Nintendo: VR Isn't There Yet, We'll be on Board When it is

[Olas]

Anyone else starting to feel that people saying 'I don't think x technology will be anything more than a gimmick' is getting to feel very hipster-ish?

Err what? You got it reversed there, those slathering over VR are what you'd call hipsters.
Just like with 3D.

No, I think you got it reversed. People who slather over new technology are what we call [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter"]"early adopters"[/a]

Hipsters are people who slather over things that are clearly retro or vintage.

 

[JayRPG]

Considering you need to produce two images at 1080p and 60FPS, it's not like Nintendo actually have a choice.

You mean like almost every game on the Wii U?

It has more games running 1080p @ 60FPS than the Xbox One... just FYI.

And moving forward that only looks to be on the rise, Bayonetta 2, Hyrule Warriors and almost every Nintendo first party title are set to be in 1080p @ 60FPS

 

[Scars Unseen]

Anyone else starting to feel that people saying 'I don't think x technology will be anything more than a gimmick' is getting to feel very hipster-ish?

Err what? You got it reversed there, those slathering over VR are what you'd call hipsters.
Just like with 3D.

Actually, there's a term for people that adopt new developments in technology early. It's not hipster, but I can't quite put my finger on it. It's on the tip of my tongue, really...

Honestly, though, the Oculus Rift is definitely going to be niche. It(and other future HMDs) aren't likely to be a fad though. There is a definite market for such devices, particularly among sim enthusiasts that either can't afford or haven't room to build a full fledged simpit with surround displays. It's the same market that is currently using TrackIR for positional head tracking(and given that they are on their 5th hardware version, the market is obviously enough to turn a profit).

In other words, it may not be for you, but that's just because you don't get it, man.

Wait. What was that about hipsters again?

 

[Olas]

Nintendo hasn't made a good hardware decision in over a decade. Them saying they don't like it doesn't mean anything.

The touchscreen wasn't a good hardware decision? Nintendo obviously thinks it was.

Considering you need to produce two images at 1080p and 60FPS, it's not like Nintendo actually have a choice.

Why does it need to be 60 FPS? Why does it even need to be 1080p for that matter?

Also, the WiiU has lots of 1080p 60fps games, and supports 2 screens. The cartoony aesthetic many of it's games have actually lets it get away with higher resolutions and framerates than the competing consoles. If the other current gen consoles can support VR then Nintendo can.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Let us all hope it'll never get there.

I can't think of a worse way to play games than to have my eyeballs shoved against an LCD screen. To have my senses be taken away yet be fully aware that what I'm expreriencing isn't real.

At best I can see this go the way of 3D; That little bit of gimmicky extra for the people who want it. That is if the industry isn't going to force this shit on us... like 3D.

 

[BrotherRool]

Considering you need to produce two images at 1080p and 60FPS, it's not like Nintendo actually have a choice.

Why does it need to be 60 FPS? Why does it even need to be 1080p for that matter?

Also, the WiiU has lots of 1080p 60fps games, and supports 2 screens. The cartoony aesthetic many of it's games have actually lets it get away with higher resolutions and framerates than the competing consoles. If the other current gen consoles can support VR then Nintendo can.

Basically, when you're sticking a screen right in front of your eyeballs and it's tricky your eyes into believing you're actually there, graphical fidelity is hugely important. If the framerate isn't consistent and very high then your brain won't be able to figure out whats going on with the image and it will give you motion sickness as a result.

As for 1080p, the VR trick doesn't even work without it. The closer your face is to a screen, the smaller the pixels need to be in order for them to not be visible. When the screen is literally strapped to your eyes the pixels are really obvious on anything less than 1080p. If your brain can clearly see the pixels then it doesn't get tricked into believe it's in another space.

VR isn't just like a really nice screen, the way your brain treats VR is completely different from the way it responds to a TV image, and this creates a lot of new technical demands that are very challenging and not completely solved yet. Shamus Young from Experienced Points has gone into some of the problems this introduces into game making. For example, if you're game is running along normally and but it's a little slow in crunching the numbers for something, then traditionally a game developer would tell the game to repeat the last image and wait for the new numbers before sending the next one. But if the frame rate drops in VR the brain gets confused and becomes motion sick.

The Wii U supports two screens, but it doesn't create two incredibly detailed separate images on both of them, it's a very different proposition. The Wii U can get games to run at 1080p and 60FPS with good programming and optimisation and art style right now, but getting it to run on an Oculus Rift is literally twice as hard as that. I think this is one of the reasons that LAN really halted on the 360 and PS3, because they were working so hard to get to their HD targets they didn't have system resources left to process a second image. (Even if both images needed only half as many pixels)

The Wii U has a lot less system resources than the PS4 and Xbox One. Whilst it's possible that with clever programming and good art decisions you might be able to make a PS4 or Xbox One game run twice as well and keep the 1080p and 60FPS, the Wii U has already had to make those compromises to get to the 1080p and 60FPS in the first place.

 

[Alterego-X]

Let us all hope it'll never get there.

