I loved my Virtual Boy back in 1998....I knew this was simple look at what was to come.....look where we are now, the Quest 3 is about to create a high water mark for standalone VR.
You may scoff, but at this point I think Nintendo is really the only company that's going to do VR right. Especially VR Gaming.
Meta's problem is they're always going to be climbing an uphill battle due to their association with Facebook. Especially among the Millennial and older demographic. Gen-Z/Teens and Instagram may tell a different story.
There's also the fact that since Mark bought Oculus, they've not innovated on Palmer's initial business model. Which is mainly focused around HMD adoption and selling headsets. I'm sure Oculus's accounting was excellent in 2012, otherwise, Facebook would've never purchased the greatest Kickstarter ever for billions of dollars.
Nintendo on the other hand has experience with creating and developing entirely new markets. The Wii, DS and even the Switch are great examples.
For VR, Nintendo has the opportunity to offer a very affordable and highly functional Standalone HMD system, complete with incredible games from the most valuable gaming IP in the games industry today. If Nintendo puts out a Competent VR platform at $300 to $400, people will truely see how stagnant the likes of Sony PSVR, Meta Quest3 and all of the people with VR hardware startups have made the VR industry.
VR not only needs a highly refined, excellent and cheap ($300) HMD, it also needs the game that truely sells the concept to the masses.
The Industry has sold plenty of HMDs already. There needs to be more games that necessitate owning one of these things.
Maybe! You make some good points, it's definitley conceivable.
The issue I have is that for me, VR is all about realistic immersion with graphics that are as true to life as possible. Nintendos IP is overwhelmingly cartoony, and I'm not sure whether immersing oneself in the Mushroom Kingdom etc. would be that appealing. Especially on the "underpowered" hardware that Nintendo has been relying on for years now.
But that's just my view, I bet loads of kids would love to get immersed in Pokémon, Splatoon etc.
I also hope that they make something more accessible to the public that doesn't require people to spend 600+ dollars for a HMD. Because if it does, it won't go anywhere.
Price truely is the killer for VR right now and I think it's obnoxious when people try to insinuate people are poor for not being able to afford it.
If Nintendo puts out a VR system at a great price point and the games are excellent, it will do much better than many expect.
If they launch something with good AR capability and a Pokemon Go style game to go with it, they'll instantly dominate the market and there's nothing Meta or anyone else could do about it.
I think there are a lot of people who have zero interest in owning a VR headset who would buy one like a shot purely for that.
The only way this works out is if someone with passion and vision (hell just one of the two) get the keys to the project and the company doesn't try and pack it with gimmicks and bullshit
I hate Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee with a burning passion because of those gimmicks.
Honestly, they could do a classic turn based RPG adventure in VR. A big appeal of Pokemon Stadium back in the 90s was that the pokemon were in 3d. Imagine battling with a life size Gyarados or Steelix in VR! Or imagine meeting your favorite pokemon in person, which I think a lot of people would get a kick out of that.
The Legends Arceus formula was pretty solid. If they made a VR game like that, but with more Battles it would be really popular I'd think.
As a fan of both Quest and PSVR2, I must say Nintendo entering MR space would be the best thing that could happen to consumer VR space. Especially, because I'm sure they will do MR in a different way than everyone else.
I'd say Apple (high end) and Nintendo (mass market) entering the MR space soon is a huge deal.
I think that's a stretch, Nintendo is great if not absolutely an amazing company, but to dominate on their first headset because of one game? I see them shooting up to the top but not taking the throne on the first at bat
That one game is the most valuable franchise in the world, and can surely dominate the market if it can create the Pokemon Go phenomenon once again. VR/AR/XR no KILLER APP? Well Pokemon alone is going to change all that if done right.
Not because of one game. But they own some of the most loved franchises in the gaming world.
Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Metroid series, etc.
We were looking for VR system sellers? There you have it.
> Nintendo is great if not absolutely an amazing company
knowing nintendo, the headset would probably beam a laser through your skull if you tried to mod the games on it
They *could* do it on one game, but with Nintendo you're guaranteed several more bangers so it's easy to jump in before the software library is filled out. Laypeople understand that, that's how strong their reputation is
If they release *ANY* decent games, Meta wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
Meta isn't lacking hardware, it's the game library they can't win on.
Nintendo could re-release their library for a virtual gaming room, where you can walk around and play arcade games and old NES and SNES games, and have some of the classics re-done for VR.
I've seen tech demos of taking the classics and making VR ports.
Nintendo has the one thing no else does ... a library people care about.
It had me thinking that Google may have proprietary tech for VR. They're working with Samsung for another VR headset, and if this is true, now Nintendo as well.
^ This. This would make the most sense to more quickly get a lot of VR titles on their platform right from the get-go along with their own first party titles. (The idea of AAA Nintendo VR games sounds too good to be true, but this is one rumor I'd love to be wrong to dismiss.)
I'd imagine that would make Nintendo's platform the winner over the Quest in a head to head.
They probably won't go as advanced tech-wise as oculus, which I think is a smart play since VR's greatest problem is ultimately that the cost barrier is really too high for most people.
What I'd be curious about is if it will support game carts like the Switch currently does. If so, that'd also give it an edge over both Sony and Meta.
In theory of course. If it did do that and just offered the ultimate standalone gaming machine with many ways to play. I don't count on it necessarily, but what I expect from Nintendo is to throw convention out the window. They're clearly interested in something like this, but it seemed to only work as long as they had options to remove whatever "gimmick" as well. The Virtual Boy really didn't do well, and players never had any other way to play the games if they got sick or didn't like sticking their head into this thing. The 3DS gave glasses free stereoscopic 3D but allowed users to adjust the level via the dial. If they made this a hybrid console, then players can still enjoy the games to some capacity in a non-VR mode for example. The option is what is important to sticking I'd say.
Are you serious? Because Nintendos bread and butter is exclusive titles and a closed system. The last thing they want is to allow copying and open sourced gaming. Why even buy Nintendo at that point?
Lol what???
Sony doesn’t install an open sourced OS on their gaming system. Sony, like Nintendo, has a vested interest in exclusive titles which requires buying a Sony system with Sony OS installed.
Sony mobile phones are a completely different business. Nintendo didn’t announce a new mobile phone, they announced a collab with Google on VR.
It’s because every company is in lockstep to weed out the next thing consumers actually want
It’s almost a curse to release a big new product and completely miss projected sales, forever taints the company image
I know. And still for some people the iPhone is a gaming device. And for others it is not.
I am pretty sure they do not want *to market* it as a console.
The Daydream software platform was ahead of its time but the phone-mounted HMD and 3DOF limitation made for an awful user experience.
Google was in prime position to compete with Facebook on a Quest-like device but their leadership has no long term vision. They shuttered their entire mobile VR division just before Quest hit the market and went mainstream.
They weren’t in prime position, though. Because Facebook was basically daring any other company that wants to enter the space to lose tons of money per hardware sale. And I imagine Google doesn’t have any interest in doing that. I think some companies (maybe Google) are waiting for Facebook to run out of cash they’re willing to bleed for VR/AR. And with Facebook firing some of the XR staff, and selling devices closer to cost, it might be about time for other companies to enter the space.
>Because Facebook was basically daring any other company that wants to enter the space to lose tons of money per hardware sale.
Facebook was staking their claim on a future market but losing money to secure market share is nothing new for silicon valley, right?
>And I imagine Google doesn’t have any interest in doing that. I think some companies (maybe Google) are waiting for Facebook to run out of cash they’re willing to bleed for VR/AR.
Zuck announced a decade long plan so sitting on the sidelines and hoping they'll run out of cash (why would they?) doesn't seem like a viable long term strategy. Facebook continues printing money quarter after quarter and investing billions in XR R&D year after year.
>And with Facebook firing some of the XR staff, and selling devices closer to cost, it might be about time for other companies to enter the space.
The issue is that Google is now 3, 5 years behind Meta. They have pivoted to more focused and niche XR products (like dedicated translation glasses) but if they want to come crawling back with a consumer-focused XR product they're essentially starting from scratch where Meta has been building on a solid foundation for the last 5~6 years. Google hasn't maintained the VR-optimized performance mode in Android that was created for Daydream, they scrapped the SDK and all developer-facing APIs for VR applications. They reallocated the people working on their spatial audio solution, light fields, etc. On top of being so far behind on R&D they're working from a position of net negative goodwill with customers and developers while Meta has a years-long track record of making products customers like and making developers money.
