| setsunatenshi said: There's an adaptation period definitely and once the novelty wears off, you're left wanting to see the "real" games. That's when you begin to understand why PSVR is really the 'minimum' specs for gaming VR. Honestly even the vanilla PS4 should not be able to pull off hardcore gaming experiences in VR, and it's pretty surprising it plays as well as it does. When you mention not seeing yourself paying over $150 for VR, that's pretty understandable, because mobile VR is not worth any more than that. Once you put on the more expensive VR gear then you start understanding where that money is going. And on PC VR, you do need an above average rig to pull it off, plus another $800 or so for a complete VR setup. It's pricy, and definitely not mainstream as it is. But don't make the mistake of thinking it's anywhere comparable to the cellphone VR. So yeah, the best bet for gaming VR in this generation becoming more and more mainstreem pretty much is stuck on PSVR. Next gen hopefully will not only bring better headsets, but also the much needed hardware will become powerful enough to run full AAA games with 0 complaints (though some would argue RE7 is already the first AAA VR game). Hopefully you'll get to try PSVR sooner or later (preferably on PS4 Pro) and try something like Eve Valkyrie, Dirt Rally VR mode or Ace Combat. Anything on a cockpit feels absolutely amazing in this gen's VR. |
See, that's the thing, though. I don't think PSVR is VR's best be because I don't think anyone will be willing to pay more than $150 for an accessory device like a VR headset. And I do think that my shitty cellphone VR is impressive, even after the novelty.
I still fail to see how, for example, the Switch would be too weak to host VR experiences. Every game would basically look as good as Mario Kart 8 in split screen in VR. I don't see how that's an issue, especially if Nintendo actually implemented AA. Again, I can obviously imagine a gap in quality, and I'm not denying that, but my point is that I've wowed by VR on a cellphone too small for my headset with a sub-hd resolution screen, no controllers (motion or traditional), and with absolutely no ambitious games.
Where we disagree is that you don't think that a worse VR technical experience for cheaper would do better than the PSVR, while I think it would absolutely destroy PSVR, because no matter how much better PSVR is, people won't care because what ever Nintendo does will be cheaper, more accessable, more convenient, and have a more agressive and deliberate 1st party push, guaranteeing a steady push of high quality games. That's something no other VR headset has, and I don't think people will care enough about the quality difference for it to matter when it comes to mass market success, the same way people buying PSVR don't care that the Vive is better.
You seem stuck on the idea that the Switch isn't powerful enough for "real" VR games. Would Mario Kart 8 not count? Is the Switch not powerful enough to do that game in VR? Of course it is. It's all about building a game around your limitations. Would Mario Kart 8 not be a fun VR game? Would F-Zero not be fun in VR if it looked like an HD remaster of GX? What about Pilot Wings? How realistic would that game have to look for the experience of flying/gliding/hovering to be compelling? A lot of the novelty is wearing off because the games on mobile aren't good. Nintendo games would be good, regularly released, premium experiences, which is something VR still has a massive shortage of. Why does the Switch need to be more powerful for what is essentially just split screen mode?
I understand that, for example, an open world game would need to be 60fps, so that's essentially splitscreen and a perfect framerate, but that's totally achievable. The game just won't look as realistic as a 30fps single-screen open world game on the same system, which is fine because no one paying $100 for VR on the Switch is expecting a game that looks like TLoU in VR, the same way no one who buys VR on mobile expects something that looks like PSVR.
I can immediately see where the flaws of VR are. I can imagine how much better PSVR, Oculus, and Vive are. But there's not a doubt in my mind, even after playing on mobile, that the Switch would easily be home to the most successful VR experience from a mass market POV. If the experience on a $20 headset with an iPhone 5s and shitty mobile games is already this good, what Nintendo would do with the Switch would be out of this world for the mass market.
Nintendo would need something to solve drift, they'd need to figure out a way to cheaply and wirelessly allow people to lean, they'd probably want to figure out a way to output to the TV so the experience could be social, and they'd need to decrease the feeling that you're looking through binoculars (a feeling I know is still present in even the Vive), but they would absolutely and be a dominant force for VR. If there was nothing wrong with a tiny 640p screen for me, the mass market will be absolutely floored with a 720p screen, especially because the next best thing would be $500 to have everything the Switch would give you for $100 - $200 absolute max (on top of the price of the console).
I'm thinking of the Switch as the Wii of VR. Not the best VR, but the one that makes it mainstream.