I can't think of a worse way to play games than to have my eyeballs shoved against an LCD screen.

There is a fine line between being sceptical, and being so malicious that you actively HOPE that your scepticism will turn out to be justified.

How about we hope it WILL get there to the point where it doesn't really feel the way you just interpreted it, while we stay prepared for the worse alternative too?

If you are right about inherent problems with VR, then you have nothing to fear or hope, because it will never in fact be "There". And if it does get "There", then you don't have to worry about anyone forcing "this shit on us like 3D", because it will not be shit, will not be like 3D, and will not be forced but demanded by people like you.

 

[Olas]

Nintendo hasn't made a good hardware decision in over a decade. Them saying they don't like it doesn't mean anything.

The touchscreen wasn't a good hardware decision? Nintendo obviously thinks it was.

The touch screen as implemented in the DS? Yeah, not that great. Most of the time the game was better off when it completely ignored it. At best it was vestigial, only useful for looking at menus at the same time as gameplay (Neat but doesn't justify the second screen), and at worst it was a hindrance that was forced on the player (Both of the DS Zelda games were worse off by forcing touch screen controls).
Nintendo thinks it's a good idea, because of course they do. Just brings me back to my original point.

That said, it's use in many of the 3DS games I've played is more enjoyable, but only because they haven't used shitty gimmicks and mostly stick with my above "At Best", and keep it for maps and menus. Still doesn't justify it's existence, and has never made me say "Okay, I could not have had this great experience without the touch screen".

Vestigial at best? A whole lot of great DS games would have been virtually unplayable without it, Kirby Canvas Curse, Scribblenauts, Elite Beat Agents, Meteos. The touchscreen made those games. Some games implemented it poorly, which often happens when the idea is new, but poor implementation is not the fault of hardware.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Devices like the occulus are a niche fad. A very nice niche fad mind you but seriously. They will be the domain of people who:

Who do not Actually require glasses
Don't mind wearing what amounts to a sensory deprivation hood.

In short, when you're playing something like the occulus... you are basically blind to your environment, and perhaps deaf...

Glasses, fair point. But as someone who mostly plays games alone, sensory deprivation would be fantastic. It's in the name of the website. That's what I'm there for.

OT: Let the others take the risk and make a Nintendo version when it gets practical, actually a good idea. Surprising coming from the company who will pretty reliably go big on a gimmick, but probably the best course of action honestly.

 

[Casual Shinji]

If you are right about inherent problems with VR, then you have nothing to fear or hope, because it will never in fact be "There". And if it does get "There", then you don't have to worry about anyone forcing "this shit on us like 3D", because it will not be shit, will not be like 3D, and will not be forced but demanded by people like you.

And yet 3D is still forced on us despite adding nothing of value. Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean publishers won't try their damnedest to make us use it anyway if they think it'll add an extra buck.

 

[Vegosiux]

Anyone else starting to feel that people saying 'I don't think x technology will be anything more than a gimmick' is getting to feel very hipster-ish?

I don't know, anyone starting to feel people saying "This is going to be totally awesome" is starting to feel rather fanboy-ish?

Some of us are just more cautious about it, and really, I don't think VR becoming mainstream at this point would be a good thing (as was noted, people with glasses, and the entire OR set is kind of heavy to wear for a while, stuff like that...). 'sides, keeping up with one reality is hard work, switching between two sets of sensory inputs would just give me a headache >.>

Glasses, fair point. But as someone who mostly plays games alone, sensory deprivation would be fantastic. It's in the name of the website. That's what I'm there for.

I don't agree, even in escapism I like to keep at least one foot in reality, just in case something comes up. Reality's a tricky and impatient creature. So yeah, turning my brain to autopilot and just getting myself distracted with some gaming is great, but I like to keep enough awareness of my surroundings to be ready to spring into action should I be required to.

 

[Olas]

Considering you need to produce two images at 1080p and 60FPS, it's not like Nintendo actually have a choice.

Why does it need to be 60 FPS? Why does it even need to be 1080p for that matter?

Also, the WiiU has lots of 1080p 60fps games, and supports 2 screens. The cartoony aesthetic many of it's games have actually lets it get away with higher resolutions and framerates than the competing consoles. If the other current gen consoles can support VR then Nintendo can.

Basically, when you're sticking a screen right in front of your eyeballs and it's tricky your eyes into believing you're actually there, graphical fidelity is hugely important. If the framerate isn't consistent and very high then your brain won't be able to figure out whats going on with the image and it will give you motion sickness as a result.

Eh, I can believe the framerate needs to be consistent, but as far as needing to be 60fps or higher? I'll believe it when I experience it.

As for 1080p, the VR trick doesn't even work without it. The closer your face is to a screen, the smaller the pixels need to be in order for them to not be visible. When the screen is literally strapped to your eyes the pixels are really obvious on anything less than 1080p. If your brain can clearly see the pixels then it doesn't get tricked into believe it's in another space.

