By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Kimishima: "Nintendo currentily studying VR, will come to Switch once it's right!"

setsunatenshi on 02 February 2017
spemanig said:
setsunatenshi said:

If that's your best argument, then I guess you don't really have anything to add to this debate. I'm far from the only person in this same thread pointing out how undoable VR is in a 720p.

I have personal experience with different types of VR solutions and enough technical knowledge to understand why the Switch as actually underpowered to do modern VR gaming.

But I guess nowadays reality is multiple choice and what feels real is more important than what is real.

So what's "real" is that you're the sole authority on VR? Right. It doesn't matter that you have personal experience. You're not the only person with that experience. Other people have had it too, and they've been fine with 720p 60fps. Doesn't matter if they are present in this thread. It's well documented. Your personal experience doesn't supercede theirs.

As for "technical knowledge," don't be absurd. VR isn't some magical computational anomaly. It's just a split screen. Like I said, there are phones far weaker than the Switch that do VR gaming just fine. Games are designed around the specifications of their hardware. That's how it's always been. If someone wants to make a VR game for the Switch, they just have to account for its power and target 720p/60fps with a split screen. That's how you've gotten split screen multiplayer since the SNES. VR doesn't need to look realistic to be immersive.

I'm begining to suspect you're chosing to believe what you want to believe and ignoring anyone that will contradict said belief. For what reason that's happening, hey you tell me.

Please show me some evidence of any modern VR game on a 720p 60Hz screen being "just fine"

Perhaps if nintendo would sell me that special version of glasses, you know, the rose colored ones you're wearing right now, I could make myself think 720p 60 would be just fine on VR. I think that's what I'm missing on my VR experiences right now.

I'll just say this, and feel free to take it or leave it. Give it a shot, try out some phone VR at 720p. Try some "gaming" for, say, 1 hour. And then let us all know how you feel about it. Then you'll be more informed to judge what's a "just fine" experience. When you're done throwing up of course.



Around the Network
ps4tw on 02 February 2017
bdbdbd said:
RavenXtra said:
Better left for a Switch 2 honestly. A 720p screen is just not gonna cut it. By that time, the price of VR will have probably gone down as well.

Really? I guess you don't play much on TV then. 14" full HD would roughly equal the Switch 720p screen.

Tip: Stop talking about things you don't understand:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/

 A 720p screen would result in the screen-door effect that would make any game unplayable, with a resolution so low it is only slightly larger than the original Oculus Rift dev kit. 



Frogger on 02 February 2017
potato_hamster said:
spemanig said:

In the absence of first hand experience, I've read plenty of second hand experience saying it's fine. Your word is no better than theirs.

Just so we're clear, you're saying you've never tried it but you're convinced it would be accepted en masse by millions of people. But even assuming that a Switch VR would be fine for you, you still have to justify how you can know it would be fine for others.

Meanwhile many who have tried PSVR say that their VR experience isn't fine with a higher resolution and a higher framerate than you could ever expect on a Switch. They say they get motion sickness. They say they get eye fatigue very easily. For others it is just barely tolerable for half hour intervals. In fact most people i know that have tried the PSVR find it very difficult to use it for more than an hour at a time because to be quite frank, the technology at the pricepoint just isn't there yet. Add in games that are more vibrant and cartoony, and the fatigue becomes even more of an issue. The fact that games like Job Simulator are broken down into half hour chunks is not a coincidence. It's to make the game more digestable in smaller chunks. Now here you are advocating for worse technology at a cheaper price and expecting the same results, when that just isn't realistic.

...Yes. People buy Google Cardbox and are blown away by it. Again, I'm not saying that it will be some qualitative masterpiece, but people are vastly overstating people's standards for this stuff. People were getting motion sick from playing FPS game when they were first becoming popular. Game designers just haven't wrapped their heads around how to design games for VR yet.

What the mass market needs is a cheap entry point with high quality, marketable software. Nintendo can do that for VR. Someone's expectations for a $99 headset will be way lower than their expectations for a $399 one, and Nintendo won't release it until they've solved the motion sickness for it. This is especially the case because most people will never have even tried VR before something like this.

