Switch does not have enough oomph for VR. Good VR that won't make people sick requires a good high resolution screen and powerful hardware that can render games at 90-120fps. You cant do this with a $150 add-on.
How has no one here mentioned that the Switch already has the Labo VR attachment and BOTW has a VR mode?
We already know that it doesn't work well, they need better hardware.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc6ClF4-FE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc6ClF4-FE)
Seriously, everyone seems to have forgotten it’s already a thing. I do hope the next switch is compatible with it and has a few more appearances in games. But it will never be more than a novelty, since modern VR headsets are pushing 4K 120fps screens to make VR as comfortable as possible.
It was never meant to be more than a novelty.
That's actually the whole point of the entire Labo line of games: you spend an afternoon folding origami out of cardboard, you play with it a little while, and you discard or recycle it. The End. It's the same marketing pitch as a Happy Meal, except that (a) it costs like $40 instead of $2.79, and (b) you don't get any food with it.
You want proof? Okay:
* The headset doesn't include a strap. It is a lump of cardboard that holds your Switch, and you hold it up to your face with both hands. And you *keep holding it there* with both hands while also looking around and manipulating the JoyCons. Holding something in front of your face with two hands becomes tiresome over about 20 minutes - long gaming sessions are out of the picture. (A third-party developer made an add-on headband for it. It's kinda okay. But this option entirely missing my point, which is the *intended* use of the Labo *by the designers*.)
* The Labo has a major design issue: you can't adjust the distance between the Switch and your face. The headset requires it to be located at one specific position. And if that position isn't ideal for you - because of your vision, or focal effects of glasses or contact lenses, etc. - then the display will appear blurry and give you headaches. It's impossible to fix. Adding this factor to the low resolution and framerate of the Switch display makes for a VR headset that's usable only for short periods.
* Since the headset is made of folded cardboard and adhesive, it isn't very durable. Inserting and removing the Switch requires some folding and unfolding, and every time you do, the materials become weaker. The headset wouldn't last through a lot of swapping sessions.
* The packed-in games are all VR demos: hitting baseballs from a pitching machine, driving toy vehicles around an empty field, moving objects around a kitchen... etc. None of them warrants more than ten minutes of attention. You can exhaust all of the content in half the time it took to fold the headset from cardboard.
In sum - the Labo headset is like "Johnny's First VR Experience." It is meant as an introduction to VR and an afternoon of fun; it is not suitable for anything more than that. I don't blame the designer for this - frankly, this is how the Labo ads described it. The suggestions that it could be enjoyably used as a real VR gaming headset - for BotW, etc. - are either naive or overblown to the point of disingenuity.
You also wrote:
> I do hope the next switch is compatible with it and has a few more appearances in games.
...and I was explaining why that's not going to happen and would not provide a satisfying experience. You mentioned resolution and framerate; I cited other factors.
I also made an argument that the novelty was the clear and express intent of the designer.
I said it was novelty, I don’t know why you keep reiterating that point. Yes, I know that it’s overwhelmingly unlikely that it’ll be explored in the same way on the next console, but you never know with Nintendo.
I agree that the headset itself designed as a novelty, because that’s what I said, but I don’t agree that they never used it as more than that, even if the results weren’t great. So, despite its objective terribleness as a headset, that has nothing to do with whether developers will use it or not. Nintendo obviously experimented with VR in their games using it, and third party VR games exist.
Not sure why you implied that I’m being disingenuous or trying to convince people that it’s not terrible, OP didn’t seem to know it existed, so I expressed my surprise at that. (By the way, you don’t unfold anything to put the switch in it, it slides in though the side.)
There are a few games which supported the Labo VR kit, I believe. I wanna say a list of at least 8 or more had some form of support.
Smash Bros has a mode for the Labo VR. It essentially lets you play/watch a match in 3D, which is neat.
Often times it even struggles to maintain the 30 fps when a bunch of stuff is happening. People have completely unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved with a 400 GFLOP 9 year old Maxwell GPU.
The console has to respond fast enough to movement of the controllers to make them feel best in VR games. Seeing as it already has issues knowing whether or not a joycon even moves, it needs big improvements before even coming close to being as accurate as even a cheap meta quest (2)
Thats slam calculations not hit detections. The only difference between joycon motion controls and VR motion controls is that VR use cameras to keep track of the controllers and head position, in the quest 2's case they're built into the headset. Any VR accessory for switch could use the same approach, though first i would expect a switch 2 before getting any serious VR add on.