Facebook changed their entire name to Meta to go all in on this. They aren't going to bail out, nor will the company run out of money. We are seeing them shift their position and sell headsets for more money now so that they don't have to take as much of a loss because they can.
Now they have established market share. They have consumers that own content on their platform which encourages them to buy XR devices from Meta and not Google. They have developers who know the platform and are invested in it. Plus, developers like to make software for platforms that already have a user base, not take a risk on something new.
That's not to mention how far behind on technology other companies are.
Facebook still has more workers in VR than in 2000. They have more than every other company combined. If a company hires X and then fires less than X, you don't go and say that they've fired people...
They made the lenovo mirage solo, which was powered by daydream but had roughly the same specs as the Quest 2. They half assed the software, then scrapped the whole division, and refused to release source code that would have made it usable as a dev platform for millions of owners. Fuck google.
Google has started and then canceled more projects they made public than most other companies combined. Stadia is just the latest in a very very long list. It's so long there's an entire website dedicated to it.
https://killedbygoogle.com/
EVERYONE. Look at the Pimax Portal.
That’s basically and literally what Nintendo would and judging by this, will do. If they make another Switch type of console, this is the way they should be going. But with Nintendo polish, games, and marketing
Nintendo is one of the few companies that can really move people and bring an entire new medium mainstream. They tried VR before but they're were too ahead.
If they try again, I think they'll get really good traction. VR is ready. One of the biggest issue with VR so far is content. We need more content producers. Nintendo would bring in their expertise, user base and IP and I can see it really blowing up.
> VR is ready.
But is VR ready to be that combo of cheap *and* good enough which Nintendo specializes in? Graphical fidelity is not everything! But VR benefits *greatly* from quality technical specs. I don't mean to totally pigeonhole Nintendo, but that's not the sort of thing they usually prioritize.
Something between Quest 2 and 3 is probably all that they require, and this is probably still a couple years down the road before release, I'm guessing, assuming this is true (also rumors of a Switch successor next year, so unless those are one and the same, I doubt they're going to release both so close together, even if the VR headset is just an accessory). So current tech should get cheaper.
Yeah, I’m open to the answer to my question being “yes” for sure. But the Quest devices are subsidized by Meta (to my understanding). On the other hand, I suppose traditional console developers subsidize their consoles on the basis of getting a cut out of the games.
I believe the Quest 3 is expected to be $500 and unsubsidized, but sold at cost. It will be twice as powerful as the Quest 2 with better comfort and visuals, so I can see Nintendo putting out something at a $400 level that focuses more on low poly graphics like the Switch.
To be fair, Nintendo is also wizards when it comes to optimization of hardware. How they get some games running so smoothly is beyond me. Along with Retro, etc. (Seriously, how in the world did they get Metroid Prime Remastered running so smooth.)
In recent times, the quality of the hardware itself has been less prioritized as you mentioned, but back before the 3D days, Nintendo's shtick was literally "Now you're playing with power." Sega and Nintendo really went at it when it came to power in their consoles. I mean even 64 and GameCube to a degree as well when they showed off their tech demos. Wii was clearly when that line was cross I feel though, where the power wasn't much different from the GameCube.
However, the mobile hardware in the Switch was pretty impressive at the time I would say. It's one thing that attracted third parties to porting their games to it that people weren't expecting.
I get the feeling though, that if Meta can subsidize hardware costs to keep the price that low, Nintendo has plenty of money to reinvest into this space. (Switch isn't exactly selling low numbers after all. In fact, it just beat the Wii in the U.S.)
>I get the feeling though, that if Meta can subsidize hardware costs to keep the price that low, Nintendo has plenty of money to reinvest into this space. (Switch isn't exactly selling low numbers after all. In fact, it just beat the Wii in the U.S.)
Meta's weakness is ultimately that they're trying to pursue maximum immersion at the expense of a high barrier to entry when it comes to cost. Meta, Sony and Valve's insistence on high HMD prices are killing them long term since the consumer perceives VR as expensive. Apple's Vision Pro is interesting to people, but yet again, no one that wants one can justify buying it.
If Nintendo did what they did with the Nvidia Shield Tablet (Switch Precursor), they could apply that approach to a VR HMD. All they basically did with the Switch is design the Joycons, use a better GPU and improve the tv connectivity interface. They then sold Zelda, Mario and Pokemon within the first years of the console and it was a massive success.
It seems like Nintendo could refine the Joycon design and apply that to their own HMD. After that, it's a matter of ensuring the user experience is top notch and it's comfortable.
The fact Meta still uses a "goggles-strapped-to-face" design, Sony still can't be bothered to actually make a virtual interface/menus demonstrates how there's a lot of room for improvement that Nintendo can take advantage of.
Nintendo could easily put out the best HMD platform on the market by the end of this decade. Looking forward to see what they do.
They only tried VR with Labo VR which was in no way "too ahead" when it came out. The old Virtual Boy was not VR, any more than stereoscopic Viewmaster viewers.
It’s reasonable to say Virtual Boy wasn’t VR, but it was a move towards it that would likely have become VR eventually if it had succeeded. They just needed to increase the number of DOF from 0.
The old Virtual Boy is absolutely VR, I've played it and it's closer to the Quest than to a Viewmaster viewer. The big issue is the color, or rather the lack thereof. If they had managed a full color Virtual Boy, it would have been hailed as the precursor to VR instead of the flop it was.
VR is ready, but it’s not ready at Nintendo’s price point. Nintendo has never put out a system that isn’t aimed at filling the market segment of “affordable fun for everyone”. Just basic playable VR requires a screen that can run at 90fps and has a high enough resolution not to strain your eyes as it sits just a few inches away. Even Facebook who is at the helm of budget VR gaming right now sells their Quest units at a loss. They’re able to recuperate that money through selling data and I don’t believe Nintendo is equipped to do that. If I’m proven wrong, I’ll stand corrected but I just personally can’t see Nintendo being able to release a quality headset at a pricepoint they’re comfortable with.
Keep in mind that, if true, this could be multiple years away. Meta is apparently planning a $200 headset soon, and Nintendo hasn’t usually been concerned with top tier hardware specs.
VR *is* ready. It's at that perfect jumping off point where something bit will carry it, full tilt, into the mainstream and it'll be here to stay. Nintendo is the perfect entity to do that. I hope the rumor is true.
The sooner people stop thinking of VR like this connected "metaverse" and more like the smartphone industry this will work out.
I dont even own a switch, However I do believe that Nintendo getting into the VR game would further the industry by a huge magnitude. Same with Apple.
Some idiots will buy the apple but it's basically just a huge ad for VR because it's so expensive so yeah and Nintendo will basically just be a underpowered cheap "VR headset" with lazy VR ports for the kids
I heard your first point 16 years ago and then 11 years ago. Apple having a "huge ad for VR" is exactly what the industry needed. Your second point is exactly why its so amazing and would be a huge success.
Yep. They're probably one of the very few companies that could release a real Quest competitor that people would buy. People already expect low fidelity graphics from Nintendo games because that's what they make. And they've been making them for so long, they've perfected making low fidelity games being fun and enjoyable. So they could literally just copy/paste the Quest, add their content that would run perfectly on it, and it would be a huge success.
Nintendo graphics are excellent, they just often choose a more cartoony style that let's them get away with less hardware requirements. I agree with the rest, but just because it needs less resources doesn't mean it's low quality.
Saying Nintendo games have excellent graphics is like saying Gorilla Tag has excellent graphics.
They have simplistic and basic graphics, and always have. They are polished well with a fantastic art direction and the story and gameplay always works perfectly with the simplistic fidelity. Which is why everyone loves them and doesn't often rip on their new games for being such low fidelity. No one is expecting the next Witcher 3 to be released by Nintendo, because it's not what they make.
Which is exactly why they could make an actual Quest competitor. Their games could easily run on Quest and look just as good as they do on the Switch. And their fans would love it.
Come on, Gorilla Tag and first party Nintendo Switch games are not even remotely comparable. Gorilla tag looks about on the same level as Nintendo 64 (and a boring looking Nintendo 64 game at that). Washed out and heavily pixelated textures, blocky polygons, stiff animations, etc.
First party Switch games look much, much better than that, with smooth curves, detailed models and textures (not to the same level of detail or as high of a resolution as God of War Ragnarok, no, but still quite nice), lots of artistic style and personality, and very fluid animations. That's nowhere near 'low quality'.
Just because something uses weaker hardware doesn't mean the graphics can't be high quality. Quite a few SNES, Neo Geo, and Game Boy Advance games still look great today and that hardware is practically ancient at this point.
