Kinda burnt out on rumours, but, would this explain the WSJ rumours? The guy there was saying the screen was 1440p and was downsampling and everyone wrote it off as absurd. But if Nintendo is doing VR, a 720p screen wouldn't cut it.

If Nintendo does plan to launch it though, wouldn't they have an edge over the competition?

Because if I am correct it would mean the Switch would be the first in the console space to be fully wireless and not require it to be hooked up or communicating with anything else to play as well as foregoing an extra peripheral that costs as much as the console(I assume the VR headset is about 100 or 150 dollars and that's probably stretching it).

The Switch unit itself slots into the VR like the Google cardboard thing, but you don't have to buy extra controllers or whatever because the Switch comes with it's own Wiimotes basically, all wireless.  And unlike Google Cardboard Nintendo would be giving support for the games and bolster the library.

So if true, and with Nintendo behind it giving it support, the Switch VR could very well be the best and likely cheapest option for VR.

But I'm not familiar with the other VR stuff much.  How would Switch VR stack up against the other VR options?  I assume Switch will launch at 250-300 and the headset likely 100-150.

Switch: 500 max- $300 for the console, $150- $200 for the headset 

Ps4: $$$ the psvr is going for crazy prices. I can't find the retail prices, but it's probably 300 minimum. That'd make it 600-700+

HTC/VIVE: $1,400- $600 for the headset, $800 for a PC that supports PC

Samsung: $750+- let's say you're lucky and get a Samsung phone for $650. Add $100 in

Lg: $650- $550 for the phone, and $100 for a headset I believe

Apple: bet you any money apple would charge 400 for "deluxe quality" :p

Well that would certainly seal it for potentially the cheapest.

I always thought Nintendo would be streaming VR, but perhaps they couldn't get over their limited streaming(they said they couldn't stream to two tablets at 60fps and VR would require streaming two screens at 90-120hz at more than 720P).


I'm guessing the Occulus Rift/Vive/PSVR outclass the Switch in quality and fidelity, but how are their setups and ease of use?

Well that would certainly seal it for potentially the cheapest.

I always thought Nintendo would be streaming VR, but perhaps they couldn't get over their limited streaming(they said they couldn't stream to two tablets at 60fps and VR would require streaming two screens at 90-120hz at more than 720P).


I'm guessing the Occulus Rift/Vive/PSVR outclass the Switch in quality and fidelity, but how are their setups and ease of use?

Once you're setup it's very easy to use. I have my psvr next to the couch, cable along the wall to the console. All I have to do is reach next to me, put the headset on. which is very quick once you're used to it, press the on button and done. I don't use headphones with psvr, saves extra mess, you stay aware of your surroundings and 5.1 surround system works better than simulated 3D audio over stereo headphones. (nvm the sound quality doesn't compare)
It's a little bit more effort if you want to play a motion controlled game, turn on two move controllers as well ;)

Switch will be more less easy to use, yet it will be nice not to have a cable.

HTC Vive is CAD 1150 here btw, just the headset, now finally available for pre-order (not for sale yet in Canada)
OR is CAD 850 + CAD 280 for touch controllers
Playstation VR headset is CAD 550 (CAD 700 bundle still sold out, camera also sold out)
People are trying to sell complete Playstation VR bundles (incl ps4 and some games) for CAD 3200 on Amazon.

PSVR is easily the easiest to use out of the three. The most irritating one to set up is the Vive for sure. Just look up online. Some people spend hours to set up

Clearly looking at the patent application the Nintendo VR system if launched is a basic google cardboard type system and expectations for something that competes head on with PSVR and PC HMD's is not realistic.

VR can be done with 720p screens well enough but agree it would be better at higher res. While portable the tablet may only do 720p games but the screen could be 900-1080p resolution. I don't think they would go with a 1440p screen due to cost sadly. 

The VR experiences it will offer based on a 400 gflop gpu and 19,000 mips cpu with 4GB of memory and lets say a  75Hz refresh rate on the tablet screen are going to be about last gen quality but VR. The optics of the head mounted display can be designed to push more detail to the middle with outer areas in softer focus and they may soft focus it slightly anyway to prevent the screen door effect.

With a 720p screen (1280x720) thats 640x720 per eye, compared to 960x1080p  per eye of PSVR. If its something like a 1400x900p resolution screen then 700x900 per eye etc.

To be perfectly honest I'd be happy with a 720p screen if done well as I've used a 720p mobile with a android VR visor. It was low res and pixelly just like the original Oculus which was also 720p but still a good experience.

Nintendo's VR will likely be a sideline feature of Switch. Sort of testing the market because Nintendo have their doubts about VR sales potential at least at the beginning. 

Here is an image of skyrim rendered for VR for a 720p screen.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ExVRgyVe5J3LmIWCc4f-4SZQmDlvjGQzFQY4emo3WLi-NvNIFx9SCcK594L-05Q98S4P=h900

That screenshot doesn't tell the whole story, though, as most people would be looking at it on a 900p-1080p, and some above, screen on their PCs/laptops.  720p in an actual phone VR headset is freaking awful.  Being that close to the screen even on a 1080p is a little distracting seeing the pixels that make up the screen.  It's tolerable, but at 720p, it'll be god awful.  I imagine people won't be able to do it for more than a few minutes.