Even if Switch VR is plagued with stories of motion sickness during long playtimes, the extremely cheap entry point plus the onslaught of recognizable first party titles means more sales than traditional VR. That's just basic math. If you tell someone who has never tried VR they can play Mario Kart in inferior VR for $100, or Resident Evil in superior VR for $400, the choice becomes clear. They'll choose Mario Kart every time because it's cheaper hardware and a more popular IP. The VR experience doesn't need to be amazing - just good enough. The cheap price and killer app software takes care of the rest.



Frogger on 02 February 2017
setsunatenshi said:
spemanig said:

So what's "real" is that you're the sole authority on VR? Right. It doesn't matter that you have personal experience. You're not the only person with that experience. Other people have had it too, and they've been fine with 720p 60fps. Doesn't matter if they are present in this thread. It's well documented. Your personal experience doesn't supercede theirs.

As for "technical knowledge," don't be absurd. VR isn't some magical computational anomaly. It's just a split screen. Like I said, there are phones far weaker than the Switch that do VR gaming just fine. Games are designed around the specifications of their hardware. That's how it's always been. If someone wants to make a VR game for the Switch, they just have to account for its power and target 720p/60fps with a split screen. That's how you've gotten split screen multiplayer since the SNES. VR doesn't need to look realistic to be immersive.

I'm begining to suspect you're chosing to believe what you want to believe and ignoring anyone that will contradict said belief. For what reason that's happening, hey you tell me.

Please show me some evidence of any modern VR game on a 720p 60Hz screen being "just fine"

Perhaps if nintendo would sell me that special version of glasses, you know, the rose colored ones you're wearing right now, I could make myself think 720p 60 would be just fine on VR. I think that's what I'm missing on my VR experiences right now.

I'll just say this, and feel free to take it or leave it. Give it a shot, try out some phone VR at 720p. Try some "gaming" for, say, 1 hour. And then let us all know how you feel about it. Then you'll be more informed to judge what's a "just fine" experience. When you're done throwing up of course.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/329yhb/is_cardboard_worth_it_on_a_720p_phone/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/4wgqs6/google_cardboard_on_720p_screen/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/2zelot/best_budget_smartphone_with_a_good_enough_screen/

And also, the Oculus dev kit that blew so many people away in the first place used a 720p screen. I'm not going to like to the thousands of youtube videos and reddit threads about it.

I'll wait until Nintendo does it. Think I'll be fine. :)



Mystro-Sama on 02 February 2017
spemanig said:
Mystro-Sama said:
As if the Switch will be able to handle VR. lol

Cellphones can handle VR.

Name me a robust VR phone game.



Around the Network
m_csquare on 02 February 2017
spemanig said:
potato_hamster said:

Just so we're clear, you're saying you've never tried it but you're convinced it would be accepted en masse by millions of people. But even assuming that a Switch VR would be fine for you, you still have to justify how you can know it would be fine for others.

Meanwhile many who have tried PSVR say that their VR experience isn't fine with a higher resolution and a higher framerate than you could ever expect on a Switch. They say they get motion sickness. They say they get eye fatigue very easily. For others it is just barely tolerable for half hour intervals. In fact most people i know that have tried the PSVR find it very difficult to use it for more than an hour at a time because to be quite frank, the technology at the pricepoint just isn't there yet. Add in games that are more vibrant and cartoony, and the fatigue becomes even more of an issue. The fact that games like Job Simulator are broken down into half hour chunks is not a coincidence. It's to make the game more digestable in smaller chunks. Now here you are advocating for worse technology at a cheaper price and expecting the same results, when that just isn't realistic.

...Yes. People buy Google Cardbox and are blown away by it. Again, I'm not saying that it will be some qualitative masterpiece, but people are vastly overstating people's standards for this stuff. People were getting motion sick from playing FPS game when they were first becoming popular. Game designers just haven't wrapped their heads around how to design games for VR yet.

What the mass market needs is a cheap entry point with high quality, marketable software. Nintendo can do that for VR. Someone's expectations for a $99 headset will be way lower than their expectations for a $399 one, and Nintendo won't release it until they've solved the motion sickness for it. This is especially the case because most people will never have even tried VR before something like this.