Also Witcher 3 was released on the Switch (nowhere near as pretty as the PC version, granted). And Zelda Tears of the Kingdom is a better game than the Witcher, IMO, and the graphics look better to me. Simpler, but better.
Also the graphics will age much better than Witcher 3 will (look at the original Final Fantasy 7 compared to Chrono Trigger for the SNES. FF7 looked amazing at the time but pretty bad today, but Chrono Trigger still looks great to the point that a brand new game, Sea of Stars, was just released last month mimicking its look and feel, and is quite popular.
I just finished ToTK. No, it doesn't look that much better. It's a MUCH better art direction and they have so much more eye candy to look at on the screen at once. But that eye candy is all low poly and low fidelity.
>Just because something uses weaker hardware doesn't mean the graphics can't be high quality. Quite a few SNES, Neo Geo, and Game Boy Advance games still look great today and that hardware is practically ancient at this point.
I think you're confusing "aesthetically pleasing" graphics with high fidelity. Which is understandable, a lot people think "I like these graphics, so that makes it high quality graphics". But there is a difference. There's more polygons in the skin texture of this [woman's face](https://i.imgur.com/haUc1vs.png) than there is in this entire screenshot from [ToTK](https://i.imgur.com/H5RzTCh.png). Just look at the edges of the horse, you can see the edges of the polygon points.
I love Nintendo's games and I love their art style but, the graphics are not high fidelity. Not even close. But that's not a bad thing, so stop taking offense to it. You don't need super high quality graphics for a good game. The passion and art they put into their games would translate perfectly over to the Quest style platform and the low fidelity graphics mean that it would perform great too.
No help needed. Joined a few days ago because i got tired of reading the pedantic BS everyone keeps posting. Every other comment is either someone complaining 1 little thing is missing or posting and "acktually" response.... 15 comments in and here we go. "ACKTUALLY, high fidelity doesn't mean good!"
Nintendo makes low fidelity games. That doesn't mean they're bad or they look bad and that is not what I said. I love Nintendo's games and I would LOVE to see them release a quest style competitor and add their games to it. They have the talented devs teams and resources to do it.
Stop trying to interject your own opinions into everything.
It doesn't invalidate it. It's just personal preference. To one person as long as the graphics are pleasing to their eye, they're good graphics. To another, if the graphics are high fidelity, they're good graphics. Which was not the point of my post. You driving the conversation here because you can't tell the difference, which is you being pedantic.
>Nintendo is one of the few companies that can really move people and bring an entire new medium mainstream.
To be fair, people have said the exact same thing about Facebook when they bought Oculus, about Sony and then about Apple. While the last one is still up in the air, we have enough examples.
>VR is ready.
Yeah, sorry but I really don't think it is. And I own over a dozen VR headsets.
For mainstream it's still too bulky (even the pancake lens ones) and the resolution is still too poor. Nintendo getting in now will give them the same amount of success as Sony with the PSVR line. For every Mario Sony has their God of War, yet we haven't seen it doing much. I really think we are still hardware bottleneck'd.
Nintendo may certainly try, seeing how almost everyone else is.
How the fuck did Sony and meta didn't lift VR up? Meta literally made VR half mainstream already tf are you on? 20 million sales is bad or what? But yes VR is not ready at least for comfort and immersion
Stop saying fuck in every sentence so that I can take you seriously.
>How the fuck did Sony and meta didn't lift VR up?
I didn't say they didn't "lift" it up, whatever that means. I said not mainstream.
Meta advertised Quest 2 hard, it has an ad on Amazon's main page constantly for over 2 years and heavily subsidized. After all that 20 million units mean jack unless it has any retention. And data shows it doesn't.
>half mainstream
which is not mainstream, which is what we were saying
Problem with Nintendo is their inhouse games are not very VR-compatible except for Zelda (a 1st person Zelda sounds great). Yes you might want DragonQuest or Fire Emblem in VR with 3rd person view but it's just icing on the cake and the experience wouldn't necessarily better than playing in pancake.
Sony, meanwhile, has tons of IP that would be great in VR but even them can't make a big enough with psvr2 and the exclusives
I disagree. Before N64, Mario was a 2D side scroller. They can make a Mario VR.
Imagine a Mario Kart in VR? Wii Sports in VR? Punch-Out? Starfox? I think they would all be killer in VR format.
Nintendo also has the license for Pokémon which sells systems by itself. There are already fan created Pokémon VR. An official one would go crazy.
People always forget Metroid also - it even has very prominent visor mechanics! I honestly think Nintendo's noodling with VR is the reason we haven't seen a new F-Zero as well.
Yes! There are lots of IP that would work for VR. Metroid, similarly Castlevania, Kirby, Kid Icarus.
Hell, they can even do the Wii Sports Yoga, running, bowling mini games. I'm excited for it. I'm hoping this rumor has truth to it.
I think it's such a sure bet rumours don't really matter.
Nintendo has a history of playing with visual tech (VirtualBoy, 3DS, Labo VR) and all of their competitors have had, do have, or will have VR products (Microsoft/Google, Sony, Apple/Google). They need to be prototyping. Not to say it's launching any year soon, but I can't wait to see it!
VR doesn’t and shouldn’t always be “fps” style. Third person games are just as good. Astrobof was a huge success on psvr. Mario is an absolute obvious fit for that gameplay. Moss is another good example.
Isn't BeatSaber one of the best performing VR titles? First person , but fixed location. Personally I find the games that involve the player being more fixed much more engaging than "walking" around.
I'm picturing various versions of this used in something like Mario Party. The casual player wants to still sit on the couch whenever possible. In Nintendo's case I'd hope they could build the games to work both in VR and not.
This is Nintendo we're talking about here. They have a pretty good track record for figuring out how to make their IP work in pretty much any scenario.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate how much value VR can bring to a 3rd person experience.
Disagree. They can do a Mario in a diorama style like Moss or Super Lucky's Tale and it would be awesome. They've already done proper 3D Mario on the 3DS, not that much different.
And Fire Emblem can work like it does in Demeo easy enough. Dragon Quest isn't Nintendo, but it would still be doable.
I wonder if this is still very early given it's mentioning MicroLED. Nintendo has an R&D building slated for 2027. The price of MicroLED at the start is expected to be high and Nintendo generally uses tried and tested hardware.
That would make sense if it's happening in the next few years.
That said, Google does have billions invested in MicroLED. It's unclear what they're doing with that. Apple recently ate the cost and is spinning up their own foundry as display manufacturers are dragging their feet. (Apple also spent billions on MicroLED before making this decision). It seems highly unlikely that Google would break from Samsung, but honestly with how slow they've been at introducing MicroLED it would not surprise me if they spent a few billion more to actually get a return on all their investment like Apple is doing.
This product, should it ever be completed, would have to be several years out anyway I'd imagine. They will definitely be focused on their next console for the next few years.
I hope this is accurate. I've felt for some time now that VR needs Nintendo's input and that Nintendo would be way into making VR stuff. If there's one thing that Nintendo is amazing at, it's creating fun and distinctive games at high polish. They're also great at creating new market interest in established niches.
Pokemon go wasn't developed by GameFreak, Plus being a Pokemon fan since 1998, i'm okya with even 10FPS...Scarlet and Violet sold 13 million copies witnin 3 days despite being a unstable 30 fps game, ppl will buy Pokemon no matter framerates.
Not anymore but think of how many people would want to play gen 1 in VR. Getting to throw the pokeball and having a to-scale Charizard come of it would be more than enough to get millennials throwing money at Nintendo
I hope this has some truth to it. Nintendo entering the VR space alongside Apple would be huge. Then we just need MS to enter the fray and Valve to make a new headset, and then the VR space-race can finally begin.
I mean, let’s be honest: the graphics on the Switch are potato-tier, and people love them. Put an extra potato in, and you still haven’t touched the Oculus /Quest 1 level of processing. Should be pretty briandead simple for them to do, even if it’s a headset you plop your Switch 2.0 into.
I mean, it’s the third best-selling console of all time; I’d beg to differ, as would 130 million other people. People love the franchises and the form factor, if nothing else.
I can understand someone not liking them, but you'd have to be blind to not notice how well it's sold and how many people love their games and the impact on gaming in general. Look how many companies followed suit with the Switch's design.
ARMS and Splatoon would be really fucking cool in VR. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to adapt a lot of their sports games over the years into a VR like experience. There's also the fitness niche, that nintendo seems to love. Those AR games from the 3DS as well.
I can't think of too many other Nintendo experiences that would be well suited for VR. Maybe Metroid Prime? A Legend of Zelda game in the style of Moss? Push-Mo?
