By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HoloDust on 25 April 2025
Edit Thread
OdinHades said:
HoloDust said:

Because Quest 2 sold around 20 million - without Mario and Zelda. I see folks massively keep underestimating how much reasonably priced VR headset with descent enough specs, that is (and this is THE key feature) standalone can succeed and Quest 2 proved it.

And Nintendo can just put SW2 SoC (which is somewhat above Quest 3's SoC) inside reasonably priced VR headset with descent enough specs and have something that is new Wii.

My Quest 3 is sitting here collecting dust for over a year now. It was nice when I got it and all and there are still games I want to try. But honestly, most of the time it is just too much hassle for me to actually put that thing on and the battery life doesn't help either. In demanding games it doesn't even last one hour and I don't want to wear a giant power bank while playing VR. 

VR is cool and all, but I'm pretty certain it will stay a niche and as such isn't the market Nintendo is aiming for.

Maybe it's collecting dust because there are not enough games that can go head to head to what's been offered on non VR platforms you game on, and everyone's time is limited?

Can you envision Nintendo VR having the same problem with all Nintendo IPs on that platform?

Zippy6 said:
HoloDust said:

Because Quest 2 sold around 20 million - without Mario and Zelda. I see folks massively keep underestimating how much reasonably priced VR headset with descent enough specs, that is (and this is THE key feature) standalone can succeed and Quest 2 proved it.

And Nintendo can just put SW2 SoC (which is somewhat above Quest 3's SoC) inside reasonably priced VR headset with descent enough specs and have something that is new Wii.

Sure Quest 2 sold 20m, but how much would it have sold if it didn't allow you to do non-gaming activities, and couldn't use it on PC? Quest 2 also has the advantage of being an open platform. Considering the lackluster media support on Switch, Nintendo would have to take a very different approach to VR.

Plus Nintendo would have to spend resources adding VR support to their games, or preferable making games specifically designed for VR, when those resources could just be spent on Switch 2 instead.

A VR Headset using the same SoC as the Switch 2 would cost more than a Switch 2 to make. They'd be selling that thing for over $499.

I'm really not sold on the idea that a Nintendo VR headset would do well. 

Quest 2 sold that much cause it was cheap and good enough for what it does, which is VR gaming, without additional device and cables.

Quest 3S currently costs $269 (it launched for $299) - it uses display and lenses of Quest 2, but same SoC as Quest 3, and that SoC is probably more expensive than T239, given it's on Samsung's 4nm node. Even counting in Nintendo's "it must make profit" pricing, I don't see their VR console being too expensive in few years, when I expect it to launch - it's untapped market, and they very much like that, especially when ocean becomes more red due to everyone else launching their own handhelds.