Could Nintendo be a contender if...

GwymWeepa

Regular
They went with VR? Let's assume the goggles had high quality screens with sharp resolutions and high color depth. Let's assume it incorporates gyroscopic sensors to detect head movement. Let's further assume they are relatively cheap (cheap enough to include with a 300 dollar console) and were light weight and robustly designed. So, in a nutshell, Nintendo had perfected VR hardware.

Could they be a contender? Could they come in as a strong second place next-gen, or *gasp* perhaps even first place?

I think maybe, just maybe, if they play their cards right, they could be a strong number 2. This is assuming absolutely everything goes well. But number 1 is way too far a long shot.
 
IF they put out a 300$ console with 1 vr set and then charge 100$ or so per vr set i think they will sweep this gen . I don't care what anyone says , if they do vr cheap nothing will compete with it
 
The very little we know about the Revolution is that it is rumored to be in a similar performance class as the X2. The big difference is MS will be eating high end losses in 2005. If the average production cost of X2 is $400 in 2005, but gets down to $300 in 2006, that means Nintendo could launch a similar speced hardware and take very little losses (even come in cheaper?) or Nintendo could use the wiggle room to either (a) put beefier components in or (b) go with extra stuff under the hood.

This plays well into a VR type idea. While a VR HMD (goggles + headtracking) would have 2 expensive LCDs (800x600?), LCD costs are going to drop FAST between now and then, and will continue to drop well into the Rev lifetime. We are expecting a 20-30% drop on LCD screens this year alone, I would think that two 800x600 displays would be "affordable" by fall 2006, and by the time mass sales are done in 2007/2008 they should be fairly cheap. So longterm cost would not be a huge factor.

But why?

While I sincerely doubt Nintendo will do this, I think VR HMD plays very well into their core concepts:

1) Easier use
2) Appeal to new markets that their competitors are not targetting
3) "Revolutionary" new gameplay for the home console
4) To spur creativity within the development community


VR HMD hits every one of these. Sure, it will alienate SOME gamers, but they already do that. But what they would do is open the door to a lot of casual gamers and enthusiests who right now are looking elsewhere.

Personally, I think it could make gaming a lot easier and much more immersive. RE4 would be totally creepy. MP would have a much stronger sense of investigation as you look around corners and such. There is just something about moving your head and your POV changing linearly with it.

And ease of use would be a big plus. Consoles only have so many buttons. Most FPS on consoles do not allow you to peak around a corner. Tilting your head makes this difficult task seamless. How many here have good aim with a dual stick joystick? Would it not be easier to LOOK at your target and just push a fire button? And a VR HMD would also allow a microphone to be easilly installed. Give orders and voice commands instead of pushing buttons. I can see how a VR HMD could make almost any game (FPS, Adventure, RTS!!!, Sports, RACING!!!, etc...) games not only easier to use, but also more immersive. Sure, some of you will hate it, but I think it would have more fans than enemies. And it is not like Nintendo has never tried the idea of VR before... but that was before the time of cheap/high quality/LIGHT LCDS. Now you can have a light goggle setup with a microphone, 5.1 headphones, and quality LCDs all in a light package.

Still, I will be shocked at VR. It would be affordable enough, and it would be revolutionary and meets most of Nintendo's ideals. But I think it would be a huge risk that they would be unwilling to do. But if Nintendo did it I would pick up a Rev on launch day.
 
virtualboy.jpg
 
You know boom the system was quite a step foward and it was really fun. in 5 min stretches . Of course its not fair to point out something from 10+ years ago and to say it wontwork today.
 
http://www.novint.com/falcon.htm

'touching is good'

vr and that type of controller and they'll be unstoppable. It truly would revolutionize gaming and make Sony/ms look like dinosaurs. I don't care if you could only play 1 vr unit per console at a time. Multiplayer would be AMAZING....
 
jvd said:
You know boom the system was quite a step foward and it was really fun. in 5 min stretches . Of course its not fair to point out something from 10+ years ago and to say it wontwork today.

I had a lot of fun in said 5 minute stretches. An idea way ahead of its time, they just didn't have the tech then.
 
Pozer said:
http://www.novint.com/falcon.htm

'touching is good'

vr and that type of controller and they'll be unstoppable. It truly would revolutionize gaming and make Sony/ms look like dinosaurs. I don't care if you could only play 1 vr unit per console at a time. Multiplayer would be AMAZING....

I don't see how a virtual pen would be interesting lol, even if I could feel things. Now...lol, imagine VR mittens...what? Shoot Sony has a similar patent to what I'm thinking of.
 
I think perfected VR is a great coffee table addition and a fun after-dinner exercise for the novelty of it.