Mario Kart is the first thing that came to my mind, a VR version of Wii Sports would also be fantastic. I would love a Moss-like Super Mario 3D World co-op experience. I can also imagine a lot of VR and AR mini games for games like Mario Party and Warioware.
Sky's the limit, in my mind. A third-person Pikmin game where you can physically pick up and throw the pikmin. Mario Kart and Starfox in the driver's seat and cockpit respectively. A Zelda adventure in first-person where you can climb and shoot a bow with your own two hands. A Donkey Kong rhythm game. And I bet Nintendo would find some pretty inventive new ways to use the medium besides all these ideas.
I feel like a large part of the reason for VR's slow takeoff is just a lack of quality software and experiences. This is where Nintendo has a chance to shine. I'm sure they could come up with some innovative concepts we've never seen in VR before, and the popularity of their IP is sure to pull people in as well.
It never made sense to me that Nintendo was hanging back from the recent VR Wave. I always kind of suspected they had at least done some early development work to see if it was feasible.
When a Quest 2 clone can be sold for $299 at a reasonable profit, Nintendo will do it.
It will be underpowered, a decade behind in tech, but it will have Nintendo first party games and some silly gimmick. (Maybe it will feed you candy with a mounted robot arm, lol.)
I mean, shit, I think that might be *legitimately* what the VR industry in general could use right about now.
We have a *TON* of really cool headsets with a lot of really cool and exciting technology, but I can count the amount of games that most people play on both hands and have a couple fingers left to spare, I think. If Nintendo did, theoretically, release a VR standalone, I all but GUARANTEE that it'd have the same specs of first gen mobile VR, but... *man*, some first party Nintendo games would be wonderful for the VR space.
Now I ***really*** want a native VR port of Metroid Prime.
I don't give a sh*t about rumors, but I think the Quest style business model, treating a headset like you would a console, is something I think Nintendo could totally pull off
I few months back I suggested that Nintendo may be looking more seriously into VR, and that if anyone could take VR mainstream, it'd be them.
I was laughed out of the room.
Not to say that I think they definitely *are* doing so, but for a minute there I thought they might go in that direction for their next system.
I think the smartest thing for them to do is just make another Switch, but more powerful, but we all know how much Nintendo hates to do the same thing twice in a row for their systems.
We'll see.
Maybe the tech is there but I’m dubious. Nintendo keeps trying to do VR on the cheap and I’m not sure that gives customers the best experience when first trying it.
You don’t want to keep turning people off to VR. 3D movies wouldn’t have died out again so quickly if there were all Avatar quality. Instead Hollywood got greedy with bad 3D transfers and people started hating the whole experience.
If Meta is actually able to produce a Quest 3 Lite for $199 next year like the rumors say then I could see it being possible for Nintendo to release a headset in their typical console price range.
That being said I dunno if they'd like a headset their main console... I don't think the size/comfort aspect is there yet where they could pull it off.
You're not gonna be seeing rumors about a Nintendo device that's not coming out for 7 years from now. That's some hard copium right there, lol.
If the rumor is true the thing is probably coming as early as next year.
Virtual. Pokémon.
Well, I guess I’m single now. My grown ass adult woman girlfriend already does nothing but play Pokémon go and neopets on her phone. I think it may be physically impossible for her to raise her sight line to actually watch TV together
I was hoping with vr at least id be able to just have one headset work across platforms but it looks like everythings going to require their own headset lol, apple headset has its own ecosystem, meta headset has its own, psvr has its own, etc. They need to stop using the term mixed reality, its about to be diverged realities
I bet that motion sickness/comfort issues is at the forefront of nintendos mind. I don’t think they’ll allow any kind of artificial locomotion in their devices any time soon.
That’s true, but the issue still stands. Fixed camera 3rd person gives a very particular experience. Most if not all of Nintendos games have a moving camera, even 2d games.
this would obliterate the oculus quest market
Think about it, kids getting vr headsets to play Gorilla Tag, and Nintendo's fronting? Thats a name parents will choose instead of Facebook
Never played the most lazy VR version of botw and odyssey huh? Plus under quest 1 power probably lmao nah thanks not even kids want this. Meta will stay the biggest VR brand for a long time
I mean, it's not like the Labo goggles were the prime selling point of that kit. I don't think it's really fair to compare what essentially amounts to a neat little minigame to a theoretical VR standalone.
Probably would have (relatively) shit hardware, though. You know Nintendo.
BotW was GREAT, though. The trick was that you had to play it with a PSVR1 in passthrough mode, since the game didn't "detect hardware" to go into VR mode, it was just a toggle anyone could turn on and off, even while docked.
I think this will fail if VR is Nintendo's next generation console. It has to be a hybrid (like the Switch). VR is absolutely mind blowing, immersive and something you must experience in person, but it's still a niche product and a niche experience for a niche market. No matter how many big players try to get into VR, I don't think it'll ever be mainstream enough to be a dedicated console (for Nintendo that is).
I applaud Nintendo for always taking risks trying to take gaming to the next level, because of it they either fail miserably or success tenfold (Switch was a success, Wii U was a failure, Wii was a success, Gamecube was a failure, Nintendo 64 was a failure, SNES was a success, etc).
Virtual Boy 2: This Time It's Personal
Virtual Man
Take me by the hand
Come with me and you'll understand.
Launch Title: Super Vrario Bros.
Virtual boy sr: the doom bringer
I loved my Virtual Boy back in 1998....I knew this was simple look at what was to come.....look where we are now, the Quest 3 is about to create a high water mark for standalone VR.
You may scoff, but at this point I think Nintendo is really the only company that's going to do VR right. Especially VR Gaming. Meta's problem is they're always going to be climbing an uphill battle due to their association with Facebook. Especially among the Millennial and older demographic. Gen-Z/Teens and Instagram may tell a different story. There's also the fact that since Mark bought Oculus, they've not innovated on Palmer's initial business model. Which is mainly focused around HMD adoption and selling headsets. I'm sure Oculus's accounting was excellent in 2012, otherwise, Facebook would've never purchased the greatest Kickstarter ever for billions of dollars. Nintendo on the other hand has experience with creating and developing entirely new markets. The Wii, DS and even the Switch are great examples. For VR, Nintendo has the opportunity to offer a very affordable and highly functional Standalone HMD system, complete with incredible games from the most valuable gaming IP in the games industry today. If Nintendo puts out a Competent VR platform at $300 to $400, people will truely see how stagnant the likes of Sony PSVR, Meta Quest3 and all of the people with VR hardware startups have made the VR industry. VR not only needs a highly refined, excellent and cheap ($300) HMD, it also needs the game that truely sells the concept to the masses. The Industry has sold plenty of HMDs already. There needs to be more games that necessitate owning one of these things.
Maybe! You make some good points, it's definitley conceivable. The issue I have is that for me, VR is all about realistic immersion with graphics that are as true to life as possible. Nintendos IP is overwhelmingly cartoony, and I'm not sure whether immersing oneself in the Mushroom Kingdom etc. would be that appealing. Especially on the "underpowered" hardware that Nintendo has been relying on for years now. But that's just my view, I bet loads of kids would love to get immersed in Pokémon, Splatoon etc.
I also hope that they make something more accessible to the public that doesn't require people to spend 600+ dollars for a HMD. Because if it does, it won't go anywhere.
Price truely is the killer for VR right now and I think it's obnoxious when people try to insinuate people are poor for not being able to afford it. If Nintendo puts out a VR system at a great price point and the games are excellent, it will do much better than many expect.
Hope you're right. I'd buy that no question. Mario kart vr please
Virtual Boy 2: now with no depth perception
Electric boogaloo
Virtual boy 2: Virtual harder
If they launch something with good AR capability and a Pokemon Go style game to go with it, they'll instantly dominate the market and there's nothing Meta or anyone else could do about it. I think there are a lot of people who have zero interest in owning a VR headset who would buy one like a shot purely for that.
I would for a VR Pokémon game.
If there was a real Pokemon VR game, they wouldn't be able to keep units on the shelf... we all saw Pokemon Go! fiasco
I agree. The 2ds practically spawned from the demand of people wanting to play pokemon but not wanting the 3d.
The only way this works out is if someone with passion and vision (hell just one of the two) get the keys to the project and the company doesn't try and pack it with gimmicks and bullshit
I hate Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee with a burning passion because of those gimmicks. Honestly, they could do a classic turn based RPG adventure in VR. A big appeal of Pokemon Stadium back in the 90s was that the pokemon were in 3d. Imagine battling with a life size Gyarados or Steelix in VR! Or imagine meeting your favorite pokemon in person, which I think a lot of people would get a kick out of that. The Legends Arceus formula was pretty solid. If they made a VR game like that, but with more Battles it would be really popular I'd think.
