Talk:Virtual Boy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please know what you are talking about before you edit

The D-pads in Jack Bros are not interchangeable, one moves and the other fires. I have fixed the reference. Bombman (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The Control Pads are also not interchangeable in Mario Clash, which was listed, but I removed. Now I wonder what "most" really means, if most of the games use the pads the same way as the article says. If we can list more games than 50% of the entire library, then we'll know we can change that text for sure. Games with different functions for each Control Pad:

• Mario Clash
  • I own it, with manual
  • LCP moves Mario, RCP throws shells
• Virtual Boy Wario Land
  • I own it, with manual
  • LCP moves Wario, RCP does nothing
• Mario Tennis
  • I own it, with manual
  • LCP moves tennis players, RCP does nothing
• Red Alarm
  • I own it, with manual, plus the article already states this
  • LCP acts as a flight stick, RCP acts as a strafer
• Galactic Pinball
  • I own it, with manual
  • LCP controls left flippers, RCP controls right flippers
• Telero Boxer
  • I've played it, plus the article already states this
  • LCP controls character's left positions, RCP controls character's right positions
• Jack Bros.
  • so says Bombman
• 3D Tetris
  • so says the article

That's 8. According to the article, 14 North America releases, and 19-or-22 Japanese releases. (Looks like that needs to be corrected, too. The article cites IGN for 22, but where did 19 come from? Should another section be started in this talk page to discuss that? (I'm sorry, this is pretty much my first real contribution of any type to Wikipedia.)) But anyway, that's over half (8/14) the NA releases and, according to the article, either over a third or over two-fifths of the total JP releases; if anyone can just list 2 or 3 more games (for 10/19 or 11/22), then it's debunked.

--ParodyKnaveBob (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to read more carefully; there are 19 Virtual Boy games released in Japan, and 22 Virtual Boy games released total. The article states this quite clearly. Also, I don't understand your rationale for including Wario Land and Mario Tennis as games which have different functions for the right and left control pads, when neither of them have any function for the right control pad at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Eye damage

was all the eye damage stuff just a rumor or did it really make you blind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.14.140 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was known for causing headaches and eye strain after prolonged use, but there are no documented reports of it causing blindness\eye damage. --Thaddius (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

"The Nintendo Virtual Boy, released in 1995, was a video game console that used a twin eyeglass style projector to display the games in "true" 3-D (though monochromatic)."

This makes it look as though it was released worldwide in 1995, which it wasn't. We need to make this clearer.

Was it only ever released in Japan and the US? And was it 1995 in both countries? -- Smjg 11:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was released in 1995 for both North America and Japan, althuogh at different times. Gamefaqs says that it was released in NA on 08/14/95, while there is not entry for Japan. The Japan released was clearly a few months earlier. I'm uncertain about the Europe release (if any). I'll check out another site later. --Thaddius 12:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan release date: 21.07.1995, US release date14.08.1995. I found no evidence of a European release. --Thaddius 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a child in the UK I remember them releasing the Virtual Boy here - but there was something about a recall over an epilepsy warning or something... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.106.180 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm... all video games come with epilespy warnings so I can't see how the VB would stand out. Maybe what you heard was a rumour? I don't know. If you came up with some kind of source that would be perfect, but for now, vague recollections don't really prove that it was released there. If it was, then it shows that Nintendo can really bounce back from a huge, almost worldwide flop, which would be great. --Thaddius 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The virtual boy was definitely released in the UK. I remember playing the system in Toys 'R' Us when it was launched. --bitterSTAR 13:45, 14 march 2007 (GMT)

We need sources, not unverified assertions. --Thaddius 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I purchased a unit and games new in 1997 from a UK based seller, but it was certainly remaindered US stock. This is how all UK sold Virtual Boys came into the UK- either grey imports or reduced dead stock once the VB had ceased being sold in other territories. Remember, you'll find people claiming to have played on the M2 and Konix multisystem, neither of which reached full prototype! The globetrotter 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The sections titled "Technical information" and "Monochrome display" look an aweful lot similar to the same thing on this page. The hardware specifications also look very similar, but I'm sure that's fine since those are facts not prose. This should be looked into immediately, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility that they copied us. -Frazzydee|✍ 30 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)

