Miyamoto: Oculus Rift-Style VR Goes Against Wii U's Values

[Laser Priest]

Well considering Nintendo's core values seem to be:

* Remake the same five games over ad nausea.
* Be conservative in every decision.
* Don't use any technology that hasn't already existed for five years.

Then I'd say Miyamoto has a point.

Because no other companies have popular franchises.

And never has there been a more conservative and safe console than the Wii. Not. Ever.

But Virtual Reality is absolutely the most unappealing concept gamers seem to have deluded themselves into seeing as a positive, so any lack of support for the demented Oculus Rift is fucking fantastic.

No other company exploits their popular franchises as much as Nintendo. This is hardly debateable, there's over 105 'unique' games that feature Mario, there's plenty more I just couldn't bother counting titles made after 2001 and yes I did discount all the repeats of Donkey Kong and Mario Bros etc on different systems. Here's a fun link for you:

http://www.thetoptens.com/top-10-nintendo-games/

Spoiler alert - the only games not featuring Mario feature the hardly ever heard of Nintendo hero Link, I'll admit there are a mere 30 'unique' games with him in it.

As for the conservative point I meant primarily socially. I could try to low ball the Wii, saying the tech had been around for several years before hand and it's hardly the bravest move going after the casual market but actually in 2006 it kind of was. I'll give them kudos for that - quite frankly a shitty, boring system that lost all its appeal after an afternoon unless you were drunk but it was the first time a big corp actually tried to attract a non-gamer market.

Regarding the Rift, apart from thinking it'll be cool for horror games I really couldn't care less.

And they're franchises are enjoyable and never as lazily made as most of the other major franchises out now, so the only reason to complain about them is if you are just looking for reasons to complain.

And they're the only company that consistently gives local multiplayer, and thank fuck for that. Online-only multiplayer is not an advancement.

But I doubt anything is going to break through your endless positivity.

 

[Lightknight]

The king of the console gimmick believes that a gimmick they were the first to try to implement is against their values? Har har har. That's rich. I get that it isolates the gamer but not every game they release is a party game.

In the article they said it didn't go well with what they want the Wii U to be. Not the company ideal as a whole.

It doesn't really matter what they want the WiiU to do. Unless they're considering forcing this on every WiiU owner then it can be a peripheral that users can get if they want to get it and games can be made if the demand is there.

Nintendo just consistently forgets about the 3rd party developers and this is why Nintendo consoles will always have difficulty attracting anyone but their own 1st and 2nd party studios.

 

[Vigormortis]

Um...not that I don't get what Miyamoto is trying to say, and not that I don't appreciate the sentiment, but I have to call bullshit - if only because of ignorance on his part.

With the current iterations, and planned future features, of the Rift (and other VR tech) multiple users can don a headset; within or without the same location; and play together in the same virtual environment. They can share in the "virtual presence", so-to-speak.

And not just by viewing each others avatars in the same game. Think of it this way:
You're on the east coast of the US. Your friend is on the west coast. You both want to play a game designed primarily around local multiplayer.

Each of you pops on your Rift headsets and join in on a virtual "living room". You can see each other in there, sit on the virtual "couch", and play a game on the virtual TV being rendered in the room.

So, if anything, VR tech like the Rift can allow people from disparate parts of the world to game together as if they're in the same room.

Personally, I think Miyamoto and the rest of Nintendo should view tech like the Rift as an augment to the core values of the WiiU, rather than a detriment.

 

[cypher-raige]

What are your values Nintendo?

 

[Dragonbums]

It doesn't really matter what they want the WiiU to do.

Clearly it does otherwise they wouldn't of said that the purpose of Occlus Rift clashes with the idea behind the Wii U.

Unless they're considering forcing this on every WiiU owner then it can be a peripheral that users can get if they want to get it and games can be made if the demand is there.

So your asking Nintendo to put money into making their console support a tech gimmick that hasn't been released to the public yet, and hasn't been proven on a wide scale market (or rather it was widespread and it ended up being a total failure ala Virtual Boy) on the off chance that it may take off and be a huge success? People may be "excited" for the Occulus Rift in the same way that people clamor for EarthBound. However demand does not always translate to huge sales. Not to mention most of the games that are currently supporting the Rift right now are predominately games that aren't even on Nintendo systems in the first place.

Nintendo just consistently forgets about the 3rd party developers and this is why Nintendo consoles will always have difficulty attracting anyone but their own 1st and 2nd party studios.

What difference would it make to third party devs if Nintendo support Oculus rift or not? What is the fundamental difference to warrant this being made such a big deal exactly? The only thing that sets Occulus Rift apart is that you have giant box glasses surrounding your head and blocking all view of the outside world. It will presumably be more work for devs to make Occlus compatible games than simply making a game compatible for the Wii U.