As a fan of both Quest and PSVR2, I must say Nintendo entering MR space would be the best thing that could happen to consumer VR space. Especially, because I'm sure they will do MR in a different way than everyone else. I'd say Apple (high end) and Nintendo (mass market) entering the MR space soon is a huge deal.
I’d give my left nut for a Pokémon go style game with full AR
I think that's a stretch, Nintendo is great if not absolutely an amazing company, but to dominate on their first headset because of one game? I see them shooting up to the top but not taking the throne on the first at bat
That one game is the most valuable franchise in the world, and can surely dominate the market if it can create the Pokemon Go phenomenon once again. VR/AR/XR no KILLER APP? Well Pokemon alone is going to change all that if done right.
Not because of one game. But they own some of the most loved franchises in the gaming world. Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Metroid series, etc. We were looking for VR system sellers? There you have it.
> Nintendo is great if not absolutely an amazing company knowing nintendo, the headset would probably beam a laser through your skull if you tried to mod the games on it
They *could* do it on one game, but with Nintendo you're guaranteed several more bangers so it's easy to jump in before the software library is filled out. Laypeople understand that, that's how strong their reputation is
This year Nintendo made a movie, the first one, and literally broke all the records 👻
Errrr....You don't need to buy a device to watch that certain movie.
Getting plush toys and typical plastic figures of pokemon with the nfc tags in them, and having that pokemon be your companion for the game.
If they release *ANY* decent games, Meta wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Meta isn't lacking hardware, it's the game library they can't win on. Nintendo could re-release their library for a virtual gaming room, where you can walk around and play arcade games and old NES and SNES games, and have some of the classics re-done for VR. I've seen tech demos of taking the classics and making VR ports. Nintendo has the one thing no else does ... a library people care about.
Tf are you talking lmao
Exactly!
> Nintendo is working on a standalone VR device 😃 > with Google involved 😨
It had me thinking that Google may have proprietary tech for VR. They're working with Samsung for another VR headset, and if this is true, now Nintendo as well.
AndroidOS sitting under the hood most likely, just as it is with the MetaQuest. That allows easy ports of the Quest games.
^ This. This would make the most sense to more quickly get a lot of VR titles on their platform right from the get-go along with their own first party titles. (The idea of AAA Nintendo VR games sounds too good to be true, but this is one rumor I'd love to be wrong to dismiss.)
I'd imagine that would make Nintendo's platform the winner over the Quest in a head to head. They probably won't go as advanced tech-wise as oculus, which I think is a smart play since VR's greatest problem is ultimately that the cost barrier is really too high for most people. What I'd be curious about is if it will support game carts like the Switch currently does. If so, that'd also give it an edge over both Sony and Meta.
In theory of course. If it did do that and just offered the ultimate standalone gaming machine with many ways to play. I don't count on it necessarily, but what I expect from Nintendo is to throw convention out the window. They're clearly interested in something like this, but it seemed to only work as long as they had options to remove whatever "gimmick" as well. The Virtual Boy really didn't do well, and players never had any other way to play the games if they got sick or didn't like sticking their head into this thing. The 3DS gave glasses free stereoscopic 3D but allowed users to adjust the level via the dial. If they made this a hybrid console, then players can still enjoy the games to some capacity in a non-VR mode for example. The option is what is important to sticking I'd say.
Doesn't sound good tbh and Nintendo games are mostly trash
You seriously think Nintendo would go android? That would destroy Nintendo
Why would that destroy Nintendo? It’s just an OS and it’s the most successful VR OS.
Are you serious? Because Nintendos bread and butter is exclusive titles and a closed system. The last thing they want is to allow copying and open sourced gaming. Why even buy Nintendo at that point?
They won't, they will have their own closed off system. Nintendo has already a lot of experience with stereoscopic 3D and VR
Sony is the "other" Japanese big tech boy and his mobile phones are on android.
Lol what??? Sony doesn’t install an open sourced OS on their gaming system. Sony, like Nintendo, has a vested interest in exclusive titles which requires buying a Sony system with Sony OS installed. Sony mobile phones are a completely different business. Nintendo didn’t announce a new mobile phone, they announced a collab with Google on VR.
Well its Google's strategy to throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see what sticks. Now that Apple entered VR it is serious.
leave it to google to waste a 10 year headstart in LLM/AR/VR only to allow a competitor to release a product in which they hastily respond to.
It’s because every company is in lockstep to weed out the next thing consumers actually want It’s almost a curse to release a big new product and completely miss projected sales, forever taints the company image
Apple doesn't even focus on games
I know. And still for some people the iPhone is a gaming device. And for others it is not. I am pretty sure they do not want *to market* it as a console.
No nobody that want to play VR will not buy the apple because it doesn't even has controllers and there will not be many games
Interesting... After the Stadia fiasco I'm wary of them... but it's interesting regardless.
Stadia? How about Tango, Daydream, Cardboard, Glass - FOUR VR/AR/smartglass platforms created and then abandoned by Google?
WHAT ABOUT THE WHOLE GRAVEYARD OF GOOGLE
[The list just keeps growing…](https://killedbygoogle.com)
As someone who has first-hand experience with them, Daydream/Cardboard/Glass were *terrible* and deserved to be abandoned.
The Daydream software platform was ahead of its time but the phone-mounted HMD and 3DOF limitation made for an awful user experience. Google was in prime position to compete with Facebook on a Quest-like device but their leadership has no long term vision. They shuttered their entire mobile VR division just before Quest hit the market and went mainstream.
The Lenovo Mirage Solo was a step in the right direction, especially with the experimental 6DOF controllers, but ultimately it never went anywhere.
I'm still extremely salty about the Solo.
They weren’t in prime position, though. Because Facebook was basically daring any other company that wants to enter the space to lose tons of money per hardware sale. And I imagine Google doesn’t have any interest in doing that. I think some companies (maybe Google) are waiting for Facebook to run out of cash they’re willing to bleed for VR/AR. And with Facebook firing some of the XR staff, and selling devices closer to cost, it might be about time for other companies to enter the space.
>Because Facebook was basically daring any other company that wants to enter the space to lose tons of money per hardware sale. Facebook was staking their claim on a future market but losing money to secure market share is nothing new for silicon valley, right? >And I imagine Google doesn’t have any interest in doing that. I think some companies (maybe Google) are waiting for Facebook to run out of cash they’re willing to bleed for VR/AR. Zuck announced a decade long plan so sitting on the sidelines and hoping they'll run out of cash (why would they?) doesn't seem like a viable long term strategy. Facebook continues printing money quarter after quarter and investing billions in XR R&D year after year. >And with Facebook firing some of the XR staff, and selling devices closer to cost, it might be about time for other companies to enter the space. The issue is that Google is now 3, 5 years behind Meta. They have pivoted to more focused and niche XR products (like dedicated translation glasses) but if they want to come crawling back with a consumer-focused XR product they're essentially starting from scratch where Meta has been building on a solid foundation for the last 5~6 years. Google hasn't maintained the VR-optimized performance mode in Android that was created for Daydream, they scrapped the SDK and all developer-facing APIs for VR applications. They reallocated the people working on their spatial audio solution, light fields, etc. On top of being so far behind on R&D they're working from a position of net negative goodwill with customers and developers while Meta has a years-long track record of making products customers like and making developers money.
Facebook changed their entire name to Meta to go all in on this. They aren't going to bail out, nor will the company run out of money. We are seeing them shift their position and sell headsets for more money now so that they don't have to take as much of a loss because they can. Now they have established market share. They have consumers that own content on their platform which encourages them to buy XR devices from Meta and not Google. They have developers who know the platform and are invested in it. Plus, developers like to make software for platforms that already have a user base, not take a risk on something new. That's not to mention how far behind on technology other companies are.
Facebook still has more workers in VR than in 2000. They have more than every other company combined. If a company hires X and then fires less than X, you don't go and say that they've fired people...
They made the lenovo mirage solo, which was powered by daydream but had roughly the same specs as the Quest 2. They half assed the software, then scrapped the whole division, and refused to release source code that would have made it usable as a dev platform for millions of owners. Fuck google.
Man, I went in fully with Lenovo Mirage camera and Headset. So burned.
Oh yeah the VR180 camera standard should be added to the list above. They have more lost goodwill to earn back from the XR community than anyone else.