Even if Switch VR is plagued with stories of motion sickness during long playtimes, the extremely cheap entry point plus the onslaught of recognizable first party titles means more sales than traditional VR. That's just basic math. If you tell someone who has never tried VR they can play Mario Kart in inferior VR for $100, or Resident Evil in superior VR for $400, the choice becomes clear. They'll choose Mario Kart every time because it's cheaper hardware and a more popular IP. The VR experience doesn't need to be amazing - just good enough. The cheap price and killer app software takes care of the rest.

Are you gon ignore 1080~1440p display from the phones that use google cardboard?



setsunatenshi on 02 February 2017
spemanig said:
setsunatenshi said:

I'm begining to suspect you're chosing to believe what you want to believe and ignoring anyone that will contradict said belief. For what reason that's happening, hey you tell me.

Please show me some evidence of any modern VR game on a 720p 60Hz screen being "just fine"

Perhaps if nintendo would sell me that special version of glasses, you know, the rose colored ones you're wearing right now, I could make myself think 720p 60 would be just fine on VR. I think that's what I'm missing on my VR experiences right now.

I'll just say this, and feel free to take it or leave it. Give it a shot, try out some phone VR at 720p. Try some "gaming" for, say, 1 hour. And then let us all know how you feel about it. Then you'll be more informed to judge what's a "just fine" experience. When you're done throwing up of course.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/329yhb/is_cardboard_worth_it_on_a_720p_phone/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/4wgqs6/google_cardboard_on_720p_screen/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/2zelot/best_budget_smartphone_with_a_good_enough_screen/

And also, the Oculus dev kit that blew so many people away in the first place used a 720p screen. I'm not going to like to the thousands of youtube videos and reddit threads about it.

I'll wait until Nintendo does it. Think I'll be fine. :)

lol I don't think this is proving exactly what you think it proves.

 

this is like comparing a skateboard to a car because they both have 4 wheels

But ok... from the links you posted and didn't bother reading:

////////////////////////

1- "I have a Galaxy S3 with 720p AMOLED and I could still enjoy VR to a reasonable extent, but if I were to pick a new phone to use with VR among other things, I would definitely not go below 1080p LCD. The pixels at 720p, especially if AMOLED I guess, are extremely visible."

2- "Ugh, even the 1440p IPS I have still looks screendoorish. How do you even manage the 720p amoled."

3- "It will be really bad, there's no sense getting less than 1080p. There are plenty of cheap options these days."

4- "It's one thing to discourage it if OP is buying the phone just for cardboard purposes. But if this is the price point for OP and they just want to know if 720 would suffice for cardboard, I would say yes but with great sacrifice to experience. Also, OP, remember that 360 might look ok on a 4 or 5 inch phone, but when that image is blown up to something to encompasses 90 degrees of your field of view, there's a massive change between 360, 480, 720, 1080, 1440, and 4k"

5- "well, I use my headset with my Galaxy S3 (720p) and pixelation is still noticeable, but even worse it is the subpixelation. You can see the diodes (specially red). I have another smartphone which use a 1080p screen (BQ Aquaris 6) and the pixelation is much better, almost gone, so I would recommend 1080p or better."

6- "720p is enough for single experiences like videos or short apps experiences, but if you care in details looking at photos, 720p looks blocky. I hardly can see a movie with s3. PPI is also important, but it's directly linked with your screen dimensions, so if you stay between 4.5 and 5.5, PPI is usuallly homogeneus."

/////////////////////////////

 

mind you, this is on video playing, at best some 360 videos. If you know anything about VR, you would know that VR gaming is a whole other beast. Not only on framerate and power consumption, but the actual hardware required to play the game has to be way more powerful than what you can find on a phone or the Switch in this case.

anyway, as we established, you'll believe what you want to believe. as far as I can tell Nintendo is just bullshitting with this VR talk and no VR will actually be released for the Switch. Even they know better than the BS they are talking now.



potato_hamster on 02 February 2017
spemanig said:
setsunatenshi said:

I'm begining to suspect you're chosing to believe what you want to believe and ignoring anyone that will contradict said belief. For what reason that's happening, hey you tell me.