In fact, what percentage of major third party devs are actually developing game for the Occulus Rift for this to be even a big deal in the first place? I would hear maybe one or two devs every 6 months say they are doing Occlus support...that's really it. Is 360 degree game vision really that integral to the game that Nintendo not supporting it negatively impacts said studio?

 

[Lightknight]

parents aren't going to want kids sitting in a corner disconnected from all around them and it is held to be an unhealthy image compared with say a couple siblings playing a Nintendo multiplayer title in front of the TV.

Let me get this straight, the company that bet a significant portion of the 8th generation on a gamepad that does little more than allow you to play games off screen in another room is worried that parents will be upset at a device that allows them to play games on the couch next to them?

Ugh... ?

 

[Dragonbums]

Um...not that I don't get what Miyamoto is trying to say, and not that I don't appreciate the sentiment, but I have to call bullshit - if only because of ignorance on his part.

With the current iterations, and planned future features, of the Rift (and other VR tech) multiple users can don a headset; within or without the same location; and play together in the same virtual environment. They can share in the "virtual presence", so-to-speak.

And not just by viewing each others avatars in the same game. Think of it this way:
You're on the east coast of the US. Your friend is on the west coast. You both want to play a game designed primarily around local multiplayer.

Each of you pops on your Rift headsets and join in on a virtual "living room". You can see each other in there, sit on the virtual "couch", and play a game on the virtual TV being rendered in the room.

So, if anything, VR tech like the Rift can allow people from disparate parts of the world to game together as if they're in the same room.

Personally, I think Miyamoto and the rest of Nintendo should view tech like the Rift as an augment to the core values of the WiiU, rather than a detriment.

The problem with this is that the current VR tech is very very far away from that. To the point where that isn't even really a point in favor of the VR headsets by now.

Also if I'm sitting next to someone...I would actually like to see them. Not have my head wrapped up in a black box.

 

[Vigormortis]

The problem with this is that the current VR tech is very very far away from that. To the point where that isn't even really a point in favor of the VR headsets by now.

Except....it isn't. It very much isn't that far away as we're already at that point.

Spoiler: Hell, people are fucking homebrewing these features into early builds of the Rift and their own VR homebrew headsets. Here is just a small sampling of videos showcasing these homebrews.

Also if I'm sitting next to someone...I would actually like to see them. Not have my head wrapped up in a black box.

With the combination of VR and AR tech, you can both see each other just as you would with your own eyes, but you can also see each other in whatever virtual space you wish.

The only reason for Nintendo to not embrace current VR tech is ignorance. It sounds like they just don't quite understand the potential of VR today.

 

[Dragonbums]

The problem with this is that the current VR tech is very very far away from that. To the point where that isn't even really a point in favor of the VR headsets by now.

Except....it isn't. It very much isn't that far away as we're already at that point.

Spoiler: Hell, people are fucking homebrewing these features into early builds of the Rift and their own VR homebrew headsets. Here is just a small sampling of videos showcasing these homebrews.

Also if I'm sitting next to someone...I would actually like to see them. Not have my head wrapped up in a black box.

With the combination of VR and AR tech, you can both see each other just as you would with your own eyes, but you can also see each other in whatever virtual space you wish.

The only reason for Nintendo to not embrace current VR tech is ignorance. It sounds like they just don't quite understand the potential of VR today.

So the only reason why anyone would not want to embrace the Rift is because of ignorance? That's a pretty big all or nothing catch don't you think? You might want to be careful with claims like that

 

[Vigormortis]

So the only reason why anyone would not want to embrace the Rift is because of ignorance? That's a pretty big all or nothing catch don't you think? You might want to be careful with claims like that

No, that's not at all what I meant.

The claims Miyamoto and Nintendo have been making about why they aren't embracing todays VR tech are nonsensical when viewed against their "core values" and what todays VR tech can allow for.

It's like a company saying, "We want to get our product to as many people as we can as quickly as we can. It's our company motto." Then, when someone says, "Oh you do? Good! We're working on a fleet of super-sonic carrier aircraft that can carry massive loads of cargo across the globe in hours.", the company responds with, "Yeah, well, they don't provide the same "shipping experience" as our sailing boats do, so we're going to stick with the latter. Besides, we tried making our own jet carriers in the past. They didn't work."

My point is: not even considering how the technology can augment their current model is short-sighted in the extreme. And that dismissal seems fueled by ignorance of the tech. I'm not insisting that they must include VR support into the WiiU, but to not even look into what it can provide down the line is just dumb; specially when you're primary reason for doing so doesn't make sense.

 

[Merlark]

maybe some day Nintendo will set their genius down and have him play an online game where millions of people play together without having to be crammed into each others houses or a small island nation within the pacific ocean...