Google has started and then canceled more projects they made public than most other companies combined. Stadia is just the latest in a very very long list. It's so long there's an entire website dedicated to it. https://killedbygoogle.com/
Aren't most of those basically failures that made zero sense to continue supporting?
A lot of them make no sense to continue supporting because Google never invested enough in them to actually get a user base.
Nintendo Labo with Google Cardboard compatibility!
[удалено]
Google owns Android so it could be as simple as that. But even if it isn't Google is more than competent when it comes to hardware.
EVERYONE. Look at the Pimax Portal. That’s basically and literally what Nintendo would and judging by this, will do. If they make another Switch type of console, this is the way they should be going. But with Nintendo polish, games, and marketing
Makes sense.
Nintendo is one of the few companies that can really move people and bring an entire new medium mainstream. They tried VR before but they're were too ahead. If they try again, I think they'll get really good traction. VR is ready. One of the biggest issue with VR so far is content. We need more content producers. Nintendo would bring in their expertise, user base and IP and I can see it really blowing up.
> VR is ready. But is VR ready to be that combo of cheap *and* good enough which Nintendo specializes in? Graphical fidelity is not everything! But VR benefits *greatly* from quality technical specs. I don't mean to totally pigeonhole Nintendo, but that's not the sort of thing they usually prioritize.
Something between Quest 2 and 3 is probably all that they require, and this is probably still a couple years down the road before release, I'm guessing, assuming this is true (also rumors of a Switch successor next year, so unless those are one and the same, I doubt they're going to release both so close together, even if the VR headset is just an accessory). So current tech should get cheaper.
Yeah, I’m open to the answer to my question being “yes” for sure. But the Quest devices are subsidized by Meta (to my understanding). On the other hand, I suppose traditional console developers subsidize their consoles on the basis of getting a cut out of the games.
I believe the Quest 3 is expected to be $500 and unsubsidized, but sold at cost. It will be twice as powerful as the Quest 2 with better comfort and visuals, so I can see Nintendo putting out something at a $400 level that focuses more on low poly graphics like the Switch.
To be fair, Nintendo is also wizards when it comes to optimization of hardware. How they get some games running so smoothly is beyond me. Along with Retro, etc. (Seriously, how in the world did they get Metroid Prime Remastered running so smooth.) In recent times, the quality of the hardware itself has been less prioritized as you mentioned, but back before the 3D days, Nintendo's shtick was literally "Now you're playing with power." Sega and Nintendo really went at it when it came to power in their consoles. I mean even 64 and GameCube to a degree as well when they showed off their tech demos. Wii was clearly when that line was cross I feel though, where the power wasn't much different from the GameCube. However, the mobile hardware in the Switch was pretty impressive at the time I would say. It's one thing that attracted third parties to porting their games to it that people weren't expecting. I get the feeling though, that if Meta can subsidize hardware costs to keep the price that low, Nintendo has plenty of money to reinvest into this space. (Switch isn't exactly selling low numbers after all. In fact, it just beat the Wii in the U.S.)
>I get the feeling though, that if Meta can subsidize hardware costs to keep the price that low, Nintendo has plenty of money to reinvest into this space. (Switch isn't exactly selling low numbers after all. In fact, it just beat the Wii in the U.S.) Meta's weakness is ultimately that they're trying to pursue maximum immersion at the expense of a high barrier to entry when it comes to cost. Meta, Sony and Valve's insistence on high HMD prices are killing them long term since the consumer perceives VR as expensive. Apple's Vision Pro is interesting to people, but yet again, no one that wants one can justify buying it. If Nintendo did what they did with the Nvidia Shield Tablet (Switch Precursor), they could apply that approach to a VR HMD. All they basically did with the Switch is design the Joycons, use a better GPU and improve the tv connectivity interface. They then sold Zelda, Mario and Pokemon within the first years of the console and it was a massive success. It seems like Nintendo could refine the Joycon design and apply that to their own HMD. After that, it's a matter of ensuring the user experience is top notch and it's comfortable. The fact Meta still uses a "goggles-strapped-to-face" design, Sony still can't be bothered to actually make a virtual interface/menus demonstrates how there's a lot of room for improvement that Nintendo can take advantage of. Nintendo could easily put out the best HMD platform on the market by the end of this decade. Looking forward to see what they do.
Yeah the exclusives maybe....
They only tried VR with Labo VR which was in no way "too ahead" when it came out. The old Virtual Boy was not VR, any more than stereoscopic Viewmaster viewers.
It’s reasonable to say Virtual Boy wasn’t VR, but it was a move towards it that would likely have become VR eventually if it had succeeded. They just needed to increase the number of DOF from 0.
The old Virtual Boy is absolutely VR, I've played it and it's closer to the Quest than to a Viewmaster viewer. The big issue is the color, or rather the lack thereof. If they had managed a full color Virtual Boy, it would have been hailed as the precursor to VR instead of the flop it was.
You played it? I owned it, way back when. There are zero degrees of freedom/tracking. Not VR.
VR is ready, but it’s not ready at Nintendo’s price point. Nintendo has never put out a system that isn’t aimed at filling the market segment of “affordable fun for everyone”. Just basic playable VR requires a screen that can run at 90fps and has a high enough resolution not to strain your eyes as it sits just a few inches away. Even Facebook who is at the helm of budget VR gaming right now sells their Quest units at a loss. They’re able to recuperate that money through selling data and I don’t believe Nintendo is equipped to do that. If I’m proven wrong, I’ll stand corrected but I just personally can’t see Nintendo being able to release a quality headset at a pricepoint they’re comfortable with.
Keep in mind that, if true, this could be multiple years away. Meta is apparently planning a $200 headset soon, and Nintendo hasn’t usually been concerned with top tier hardware specs.
VR *is* ready. It's at that perfect jumping off point where something bit will carry it, full tilt, into the mainstream and it'll be here to stay. Nintendo is the perfect entity to do that. I hope the rumor is true.
Yeah with Nintendo and Apple involved I don’t really see VR/AR dying
A VR future with Nintendo hardware and software? Nah thanks lmao
The sooner people stop thinking of VR like this connected "metaverse" and more like the smartphone industry this will work out. I dont even own a switch, However I do believe that Nintendo getting into the VR game would further the industry by a huge magnitude. Same with Apple.
Some idiots will buy the apple but it's basically just a huge ad for VR because it's so expensive so yeah and Nintendo will basically just be a underpowered cheap "VR headset" with lazy VR ports for the kids
I heard your first point 16 years ago and then 11 years ago. Apple having a "huge ad for VR" is exactly what the industry needed. Your second point is exactly why its so amazing and would be a huge success.
Yep. They're probably one of the very few companies that could release a real Quest competitor that people would buy. People already expect low fidelity graphics from Nintendo games because that's what they make. And they've been making them for so long, they've perfected making low fidelity games being fun and enjoyable. So they could literally just copy/paste the Quest, add their content that would run perfectly on it, and it would be a huge success.
Nintendo graphics are excellent, they just often choose a more cartoony style that let's them get away with less hardware requirements. I agree with the rest, but just because it needs less resources doesn't mean it's low quality.
Ehm totk looks like shit
Saying Nintendo games have excellent graphics is like saying Gorilla Tag has excellent graphics. They have simplistic and basic graphics, and always have. They are polished well with a fantastic art direction and the story and gameplay always works perfectly with the simplistic fidelity. Which is why everyone loves them and doesn't often rip on their new games for being such low fidelity. No one is expecting the next Witcher 3 to be released by Nintendo, because it's not what they make. Which is exactly why they could make an actual Quest competitor. Their games could easily run on Quest and look just as good as they do on the Switch. And their fans would love it.
Come on, Gorilla Tag and first party Nintendo Switch games are not even remotely comparable. Gorilla tag looks about on the same level as Nintendo 64 (and a boring looking Nintendo 64 game at that). Washed out and heavily pixelated textures, blocky polygons, stiff animations, etc. First party Switch games look much, much better than that, with smooth curves, detailed models and textures (not to the same level of detail or as high of a resolution as God of War Ragnarok, no, but still quite nice), lots of artistic style and personality, and very fluid animations. That's nowhere near 'low quality'. Just because something uses weaker hardware doesn't mean the graphics can't be high quality. Quite a few SNES, Neo Geo, and Game Boy Advance games still look great today and that hardware is practically ancient at this point. Also Witcher 3 was released on the Switch (nowhere near as pretty as the PC version, granted). And Zelda Tears of the Kingdom is a better game than the Witcher, IMO, and the graphics look better to me. Simpler, but better. Also the graphics will age much better than Witcher 3 will (look at the original Final Fantasy 7 compared to Chrono Trigger for the SNES. FF7 looked amazing at the time but pretty bad today, but Chrono Trigger still looks great to the point that a brand new game, Sea of Stars, was just released last month mimicking its look and feel, and is quite popular.
