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.StriderShinryu said:
Miyamoto: Oculus Rift-Style VR Goes Against Wii U's Values
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
"Aimed to be a solo experience"Dexterity said:
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.
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:
Exactly my thinking. "Open-endedness" is an ideal today's console makers should really embrace.AzrealMaximillion said:
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.Vigormortis said:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Attack my intelligence rather than my assertions? Classy.Dexterity said:
And what in particular are you referring to? Which specific point are you implying is impractical?
If it's developing the VR tech, Oculus, Sony, Samsung, and others are already doing the leg work. If it's my "open-ended" comment, than I fail to see what point you're trying to make.
No one's implied that VR has to replace all other methods of viewing. In fact, the only people I've actually heard make such claims are people like yourself who are fervently against VR.Dragonbums said:
Also, I absolutely call bullshit on "Nintendo's is all about actually communicating with a flesh being in the same room face to face with nothing in between you." If that were the case they wouldn't include any kind of online or network play options.
My point wasn't that the jet-carried shipments must replace the old shipping method. My point was a company completely dismissing the option of the jet-carriers as a means to supplement or augment their current methods; simply because it's "different"; is not only short-sighted but bad business practices.
Everything you're asserting is based on past failings and presumed information about the new tech.
For one, the Rift is light weight. Even a cursory google search can yield that info. Second, are you even aware of the reasons why the Virtual Boy had such issues; and why the Rift is literally incapable of having most of them? (they have completely different display and rendering technologies)
And, at this point, it's far more than "one or two game journalists" who are touting the benefits of the Rift. Hell, even NASA and medical research groups have started using the early builds of the Rift.
This is not to say that there won't be some people who have issues using the Rift, but to compare it to the Virtual Boy is as ludicrous as it is disingenuous.
I never said that the Rift must be utilized on the WiiU. In fact, I think crow-barring in such support would ultimately fail.
What I was pointing to was Nintendo's attitude, and reasoning, for dismissing VR in general; not just the Rift.
Why would there be support for a game on a Nintendo console if said console doesn't support the device yet? Your question makes no sense.
A company has to implement support for a device before companies make anything for it.
Again, either presuming or misunderstanding my meaning. As well as the tech involved.
Of course I view "being in the same room with someone" as literally being in the same room. But if the two of us can don a VR/AR headset and see each other as we are, standing in the room, but have the rest of the room overlayed with whatever landscape or imagery we want, then I would still consider that being in the same room with them. Only difference is that the room has changed.
Besides, if someone can use the tech to allow people in disparate locations to participate in activities in the same virtual room (like say, everyone being in a virtual living room to play a boardgame), how is that in line with Nintendo's "philosophy"? It's bringing people together; albeit in a virtual sense; in the same room to play a game together.
And again, I'm not saying this MUST replace current display methods. But having options is usually a good thing.
You accuse me of assuming their stance while you're doing the same. You're only "fairly certain" because you WANT to think they have.
I may have a different opinion on some; not all; of the ideals Nintendo holds, but that doesn't apply here. I'm not disagreeing with their ideals, I'm pointing out that one of their primary reasons for dismissing the tech is ridiculous.
If they want to dismiss it for other, more logical reasons, that's fine. I have no issue there. I'd even support their stance were that the case. "More power to 'em", I'd say. But saying they want "social experiences" and that VR is a "solo experience" is ridiculous.
So what I gathered from this news was Miyamoto isn't jumping on the Rift bandwagon, that's his choice and I personally agree and don't see the Wii U and the rift working that well together.
I also learned that the double standards against Nintendo are still alive and thriving along with the VR salepoeple giving us the 101 that VR is the future, it's now, all or nothing or you're doomed, everyone must have VR and have it on every console/platform or get fucked, that's basically what I'm getting told from some of these comments about VR vs Nintendo.
I wonder if there's ever that thing called choice or reason, nah that can't exist with Nintendo so it must naturally be born out of pure sheer ignorance.
I also learned that the double standards against Nintendo are still alive and thriving along with the VR salepoeple giving us the 101 that VR is the future, it's now, all or nothing or you're doomed, everyone must have VR and have it on every console/platform or get fucked, that's basically what I'm getting told from some of these comments about VR vs Nintendo.
I wonder if there's ever that thing called choice or reason, nah that can't exist with Nintendo so it must naturally be born out of pure sheer ignorance.
He isn't saying VR is wrong, it is just not the direction Nintendo wants to go. When they decided to go ahead with the WiiU virtual reality was not on the table. For all we know it could have been an early decision or one of the last decisions; we weren't there. Nintendo isn't about to buckle and say that Virtual Reality is going to be the greatest thing that happened to games because lets be honest, it isn't. People thought the Ouya was going to be this great gaming revolution and look where that ended up. This happens all the time. People latch onto a gimmick they love and get mad when people call it a gimmick. Then when it finally comes out and they honeymoon phase ends: "that was a fun month and a half, but now we want something new. In the mean time we're going to go back to the old way things were done."