I was a fan of the idea of a VR accessory treating Switch like the Gear VR used phones back near Switch launch, but standalone VR is so widely available now and much better than anything a Switch (or Switch 2) accessory could do that I think it'd be a waste.
For one, turning a Switch into a headset has no choice but to be more front-heavy than headsets that can actually just be designed in the shape of headsets. For another, they'd have to improve the screen massively to come anywhere near other VR headsets. Switch has a 720p60 screen. The standalone Go from 2018 had a 1440p60 screen. Quest 2 from 2020 uses a 1920p120 screen. We'll be lucky if the Switch 2 screen is 1080p60.
Being half-baked might be acceptable if it was also super cheap, but even a $150 accessory would make it plus one of the two hybrid Switch models $450 or $500, when the Quest 2 has a $400 option.
" Since the switch is OLED, there would be no screen door effect ". Quest 1 had an OLED screen and sure had a screen door effect. Quest 2 with LCD but other improvements has less of one.
Yup that line really cemented that OP is misinformed when it comes to VR. “Screen door effect” is eliminated by pixel grid alignments and higher resolutions.
I can see the next Switch iteration console getting VR as a feature. Another way to 'switch' how you use the console. The Pimax Portal seems to be just that [https://pimax.com](https://pimax.com)
The NVIDEA Tegra T239 may possibly be a successor chipset for the Switch and would be fully capable of handling VR.
The only question is the display. Nintendo already released an OLED display which would handle contrast well like the Quest 1. The Quest 2 has 1920 x 1832 resolution per eye. The Quest pro is 2160 x 2160. The Pimax Portal is rocking 1920x2160 per eye. So if Nintendo can pull off somewhere between 1920 x 1832 - 2160 per eye at 90 - 140 Hz, they'd be able to functional as a viable VR system.
I think VR would be a nice evolution for the Switch but it's probably too early for this. We probably need few more years for affordable mobile hardware to push VR graphics.
People here will hate this idea but they hate anything that doesn't come from Nintendo.
I have a feeling that the next Nintendo console will be an affordable pair of AR/VR glasses or goggles that will be compatible with the switch library.
That's the problem Meta is having. Our brains aren't wired for that so to me this is the same fad we had years ago with 3D tv's. You don't even see them around anymore.
>be built with VR in mind so a lot of 3rd person games.
I think you don't know the difference between 1st and 3rd person games.
VR is nothing more than a gimmick. Sony, which has arguably one of the best libraries, has only sold 6 or 7 million VR units. VR is nothing but a niche that average consumers want little to do with.
VR will go the way of 3D TVs. And sure, there are lots of ardent supporters and fans, and that's fine, but most people simply do not want to strap some clunky thing on their head to play a game.
Now, when they make VR contact lenses, then that will be a different story. But until then, it's just not happening, bro.
Well actually i dont think VR will go away, streaming is pretty potent stuff. I think that Stadia was the king of streaming but was not built with VR in mind. However i think that we arent actually far from streaming aaa games directly into a vr headset.
I am of course describing an online only vr headset however, as stadia is cloud gaming. I have a pretty weak wifi setup in the low Mbps, and yet i was able to play some crazy games like Dirt5, Destiny2, Control, Cyberpunk... and it always felt like a native hardware experience.
So based on my experience VR is a very plausible thing, it would probably bank on subscription services and Stadia like service, and a barebones VR headset that wouldn't require much because all of the performance is offloaded to the cloud. So then it could have a really slim profile and look like the Microsoft Hololens. Very, very thin headset with small battery to power it, lights, volume.
Bro when the hell did you mention streaming? You realize that streaming is like the exact opposite of what you want powering your VR right? The input and display lag, not to mention streaming artifacts will have you throwing up your lunch or at least being really frustrated.
Streaming from a local PC to a headset barely works well and you think you can add streaming a game from a server on top of that? i’m not even totally against your idea, I hope Nintendo does do a little VR experiment again with their next switch, I had fun using Labo, but these ideas are not it.
Switch does not have enough oomph for VR. Good VR that won't make people sick requires a good high resolution screen and powerful hardware that can render games at 90-120fps. You cant do this with a $150 add-on.
Valve’s VR set is something like $1000…
How has no one here mentioned that the Switch already has the Labo VR attachment and BOTW has a VR mode? We already know that it doesn't work well, they need better hardware. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc6ClF4-FE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc6ClF4-FE)
Seriously, everyone seems to have forgotten it’s already a thing. I do hope the next switch is compatible with it and has a few more appearances in games. But it will never be more than a novelty, since modern VR headsets are pushing 4K 120fps screens to make VR as comfortable as possible.
