| Captain_Yuri said: Where did you get that Google Cardboard number from? Just wondering... |
After actually rsearching it specifically now its not 2am that number seems dramatically off, not sure what the hell the article writers were smoking
they likely added one too many zeros, as it looks like cardboard was at 5 mill somewhere in mid to late 2016
NATO said:
After actually rsearching it specifically now its not 2am that number seems dramatically off, not sure what the hell the article writers were smoking they likely added one too many zeros, as it looks like cardboard was at 5 mill somewhere in mid to late 2016 |
Loll ikr. Journalism at its finest /s
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850
I guess after the wonderful Virtual Boy they know they cannot top themselves. /s
Kind of amazing how far we've come over the last 22 years.
spemanig said:
With all due respect, I disagree. I don't see how a cheap entry point does anything to the pricing structure. The audience who buys the Switch isn't comparable to the ones who buy mobile games. Their expectations when it comes to game quality and price are completely different. I don't think it's realistic at all to assume that someone buying a $100 headset won't buy a $60 game for it because they already bought a $300 dedicated gaming console prepared to pay $60 for big games. The expectation has already been set there. The HMD just acts as a new screen for those same $60 experiences. Your second point is absurd. VR won't do well on the Switch because it wasn't marketed on the system before launch? VR wasn't marketed with computers, smartphones, or the PS4 at first either. It's an accessory, not a new platform - they can start marketing it whenever they want. I don't really understand your last point, though. What appauling range of limited games? Knowing Nintendo and tech like this, no one pushes software designed for specific hardware more than they do. There wouldn't be an issue when it comes to software, at least not from the first party perspective, which is what VR needs. Lot's of compelling exclusive software to drive early adoption so that devs know there's an audience willing to buy games like this. That's why Wii and DS succeeded so much. Nintendo supported their gimmicks, people bought the systems, and devs saw money there. And they were cheap. No one in VR is doing all of that today. That's why 99% of VR games look like cheap, unambitious tech demos. No one want's to spend the money on compelling software when it won't sell. You load up a $100 Switch VR set with Pilot Wings bundled in at launch, and Mario Kart VR, F-Zero VR, Star Fox VR, Metroid VR, and more down the road, and you've given VR it's bait. Literally no one doing VR right now has that. The closest thing is Resi7 on PSVR - $400 for one premium game experience with no promise of similar experiences released regularly down the road and it doesn't even use motion controls. If Switch VR launches with Metroid Prime VR, a bundle with Pilot Wings VR, and an unlockable VR mode for MK8D via a free patch, it will already be in a much better place than any VR system has ever even hoped to be, and at launch. And so you know that's not absurd, that's basically what the Wii did with it's launch. Wii Sports Bundle and Zelda at launch. All I did was add an easy to implement patch to another game. A potential three killer apps at launch for a $100 periferal. But Switch VR would be dead? Especially with the promise of more VR Nintendo games in the future? Not a chance. Let's say Switch VR comes out in May 2018 - plenty of time to finish a new Metroid and VR Pilot Wings. So it launches in May with Metorid Prime VR and Pilot Wings along with the patch. Obviously a few 3rd party games too. Lets say that it only get's one big exclusive per quarter. That's still one in the summer, one in the Fall, and one during the holidays. Let's say F-Zero VR in the Summer, Star Fox VR in the Fall, and Pokemon VR for the Holidays. They could have smaller franchises like Punch-Out! VR, Endless Ocean VR, Nintendogs VR, Fatal Frame VR, Kid Icarus VR, Pikmin VR, Chibi-Robo, etc fill out the year. Nintendo has so many ways to leverage IP like this that it would be crazy for them not to do it. Nintendo's greatest weakness, the power of their hardware, would become their greatest strength because it forced them to create IP that looks create even with low quality polygons and texture assets, something franchises like Resident Evil haven't benefitted from. |
I personally think Switch needed VR from the beginning but I was expecting pricing to be lower and even hopeing for a Switch deluxe bundle that included the VR accessory at launch so the adoption rate of the VR accessory would be very high. As it is the Switch isn't very powerful, has a 720p screen and really could only be a introductory level to VR. At current pricing in the uk with £280 plus £60 games and perhaps £90 VR headset dock I'd have to say absolutely no way. My android VR headset including a octo core cpu much more powerful than Switch cpu but inferior gpu was £90 and that has a 1080p display. I was expecting the Switch to be £200 and the VR headset £40 with games at £40 but everything is about 50% more expensive than that. Nintendo pricing has been excessive for a few years but the Switch takes it to a higher level. Often you need to launch a system at a competitive price in order to get a large foundation of users to justify software development but here in the UK and Europe it doesn't look like the Switch will do that.