I'm not against VR. However I am against the mindset VR fans have. Which is if any company or person for any reason says "No, we don't care about Occulus Rift" then they are behind the curve, backwards idiots that can't "get with the times". I'm skeptical of how the tech will actually fare in real life. What I am totally against is the seemingly fanatical acceptance of VR tech as the "future", and the shit flinging anyone gets when they dare to say otherwise.Vigormortis said:
That makes no sense at all. For years people have given Nintendo hard shit for not doing online play with a vast majority of their games. Recent case being NSM3DW, now they finally do it so as to shut people up and this is now an a perfect counter example to their ideals? They really can't win can they?
They have online play for some of their games, yes. However, the most fun you get out of their games is with other people.
Except that Miyamoto was talking about the Wii U itself. Not necessarily Nintendo as a whole. I would also like to say that Miyamoto is in no way a spokesperson for Nintendo themselves. He is a figure, yes, but Miyamoto's personal opinions about a specific technology is in no way indicative of what Nintendo feels. He is a very public game designer. Not a tech personnel, and as someone mentioned earlier in this thread- the man has always been against VR tech. He even disagreed with the Virtual Boy, but apparently Nintendo the company did not.
New tech that is based off of old tech. Otherwise people wouldn't be comparing it to the Virtual Boy all the time.
Really? They are incapable of having most of these issues? Really? You are having what is arguably an LCD screen put within 4 inches of your face with absolutely no way of seeing from the outside and having a lot of things happening on said screen. Are you seriously telling me that not a single person will be able to experience disorientation, nausea, or any other feelings of uncomfortableness under these settings? Don't put the horse before the cart. I'm having a very hard time believing that.
No shit NASA and medical teams would be interested in it. They would make excellent simulation training programs. That is still no way indicative that it is the future, or that it would be widely used by the general market.
You admit that there is a chance that a good number of the consumer base can have the same issues that plagued the consumers of the Virtual Boy and yet a few quotes up you just stated that because of the new tech in the Occulus Rift there is no way anyone can suffer from most of the side effects of the Virtual Boy.
And yet a majority of the comments in this article is giving Nintendo shit for saying that the Occulus Rift doesn't mesh with the goals they hope to achieve with the Wii U.
Again, that's what Miyamoto said, and Miyamoto despite his public status does not represent the tech teams at Nintendo.
So there are games that literally will not work unless it has Occulus Rift support?
I'm not sure how your assuming that I'm misunderstanding what your saying when you basically said that the only reason why Nintendo will not embrace VR is because they are ignorant of the tech. What more is there to misunderstand?
Of course I view "being in the same room with someone" as literally being in the same room.
Except that the current model of the Occulus Rift does not even go that far, and they certainly aren't marketing that it can do that. Call me back on this 15 years later. Let's say that it did go that far. I'm highly doubt the average person will be able to even afford such technology. Thus making it unmarketable to the masses at large.
Once again, just because the tech exists doesn't mean it will automatically be on the market nor widely accepted. There is a lot of mindboggling tech that have been invented but still aren't out in the market yet because of the extremely high price and society not being ready for it.
3D printing was a thing for the longest time. However it wasn't widely mass produced until just recently.
And Nintendo wants to bring people together in the physical, face-to-face sense.
Having an option is a good thing, but why is Nintendo not allowed to have an option to not want to implement it into their stuff? Sony and Microsoft are doing it, so you already have the option to participate with VR tech. Most of the games that have it as a support aren't going to be on Nintendo consoles anyway, and it's clear that Nintendo has nothing in store for VR in the first place. So why would they spend their money adding tech support for something that will not be used enough to justify the cost?
Fair enough. But then since you are the one who assumed first that Nintendo must be ignorant to not accept VR tech, then surely you have more solid proof of this other than what a single game developer says right?
Again, only to you.
VR kind of is a solo experience anyway. Your vision is effectively cut out by giant block googles. Providing that it's extremely affordable that even Sally can buy with enough savings of her allowance, most of your local friends would not be able to participate in the VR experience with you. Look at that photo dude. That doesn't scream "social experience" to me.
That looks like one dude with a block covering his head playing a single game while the people standing around him are watching. To me that just comes off as disconnected from your real surroundings.
It WAS a great gaming revolution until they decided to bend over backwards for brick & mortar companies. Prior to that Ouya could've been the first console to allow 18 & older game ratings. And if it could've succeeded in that aspect then there would've been a very slim chance that the AAA gaming industry would've followed.orangeapples said:
Though based on the manure AAA gets away with in games below an 18 age rating it probably would've still been as worthless as any adult rated game on NewGrounds.com.