I swear to god I think Nintendo thinks we still save our quarters to go to the "arcade" were we can play their donkey kongs or whatever.

But yeah, I'll give him the whole dorky googles thing.

 

[Stealth]

He is not wrong in what he said. I love it how when people disagree with his statement, they attack the man, like they are worth anything

 

[Stealth]

maybe some day Nintendo will set their genius down and have him play an online game where millions of people play together without having to be crammed into each others houses or a small island nation within the pacific ocean...

I swear to god I think Nintendo thinks we still save our quarters to go to the "arcade" were we can play their donkey kongs or whatever.

But yeah, I'll give him the whole dorky googles thing.

Mario Kart 8's online was flawless. Better than 99% of other game releases.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

parents aren't going to want kids sitting in a corner disconnected from all around them and it is held to be an unhealthy image compared with say a couple siblings playing a Nintendo multiplayer title in front of the TV.

Let me get this straight, the company that bet a significant portion of the 8th generation on a gamepad that does little more than allow you to play games off screen in another room is worried that parents will be upset at a device that allows them to play games on the couch next to them?

Ugh... ?

Yeah.. pretty much this. I get what Miyamoto is saying here, but maybe Nintendo should stop making consoles that focus on a singular feature and make a console that plays games first and allows for malleable innovation later.

It would save the 3rd party devs the hardship of having to cram something involving motion control or unneeded garbage on a tablet controller that no one wanted.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think he's probably right. The Wii U, and Nintendo in general, is about "fun" while VR isn't. VR is about interesting and immersive experiences, some of which may be fun.

I do find it rather sad that even Nintendo, a company that is where it is today due to gamers, seem to be trotting out a variation of the tired old "gamers are nerds who lock themselves away from life" stereotype.

 

[walrusaurus]

Earlier in the week, we heard from Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Amie about how Virtual Reality isn't quite there yet [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/135413-Nintendo-VR-Isnt-There-Yet-Well-be-on-Board-When-it-is], but that Nintendo would be on board when it is.

This right here pretty much sums up the fall of Nintendo in a single sentence. For two decades nintendo was the bravest most innovative company in the industry, taking massive gambles on hardware experiments just to push the bounderies of what was possible in gaming. Virtual boy, the N64 controller, the rumble pak, the power glove, the Gameboy, the wiimote. Say what you will about any of those individually, but noone can deny that nintendo has lead the pack in hardware innovation for decades. Now? "[it] isn't quite there yet, but Nintendo would be on board when it is" .... that just f-n depressing

It seems that there is a huge double standard against Nintendo in these things. You accuse them as being conservative as fuck, but they made both the Wii and Wii U. Two consoles that are risky as hell because of the very core of how they play. One was a smashing success while the other is chugging along. People hate Nintendo for being full of gimmicks. A title you don't earn unless your notorious for trying out new products in ways not done before. And the moment they aren't behind the Oculus Rift- the biggest fucking gimmick since the ever hated motion controls- they are behind the times? When you yourself have no clue how this tech will pay off how can you make that assertion?

So which is it? Are Nintendo conservative clowns? Or are they gimmicks express?

Except I named the wiimote in that list, to say nothing of the fact that the wii came out n8 years ago.

 

[Dragonbums]

Earlier in the week, we heard from Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Amie about how Virtual Reality isn't quite there yet [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/135413-Nintendo-VR-Isnt-There-Yet-Well-be-on-Board-When-it-is], but that Nintendo would be on board when it is.

This right here pretty much sums up the fall of Nintendo in a single sentence. For two decades nintendo was the bravest most innovative company in the industry, taking massive gambles on hardware experiments just to push the bounderies of what was possible in gaming. Virtual boy, the N64 controller, the rumble pak, the power glove, the Gameboy, the wiimote. Say what you will about any of those individually, but noone can deny that nintendo has lead the pack in hardware innovation for decades. Now? "[it] isn't quite there yet, but Nintendo would be on board when it is" .... that just f-n depressing

It seems that there is a huge double standard against Nintendo in these things. You accuse them as being conservative as fuck, but they made both the Wii and Wii U. Two consoles that are risky as hell because of the very core of how they play. One was a smashing success while the other is chugging along. People hate Nintendo for being full of gimmicks. A title you don't earn unless your notorious for trying out new products in ways not done before. And the moment they aren't behind the Oculus Rift- the biggest fucking gimmick since the ever hated motion controls- they are behind the times? When you yourself have no clue how this tech will pay off how can you make that assertion?

So which is it? Are Nintendo conservative clowns? Or are they gimmicks express?

Except I named the wiimote in that list, to say nothing of the fact that the wii came out n8 years ago.

And the Wii U came out 2 years ago. Yet you claimed that Nintendo has no longer done any risky and innovative hardware despite them being known for gimmicks even in this generation of gaming.

