Quantcast
LABO VR Kit - Video Overview released

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - LABO VR Kit - Video Overview released

I'm kinda glad Nintendo didn't give too much spotlight for this VR kit announcement after underwhelming sales of the previous version.



Around the Network

Anyone complaining or being angry at this are inmature manchildren.
Grow the hell up.

User moderated -Raven

Last edited by Raven - on 22 March 2019

If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

DreadPirateRoberts said:

Actually, he specifically did say he wanted to to fail in the comment I quoted.  He's also argued that it isn't selfish to hope Nintendo doesn't invest in things he doesn't personally like.  Which is amusing since that's pretty much the definition of selfishness.    His attempts to play it both ways after he began to take heat are not impressive to me.

Nope, he said he hope's it doesnt perform SUPER WELL, there is a very large middle ground between super well and fail.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

DreadPirateRoberts said:
curl-6 said:

THANK YOU.

I don't get why VR advocates can't seem to accept the simple fact that some folks aren't into VR. It's always "oh you probably haven't even tried it/you just haven't tried the right headset/you're closed-minded/etc." NO. I JUST. DON'T. CARE. FOR. VR.

I'm sorry Curl, but you are not the victim you really trying to pass yourself off as in this thread.  This has absolutely nothing to do with "VR advocates" not being able to accept the "simple fact that some folks aren't into VR".  In this case, it is about how you can't seem to accept that some folks are into VR.  You would have been fine if you had just said "this doesn't really appeal to me."  But that's not what you said.  Instead, you went with this:

"Pretty much how I feel. I don't like VR so hopefully this doesn't perform super well and they don't invest any more in it."

Wanting something to fail because it doesn't appeal to you is childish.   You came in looking for a fight with a comment like that, so don't whine about the fact you got one.

Two quick points of order first up:

- I have never indicated that I cannot accept that some people are into VR. 

- I have never said I want LABO VR to fail, in fact I stated multiple times that I do not.

I have been called both selfish and childish (while I haven't name-called anybody) simply for not wanting Nintendo to go full bore into VR at the expense of non-VR gaming. Would you call Xbox gamers selfish and childish for not wanting the next Xbox to go full bore into Kinect again at the expense of traditional games?

Last edited by curl-6 - on 10 March 2019

PortisheadBiscuit said:
konnichiwa said:
People are pissed now? Imagini it outsells PSVR then you will see angry people =p

In before the "only outselling because of Japan" posts. 

And if Labo VR sells less than PSVR even costing less than 1/4?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
zorg1000 said:
DreadPirateRoberts said:

Actually, he specifically did say he wanted to to fail in the comment I quoted.  He's also argued that it isn't selfish to hope Nintendo doesn't invest in things he doesn't personally like.  Which is amusing since that's pretty much the definition of selfishness.    His attempts to play it both ways after he began to take heat are not impressive to me.

Nope, he said he hope's it doesnt perform SUPER WELL, there is a very large middle ground between super well and fail.

On your defense of his attitude and how comparing safety glasses/helmets to HMD you could also look at comparison between VR and being hit in the head by a car.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Nintendo has a fever and the prescription is more cardboard! I sincerely hope these are cheap to make as some are claiming because as an investor I am tired of watching Nintendo go back to Labo over and over again. I am also sad to see VR here but not because I’m afraid it cheapens VR, I am afraid VR cheapens Nintendo. Then again, if this gets the VR itch out at Nintendo, maybe it is all worth it.
No offence VR fans, the tech may be great fun (haven’t tried it) but I think it’s a business flop. The idea that cheap versions could ruin the overall sales suggests the product still needs work, IMO.



couchmonkey said:
Nintendo has a fever and the prescription is more cardboard! I sincerely hope these are cheap to make as some are claiming because as an investor I am tired of watching Nintendo go back to Labo over and over again. I am also sad to see VR here but not because I’m afraid it cheapens VR, I am afraid VR cheapens Nintendo. Then again, if this gets the VR itch out at Nintendo, maybe it is all worth it.
No offence VR fans, the tech may be great fun (haven’t tried it) but I think it’s a business flop. The idea that cheap versions could ruin the overall sales suggests the product still needs work, IMO.

First mover and craving a spot in the market is also valuable.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

The flaw in your latest argument curl is the assumption that a new Labo kit comes at the expense of non-VR gaming. There is literally zero evidence to support this assertion.



DreadPirateRoberts said:

I'm sorry Curl, but you are not the victim you really trying to pass yourself off as in this thread.  This has absolutely nothing to do with "VR advocates" not being able to accept the "simple fact that some folks aren't into VR".  In this case, it is about how you can't seem to accept that some folks are into VR.  You would have been fine if you had just said "this doesn't really appeal to me."  But that's not what you said.  Instead, you went with this:

"Pretty much how I feel. I don't like VR so hopefully this doesn't perform super well and they don't invest any more in it."

Wanting something to fail because it doesn't appeal to you is childish.   You came in looking for a fight with a comment like that, so don't whine about the fact you got one.

Curl since the beginning is defending his preferences, not dissing folks who enjoy VR.

Statements made by curl  about the "simple fact that some folks aren't into VR":

  • What's terrible about not wanting your company of choice to invest heavily into something that offers no value to you?
  • Everyone is "selfish" in the sense that we naturally place our own desires first. I have no issue with Nintendo making games that aren't for me like Pokemon, Animal Crossing, or indeed LABO.
  • Everyone is "selfish" in the sense that we naturally place our own desires first.
  • 1. It's a matter of opinion ultimately. To me it's just a gimmick, and not an appealing or interesting one.
  • I just don't find having a screen strapped to my face immersive, personally.
  • I'm not a fan of having a screen strapped to my face, doesn't matter how "decent" the model is considered by those who are into such things
  • why would I want to make any concession for something that does not interest me?
  • I don't get why VR advocates can't seem to accept the simple fact that some folks aren't into VR

Statements made by curl about how he can't seem to accept that some folks are into VR:

  • none

Statements saying he doesn't want it to fail, but doesn't want it to be a breakout success:

  • I don't like VR so hopefully this doesn't perform super well and they don't invest any more in it.
  • I've already said I'm fine with LABO VR and don't wish for it to flop.
  • I don't have a problem with LABO VR as its a relatively harmless side gig that itself consumes little resources. Heck, I don't even want it to fail per se, I just wouldn't want it to become a breakout success
  • I have no problem with LABO VR. I just wouldn't want it to get to the point where Nintendo's major studios would be put onto VR games instead of making regular games.
  • It's just that in the unlikely theoretical event of this becoming a smash hit I don't trust Nintendo not to do something pants-on-head retarded like make their next system the Virtual Boy 2
  • I know there doesn't have to be be an "instead of" but Nintendo is notorious for doing the "no you can't have options, you'll damn well play it the way we say you'll play it" thing.
  • in many other cases like Starfox Zero, Pokemon Let's Go, and even Mario Odyssey, they denied players options for no good reason

To be honest I almost copy-pasted everything.

I was never particularly fond of Curl's cut and dry or at times pessimistic opinions, but maybe it's best to leave the man to his preferences.

At the same time I enjoyed reading the pro-VR posts since I personally am interested in it.