Your thinking “Wait wha-? VR? That thing that makes you motion sick and simulates your body by costing as much as a body? Nintendo would never do that! I mean, VR doesn’t have any good games other than half life alyx!” And as much as I want to get to how good Nintendo could be at VR, the rule of reddit is you have to address everything or your objectively wrong. And as a disclaimer, if you think a Nintendo VR console wouldn’t work, your not a bad person and I don’t think of you as one. (I saw a Youtube comment about a Nintendo VR console, and the replies got heated past 10\^32 kelvin and I don’t want this post to be like that and basically every what’s next after switch post gets similarly hot). That being said:
A. Why I think a VR switch 2 is not a bad idea.
1. Motion sickness is bad during the first hour, but it becomes a far smaller issue afterwards.
40 to 70 percent of people get motion sick during the first hour of VR (If it’s a movement intensive first hour) and about 20 percent have light effects after the first hour and only 10 percent have severe motion sickness afterwards. VR was bad initially, but now it’s mostly mainstream, and in fact Nintendo already released something similar designed for children: The labo VR kit! Without many complaint’s. While the labo kind of disappeared after the VR kit, it was the second version of the switch and the price to continue manufacturing that killed it, not the VR kit (the VR kit was probably labos second biggest success behind the vehicle kit) And that was at 480p and few comfort options, that a VR switch 2 could easily remedy. If Nintendo want’s to fix the majority of motion sickness, reboot wii sports in VR as the first thing you have to play for an hour so most get used to VR. I also think Nintendo has an ace up their sleeve to combat vr motion sickness that I will detail in the next section.
Sources for motion sickness statistics: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91573-w#Sec12](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91573-w#Sec12)
[https://vrheaven.io/vr-motion-sickness-statistics/](https://vrheaven.io/vr-motion-sickness-statistics/)
2. The thing is still a switch 2
The obvious way for Nintendo to make a VR console is a switch 2 with motion tracking joycons and some plastic that connects the screen to your face. I will get to why this won’t be expensive later, but for now I just want to show how this hypothetical dream console that I think is the most likely thing Nintendo would do won’t create problems between the VR side and the switch 2 side. During the Wii, many games forced you to use the motion controls, but most only lightly used them and some had no motion controls whatsoever. I think Nintendo will use this clearly successful strategy with their next console, and will heavily promote that fact so customers don’t get turned off by motion sickness. It will have a variety, some games that require VR, some that have a VR mode and some that flat out won’t support it like 2d games. And that’s fine, variety is the slice of life and clearly sells as demonstrated with the switch. VR won’t ruin Nintendo games, in fact many of their franchises would be massively improved with VR like Metroid Prime, Mario Kart and Zelda. But im sure all of these games would still have a traditional switch mode so the non-VR customers can enjoy these games.
3. No, you can keep your kidney.
The quest 2 retailed for 300$ and had double the gpu power of the switch, which people are already expecting Nintendo to have more than double the power for their next console. All you need to do to turn a switch 2 into a VR headset is motion tracking and plastic that won’t cost them more than 10 bucks. It’s perfectly doable, the series s has that power for 300$ and I’m sure it can fit into a portable form factor. The PSVR2 and other PCVR headsets are expensive because the companies aren’t taking a loss and they are using more sophisticated tech. This is a non issue and I’m moving on.
4. Most of VR’s problems have been solved already. It just need’s good games.
VR has many challenges, most of which are solved. The quest 2 is a great device (that has sold more than the series X and S by the way) and it has proved VR is a mostly solved problem, except for one little problem. It has very few great games that fully utilize it’s features. Sure, there are a lot of mods and tech demo games, but very few feel like fully packaged games with VR as their focus, and Nintendo is the PERFECT company to make those games and I will go more in-depth on this point in the next section.
If you have any more complaint’s about a Switch 2 VR console, you can comment them. But please give argument’s that can’t be disproven with a google search.
B. A switch VR 2 would be Nintendo’s best console.
1. VR IS INCREDIBLE!!!
With all those negatives to VR (that are mostly solved), why would Nintendo ever make a VR console? BECAUSE VR IS INCREDIBLE AND MAKES NORMAL GAMING LOOK GARBAGE BY COMPARISON!!! The videos don’t do it justice and text definitely wont show it’s immersion, it’s something you have to try yourself. And once you get past the sickness, it blows your mind. You feel like your there, and when you move and do an action, it’s feels so great! It’s currently unrefined, to be sure, but if Nintendo comes in with more refined games, your mind will be blown. It’s like nothing else.