I think most would agree that a 720p VR display with a low power quad core arm cpu system capable of basic VR in line with android devices should be cheap VR not premium pricing. As it is my £90 Arealer Sky VR device is vastly superior and supported by a huge range of VR software most of which is free. Nintendo will probably charge £90 just for the plastic VR visor.
Nintendo are struggling to provide decent number of games for the Switch as it is without diluting resources further with VR titles.
| SonytendoAmiibo said: The reason I bought a Samsung Gear VR is: It was only $99.00 and I wanted to see if I liked VR before I blew $500.00 on the PSVR bundle. Guess what. That $99.00 saved me $500.00. PSVR order cancelled. VR is just something I will mess around with once in a while. I will never spend a large amount of money on it. If Nintendo does make a VR HMD for Switch and its cheap, I will buy it. If not, I will just keep messing around with my Gear VR and be fine. |
Got my GearVR free from my S7 Edge purchase, best VR porn option, AKA free vr porn. That and neat things with Trinity VR w/Tridef3D for shits and giggles on my PC, still waiting on my CastAR lol.
SvennoJ said:
I've never tried GearVR but is that really a comparable experience? Do you have full positional headtracking and/or full movement with a controller? Anyway if it works on a mobile phone, it should certainly work on the Switch. |
It works fine, depends on how good your phone's screen is, and the viewing angle is trash, but it works. The newer Oculus software has better camera tracking now so the shift is nearly none existent with decent response time.
this is idiotic on so many levels. And If nintendo goes through with this it will be just an attempt of cash grap, like all their accessories,
1. First of all the weight of the screen with sealed battery would make it unbearable to have on your face.
2. So many people are dismissing the screen door effect on a 6 inch 720p LCD screen, Not even an OLED screen with RGB pixel arrangement could offset that low resolution.
3. Is Nintendo Switch screeen even capable of outputting above 60fps, considering fps required for a VR game is above 90fps and even PS4 needs a separate box to achieve that.
| taus90 said: this is idiotic on so many levels. And If nintendo goes through with this it will be just an attempt of cash grap, like all their accessories, 1. First of all the weight of the screen with sealed battery would make it unbearable to have on your face. 2. So many people are dismissing the screen door effect on a 6 inch 720p LCD screen, Not even an OLED screen with RGB pixel arrangement could offset that low resolution. 3. Is Nintendo Switch screeen even capable of outputting above 60fps, considering fps required for a VR game is above 90fps and even PS4 needs a separate box to achieve that. |
1. Switch is 10.48 ounces or 297 grams. PSVR is 21.52 ounces or 610 grams (without the cable)
That leaves plenty options for creating a headset that's not even as heavy as PSVR
2. Screendoor effect also depends on pixel configuration and focus. Projectors have een solving this for a decade by hiding the pixel structure in slightly out of focus pixels. The screendoor effect is less noticeable on an RGB screen than pentile displays. Plus it depends on the fov too. Switch could reign in the fov a bit for higher perceived resolution.
3. PS4 does not use the extra box for reprojection to 120fps. The extra box does the opposite, converts one eye back to 60hz tv output and processes the 3D spatial audio. But true, we don't know if the Switch screen can display 90hz. Yet I wonder, can phones? It seems to work there.
|
taus90 said: this is idiotic on so many levels. And If nintendo goes through with this it will be just an attempt of cash grap, like all their accessories, 1. First of all the weight of the screen with sealed battery would make it unbearable to have on your face. 2. So many people are dismissing the screen door effect on a 6 inch 720p LCD screen, Not even an OLED screen with RGB pixel arrangement could offset that low resolution. 3. Is Nintendo Switch screeen even capable of outputting above 60fps, considering fps required for a VR game is above 90fps and even PS4 needs a separate box to achieve that. |
The reasons you give are all definitely problems a Switch VR would have to overcome. Nintendo did say they are "looking into" VR for Switch. They said the system itself is powerful enough to do VR, but they oddly did not say anything about the screen resolution.
Hey! They got SONY on my amiibo! Wait a minute. Two great gaming tastes that game great together!
Switch FC: SW-0398-8858-1969
SonytendoAmiibo said:
The reasons you give are all definitely problems a Switch VR would have to overcome. Nintendo did say they are "looking into" VR for Switch. They said the system itself is powerful enough to do VR, but they oddly did not say anything about the screen resolution. |
I never said tegra chip inside couldnt handle a basic VR Game.. I m talking about the hardware limitation which Switch has. like screen refresh rate and resolution, trust me I have a 5.9 inch screen nexus 6 which has an amoled 1440p screen, still it shows screen door effect and the weight is too much to handle. The only way this can be fixed is by a future hardware revision.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