EDIT: My point being that it's pretty damn annoying to see Nintendo get shit for making "gimmicks" all of the damn time but the moment they say they aren't going to jump on the bandwagon about a widely gamer community accepted gimmick you criticize them for no longer being gimmicky back in the old days.

 

[Dragonbums]

I do find it rather sad that even Nintendo, a company that is where it is today due to gamers, seem to be trotting out a variation of the tired old "gamers are nerds who lock themselves away from life" stereotype.

It doesn't exactly help the latter's case when some people have outright stated on here and Destructoid that not everybody wants to enjoy company with other real flesh beings.

 

[Vigormortis]

It makes perfect sense. It just doesn't make any sense TO YOU. Most other people are able to understand it. VR is aimed to be a solo experience while Nintendo aim for more group friendly products. Their current consoles also won't work well with VR headsets.

"Aimed to be a solo experience"

Someone clearly didn't read the rest of my post and doesn't have an appreciation of what today's VR/AR tech can offer.

Nintendo's previous attempts at VR were very much in line with what your proposing. Today, however, VR is very much being geared as much towards the social/group experience as it is the solo experience.

It has nothing to do with how I feel about it, so please refrain from making wild assertions when you are demonstrably wrong.

And it's not short sighted to say "We don't think our next console to be a screen that you strap to your face"

It is when they tout wanting to explore and expand upon the group experience while simultaneously dismissing outright a new piece of technology that can augment such an experience.

Or, as AzrealMaximillion put it:

Yeah.. pretty much this. I get what Miyamoto is saying here, but maybe Nintendo should stop making consoles that focus on a singular feature and make a console that plays games first and allows for malleable innovation later.

It would save the 3rd party devs the hardship of having to cram something involving motion control or unneeded garbage on a tablet controller that no one wanted.

Exactly my thinking. "Open-endedness" is an ideal today's console makers should really embrace.

 

[Dragonbums]

No, that's not at all what I meant.

The claims Miyamoto and Nintendo have been making about why they aren't embracing todays VR tech are nonsensical when viewed against their "core values" and what todays VR tech can allow for.

There are many ways to communicate with people. Maybe people see VR as one of them. However Nintendo's is all about actually communicating with a flesh being in the same room face to face with nothing in between you. If Sony and Microsoft are on the bandwagon of VR then please give me and others who aren't instantly licking the feet of VR an option to have a product that doesn't do that.

It's like a company saying, "We want to get our product to as many people as we can as quickly as we can. It's our company motto." Then, when someone says, "Oh you do? Good! We're working on a fleet of super-sonic carrier aircraft that can carry massive loads of cargo across the globe in hours.", the company responds with, "Yeah, well, they don't provide the same "shipping experience" as our sailing boats do, so we're going to stick with the latter. Besides, we tried making our own jet carriers in the past. They didn't work."

That's not a very good analogy. For one, the jet carriers could have lesser package quality than the latter. They could also be more expensive (which leaves out poor people who can't afford it.), or they could offer less service than the jet carriers that would negate it's speedy delivery. All of these things can factor in to one not wanting to use a faster alternative. If that was the case then there would never be any such thing as regular mail shipping anymore. Everyone would just use express shipping because it's faster.


Then you ignore the cons that made the Virtual Boy fail. One of the big reasons was that it was headache inducing, nauesea inducing, and was very uncomfortable to use. The Occulus Rift doesn't lend itself to being a light weight equipment. Neither do I think that it does away with the very issues that plagued the Virtual Boy in the first place. One or two game journalists saying they felt great is in no way indicative that the wider market will not have the same issues to the point where they won't bother buying it.

My point is: not even considering how the technology can augment their current model is short-sighted in the extreme.

For them to implement Oculus Rift support to the Wii U they would have to do some serious software updates, or release a new model. So imagine that- a console that's already heavily criticized for being a stupid gimmick making a new model of Wii U that has not one, but two gimmicks. One of which isn't even out on the market yet and unproven to be any real success outside of hype.

Also considering that most of the games that currently support Occulus Rift are not even on Nintendo consoles, what the fuck is the actual point?

And that dismissal seems fueled by ignorance of the tech.

The key word is "seems" to you it "seems" that they are ignorant of the tech? An assumption you made because you and Nintendo clearly don't share the same definition of being together in the same room. Because clearly if they are educated on the tech, then they would surely see how glorious it is.

I'm not insisting that they must include VR support into the WiiU, but to not even look into what it can provide down the line is just dumb; specially when you're primary reason for doing so doesn't make sense.

And as someone else stated it doesn't make sense to you. I'm fairly certain there is someone at Nintendo who did look closely at the VR tech. However their current ideals so to it that they don't really mash up. Apparently you have an issue with that because you yourself have a different opinion on those same ideals.