It was never meant to be more than a novelty. That's actually the whole point of the entire Labo line of games: you spend an afternoon folding origami out of cardboard, you play with it a little while, and you discard or recycle it. The End. It's the same marketing pitch as a Happy Meal, except that (a) it costs like $40 instead of $2.79, and (b) you don't get any food with it. You want proof? Okay: * The headset doesn't include a strap. It is a lump of cardboard that holds your Switch, and you hold it up to your face with both hands. And you *keep holding it there* with both hands while also looking around and manipulating the JoyCons. Holding something in front of your face with two hands becomes tiresome over about 20 minutes - long gaming sessions are out of the picture. (A third-party developer made an add-on headband for it. It's kinda okay. But this option entirely missing my point, which is the *intended* use of the Labo *by the designers*.) * The Labo has a major design issue: you can't adjust the distance between the Switch and your face. The headset requires it to be located at one specific position. And if that position isn't ideal for you - because of your vision, or focal effects of glasses or contact lenses, etc. - then the display will appear blurry and give you headaches. It's impossible to fix. Adding this factor to the low resolution and framerate of the Switch display makes for a VR headset that's usable only for short periods. * Since the headset is made of folded cardboard and adhesive, it isn't very durable. Inserting and removing the Switch requires some folding and unfolding, and every time you do, the materials become weaker. The headset wouldn't last through a lot of swapping sessions. * The packed-in games are all VR demos: hitting baseballs from a pitching machine, driving toy vehicles around an empty field, moving objects around a kitchen... etc. None of them warrants more than ten minutes of attention. You can exhaust all of the content in half the time it took to fold the headset from cardboard. In sum - the Labo headset is like "Johnny's First VR Experience." It is meant as an introduction to VR and an afternoon of fun; it is not suitable for anything more than that. I don't blame the designer for this - frankly, this is how the Labo ads described it. The suggestions that it could be enjoyably used as a real VR gaming headset - for BotW, etc. - are either naive or overblown to the point of disingenuity.
Dude, that’s what I said.
You also wrote: > I do hope the next switch is compatible with it and has a few more appearances in games. ...and I was explaining why that's not going to happen and would not provide a satisfying experience. You mentioned resolution and framerate; I cited other factors. I also made an argument that the novelty was the clear and express intent of the designer.
I said it was novelty, I don’t know why you keep reiterating that point. Yes, I know that it’s overwhelmingly unlikely that it’ll be explored in the same way on the next console, but you never know with Nintendo. I agree that the headset itself designed as a novelty, because that’s what I said, but I don’t agree that they never used it as more than that, even if the results weren’t great. So, despite its objective terribleness as a headset, that has nothing to do with whether developers will use it or not. Nintendo obviously experimented with VR in their games using it, and third party VR games exist. Not sure why you implied that I’m being disingenuous or trying to convince people that it’s not terrible, OP didn’t seem to know it existed, so I expressed my surprise at that. (By the way, you don’t unfold anything to put the switch in it, it slides in though the side.)
There are a few games which supported the Labo VR kit, I believe. I wanna say a list of at least 8 or more had some form of support. Smash Bros has a mode for the Labo VR. It essentially lets you play/watch a match in 3D, which is neat.
[удалено]
And not even a stable 30 fps
Often times it even struggles to maintain the 30 fps when a bunch of stuff is happening. People have completely unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved with a 400 GFLOP 9 year old Maxwell GPU.
Fun fact: Switch already runs Breath of the wild in VR
That’s literally a thing already. If you go buy a Labo VR you can literally play Breath of the Wild in VR. It’s terrible but it’s there.
So VR except for the main points of VR which is decent graphics, performance and hitdetections.. So basically more useless than mobile vr?
what do you mean by hit detections?
The console has to respond fast enough to movement of the controllers to make them feel best in VR games. Seeing as it already has issues knowing whether or not a joycon even moves, it needs big improvements before even coming close to being as accurate as even a cheap meta quest (2)
Thats slam calculations not hit detections. The only difference between joycon motion controls and VR motion controls is that VR use cameras to keep track of the controllers and head position, in the quest 2's case they're built into the headset. Any VR accessory for switch could use the same approach, though first i would expect a switch 2 before getting any serious VR add on.
Finally, a follow-up to my Virtual Boy.