I always assumed that when something like that happens WE coppied THEM. It doesn't matter if they did copy us. It's perfectly legal. As it says on the very bottom of every page, "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". — Daniel 02:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think what Frazzydee meant that is that if that page copied us, we have nothing to worry about. 182.239.142.226 (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Units sold

I removed the 40 million claim, because according to gametunnel.com the Nintendo 64 sold about 33 million. I can't even believe the virtual boy outselling the saturn (about 9 million units according to the same source). --R.H. 18:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My big revert

I just reverted a bunch of changes to this article. Rather than cram it all into the edit summary, here's what I reverted:

• [1] - redundant with "cult following".
• [2] - Looks like speculation; if another source believes that the headaches were psychosomatic, please provide a citation.
• [3] - 1D does indeed exist, and this is it; conspiracy speculation does not belong here unless it is documented by another source, in which case it should be attributed to that source.
• [4] - linkspam
• [5],[6] - more conspiracy speculation

I think that's it. — mendel ☎ _ * _ 02:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Since all of these changes were reverted outright by Doom127 (talk · contribs) including the linkspam, I'll explain more:

Here's a two-dimensional grid of stars:

* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * X * *
* * * * * *

A particular star is identified by two values, its X- and Y- position in the grid. The letter X is at position (4,2) with the origin at bottom left. The X position and the Y position are one dimension each. Here's a one-dimensional line of stars:

* * * X * *

A particular star is identified by one value, its position from the origin. The letter X is at position 4. Since its position can be identified with one value, it is one-dimensional.

That's how the LED array and mirror in the Virtual Boy work; there's a single row of LEDs (addressable by a single value), and that row is reflected into lots of rows by a mirror. The single row provides a single dimension, and the mirror provides the second dimension.

Obviously the physical LEDs themselves are all three-dimensional, but that's not what the article is talking about; it's saying that the mirrors take a 1xN row of LEDs and turn them into an MxN grid. If you think that "1-D" in the article does not make that clear, {{sofixit}}, but re-introducing linkspam into the article is not a good way to do so.

As for the conspiracy theories, you're right, I know nothing about it, because searching the Web I was unable to find any authoritative references to it. Do you have them? If so, great! Re-add the theory to the article attributed to the authority. Wikipedia can't come up with conspiracy theories on its own; that's original research. To avoid this, simply cite the authorities that the article is reporting on in that section so that someone other than the author of that section can verify it.

As for the rest of the reverted changes, I don't think User:Doom127 wanted them re-introduced, or at least didn't suggest so in his edit summary. — mendel ☎ _ * _ 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mendel version

Look, I agree with your edition and make a revert today. Looks like Jedi6 revert to Doom127 POV push again and I revert again. Let's make consensus in wikipedia. --Quackshot 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How is it against POV? Jedi6 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

mendel already explain, I simply agree with their edition. I think is mopre neutral than Doom127 conspiracies. --Quackshot 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mendel doesn't talk about those changes at all. Mendel was refering to the Conspiracy section that used to be there. Jedi6 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

actually the section you are getting rid of was made after Mendel's edit so Mendel wasn't talking about it. In fact Doom127 never even made that it was an IP user. Jedi6 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply agree edition of mendel is much better and POV-free. Nothing wrong. --Quackshot 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How is this against NPOV

• The base of the system could not be adjusted vertically. This meant that most players had to lean over to play games resulting in back-pains after a short time of play.
• Due to the nature of the Virtual Boy system, the system was not only single player, but other players could not watch, taking away the social aspect of gaming. While Mario's Dream Tennis could be played between two Virtual Boy units, the system never achieved the popularity necessary for most to use this feature.

Jedi6 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

same thing can be said for any handheld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.53.199 (talk • contribs)

UNLOCK THE ARTICLE

You will REMOVE the lock. Just because you don't agree with the changes on a page DOES NOT give you the right to vandalize the page by locking it.

Your lock is inappropriate and constitutes (as was said before) vandalism. If the lock is not removed, you will be reported to the appropriate authorities where they will remove your moderator abilities.

In short, I'm being completely serious here.

As for the discussion, the previous editor is in error, as was said before. His conception about a line of dots does not affect it's dimension. Here's the deal. Regardless of whether it's in a single line, regardless of whether its referenced by the game or not, the aforementioned line of dots still HAS height, thus it remains two dimensional. If it was one dimensional, it would be invisible, ie: not having height. Thus, to continue to assert that the line is 1 dimensional is nonfactual.

