[joshenberg]

That's what I wonder. Early VR adopters/technologists hate what happened to Oculus and there aren't a lot of newcomers to that market. I don't think cheaper headsets are going to fix that in the near future so I don't know whom they're targeting. Seems risky to lean into something where the experts already think you screwed up.

[b9a2cab5]

Quest 2 is outselling past VR headsets by leaps and bounds according to news reports. The decision to make a standalone headset and build their own app platform was absolutely the right one from a growth standpoint, even if the hardcore VR consumers aren't biting. Early VR adopters are going to buy the next best product and have no loyalty.

[CoolGuySteve]

I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen Switch has a VR headset accessory and blows the entire market away the same way the iPod and NES did to their predecessors.

The required parts to make a 60Hz 1080p headset are entering the $100 cell phone market and that segment of components are more or less what Nintendo traditionally uses in its handhelds.

Nintendo also has a long history of "blue ocean" products that tweak existing technologies to make them more mainstream.

[Tepix]

60Hz 1080p isn't good enough for VR. Bulky hardware that can be built for $100 isn't good enough for mass adoption. There's a reason why Meta is investing so heavily.

[CoolGuySteve]

People have been arguing that Nintendo hardware doesn't deliver high enough fidelity ever since the Wii but that hasn't stopped most of their products from being incredibly successful.

The idea that it's refresh rate or resolution that's keeping VR from becoming mainstream seems ridiculous when even a relatively friendly platform like PSVR ships with this bundle of cables: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/So...

Occulus seems to realize this but their software side still needs work.

[giantrobot]

To have a headset that doesn't make people sick, 60hz is nowhere near a high enough refresh rate. For something with "reality" in the name 1080p isn't a high enough resolution. The displays are too close to the eye and it's easy to make out individual pixels and more importantly the gaps between them [0]. High pixel density displays are a must.

A 480p game on the Wii is still a playable game. An art style that leans into the low resolution will also look fine. While it might not have looked as good as a PS3 it's still playable.

A VR headset with imprecise orientation sensors and a slow refresh rate will make you sick. Your visual input won't match what your proprioception says about your body's positioning. Even if you manage not to get sick such a system isn't usable for non-trivial durations. A low end VR system is not worth any amount of money because it's not practically usable.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen-door_effect

[sangnoir]

Nintendo offsets lackluster hardware with exceptional games. The end result is Nintendo rarely becomes the outright leader in any hardware segment. I agree they are successful, but I can't recall when they last "blew away the market"

[specialp]

5 out of the top 10 consoles sold of all time are Nintendo. They are the outright leader and always have been in handhelds and the Switch has been the best selling console for the past 2 years

[Tepix]

Virtual reality is different than gaming hardware. If the quality is too bad you may get motion sickness or not experience immmersion. There is a certain quality threshold you need to cross, similar to the uncanney valley you experience when looking at virtual human avatars.

Yes, cables are also something that lowers immersion.

[int_19h]

It's not an either-or. It definitely needs to be wireless to truly take off, but resolution and refresh rate requirements are also required to provide an enjoyable experience.

[ben_w]

60Hz: I agree with you

1080p: I disagree, that can either be good or bad depending on the content. E.g. original iPhone was only 320x480, but Apple made it feel good.

[advrs]

Have you tried VR at 1080p? I understand your point (one number does not adequately represent "quality of experience") but for VR, 1080p is simply not enough due to the distance to the display (pixels are very visible).

[ben_w]

I’ve tried it on even less than 1080 — a first generation iPhone SE (1136×640) in a one of those £30 plastic head-mounts.

Yes, you can see the pixels. But it’s easy enough to ignore that if the content is compelling.

[int_19h]

FWIW, I own HP Reverb G2 (2160x2160 per eye - the highest I could find when I got it), and it's still not quite enough. 4K per eye might be what it takes.

[Tepix]

The iPhone display takes up just a fraction of your field of view whereas a VR display covers most of it.

The difference is pixels per degree.

[ChildOfChaos]

Very unlikely we will see it from Nintendo, Nintendo have lacked innovation for ages, they just sell cutesy games to kids. They cornered the 'disney' market, don't expect them to do anything great from a tech perspective

[CoolGuySteve]

You're talking about the company that over the past 15 years introduced consoles with motion controls, touch screens, autostereoscopic 3D, proximity-based data sharing, wireless HDMI streaming, and seamless docking support?

That one? That company lacks innovation?

[desiarnezjr]

Their biggest achievement is that they made all those things so cheap and accessible. It really reinforces that newer, innovative or edgier tech (ie: Kinect) isn't always the right approach.

[elliekelly]

I would imagine the Switch gyro controller must be pretty close to the tech needed to make VR games?

[meheleventyone]

https://www.nintendo.com/products/detail/labo-vr-kit/

In a similar vein to phone based VR that we’ve had since Google Cardboard. Modern headsets fuse gyro, accelerometer and camera feature tracking together to stably track the position of the headset and hands/controllers.

[ddragon]

In my experience with a rift s, even though the oculus touch also has gyroscopes and accelerometers, they only help for a few seconds at most when the controllers leave the camera. Those sensors are just not accurate enough (I know little about the details of the sensors, but accelerometers are tracking the second derivative of the position, so any small error will accumulate fast when you want the latter), and you don't want to have your hand all over the place when you're trying to interact with things in VR, which is why, at least for now, you need to measure position directly for it to work, such as the camera/LED devices that are most popular with VR headsets and controllers (and even stuff like the PS Move controller).

[tekknik]

Play Splatoon 2, they nailed motion controls. Every time I read people saying they’re not accurate enough I get confused.

[thow-01187]

> The decision to make a standalone headset and build their own app platform was absolutely the right one

Not sure whether the appeal of Quest 2 is in the standalone-ness and the app platform - or whether it's about being around half the price of comparable headsets before it, perhaps even being sold at a loss

[eli]

Oculus sold 2 of every 3 VR headsets last quarter. If there's a lesson here, it's that you can't extrapolate mass market appeal from what early adopters think.

[spideymans]

VR and AR is still in its early adoption phase. It's too early to make any predictions about which VR/AR platforms or products will ultimately have mass market appeal. As an analogy, none of the biggest smartphone manufactures in 2004 really ended up mattering in the long run.

[tekknik]

This is the second attempt at VR. It had one attempt, died and now here we go again. Answer a few simple but important questions.

1) How do I share something physical with friends remotely in VR? Think food and drinks.

2) How do my other senses come into play? What if I want to smell my mothers perfume? Or feel and smell the ocean breeze?

3) Walking

There are still very large blockers we simply don’t have the technology for. This attempt will fail just the same.

[txsoftwaredev]

I wonder how many are still actively being used. I bought the Oculus quest early on. Spent a bunch on different games, hooked it up and played PC VR games. Used it nearly daily for a few months but have since given it away. Partly due to the current limitations of VR tech (it's heavy, screen resolution is still very low, need a large space to really play it) as well as now having to use a Facebook account.

[Karawebnetwork]

I would argue that early adopters/technologists of VR are comparable to PC gamers and Quest adopters are comparable to console gamers.

Both have a purpose, both are subsets of the same demographic... but both vote very differently with their wallets.

Personally, I don't mind FB taking over the casual market. There are still alternatives and the technology will advance faster with such a big company behind it.

That being said, I won't be touching the Metaverse unless I can't avoid it.