2. Nintendo has several hardware advantages over the competition that could destroy motion sickness.
I mentioned earlier that Nintendo may have an ace up their sleeve in terms of motion sickness. You see, most VR consoles make two screens to create a 3d effect which adds a massive level of immersion to the game. But the 3d’s 3d only needs one screen and not nearly as much gpu power, and here is the big advantage of having 3d on one screed, you can turn it off. Turning the 3d off would massively harm immersion, but it would kill motions sickness since we are all used to moving a 3d character on a static 2d screen, things get a tad worse when your moving a 3d character on a static 3d screen, but things get a whole new level of bad when you make the 3d screen turn with the head. This de-innovation could be the thing that makes VR mainstream and if it’s done well will make this console the best Nintendo console with no caveats. Another major hardware advantage is not really a hardware advantage, but experience in motion controls. I grew up on the Wii and the Wii remotes made motion controls the simplest thing in the world your grandma could do and it felt amazing. My largest gripe with VR is while the motion controls are realistic, they are hard to execute and so many motions should just be button mapped. Like I’m not good at aiming, give me a button to aim down sights in a similar fashion to COD on the wii. Give me a button to help me steady my sword, give me a button to get my hands back on the wheel quickly. These are such massive oversight’s that were done for the sake of realism, but since when has Nintendo cared about realism! Games will never be reality, and I think if someone is gonna talk some sense into VR, it’s Nintendo. As previously stated, VR is amazing because of how immersive it it, but I still think it will retain most of it’s charm even without 3d and I think less realistic motion controls will make it feel more immersive since it reduces the frustration and makes you feel in charge of yourself in VR.
3. Nintendo would make the best VR games.
This is my main source of unreasonable excitement when I think about this idea. Nintendo knows how to adapt their franchises into new mediums like the shift from 2d to 3d and the shift to motion controls. This is a shift as big as the shift to 3d, and the other VR makers have had a rather clumsy transition into this new medium. But the company that took all their 2d franchises and wrote the laws of 3d gaming to accommodate them can easily handle this shift better than anyone else. Imagine Metroid prime 4 where you explore a decayed planet and shoot fantastical powers, as if you were really there. There is already a VR Mario kart arcade that the few people who have played it have lauded it as the best Mario kart game, imagine if it were playable to the masses. Botw is already in VR, but if Totk had a first person VR mode it would turn that great game into a fantastic experience (if you want to know how I know already, I have a Monado ok I know it’s gonna be great how dare you suggest I emulate games I paid for)! A first person platformer Mario game like mirrors edge would be incredible, and make it open world like bowsers fury and you have potentially Mario’s best game in a lineup of industry defining games. I could go on, but use your imagination to dream about >!Xenosaga/Xenoblade 4!< VR.
Now that I have tried to show how good VR is, let me show you why the alternative ideas for Nintendo’s next console are all worse!
C. Why the alternative ideas for Nintendo’s next console are all worse!
1. Nintendo is not just gonna make a switch 2 with no gimmick.
Now we all kinda know why this ain’t gonna happen despite what the fake leaks may have you believe. The Wii u was just an improved Wii with a bad gimmick. It’s games were phenomenal and I got bullied for defending it against the braindead ps4 FIFA fans, but it still sold bad because it’s gimmick was hard to market and most people just didn’t want an upgraded Wii. This would be even worse as most people who bought the switch were casuals that if you offered an upgrade, wouldn’t buy it unless it has some better feature than the processor is better. The reason PlayStation can get away with it and Nintendo can’t is because PlayStation targets people who think FIFA is the best video game ever and Nintendo targets families. (optional rant: yes, people who think FIFA is the best game ever exist and they are why Albania is still a third world country, like I ask these people what Elden ring and god of war is and this is the first time they have heard those words and then they tell me the switch is a pussies console. I have no problem with PlayStation fans who play a variety of games and enjoy it as an artistic medium because the ps5 is actually an amazing console, I just can’t stand the FIFA audience shilling for the same game rereleased every year and acting like games can’t be better). Anyways, Nintendo has hopefully learned from their mistakes, but if they don’t make something to surpass the switch they are still in a tight spot.