As for the conspiracy, the Virtual Boy is widely regarded as having been the catalyst that set the events in motion, therefore it should have a mention within the page.

These, of course, are all common sense things that anyone could have seen a while ago, but it didn't seem neccesary until a single moderator abused his discretion regarding this topic. Wikipedia is (at least it was assumed to be) a FACTUAL site that relies on the contribution of those with knowledge concerning topics at hand. The removal of editing capabilities of this topic goes against EVERYTHING that Wikipedia stands for. --—preceding unsigned comment by Doom127 (talk • contribs)

Maybe some guidelines from Wikipedia:Resolving disputes would help. Doom127, I read the explanation that Mendel left on your talk page and his explanation from above, and they seem pretty reasonable. Let's try not to get so heated about this. --RobbyPrather (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Doom127, please cite some sources for your conspiracy theory. Ashibaka (tock) 01:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Reviewing the dispute, it seems to be ineffably silly, so I don't think it's necessary to protect the article. Please don't clutter Wikipedia with unsourced speculation about conspiracies; it's contrary to our policy against original research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with mendel. Edits from Doom127 needs revert for extensive POV Pushing. --Quackshot 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What edits? Hey, Quackshot, the dispute on this page that I was involved with was concerning ONLY TWO THINGS: the Gumpei conspiracy and whether or not the system was capable of 1D lines. You think you're reverting things I did (when in reality, I felt that the conspiracy thing really wasn't the best place here, AFTER THE USERS HERE HAD DISCUSSED IT), when in fact I haven't edited this page in a long, long time. You need to stop this; you're going around into every page I've ever edited and calling anything I did there "vandalism". You need to stop. Daniel Davis 01:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

The Virtual Boy's Base

Hi Quackshot! I noticed your reverts. Would you care to explain what's wrong with the facts on this piece of the article? I owned a Virtual Boy myself, and I don't see anything wrong with it, myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.5.177.98 (talk • contribs) 08:46, December 18, 2005 (UTC)

Quakeshot isn't removing it because it's wrong, but because he has a vendetta against Doom127 Jedi6 19:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Console or handheld?

On the Template:Mario Tennis series page, a user merged them all into one, saying that the VB was supposed to be portable. I had previously listed Mario's Tennis for the Virtual Boy as a console game. As this article states, it probably was supposed to be portable, but the unit couldn't be moved while it was in motion. So do we go with the official listing, or the one that eventaully came about? - Hbdragon88 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Handheld I guess it was "portable" since you could pick it up from one spot and then paly somewhere else without needing cables or a t.v. I say if it has a built in projector it should be classified as a portable. Jedi6 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition of a handheld is "Handheld consoles act as their own controllers, which the player uses to interact with the game, as well as having in-built display and audio output devices" which the virtual boy is. Jedi6 06:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Handheld console defines handeld "...the controls, screen and speakers are all part of a single unit."

The Virtual Boy, is not a single piece unit. The controller, although wired is a seperate part of the sistem. The same thing goes for the power supply, unlike traditional handhelds. I would however consider it portable, since it is easy to transport. Netmaster5k 12:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Other people create their own distinction for the system. It is dubiously placed as a 'portable console' on most places, putting it up there with the treamcast. --Thaddius 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be called "Tabletop"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by APL (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Nintendo marketed it as portable, did they not? Should that not be the basis of its classification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.221.113 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. A marketing team will market a product as whatever they think you'll most likely want to buy. Usually it's best to market a product with features that it actually has, but not always, and in any case, marketing teams have been known to make incredible blunders.

The only way in which the Virtual Boy fits the description of a portable is that it's not hooked up to separate devices for its audio and visual output. And that doesn't make it a portable, just a home console that's easier to set up. What makes a portable a portable is how you use it: You play it on car and plane rides, and carry it around in a small pack such as a backpack or handbag. Neither of those things can be done with the Virtual Boy.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On Nintendo Power it read as a portable game system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.25.133 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was Virtual Boy not popular?

Why was Virtual Boy not popular?

Because, like the N-gage, the general public made up their minds about the system before trying it and in reality the system was not practical at all. These two, combined with the fact that this was rushed to be put out before the N64, led to its failure. --Thaddius 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

hey, they also couldn't market it because of the two screans. they couldn't show the visual effects. -brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.55.95 (talk • contribs).