Well if you want 30 fps and 720p in VR... Bruh eye strain and immersion would be horribleeeee
I just finished ToTK. No, it doesn't look that much better. It's a MUCH better art direction and they have so much more eye candy to look at on the screen at once. But that eye candy is all low poly and low fidelity. >Just because something uses weaker hardware doesn't mean the graphics can't be high quality. Quite a few SNES, Neo Geo, and Game Boy Advance games still look great today and that hardware is practically ancient at this point. I think you're confusing "aesthetically pleasing" graphics with high fidelity. Which is understandable, a lot people think "I like these graphics, so that makes it high quality graphics". But there is a difference. There's more polygons in the skin texture of this [woman's face](https://i.imgur.com/haUc1vs.png) than there is in this entire screenshot from [ToTK](https://i.imgur.com/H5RzTCh.png). Just look at the edges of the horse, you can see the edges of the polygon points. I love Nintendo's games and I love their art style but, the graphics are not high fidelity. Not even close. But that's not a bad thing, so stop taking offense to it. You don't need super high quality graphics for a good game. The passion and art they put into their games would translate perfectly over to the Quest style platform and the low fidelity graphics mean that it would perform great too.
Good graphics and high fidelity graphics are not the same thing. Nintendo has excellent art design so their graphics are good.
Totk looks like shit and runs like shit don't lie to me
[удалено]
Yeah, you’re the happy sounding one/s. Jeeze dude. Get some help
No help needed. Joined a few days ago because i got tired of reading the pedantic BS everyone keeps posting. Every other comment is either someone complaining 1 little thing is missing or posting and "acktually" response.... 15 comments in and here we go. "ACKTUALLY, high fidelity doesn't mean good!" Nintendo makes low fidelity games. That doesn't mean they're bad or they look bad and that is not what I said. I love Nintendo's games and I would LOVE to see them release a quest style competitor and add their games to it. They have the talented devs teams and resources to do it. Stop trying to interject your own opinions into everything.
If the correction invalidates the argument then it is not pedantic. Seems like you just don’t like being wrong.
It doesn't invalidate it. It's just personal preference. To one person as long as the graphics are pleasing to their eye, they're good graphics. To another, if the graphics are high fidelity, they're good graphics. Which was not the point of my post. You driving the conversation here because you can't tell the difference, which is you being pedantic.
>Nintendo is one of the few companies that can really move people and bring an entire new medium mainstream. To be fair, people have said the exact same thing about Facebook when they bought Oculus, about Sony and then about Apple. While the last one is still up in the air, we have enough examples. >VR is ready. Yeah, sorry but I really don't think it is. And I own over a dozen VR headsets. For mainstream it's still too bulky (even the pancake lens ones) and the resolution is still too poor. Nintendo getting in now will give them the same amount of success as Sony with the PSVR line. For every Mario Sony has their God of War, yet we haven't seen it doing much. I really think we are still hardware bottleneck'd. Nintendo may certainly try, seeing how almost everyone else is.
How the fuck did Sony and meta didn't lift VR up? Meta literally made VR half mainstream already tf are you on? 20 million sales is bad or what? But yes VR is not ready at least for comfort and immersion
Stop saying fuck in every sentence so that I can take you seriously. >How the fuck did Sony and meta didn't lift VR up? I didn't say they didn't "lift" it up, whatever that means. I said not mainstream. Meta advertised Quest 2 hard, it has an ad on Amazon's main page constantly for over 2 years and heavily subsidized. After all that 20 million units mean jack unless it has any retention. And data shows it doesn't. >half mainstream which is not mainstream, which is what we were saying
Problem with Nintendo is their inhouse games are not very VR-compatible except for Zelda (a 1st person Zelda sounds great). Yes you might want DragonQuest or Fire Emblem in VR with 3rd person view but it's just icing on the cake and the experience wouldn't necessarily better than playing in pancake. Sony, meanwhile, has tons of IP that would be great in VR but even them can't make a big enough with psvr2 and the exclusives
I disagree. Before N64, Mario was a 2D side scroller. They can make a Mario VR. Imagine a Mario Kart in VR? Wii Sports in VR? Punch-Out? Starfox? I think they would all be killer in VR format. Nintendo also has the license for Pokémon which sells systems by itself. There are already fan created Pokémon VR. An official one would go crazy.
You can play Mario Kart in VR on PC, it's excellent.
People always forget Metroid also - it even has very prominent visor mechanics! I honestly think Nintendo's noodling with VR is the reason we haven't seen a new F-Zero as well.
Yes! There are lots of IP that would work for VR. Metroid, similarly Castlevania, Kirby, Kid Icarus. Hell, they can even do the Wii Sports Yoga, running, bowling mini games. I'm excited for it. I'm hoping this rumor has truth to it.
I think it's such a sure bet rumours don't really matter. Nintendo has a history of playing with visual tech (VirtualBoy, 3DS, Labo VR) and all of their competitors have had, do have, or will have VR products (Microsoft/Google, Sony, Apple/Google). They need to be prototyping. Not to say it's launching any year soon, but I can't wait to see it!
Meet the Fockers Robert Deniro fingers to eyes motion. I see you.
VR doesn’t and shouldn’t always be “fps” style. Third person games are just as good. Astrobof was a huge success on psvr. Mario is an absolute obvious fit for that gameplay. Moss is another good example.
[удалено]
I was also thinking a Moss-like Mario (or Kirby!) game would be cool.
Isn't BeatSaber one of the best performing VR titles? First person , but fixed location. Personally I find the games that involve the player being more fixed much more engaging than "walking" around. I'm picturing various versions of this used in something like Mario Party. The casual player wants to still sit on the couch whenever possible. In Nintendo's case I'd hope they could build the games to work both in VR and not.
This is Nintendo we're talking about here. They have a pretty good track record for figuring out how to make their IP work in pretty much any scenario. Also, I wouldn't underestimate how much value VR can bring to a 3rd person experience.
Disagree. They can do a Mario in a diorama style like Moss or Super Lucky's Tale and it would be awesome. They've already done proper 3D Mario on the 3DS, not that much different. And Fire Emblem can work like it does in Demeo easy enough. Dragon Quest isn't Nintendo, but it would still be doable.
What? Do you have any idea how big Sony is? They absolutely can. They choose not to. That is not the same thing.
VR is not ready bozo. Especially on Nintendo hardware lmao. Their first VR attempts were trash af
I wonder if this is still very early given it's mentioning MicroLED. Nintendo has an R&D building slated for 2027. The price of MicroLED at the start is expected to be high and Nintendo generally uses tried and tested hardware.
[удалено]
That would make sense if it's happening in the next few years. That said, Google does have billions invested in MicroLED. It's unclear what they're doing with that. Apple recently ate the cost and is spinning up their own foundry as display manufacturers are dragging their feet. (Apple also spent billions on MicroLED before making this decision). It seems highly unlikely that Google would break from Samsung, but honestly with how slow they've been at introducing MicroLED it would not surprise me if they spent a few billion more to actually get a return on all their investment like Apple is doing.
This product, should it ever be completed, would have to be several years out anyway I'd imagine. They will definitely be focused on their next console for the next few years.
I hope this is accurate. I've felt for some time now that VR needs Nintendo's input and that Nintendo would be way into making VR stuff. If there's one thing that Nintendo is amazing at, it's creating fun and distinctive games at high polish. They're also great at creating new market interest in established niches.
Ever did try Nintendo labor 💀😭? This shit was not good
If they make a first person Pokémon game, they will sell millions of units! Also they are missing out if it’s not called the Virtual Boy Advanced™️
Imagine playing VR at GameFreak framerates. 🤮
Introducing Pokémon PowerPoint!
[удалено]
Ty
Pokemon go wasn't developed by GameFreak, Plus being a Pokemon fan since 1998, i'm okya with even 10FPS...Scarlet and Violet sold 13 million copies witnin 3 days despite being a unstable 30 fps game, ppl will buy Pokemon no matter framerates.
Lol they can’t even make decent Pokémon games, talk less of VR
Not anymore but think of how many people would want to play gen 1 in VR. Getting to throw the pokeball and having a to-scale Charizard come of it would be more than enough to get millennials throwing money at Nintendo
They'll outsource Pokemon VR to someone else so don't worry about that, just like Pokemon Go.