2. Nintendo abandons the switch and makes something new.
Usually this would work. It’s easy to move improve from motion controls and dual screens, but how can you beat a console that has the gimmick of portable and home play? I was actually searching for the answer to this question when I came upon a Youtube comment by yavorchernaev39: [The next Nintendo “gimmick” is going to be VR. Nintendo will make VR mainstream – mark my words!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpqWhG-Td_k&lc=UgzWkuzrAlTmrkHrXGh4AaABAg.9oai4u09TqX9pHGzAeRO2T) 3 weeks and one VR rabbit hole later, and now I fully believe this is going to be Nintendo’s next console. It’s such a perfect solution that is miles above any other suggestions and I think this is what Nintendo will do. Every piece is in place and just laying there. It could be the thing that beats VR motion sickness. This is the best shot they are ever gonna get at VR and we could be on the verge of a NES or N64 moment where past the release of one Nintendo console, gaming is forever altered. I don’t just predict what Nintendo’s next console will be.
I predict Nintendo will change history.
by Internal-Drawer-7707
19 Comments
TLDR
Counter-arguments:
1) Nintendo want to do their own thing. Following something Sony did would not be characteristic of them.
2) VR sells poorly. So if Nintendo is going to be following in the footsteps of others, choosing an unpopular product is not the way to do it.
3) The Switch is all about convenience. You can bring it anywhere, pop out controllers to play with a friend, play on your TV, etc. The Switch is the epitome of convenience and VR is the antithesis of that.
Sony just put out the PSVR2 and it’s doing pretty poorly. I think the general excitement over VR is fading. And the reason the Quest 2 is so cheap is because the parts are pretty low quality (the original Quest was sturdy and well built, but they used cheaper plastic, lower quality straps and parts for the Quest 2 and it’s controllers), and they subsidize the cost by collecting and selling your data. If the next Nintendo system was a more powerful switch with VR, it would probably cost quite a bit more and not really be all that enticing to people who just want to play video games without all the hassle and extra cost of a VR system.
Virtual Boy 2
I’ve thought this, and posted it, a number of times. Always gets plenty of downvotes.
I believe Nintendo *wants* to get into VR, but will only do so if they think that (a) they can make it inclusive to people in the same room, (b) they can counteract the motion sickness, and (c) they can make it affordable.
This is the one way that I think that Switch 2 could have a VR focus… is if they don’t make the customer pay for it unless they want it.
Hear me out.
Switch 2 is announced. Crazy powerful GPU. Large 4K screen. Switches into docked mode, handheld mode, tabletop mode.
But Metroid Prime 4 is announced to be cross-platform. And in addition to the traditional way of playing, you could buy the “Metroid Prime 4 Deluxe Pack” which comes packaged with a VR headset dock. And the headset dock would be reasonably priced – no more than an extra controller. Allows the game to be played in VR mode, which allows for similar-but-different controls – head movement and arm cannon movement being separate, for one.
Quest 2’s resolution is extremely similar to what a 4K flatscreen would be if turned into two VR lenses, which is serviceable. The main issue here is power. If the VR headset dock has a battery on it, that means that Nintendo can overclock the docked Switch 2 and still avoid it being plugged into a power source. That would also give them the ability to add a counterweight to the back of the headset, to lessen neck fatigue.
Don’t want VR? Don’t worry about it. Every first party game will still play flatscreen. And not all games will have a VR mode. But where they can do it, they will, and in the meantime, there are literally hundreds of quality VR titles that are just *begging* for a wider audience.
Metroid. Star Fox. F Zero. Mario Kart. Nintendogs. Kid Icarus. All amazing games that would literally be perfect for VR.
Do I think they’ll do it? Probably not. Most likely not. But I think it’s the next logical step. If they want to be innovative with the Switch 2, if it’s going to have a gimmick – because EVERY Nintendo system has some gimmick which makes it different other than “MORE POWER” – this is what they’d do.
VR needs much more power than Nintendo is willing to invest in. They’re committed to staying a generation behind, which means we won’t see VR until after it’s become standard on the other consoles.
This “prediction” gets posted at least once a week.
VR is still a niche product that is still expensive to develop.
Nintendo is not going to do it for the Switch predecessor.
It’s the only logical consequence after the roaring success of Nintendo LABO VR…
It’s too early. VR is still expensive for dedicated hardware ($350 minimum) and continues to have a lot of unpleasant aspects to it that eat into Nintendo’s desire for their products to be hyper-intuitive and accessible.
Given their high reliance on lateral thinking as their product design strategy, I think we would see this two generations from now at earliest.
Counter argument:
No thanks. The only innovation I want to see is more power and increased backwards compatibility (I think it would be cool if they made it have two screens like a DS and bring all past Nintendo games to one console). But even then I would 100000% be okay if it was the same concept as the switch with just way more power. I’d even be okay with it being mega chunky.