That doesn't make much sense because they were still able to take screen captures. --Thaddius 23:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but screen caps cant effectively represent the experience that the VB offers. The screen caps were arguably a hard negative in selling the VB, because the red and black images arguably looked disappointing to people who had recently seen VR in films like 'The Lawnmower Man'. Yes, any console will struggle to sell itself without the potential buyer using the console, but the VB really had a challenge. Fantastic console though, and probably moreso for being so niche. I live in the UK and have owned a VB (grey import- clearance stock) since 1997, and everyone i've ever shown it to here has never seen one before! It's a great product but one that was clearly destined never to be a hit. The globetrotter 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they couldn't capture the 3D-ness, but they certainly could make screen captures. And did. --Thaddius (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Better explanation?

It took me 10 minutes of reading this article to figure out what the virtual boy actually is (to someone who has hardly even heard of the thing). "twin eyeglass-style projector, could display games in "true 3-D"" explains how it functions rather badly.

Merging Technical demos for the Virtual Boy into Virtual Boy

It was suggested to merge the technical demos for the Virtual Boy into this article. After having a look on that article, I think it's more clever to keep them seperated (it would otherwise add to much article "weight" to this article), and only perform some changes:

• Mention the tech demos more popular in the article, not just a "see also" link at the end.
• Rename Technical demos for the Virtual Boy to List of Virtual Boy demos following the name style of other list articles. I'd drop the "tech" part in the name to open it for demoscene related demos as well. With a better introduction (it really needs some proper wording) game demos could be excluded from demos and put into the games or cancelled games list.
• While Technical demos for the Virtual Boy is basically a list already, there's some need of reformating.

Any suggestions, concerns or other thoughts? --32X 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Or just delete Technical demos for the Virtual Boy as obviously non-notable. Certainly don't mess up any real article with it. Seriously. - 72.93.82.79 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they really not notable? This demo was shown on E³ and CES in 1995 sounds different. --32X 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted overall, HOWEVER, I think a merger is in order. Lesser Shadow 00:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Appearances" and "Trivia" sections

Greets, I believe points 3 and 4 of the "Trivia" section would fit better either in a new "In Popular Culture" section or in the "Appearances" section, which could be subdivided in: "Appearances in games for other Nintendo systems" and "Appearances elsewhere", perhaps. What do you think? Agent Fog 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not released in Europe?

I remember seeing lots of them in an electronic stores (like www.interdiscount.ch) in switzerland when i was young. The Page mention's the system was never "released" in Europe, which means it was either the english version sold here (?), or switzerland aint in europe (it aint in the EU, true :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.213.219 (talk) 19:10, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

That's come up a few times. No one is sure if the system was actually released there and there are no sources to prove it. That's why the site says it hasn't. Until we find verifyable proof... --Thaddius 14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo's official European website doesn't place the Virtual Boy anywhere in its time line of Nintendo systems. Even the Pokémon mini is listed there, and the VB is probably more well known than the Pm. This isn't concrete, but it's damning to an official European release. -Sesu Prime (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Parallax equals 3D?

I'm not sure if I'm just reading it wrong, but in the introduction it seems to imply that the 3D display of the Virtual Boy is due to the phenomenon of parallax. Unless I'm mistaken, parallax refers to the difference in angular velocity of objects at different distances moving the same speed. The dual displays of the Virtual Boy would seem to have nothing to do with this, but rather retinal disparity (i.e. the difference between an object's representation on the the two retinas is proportional to how far away it is), which is one of the main binocular cues for depth. I could be wrong, but as is the introduction is somewhat confusing on this point. 71.232.157.144 (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Retinal disparity is used, and the parallax is technically simulated. The thing is, in the video game community, parallax refers to a virtual parallax used by moving two different images at different speeds. In 2-D games, there may be multiple background images moving at the same time, creating an illusion of depth, with far away objects moving at a slower speed. The effect is similar in 3-D, but the two images are identical. Thus, the retinal disparity combined with the (virtual) parallax create the 3-D illusion.

-- trlkly 09:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

I'm wondering if any remain that need to be removed. If so I'll do what I can to remove them. I just wanna know if people agree that we removed that weasel word template. --Thaddius (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What list of cancelled Virtual Boy games?

