had I chose to lay for a launch unit.

Right now I can't pass positive judgment on VR I find myself uninterested and not ready to drop coin. I'm glad Nintendo has gone another route and out resources into a proven device scheme. My hype levels for the Switch are indescribable, and a lot of that is because I know what I'm getting. From the recent trailer it's clear to me what the Switch is and I'm 100% hyped for it.

Stay away from that VR, it ain't no good.
 

BobSilencieux

Well-Known Member
#95
I remember early 90's VR, and I'm pretty sure that the message back then was exactly the same as it has been for this round of VR: it's like the future of home entertainment or some shniz, and it's here now, and it's definitely going to blow your mind... 25 years ago it was just as much of an over-promising under-delivering fad as it is now. Welp, maybe in a nother 25 years they'll actually get it right.
 
Top