But I don't think Nintendo is going to convince all those casuals to put on VR gear. Part of being casual is not wanting to stick out or be a geek. VR is about the ultimate in geekiness right now. Think you'll get my mom or dad to put VR gear on to play any game? Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

The hardcore would eat this up, though. And if VR gear ever became an accepted part of various cultures, this would work for casuals.
 
Thats the thing , it wont be geeky . It will be the future now . How many years have people heard about vr being the next thing ? When it finaly comes it will blow people away .

Hdtv is nice , but how about being inside the world . Whats geekier ? Using a controler and controling an object on your tv or being inside the game itself and your the object
 
I don't see how VR is ready to be used for modern AAA titles without some serious drops in quality.

Standard TV resolution is pretty grainy unless you back off a decent distance, how exactly are they going to scale the pixel density to get the same quality when the screen is right in front of the eye? Even fine dot pitch monitors get blocky if you stick your eye right on the screen.

Then there's the eye strain of focusing at a pretty uncomfortable distance constantly. Virtual Boy gave me a headache.

I'm only going by the Virtual Boy for the most part, as well as some clunky old demos for VR, however.
 
3dilettante said:
I don't see how VR is ready to be used for modern AAA titles without some serious drops in quality.

Standard TV resolution is pretty grainy unless you back off a decent distance, how exactly are they going to scale the pixel density to get the same quality when the screen is right in front of the eye? Even fine dot pitch monitors get blocky if you stick your eye right on the screen.

Then there's the eye strain of focusing at a pretty uncomfortable distance constantly. Virtual Boy gave me a headache.

I'm only going by the Virtual Boy for the most part, as well as some clunky old demos for VR, however.

I think it could be done with less geometry and higher res textures, it might be a turn off to some, but I would be happy if the games were fun, but I know that would drive more poeple away then bring them in. I think it could happen gen after next :)
 
I dunno that ledtek one from 04 doesn't look that bad its 800x600 which should be fine for vr video games , its also small , kind of a goofy look but nintendo can change it
 
BOOMEXPLODE said:
Oh I love the idea of VR, but it hasn't been done well yet. And it's still pretty expensive. I'll certainly be on board once that changes, but I don't think that time has yet come.

I found some nice goggles ($500 range) with head tracking ($400-$600) at a site a while back and it works with PC games. And that was in the summer of 2004. Expensive, yes, but they deal in very low volume. If you are looking at volume and a launch in fall 2006 with most volume coming after late 2007 I think expense is managable.

As for the resolution, 800x600 on a 3" x 2" screen a couple inches from your eyes would not be too bad. I have read the major problem is the very middle where the eye focuses.

Someday someone is going to try VR again--but with better tech. High quality LCDs that are light and affordable, Mic, maybe 5.1 headphones. They will put it into a nice package with a reasonable price, get a big developer (like iD, VALVe, etc...) to support it with their smash hit and it will take off. But it first needs a killer app.
 
I found some nice goggles ($500 range) with head tracking ($400-$600) at a site a while back and it works with PC games. And that was in the summer of 2004. Expensive, yes, but they deal in very low volume. If you are looking at volume and a launch in fall 2006 with most volume coming after late 2007 I think expense is managable.

RIght your talking about something that will most likely sell 40 million (20 million bundled with systems and another 20 million for people picking up a set to play with others )

This will drive the costs down greatly . As for lcd screens look at the psp one. That is a very nice screen and for the quality its very cheap .

HOwever i doubt this is what nintendo is doing , though it be cool if it was


Someday someone is going to try VR again--but with better tech. High quality LCDs that are light and affordable, Mic, maybe 5.1 headphones. They will put it into a nice package with a reasonable price, get a big developer (like iD, VALVe, etc...) to support it with their smash hit and it will take off. But it first needs a killer app.
the 5.1 head phones i got are really nice for the 30$ i payed for them , i'm sure they don't cost anywhere near that . IT would be a nice set up. I wouldn't mind dropping 200$ on one to play pc games with
 
jvd said:
HOwever i doubt this is what nintendo is doing , though it be cool if it was

Agreed :(


Someday someone is going to try VR again--but with better tech. High quality LCDs that are light and affordable, Mic, maybe 5.1 headphones. They will put it into a nice package with a reasonable price, get a big developer (like iD, VALVe, etc...) to support it with their smash hit and it will take off. But it first needs a killer app.
the 5.1 head phones i got are really nice for the 30$ i payed for them , i'm sure they don't cost anywhere near that . IT would be a nice set up. I wouldn't mind dropping 200$ on one to play pc games with

Dare I say this... with all the FPS I play (BF and HL2/CSS) I woudl probably be willing to go to $300 for a quality set.

Agreed on the head phones. My Gainward 5.1 were $27... and while not the "nicest" in the world, they have good enough sound and the positional sound is great. Just tonight I was in a building and literally could tell where the guy outside was as he walked around. The second he hit the door he was owned ;)
 
Back
Top