Hello everybody! The "See also" link for "List of cancelled Virtual Boy games" directs to the "List of Virtual Boy games" page which doesn't have a cancelled games section, and I can't find a page dedicated to cancelled VB games either. Am I missing something? I want to make sure before I delete the link. Sesu Prime (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the incorrectly labeled "List of cancelled Virtual Boy games" link. Sesu Prime (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Handheld

Would this really be considered a handheld, in the sense of the word? I mean, there's no real hook up, true, but it's not exactly handheld. It's hard for me to describe. 76.2.230.6 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a handheld. Wikipedia's own definition states "Unlike video game consoles, the controls, screen and speakers are all part of a single unit." The Virtual Boy controller is a separate unit. Additionally, Gamepro lists it on their Top Ten Worst-Selling Consoles rather than their Top Ten Worst-Selling Handhelds (both of which WP holds as reliable sources), calling it "Not quite a portable, definitely not a handheld."--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Game Over" Book published 1993, console released 1995?

How does this book detail what happened in reaction to the Virtual Boy's disappointing sales when it was published two years prior to the console's release? This doesn't make sense. 69.63.50.157 (talk)

If you're willing to wait about 12 hours I can look it up, currently visiting my girlfriend and my copy of the book is at my house.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did a quick look online, and it seems it might be mentioned in the 2002 version (which had the subtitle "Press Start to Continue"). There's a little info available here. If it is exclusive to this version, we're out of luck.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man is correct. The later editions do include a new chapter, though I don't know what it covers. Unfortunaly, I have the first edition and can't really comment on the new chapters. Whoever added the reference probably just added the citation based on what the Wikipedia page lists as the publication date without looking in the book.

On a side note, which edition we have is something we should probably mention on the RefLib page like PresN did. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I actually own a Virtual Boy

I still have a Virtual Boy. The whole set-up is difficult to use and it is not entertaining. I can not imagine sitting up late at night playing this thing. I am curious about the collectible value,if any. Could be that someone is looking to complete their Nintendo collection.Anyway, had I paid 180.00 for this I probably would not have given Nintendo any more business. Minermikey (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Boy article picture shows an incorrectly attached stand

The stand is attached incorrectly in the photo! The Virtual Boy Instruction Booklet (page 6) clearly states with illustration that "the ends of the stand should be pointing away from you and the clamp release button should be facing toward you". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.202 (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rare?

Is the Virtual Boy really that rare? I just looked at a listing on Ebay, Buy it Now, for less than $70 with shipping. 800,000 units isn't a short run. Certainly there are CDs that had shorter runs and weren't considered rare. 173.19.189.234 (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If the best thing you can say about a production run of a game console is "There are software products that had shorter runs," that's when you know that production run is INSANELY short. A hardware developer's worst fear is having his unit's sales be comparable to a piece of software. (As a point of comparison, the 3DO had a run of over 2,000,000 units and is considered a colossal failure that had no impact on the market.) Similarly, if the worst you can say about an item's rarity is "I managed to find one copy for under $100," that's when you know it's a rarity.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

PC World has it wrong

This article used as a ref seems to confuse the Virtual Boy and the 3D System. Images were not rapidly flickered from eye to eye, the was the Famicom 3D System. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Another source

Engadget just posted a full review of the Virtual Boy that would probably be a useful source for the Reception section. —tktktk 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Boy article's image shows an incorrectly attached stand

The stand is attached incorrectly in the image! The Virtual Boy Instruction Booklet (page 6) clearly states with illustration that "the ends of the stand should be pointing away from you and the clamp release button should be facing toward you". 121.200.234.61 (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This actually smacks of the whole "Birdo/Ostro" mix-up of the time (anyone remember which one was actually which anymore?) NOA had this whole "thing" about putting out promo photos that would directly contradict their "recommended usage" applications; as anecdotal evidence, I remember seeing literally thousands of kids - myself included - leaving the system in the photographed pose as a "kick your feet back on the playmat" kind of experience. I wonder if my failure to use this monstrosity as an overpriced nickelodeon led to my poor eyesight. XD 76.20.114.11 (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't the replaced "higher quality" photos within this article really just a shameless plug for Video Games New York (with link) in Manhattan?!

... there was nothing wrong with the previous photos. In particular, the underside photo is actually of 'lower quality' – being "banged up" with double-sided foam tape remnants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.234.61 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the disambiguation header really necessary for this article?