But as I've said, this isn't what I was asserting. I was criticizing their reasons for not looking into VR, not that they weren't looking into VR.Dragonbums said:
As am I, honestly. But I'm optimistic not only because of the positive feedback endeavors like the Rift have been getting, but also because some of the brightest minds in the industry are working on these endeavors AND they understand the shortcomings that must be overcome to make VR viable.
Well, if done correctly it will represent a step forward. Even so that's not a reason for anyone to "fling shit".
Yes, people demanded online play from Nintendo. And, despite it being against Nintendo's "ideals", they still included it because of consumer demand. As well, because it was an established method of play.
While it may or may not be the case with this newest crop of VR, it doesn't hurt to at least look into the technology, and perhaps even begin infrastructure analysis, in preparation for it's possible popularity.
This is a bit subjective, but I think we both agree that much of the fun of gaming comes from sharing the experience.
This is one of many reasons why I'm so optimistic about this new crop of VR tech. The potential for such shared experiences is vast and varied.
Oh, I'm aware of this. I know of Mr. Miyamoto's background and status within the company. But my argument wasn't based solely on Miyamoto's statements. I was also referencing Reggie Fils-Amie's comments, et al.
This paints a picture of Nintendo, as a company, being entirely against the idea. Which is fine. I don't mind that stance. However, thus far the reasons given for that dismissal have been a mixed bag of logical and ludicrous.
Only is so far as one could argue that a Bugatti Veyron is based on the Model T.
At their simplified core they're the same, but that's where the comparison ends.
I'm not saying there won't be a single person that may have issue using the Rift. I said as much previously.
However, many of the issues with older VR tech, issues that were the primary cause of people's discomfort and disorientation, have been or are being addressed in the Rift and similar devices. Things like image latency and response times, accurate head tracking, frame stutter, etc, have already been fixed.
There were a myriad of reasons old tech like the Virtual Boy were so awkward to use; and it wasn't just because people had their view blocked.
The same was said about computers, but now we're surrounded by them; even relying on them for many of our day-to-day actions.
As I explained above, you're comparing entirely different pieces of technology; of which use entirely different techniques for rendering images.
I never said no one would ever have issue with the Rift (and I didn't say "a good number of the consumer base"), what I said was the issues with the Virtual Boy that caused the vast majority of users to experience discomfort are not present with the Rift.
Even if that's the case, none of them were my comments. So why attribute that to me?
Again, I know this. However, he also has a lot of clout within the company. And, his sentiment seems to be shared by a number of the higher ups in the company, like Reggie Fils-Amie.
Huh? I'm confused by this question.
You asked why Nintendo should implement VR support if there are no VR games on Nintendo systems. I was pointing out that that was reverse thinking. A system needs peripheral support before anyone will want to create games that utilize it. You don't expect companies to make games that use the peripheral and then hope the console maker decides to support it.
It seemed as though you felt I was criticizing Nintendo solely for not embracing VR, when what I was actually doing was pointing out how false Miyamoto's (and Reggie's)comments about VR being a "solo experience" were.
In the linked videos several people were able to create such scenarios using a very early build of the Rift and two or three Kinect sensor bars.
There's already talk within Oculus and other groups of implementing such features. So while the current alpha builds of the devices don't have such a feature built into them, there's a very high probability that the final builds will.
Which are two of the primary goals of the Rift and similar devices. I.E. making them incredibly easy to use and reasonably priced.
Because the tech wasn't there and the price points were too high. But again, these are two of the most crucial issues being addressed by Oculus, Sony, Samsung, etc.
There's no reason this tech can't exist beside that experience. And there's no reason it can't augment such an experience.
Having an option is a good thing, but why is Nintendo not allowed to have an option to not want to implement it into their stuff? Sony and Microsoft are doing it, so you already have the option to participate with VR tech. Most of the games that have it as a support aren't going to be on Nintendo consoles anyway, and it's clear that Nintendo has nothing in store for VR in the first place. So why would they spend their money adding tech support for something that will not be used enough to justify the cost?
[/quote]
You assume it won't be used enough. For all we know it could be worth far more than the cost.
But that's irrelevant to the point. Again, I'm not criticizing Nintendo for not wanting VR. I'm not sure how many times I have to make that clear. I honestly don't give two shits whether Nintendo does VR or not. My point of contention was their reasoning for not doing so.
Yes. Miyamoto's and Fils-Amie's comments; on behalf of Nintendo.
The latter of whom said they were "looking into" VR but, like Miyamoto, said that it doesn't provide a "shared experience". (paraphrased) And as I've said, this notion that VR is only a "solo experience" is absurd.
Except, clearly, not just me; if this thread is any indication.
But that doesn't matter. As above, when they tout the reason for their dismissal being a lack of a feature that the device actually can provide, then yes. It is absurd.