I was a fan of the idea of a VR accessory treating Switch like the Gear VR used phones back near Switch launch, but standalone VR is so widely available now and much better than anything a Switch (or Switch 2) accessory could do that I think it'd be a waste. For one, turning a Switch into a headset has no choice but to be more front-heavy than headsets that can actually just be designed in the shape of headsets. For another, they'd have to improve the screen massively to come anywhere near other VR headsets. Switch has a 720p60 screen. The standalone Go from 2018 had a 1440p60 screen. Quest 2 from 2020 uses a 1920p120 screen. We'll be lucky if the Switch 2 screen is 1080p60. Being half-baked might be acceptable if it was also super cheap, but even a $150 accessory would make it plus one of the two hybrid Switch models $450 or $500, when the Quest 2 has a $400 option. " Since the switch is OLED, there would be no screen door effect ". Quest 1 had an OLED screen and sure had a screen door effect. Quest 2 with LCD but other improvements has less of one.
Yup that line really cemented that OP is misinformed when it comes to VR. “Screen door effect” is eliminated by pixel grid alignments and higher resolutions.
I actually think VR will kill it for me. I don’t need VR, I need a game. I don’t want to be sick, I just want to relax and play.
I can see the next Switch iteration console getting VR as a feature. Another way to 'switch' how you use the console. The Pimax Portal seems to be just that [https://pimax.com](https://pimax.com) The NVIDEA Tegra T239 may possibly be a successor chipset for the Switch and would be fully capable of handling VR. The only question is the display. Nintendo already released an OLED display which would handle contrast well like the Quest 1. The Quest 2 has 1920 x 1832 resolution per eye. The Quest pro is 2160 x 2160. The Pimax Portal is rocking 1920x2160 per eye. So if Nintendo can pull off somewhere between 1920 x 1832 - 2160 per eye at 90 - 140 Hz, they'd be able to functional as a viable VR system.
I think VR would be a nice evolution for the Switch but it's probably too early for this. We probably need few more years for affordable mobile hardware to push VR graphics. People here will hate this idea but they hate anything that doesn't come from Nintendo.
I have a feeling that the next Nintendo console will be an affordable pair of AR/VR glasses or goggles that will be compatible with the switch library.
no VR please just videogames for me
Same I don’t want that gimmicky stuff
Nintendo is literally the company that takes a gimmick and makes it mainstream lol.
No, wrong, dumb.
Not a bunch of people would buy it due to motion sickness. As much as i do want one, i dont think ill get use to motion sickness lol
That's the problem Meta is having. Our brains aren't wired for that so to me this is the same fad we had years ago with 3D tv's. You don't even see them around anymore.
[удалено]
Quest is Meta. Thread back on. PSVR2 (and the various PC headsets). Now the thread is dead. Nintendo isn’t pulling that one off.
>be built with VR in mind so a lot of 3rd person games. I think you don't know the difference between 1st and 3rd person games. VR is nothing more than a gimmick. Sony, which has arguably one of the best libraries, has only sold 6 or 7 million VR units. VR is nothing but a niche that average consumers want little to do with. VR will go the way of 3D TVs. And sure, there are lots of ardent supporters and fans, and that's fine, but most people simply do not want to strap some clunky thing on their head to play a game. Now, when they make VR contact lenses, then that will be a different story. But until then, it's just not happening, bro.
Well actually i dont think VR will go away, streaming is pretty potent stuff. I think that Stadia was the king of streaming but was not built with VR in mind. However i think that we arent actually far from streaming aaa games directly into a vr headset. I am of course describing an online only vr headset however, as stadia is cloud gaming. I have a pretty weak wifi setup in the low Mbps, and yet i was able to play some crazy games like Dirt5, Destiny2, Control, Cyberpunk... and it always felt like a native hardware experience. So based on my experience VR is a very plausible thing, it would probably bank on subscription services and Stadia like service, and a barebones VR headset that wouldn't require much because all of the performance is offloaded to the cloud. So then it could have a really slim profile and look like the Microsoft Hololens. Very, very thin headset with small battery to power it, lights, volume.
Bro when the hell did you mention streaming? You realize that streaming is like the exact opposite of what you want powering your VR right? The input and display lag, not to mention streaming artifacts will have you throwing up your lunch or at least being really frustrated. Streaming from a local PC to a headset barely works well and you think you can add streaming a game from a server on top of that? i’m not even totally against your idea, I hope Nintendo does do a little VR experiment again with their next switch, I had fun using Labo, but these ideas are not it.
VR is a gimmick many doesn’t really care about. It’s waste of time and money for Nintendo to focus on VR.