I have a hard time believing anyone wound up here looking for a digital rendition of an adolescent male. Removing, if you object, revert and let's discuss. Deltwalrus (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Virtual Boy also happens to be the name of an electronic duo between Preston Walker and Henry Allen. A (biased) bio can be found on their Alpha Pup Records bio page, which also contains links to their site and social media outlets. Their music has hundreds of thousands of YouTube views (with "Mass" having over 300,000 alone) and they've been featured on BBC Radio 1 for their song "Lost Treasures", giving them significant basis and need for an article. Major review outlets, however, lack any content on them. I plan to contribute and/or add their page months down the road if it's not done by then, I just can't in the near future. Caasperthefriendlyghost (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Console or handheld!?!?! The world may never know.

What the hell is this thing? The

Console?

• Every other handeheld console from Nintendo was a single unit. VB requires the viewer & the controller, with cables running between them.
• This is not something that can be played "on the go". You'd need to be lying down, or ask someone to hold the thing to your head while you play. You'd probably get kicked off a bus for this.

Handheld?

• All of Nintendo's home consoles require an external monitor to play, same as every other console. Master System = home console, Game Gear = handheld
• It wasn't sold with it, but a official battery pack was available.
• The branding is clearly in line with the handhelds - "Game Boy" & "Virtual Boy", not the "NES", "SNES" & "VNES".
• The game pak is tiny, much closer to GB than SNES or NES. Physically, not talking about capacity.
• Monochrome!!!!!

Why does this matter?

The freaking infoboxes and the navbox. VB isn't listed as anyone's "predecessor" or ""successor", although it has other consoles listed in it's infobox. To be honest, I don't think it can be put into either category, although we should look around for sources on the topic. We could also list the predecessor as Famicom 3D System, and successor as Nintendo 3DS. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it should have a listed predecessor or successor. It was it's own thing. It certainly is an important aspect of Nintendo history, but I don't think we need to make it one thing or another just so it'll conform to wikipedia infoxes etc... Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big deal is, the class is called a "tabletop" and arose around the same time as handhelds in the late 70's/early 80's. It describes portable technology that is to big to hold in your hands and therefore needs to go on a flat surface to play. For example, the Game On display has both handhelds and tabletops - which would be the Coleco mini-coin-ops on display here in the middle. Other examples of tabletops would be the (l to r) Simon, Astro Wars (large silver unit), Puck Monster (long flat yellow unit), and Astro Thunder (silver unit) shown here. Once the switch was made to programmable units the tabletop class was much less common, but the tripod mounted Virtual Boy would be a classic example of it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As much as it matters, it has it's own display and runs on batteries, which puts it in the "handheld" family. I heard the early plans were to make it head-wearable, before the image of kids with beepy electronic blindfolds on wandering out in front of trucks occurred to somebody. But among collectors of such things, the VFD "tabletop" games mentioned above are usually counted as a subset of handhelds. 92.40.254.144 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

there is a PAL version

It is marked EUR in cartridges serial number and Console too. I bought mine here in Switzerland which had manuals and boxart in german. On Ebay there is also a subcategory for both NTSC and PAL versions of Virtualboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.216.192 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Although some sellers on Ebay might mark VBs or game carts as "PAL" or "NTSC" Versions, they were never originally sold under that mark and in fact would operate flawlessly on both the Japan and the US version. Since this system is its own standard, it is not conform to TV-Standards. In fact the VB NEVER was meant to use a TV for playing, it had its own unique displays, which were manufactured by Reflection Technologies Inc. (RFI). A documentation can be found on www.vr32.de, a fanboy page for the VB system. WoLfMaN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.64.215 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. 2 issues here. PAL and NTSC are television standards, not relevant to the VB. Increasingly irrelevant to modern consoles too, which use HDMI and HDTV standards, which are digital and the same internationally. The other common issue on PAL / NTSC consoles is international compatibility. The VB, like most handhelds, uses universal cartridges, there is no region coding in the carts or the consoles. All will play on each. 92.40.254.144 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Oculus Rift" be added under "Legacy"?