I've already described the VR/AR aspects of this technology. I won't bore us with yet another rehash.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Look, I'm fine with you, or anyone else really, not liking nor wanting VR. I'm fine with Nintendo not wanting it either. And even though I'm optimistic for this new tech, I don't want it to replace current display tech.
I was just criticizing the stated reasons, not the stance.
Anyway, these responses are becoming absurdly long. I think any further responses on my part will be short and simplified. Or I'll just let you have the last word.
[sub]And yes, I will read it. I'm not a jerk.
[/sub]actually, ever since it was possible to do wireless stuff with handhelds (and even before then, a ton of games used the link cable for something), handheld nintendo games have had major features of many of their games rely on either streetpass or head to head interaction, including mario and zelda games which are primarily single playerSnotnarok said:
even tetris was link cable compatible, and pokemon is well, pokemon
Nintendo including a VR headset for the Wii U doesn't just go against their values as far as multiplayer go. It goes against their goals with the console hardware itself. If you're wearing a VR headset, you can't look at the touch screen. And the touch screen is the core aspect of the Wii U. The two can't really coexist on the same console, games would have to use one or the other.
I have to agree. It turned out this was REALLY BAD for the eyes. Difference is what now?Objectable said:
It may just be my friends and area but I rarely have seen that kind of thing. Infact, my friend doesn't seem to be able to multitask talking and playing and while everyone is playing a game and chattin' he's quietly playing Fire Emblem or some game in the back totally silent.weirdee said:
It varies from person to person obviously but I'm just sayin' that VR isn't any different than handhelds when you get down to it.
My point was that the intent of Nintendo's design for a lot of their handheld titles was deliberately skewed towards friend to friend interaction (sometimes to an annoying degree), even if all the anecdotal evidence of your life experiences doesn't reflect that, and it would be unfair for one person's observations to represent the whole of Nintendo's works, especially on a claim that Nintendo are somehow hypocrites because your social circle deliberately chose to ignore those features.Snotnarok said:
This confuses me a bit, aren't most games rated 18? Or is it just the European rating system that's harsher than the American? I'm from Denmark and it seems that most games get an 18 rating around here. Not even sure if there exists any higher ratings than that around here.RatGouf said:
I believe he is talking about the Ao rating. While a lot of games are rated M for Mature which is recommended for 18 and above. Ao rating is like the NC-17 rating for videogames. Meaning that you can't buy it unless you are proven to be above or at 18. As such most game stores will not display those games on shelves.MrBaskerville said:
There is. It's just not being used. Just like the majority of Wii games after Year 2 of its release.Dexterity said:
Which is a point against the console. Putting in a gimmick that's unnecessary and abandoned within the first year of the console's release.
Which you have to buy. Otherwise you have a peice of abandoned hardware for a controller, great job Nintendo.
-Wii Sports Club
-Star Fox at E3 demonstrated motion controls
-As did Giant Robot
Who has no clue?
Because every Nintendo console since the NES, with the exception of the Wii, has sold millions lower than the previous generation.
Because Nintendo's first party IPs haven't grown up enough compared to the median age of gamers and can't support Nintendo consoles by themselves for another couple of generations.
Because it was exclusive 3rd party games that made Nintendo consoles popular. Remember Goldeneye? Perfect Dark? Banjo Kazooie? Killer Instinct? All on the N64 (or as you so calmly put it, "the Nintendo sixtyfuckingfour").
How about the SNES and NES era? Megaman? Final Fantasy? Chrono Trigger? Contra? Metal Gear? Earthworm Jim? Secret of Mana? Castlevania? Earthbound? TMNT Turtles in Time?
Look, I just named a bunch of classic franchises that were Nintendo exclusives. Many of them remained Nintendo exclusive until the N64's hardware capabilities kneecapped them. Then they went to the Playstation. Final Fantasy 7 was rebuilt as a PS exclusive specifically because of the N64's limited storage.
Now Nintendo's piss poor treatment of the 3rd party (which really started with the Gamecube era) has come back to bite them in the ass. Nintendo's 1st party games can't make the Wii U a success by themselves. Nintendo doesn't release games at a fast enough rate to not have many months of waiting until the next release. That, and their single player focused games can be beating within 10-12 hours. That's not enough game to have on a console that has a major title or two coming only every 6-8 months.
That's why Nintendo needs 3rd party support. They'll fail otherwise. They're focus on their shrinking fanbase will kill them. If the median gamer's age is to be taken seriously, and it should, most gamers are in their late 20s to early 30s. You're going to have a hard time selling them Mario, Zelda and Yoshi based solely on nostalgia.
Nintendo right now is mimicing Sega in the mid 90s. The 3rd party is leaving them in droves and their console doesn't have enough games that bring a breath of fresh air to the table.