Please show me some evidence of any modern VR game on a 720p 60Hz screen being "just fine"

Perhaps if nintendo would sell me that special version of glasses, you know, the rose colored ones you're wearing right now, I could make myself think 720p 60 would be just fine on VR. I think that's what I'm missing on my VR experiences right now.

I'll just say this, and feel free to take it or leave it. Give it a shot, try out some phone VR at 720p. Try some "gaming" for, say, 1 hour. And then let us all know how you feel about it. Then you'll be more informed to judge what's a "just fine" experience. When you're done throwing up of course.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/329yhb/is_cardboard_worth_it_on_a_720p_phone/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/4wgqs6/google_cardboard_on_720p_screen/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleCardboard/comments/2zelot/best_budget_smartphone_with_a_good_enough_screen/

And also, the Oculus dev kit that blew so many people away in the first place used a 720p screen. I'm not going to like to the thousands of youtube videos and reddit threads about it.

I'll wait until Nintendo does it. Think I'll be fine. :)

Did you read those links before you posted? Most of the comments are recommending against using a 720p phone or saying that it's only barely tolerable watching short videos. How exacrly does this better support your argument?



bdbdbd on 02 February 2017
Pyro as Bill said:

Until we get transparent displays, the only way to do AR is with a camera feed -> display. The holy grail of AR wouldn't use a camera at all.

If I wanted to play an AR game in the Mushroom Kingdom instead of my living room, the camera feed would be turned off and changed to a Mushroom Kingdom background instead. If the screen was right in front of my eyes delivering 3D then it'd be VR.

Remember when G&W had crystal screen?

setsunatenshi said:

Have you actually every tried it yourself? Ever?

Use VR on a 720 screen and tell me it's an enjoyable experience. I dare you

This isn't a fair comparison. First we'd need to have a device with enjoyable experience and after that see how 720p fares against.

ps4tw said:

Tip: Stop talking about things you don't understand:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/

 A 720p screen would result in the screen-door effect that would make any game unplayable, with a resolution so low it is only slightly larger than the original Oculus Rift dev kit. 

Good point. Full HD would actually be roughly 9 inches, whereas the 14 inch would be about the same ppi on full HD in comparison to 6,2 inch 480p screen.

Let me guess, it just happens to be everything under 721p on a 6,2 inch or bigger screen that experience the screen-door effect? I knew it! And not like everything we have so far looks like shit anyways? 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

setsunatenshi on 02 February 2017
bdbdbd said:
Pyro as Bill said:

Until we get transparent displays, the only way to do AR is with a camera feed -> display. The holy grail of AR wouldn't use a camera at all.

If I wanted to play an AR game in the Mushroom Kingdom instead of my living room, the camera feed would be turned off and changed to a Mushroom Kingdom background instead. If the screen was right in front of my eyes delivering 3D then it'd be VR.

Remember when G&W had crystal screen?

setsunatenshi said:

Have you actually every tried it yourself? Ever?

Use VR on a 720 screen and tell me it's an enjoyable experience. I dare you

This isn't a fair comparison. First we'd need to have a device with enjoyable experience and after that see how 720p fares against.

ps4tw said:

Tip: Stop talking about things you don't understand:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/

 A 720p screen would result in the screen-door effect that would make any game unplayable, with a resolution so low it is only slightly larger than the original Oculus Rift dev kit. 

Good point. Full HD would actually be roughly 9 inches, whereas the 14 inch would be about the same ppi on full HD in comparison to 6,2 inch 480p screen.

Let me guess, it just happens to be everything under 721p on a 6,2 inch or bigger screen that experience the screen-door effect? I knew it! And not like everything we have so far looks like shit anyways? 

The quality of the experience is a gradient, not a binary good/bad. So if you consider the quality of the VR in $400 to $900 hedsets less than enjoyable, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on a 720p underpowered handheld trying to run the same VR experiences.

Will take the comment as humorous if that was the original intent :)