Why is 1080p suddenly the benchmark? I would think even 1080p would be far too low if you truly want to fool the eyes, I'm not even sure 4k would do it. So you're saying that 1080p, which just so happens to be an industry standard for displays, is also coincidentally the lowest possible resolution that would work and anything lower would break the experience? I'm doubtful to say the least. I'm sure 1080p is better than 720p, and I would think 4k or 10k would be better than 1080, but it seems much more like it would be on a sliding scale than have a breaking point.

The Wii U supports two screens, but it doesn't create two incredibly detailed separate images on both of them, it's a very different proposition. The Wii U can get games to run at 1080p and 60FPS with good programming and optimisation and art style right now, but getting it to run on an Oculus Rift is literally twice as hard as that. I think this is one of the reasons that LAN really halted on the 360 and PS3, because they were working so hard to get to their HD targets they didn't have system resources left to process a second image. (Even if both images needed only half as many pixels)

You say it's literally twice as hard, but that sounds like complete bullshit to me. Both images are nearly the same, they're just rendered from slightly different angles. You're saying the system needs to perform every single calculation in the game twice for that? Give me a break.

The Wii U has a lot less system resources than the PS4 and Xbox One. Whilst it's possible that with clever programming and good art decisions you might be able to make a PS4 or Xbox One game run twice as well and keep the 1080p and 60FPS, the Wii U has already had to make those compromises to get to the 1080p and 60FPS in the first place.

Considering the fact that games like Doom and Minecraft are being made for Occulus, I don't think the outcry will be too terrible if Nintendo's games look a bit worse than whatever the others can do. If the scale truly is 2:1 across the board then Nintendo will be at the exact same disadvantage they're already at in terms of graphics.

 

[Vivi22]

When asked about other technologies he thought weren't ready for market, Fils-Aime responded, "the internet, twitch streaming, hard drives, high definition televisions, CD's, and DVD's."

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

VR isnt there yet but tablet controllers are?

ok that was a cheap shot, sorry

its their opinion, but they are going to miss out

I agree with Reggie on this, head sets like the rift feel more like a part of a greater whole we dont have yet.

what is missing then?

 

[Olas]

Nintendo hasn't made a good hardware decision in over a decade. Them saying they don't like it doesn't mean anything.

The touchscreen wasn't a good hardware decision? Nintendo obviously thinks it was.

The touch screen as implemented in the DS? Yeah, not that great. Most of the time the game was better off when it completely ignored it. At best it was vestigial, only useful for looking at menus at the same time as gameplay (Neat but doesn't justify the second screen), and at worst it was a hindrance that was forced on the player (Both of the DS Zelda games were worse off by forcing touch screen controls).
Nintendo thinks it's a good idea, because of course they do. Just brings me back to my original point.

That said, it's use in many of the 3DS games I've played is more enjoyable, but only because they haven't used shitty gimmicks and mostly stick with my above "At Best", and keep it for maps and menus. Still doesn't justify it's existence, and has never made me say "Okay, I could not have had this great experience without the touch screen".

Vestigial at best? A whole lot of great DS games would have been virtually unplayable without it, Kirby Canvas Curse, Scribblenauts, Elite Beat Agents, Meteos. The touchscreen made those games. Some games implemented it poorly, which often happens when the idea is new, but poor implementation is not the fault of hardware.

Meteos and Scribblenauts are both multiplatform games, and they both did just fine without the touchscreen.

Okay, let's look at the platforms Scribblenauts has been on: DS, 3DS, IOS, WiiU, Android, and PC. PC is the only one that doesn't have a touchscreen and it has a mouse and keyboard. Unless you think you could fit a mouse and keyboard on a portable device I think the touchscreen is a winner.

As for Meteos, I'll admit I didn't know there was a 360 version. That being said I don't see how it can work nearly as well without a touchscreen, and the reviews seem to reflect that.

Elite Beat Agents is just Guitar Hero, and doesn't do anything that couldn't have been done with a gamepad.

Except, you know, not be shit. Just because a game could theoretically work under a different control mechanism doesn't mean it wouldn't completely alter the feel of the game. Of course since you apparently can't differentiate the game from Guitar Hero I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that. You must think Guitar Hero would have been the same without the guitar peripheral too.

Kirby is the only one that needed the Touchscreen, and even then it wasn't a good game, as most games built around gimmicks aren't.

It was one of the best games on the DS, and that's not just my opinion, it got good reviews almost across the board. Metacritic has it at 86%

 

[BrotherRool]

Eh, I can believe the framerate needs to be consistent, but as far as needing to be 60fps or higher? I'll believe it when I experience it.

60FPS is a requirement of the latency from the headset tracking. It takes 2ms for the headtracker to pick up movement, 16ms to render, 15-20ms to transfer back to the headset and 15-20ms for the pixels to physically switch over. If you have 60FPS then every frame is registering the movement of your vision. If you don't then the image judders as you move.

In the future, when they lower the latency, apparently it's going to require even higher framerates to stop juddering.
http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/1v0ori/will_low_persistence_lower_the_60_fps_requirement/


There are some theories on finding ways to fix the problem without increasing framerate though
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/down-the-vr-rabbit-hole-fixing-judder/