>Motion sickness is bad during the first hour, but it becomes a far smaller issue afterwards.
And this alone will put off the vast majority of potential customers. It doesn’t matter how much you spin it, if the value proposition of your product requires that you suffer through an hour of nausea, your product isn’t going to have mainstream appeal, or worse, will be dead in the (blue ocean) water.
I read through your post and mostly you have lots of arguments for why you *really, really want* for Nintendo to make a VR console, but nothing solid to show why it’s a good idea or even why Nintendo is thinking of pursuing it, other than the notion that Nintendo should (in your view) do it to further the cause of mainstream VR gaming.
I’d be very happy with a VR option or even a heavy focus, but please don’t require it for any games, and don’t make it so I miss any feature IN those games if I don’t use.
Nintendo is never going to be a hardware leader. Their entire go to market strategy is consoles that are affordable, durable, and intuitive enough that kids can pick up and play. VR would require them to increase their console price by at least 5x, which would annihilate a significant amount of goodwill and immediately disqualify the overwhelming majority of their user base.
They would have to completely restructure their entire dev division and fire tons of coders and engineers in order to clear up budget for people with experience working in VR; this would require them to completely change their entire company culture from one of hiring people who love Nintendo and it’s properties to people who only care about bleeding edge tech, which would inevitably cause all first party titles to suffer
What you’re proposing would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars while obliterating their own standards and alienating millions upon millions of loyal users for a half fleshed out gimmick product that nobody wants and few can afford. Beyond which, any consumer with two brain cells to slap together would buy any of the many other VR hardware offerings since they’re on 2nd – 4th gen iterations and have already worked out many of the bugs.
Finally, tell me how a BoTW flurry rush backflip wouldn’t be absolutely nauseating in VR. Or a Mario side jump. Or Metroid speeding through a level in ball mode. The only major Nintendo property this could conceivably work for is Pokemon, and it’s 1/5th the cost to just get a copy of Pokemon snap and a labo.
This take is goofy as hell man, and while I’m sure you’ve hedged against my points with ill-conceived “logic” somewhere in your dissertation, I’m telling you that you need to pull your head out of the sand and use some common sense. Just like how Kia isn’t entering any vehicles into F1 races, Nintendo won’t be entering the expensive console market. It makes zero sense when the switch has already proven with 126 million unit sales at approximately 250 a pop that lower end hardware can easily make billions.
I want to start off by saying I disagree with you.
However let’s talk about some of the stuff here.
Your 1 hour study seems flawed due to not picking participants based on a lack of VR exposure.
So while it found that the younger age group adapted better, it is likely (but unverified or disputed) that the younger group was more likely to already have exposure.
It also has an interesting result of nicotine making it worse but cigarettes making it better.
They made sure that all participants had healthy eyes which is not something Nintendo can assume for the future. Any company that makes VR games has naturally limited their potential userbase.
>The thing is still a switch 2
Nintendo will drop the ball on marketing 100% if they go VR. They also have a bigger uphill battle due to their redheaded stepchild: the Virtual Boy.
Anyone who wants Nintendo to fail has a free marketing tool.
>Nintendo has several hardware advantages over the competition that could destroy motion sickness.
I’m not seeing it. 5 years ago the BEST VR experience was done by The Void who went out of business 3 years ago and their method was to have physical space that you went to and they attached a laptop to your back.
Good VR is still not accessible.
Yes Nintendo would do a good job if they went for, yes they’d make the best games.
The market just isn’t there. Not enough people want the VR experience.
The people who want it are not looking to find it from Nintendo.
And the people looking at Nintendo don’t want them to have a huge system cost for the purpose of VR.
Will Nintendo change history? Of course.
but not with VR.
You are turbo delusional
My prediction is that Nintendo will make a hybrid again, but this time it will be a pocket handheld. YUP! Just like the Game and Whatch I think Nintendo will make a new switch but smaller!
VR will never go mainstream as long as we have to wear headgear to go there. That’s *my* prediction.
VR will succeed, with a subset of gamers. I don’t think that subset will get large enough to support a mainstream console.
If the gear gets as streamlined as eyeshades and earbuds, then, *maybe,* it has a chance to go big.
Remember when nintendo released a gimmick console with an annoying accessory that was cool but was fairly pointless
remember how that flopped despite being fairly solid and accessible to everyone
​
now make an accessory that barely anyone wants on a console following up one of the best selling consoles of all time which had its main gimmick be literally the most accessible console of all time
META is losing billions of dollars per quarter on VR. Nintendo doesn’t want any of that.