spemanig said:
1. I don't understand why you're overexplaining this. It's just splitscreen. It's not pointless to compare it to phone VR because phone VR SELLS MORE. It doesn't matter if it's inferior. It. Sells. More. Nintendo can do what phones do. And. Sell. More. It doesn't matter what the minumum specs for that game are. Phones prove VR can be on weaker devices. The requirements for a device with two individual 1440p screens running at 90fps each is obviously going to be higher than a device with a single 720p screen with split into two 60fps images. Just because those are the minumum requirements for that device doesn't mean it's the minumum spec for VR to be consumable or enjoyed. Again, look at Gear VR. 2. Gear VR sold well because it was cheap enough to be bundled with their phones and not be outrageous. Think PSVR would be more sucessful with an $800 console bundle? Didn't think so. But the Switch would do the same thing with a $400 (or less by the time Switch VR is actually out) console bundle? It would light the world on fire. It doesn't matter how much software Gear is selling. Mobile doesn't have a strong VR software push. The fact that it's selling so well without much software is a literal testiment to how much more important accessible tech it to superior tech. The fact that PSVR is an infinitely better experience with more embitious software, yet still is selling well below sales expectations should make that obvious. A Switch VR unit would have cheap hardware and an aggressive software push. Are you really comparing a 1 GB mobile game to Switch/Console game sizes? Come on, dude. You seem to have a lack of understanding of what phones can do. There is no difference between mobile and consoles other than power, control input, game size, software price, and a dedicated gaming audience. Stop looking at them as if there isn't connective tissue linking the two, because there is. If you want me to focus on comparing Switch VR to mobile VR, okay. It's VR on your phone, only more powerful than the Wii U, so games can look exponentially better than mobile VR. Also, it has two motion controllers, so games will control much better than mobile VR games and because of that will have a completely different design philosophy that is actually nothing like mobile VR games and everything like traditional VR games, but I digress. The rumoured standard cart size for Switch games is 16 GB. Now it's entirely likely that games will be bigger, but I like working with limits to prove a point. Mobile games, on the extremely large end, tend to be about 3GB at the very maximum, and the standard is much lower; in the megabytes. That, combined with Switch's approx. 3GB Ram dedicated only to gaming, means that Switch VR game will have a far bigger scope than mobile VR games. Once again, closer to more dedicated gaming systems. I digress again. The standard for mobile games in terms of pricing is... free. The upper end will be like $4. The point is, unless a studio wants to go bankrupt, they can only put in as much money as they expect to get back. Switch, like other dedicated gaming platforms, has a pricing standard of $60. $60 games have higher production values because the procing model means that they can get that money back once games are sold. This becomes obvious when you see games like Bioshock Mobile charge $20 with much higher production. This means that Switch games will also have exponentially higher production values than literally any mobile VR game. One might call it... console-like. Anyway, the reason dedicated gaming devices can charge so much is because people buy dedicated gaming hardware to buy dedicated gaming software. People buy mobile hardware to... make phone calls. So, naturally, dedicated gaming hardware has better software sales at premium prices than mobile hardware does, meaning devs trying to make more ambitious games will develop for devices with a more reliable audience first. Switch just so happens to be a dedicated gaming system, and not a mobile gaming system, but we're comparing it to mobile right now. So let's put together what we've learned. The Switch is like cellphone VR only more powerful than the Wii U (and much more powerful than your phone), two motion controllers, and games that are designed in every conceivable way like games on dedicated gaming hardware with an audience willing to pay for them because obviously they would be - the Switch is not a phone. The only difference then is fidelity. Screen clarity. Which, like I've said, doesn't matter to the mass market when the device is $100-sh and the next best thing costs 5x more just for games that look better and nothing much else. But let's assume that you don't think that all of that qualifies as 'real' gaming in VR for some incomprehensible reason. Fine. It will be a good enough totally fake imitator to vastly outsell anything anyone else is doing, especially PSVR/Oculus/Vive, turning VR of every kind a mass market phenomenon that all VR would benefit from to some capacity. And then 'real' VR platforms like PSVR/Oculus/Vive would just get ports of the Switch's "fake VR" games, because that's how money works. You develop for the platform that makes you the most money, and then you port to everything else. And you should be happy about that, because now you'll get the best versions of 'fake VR' games. 3. So... It's not 90fps, which was supposed to be absolutely necessary for not getting sick and VR having any hopes of selling on Switch? My bad. I made an incorrect assumption based solely on information you gave me that I trusted. As for "upscaling" to 120fps... It's not. It's just rendering two independant 60fps images. The literal exact same thing every split screen multiplayer game does. Either way, it's still a difference of 30fps vanilla and, by your math, 120fps when you combine the workload of rendering two separate images at 60fps simultaneously, which of literally just split screen. MK8 already runs at 60fps - most Nintendo games do. Doing what VR does would, once again, only require rendering the game in split screen, which MK8 already does whenever you play split screen. VR isn't some magic new way to render games. The downgrade that happened in Drive Club was obvious. It was never going to look the same doing 4x the work, especially when it strives for realism. Mario Kart was designed to look good and run well in splitscreen because it's a local multiplater game. The same way native VR games are designed to look good based around the requirements of those platforms. Every Switch game can look as good as Mario Kart 8, and the only ones that will look worse are games that are more open. Which is the case for literally all games, not just VR ones. But games with the look of, say, Metroid Prime 3, but with a much bigger scope because of more space and more powerful hardware? That would look and play amazingly on Switch VR, even at 720p. Is that not a "real" VR game to you? Doesn't matter. It's enough to sell a $100 VR platform far more than any 'real' VR can ever hope to at $400+. |
Ok I guess we'll agree to disagree on most of it, that's fine.
Just to correct something factual here though, 120 fps is higher than 90 fps, not sure what your confusion was with this really. 2 images of 60 fps each= the gpu is rendering 120 fps.
What happens in your MK8 example is that in order to do split screen at 60 fps each player, the graphic settings and resolution are (obviously) reduced, so yeah, you could consider it 120 fps if you want to. Hardware limitations are part of the reality based world and Nintendo is not immune to it.
Feel free to wait for this so called Nintendo VR, let me know how you like it if it ever comes to light. I'll chose not to get eye cancer if they ever do attempt it lol