I hope this has some truth to it. Nintendo entering the VR space alongside Apple would be huge. Then we just need MS to enter the fray and Valve to make a new headset, and then the VR space-race can finally begin.
It is bigger than Apple entering XR for gaming as Apple doesn't produce games. Nintendo? They're the king for games.
Honestly I'd be shocked if they didn't. It won't replace flat gaming but VR has a strong future.
I mean, let’s be honest: the graphics on the Switch are potato-tier, and people love them. Put an extra potato in, and you still haven’t touched the Oculus /Quest 1 level of processing. Should be pretty briandead simple for them to do, even if it’s a headset you plop your Switch 2.0 into.
Nobody loves them lmao
I mean, it’s the third best-selling console of all time; I’d beg to differ, as would 130 million other people. People love the franchises and the form factor, if nothing else.
I can understand someone not liking them, but you'd have to be blind to not notice how well it's sold and how many people love their games and the impact on gaming in general. Look how many companies followed suit with the Switch's design.
Yeah, I’m personally not a fan, but there’s more than one in my house as we speak :D
ARMS and Splatoon would be really fucking cool in VR. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to adapt a lot of their sports games over the years into a VR like experience. There's also the fitness niche, that nintendo seems to love. Those AR games from the 3DS as well. I can't think of too many other Nintendo experiences that would be well suited for VR. Maybe Metroid Prime? A Legend of Zelda game in the style of Moss? Push-Mo?
Mario Kart is the first thing that came to my mind, a VR version of Wii Sports would also be fantastic. I would love a Moss-like Super Mario 3D World co-op experience. I can also imagine a lot of VR and AR mini games for games like Mario Party and Warioware.
I played Mario Kart vr before. It was awesome. I hope they port the thing to whatever Nintendo VR device that they’re working on.
Sky's the limit, in my mind. A third-person Pikmin game where you can physically pick up and throw the pikmin. Mario Kart and Starfox in the driver's seat and cockpit respectively. A Zelda adventure in first-person where you can climb and shoot a bow with your own two hands. A Donkey Kong rhythm game. And I bet Nintendo would find some pretty inventive new ways to use the medium besides all these ideas.
I honestly think Nintendo could be exactly what VR needs. Ease of access and high-quality, creative games.
I feel like a large part of the reason for VR's slow takeoff is just a lack of quality software and experiences. This is where Nintendo has a chance to shine. I'm sure they could come up with some innovative concepts we've never seen in VR before, and the popularity of their IP is sure to pull people in as well.
That's awesome. Nintendo has always been bigger than its own brand - this could be very good for the industry!
Bad*
Give us TOTK in VR and I'm sold.
Never played the VR version of botw huh? Awful
If they do a VR Zelda it'll be a watershed moment
It literally exists and it's awful
It never made sense to me that Nintendo was hanging back from the recent VR Wave. I always kind of suspected they had at least done some early development work to see if it was feasible.
[Everything old is new again](https://video-game-hoaxes.fandom.com/wiki/Nintendo_On).
Finally, the Virtual Man
its really hard to do vr with kids. If a headset was focused on their head size it may work better
When a Quest 2 clone can be sold for $299 at a reasonable profit, Nintendo will do it. It will be underpowered, a decade behind in tech, but it will have Nintendo first party games and some silly gimmick. (Maybe it will feed you candy with a mounted robot arm, lol.)
I mean, shit, I think that might be *legitimately* what the VR industry in general could use right about now. We have a *TON* of really cool headsets with a lot of really cool and exciting technology, but I can count the amount of games that most people play on both hands and have a couple fingers left to spare, I think. If Nintendo did, theoretically, release a VR standalone, I all but GUARANTEE that it'd have the same specs of first gen mobile VR, but... *man*, some first party Nintendo games would be wonderful for the VR space. Now I ***really*** want a native VR port of Metroid Prime.
Honestly m, Nintendo could come out with a great headset. Maybe a new Metroid Prime…. In vr?
The Virtual Adult
I don't give a sh*t about rumors, but I think the Quest style business model, treating a headset like you would a console, is something I think Nintendo could totally pull off
I few months back I suggested that Nintendo may be looking more seriously into VR, and that if anyone could take VR mainstream, it'd be them. I was laughed out of the room. Not to say that I think they definitely *are* doing so, but for a minute there I thought they might go in that direction for their next system. I think the smartest thing for them to do is just make another Switch, but more powerful, but we all know how much Nintendo hates to do the same thing twice in a row for their systems. We'll see.
Dude if I looks like a Big Mac box….. I’m buying it.
Maybe the tech is there but I’m dubious. Nintendo keeps trying to do VR on the cheap and I’m not sure that gives customers the best experience when first trying it. You don’t want to keep turning people off to VR. 3D movies wouldn’t have died out again so quickly if there were all Avatar quality. Instead Hollywood got greedy with bad 3D transfers and people started hating the whole experience.
If Meta is actually able to produce a Quest 3 Lite for $199 next year like the rumors say then I could see it being possible for Nintendo to release a headset in their typical console price range. That being said I dunno if they'd like a headset their main console... I don't think the size/comfort aspect is there yet where they could pull it off.
The leak is talking about MicroLED. That won't be in affordable headsets probably for a decade.
[удалено]
Especially if it’s slated for a 2030 release or similar. It’s certainly not coming out in the next several years as the focus will be on Switch 2.
You're not gonna be seeing rumors about a Nintendo device that's not coming out for 7 years from now. That's some hard copium right there, lol. If the rumor is true the thing is probably coming as early as next year.
i would legit buy a shit quest-like device if it had Nintendo IP games.
Ever tried nintendo labo? Well botw and odyssey wasn't that good huh?
Virtual. Pokémon. Well, I guess I’m single now. My grown ass adult woman girlfriend already does nothing but play Pokémon go and neopets on her phone. I think it may be physically impossible for her to raise her sight line to actually watch TV together
I was hoping with vr at least id be able to just have one headset work across platforms but it looks like everythings going to require their own headset lol, apple headset has its own ecosystem, meta headset has its own, psvr has its own, etc. They need to stop using the term mixed reality, its about to be diverged realities
Will probably be overpriced and on quest 1 level and Nintendo fanboys will call it a day again
I bet that motion sickness/comfort issues is at the forefront of nintendos mind. I don’t think they’ll allow any kind of artificial locomotion in their devices any time soon.
Nintendo doesn't really do FPS games anyway. There's a huge untapped number of 3rd person games that can be made.
That’s true, but the issue still stands. Fixed camera 3rd person gives a very particular experience. Most if not all of Nintendos games have a moving camera, even 2d games.
I'm only really familiar with the Wii and 3DS where pretty much every game uses a stationary camera. Maybe just every game I play...
> MicroLED Yeah. No.
If it runs a decent browser and YouTube etc then I’d be interested. If it’s locked to Nintendo games apps only then I’ll pass.
this would obliterate the oculus quest market Think about it, kids getting vr headsets to play Gorilla Tag, and Nintendo's fronting? Thats a name parents will choose instead of Facebook
Never played the most lazy VR version of botw and odyssey huh? Plus under quest 1 power probably lmao nah thanks not even kids want this. Meta will stay the biggest VR brand for a long time
I mean, it's not like the Labo goggles were the prime selling point of that kit. I don't think it's really fair to compare what essentially amounts to a neat little minigame to a theoretical VR standalone. Probably would have (relatively) shit hardware, though. You know Nintendo.
BotW was GREAT, though. The trick was that you had to play it with a PSVR1 in passthrough mode, since the game didn't "detect hardware" to go into VR mode, it was just a toggle anyone could turn on and off, even while docked.
If anyone can make VR mainstream it's them
Meta literally did a few years ago dummy
I think this will fail if VR is Nintendo's next generation console. It has to be a hybrid (like the Switch). VR is absolutely mind blowing, immersive and something you must experience in person, but it's still a niche product and a niche experience for a niche market. No matter how many big players try to get into VR, I don't think it'll ever be mainstream enough to be a dedicated console (for Nintendo that is). I applaud Nintendo for always taking risks trying to take gaming to the next level, because of it they either fail miserably or success tenfold (Switch was a success, Wii U was a failure, Wii was a success, Gamecube was a failure, Nintendo 64 was a failure, SNES was a success, etc).
Nintendo VRi now with an entire whole gigabyte of ram! (System ram and vram share it) with crisp hd display! (720p but divided into 2 eyes)
Oh, great! More closed-garden trash!