The 3DS was mentioned in the "Legacy" section of this article, yet the Oculus Rift or Sony's Project Morpheus is not. The Rift and Morpheus are both devices intended for use in the exact same manner the Virtual Boy was intended to be used. The 3DS only covers the 3D gimmick, but the Rift and Morpheus address modern-day ventures into "tracking" (the head), as well as total peripheral immersion in a 3D field. The Rift also still requires a controller to be held, same as the Virtual Boy.

I think someone should add something about the Oculus Rift or Project Morpheus, so people know this technology is still being worked on and is being perfected, and hasn't just been abandoned. The 3D "gimmick" in the 3DS has been carried over to smartphones as well as TVs and Monitors. While the 3DS is another Nintendo product, I think putting in some info about the Oculus Rift/Morpheus would be good. Like I said earlier, they are exactly what the Virtual Boy wanted to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.198.17 (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nintendo 64

Is nintendo 64 the Successor of this? If so, why 3DS was successor instead? Correct me if wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lao zha bor (talk • contribs) 11:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Nintendo 64 was in the console line, the Virtual Boy was its own thing. The 3ds could be the successor since it's Nintendo's next portable 3d machine. 76.204.123.119 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that the Virtual Boy was not just all about 3D. It blocked your peripheral view, and was mean for immersion in that regard. The Oculus Rift, for example, has a lot of similarities to the Virtual Boy, building on to what the Virtual Boy tried to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.198.17 (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed for virtual boy controller looking similar to gamecube controller?

Really? I mean, aren't eyes a good enough source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.228.220 (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:OR.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Release date - August 14 or 21, 1995?

I see that the North American release date in the infobox was changed to August 21 (from August 14) due to a New York Times posting on August 22, 1995, saying August 21, as seen here: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/22/business/introduction-by-nintendo.html But many other sources (GameFAQs, Wired, Reddit, Gamasutra, Giantbomb, etc.) list the Virtual Boy and its launch games as releasing on August 14. So which is it? In any case, the infobox and the introductory paragraph should be consistent, they each say something different.DupreDuper (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IGN 404 link

I just wanted to mention that the 2014 IGN interview (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/10/new-nintendo-vr-console) leads to a 404 page. I tried the Wayback web archive but it didn't seem to help.195.67.78.50 (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source so I would leave it for now. --Bemorang (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Final Virtual Boy game

I just came across an article in the February 1997 issue of GamePro which says the final game released for the Virtual Boy was Jack Bros., in October 1996. Currently the article says 3D Tetris was the final Virtual Boy game, released in March 1996. However, the only source for this is GameSpot's database, which is unreliable (plus using it in this way is technically WP:SYNTH). I looked at the Jack Bros., which gives a vague October/November 1995 release date, but the only source backing this is a preview for the game, and video game release dates can and do change during development. Looking at scans of the box, though, it does say copyright 1995, and October 1996 is an awfully late release for a game copyrighted in 1995. Anyone care to argue in favor of either the 1995 or 1996 release date for Jack Bros.?--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

VB easter egg in Nintendo Labo VR

The VR Kit in Nintendo's Labo series has a reference to Virtual Boy. In the VR Videos section, a video shows off a person bringing a Virtual Boy closer towards the screen, which then jumps into the opening of Mario’s Tennis. Here is a link.109.228.130.5 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/19970606032050/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/020697c.chtml

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing (talk • contribs)

"Valuable collector's item"

In the Legacy section, it's noted that "Because Nintendo shipped fewer than 800,000 Virtual Boy units worldwide, it is considered a valuable collector's item." However, the supporting link is a short news article that merely speculates about interest after an unsold cache was found. The system retailed for $180 USD in 1995, which is the equivalent of just over $300 USD in 2020. Virtual Boy consoles are available, e.g., for significantly less on eBay. That doesn't really sound like a "valuable collector's item," which would seem to imply that even used consoles would have increased in relative value since the '90s, rather than decreased. —Ishokunaeppy (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ishokunaeppy, I agree. I've removed the claim. It can be re-added if anyone has some better sources. Popcornfud (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Stand Orientation

I mentioned this on Wikimedia Commons, but figured it would be more widely read here.

Recently it was pointed out on Reddit that a number of photos here feature the stand on the Virtual Boy attached in the incorrect orientation - leading to a sort of anachronism where contemporary real world use of the console based on pictures on Wikipedia supersede the official console position as described in the manual and shown in advertisements. Basically a weird variant of citogenesis.

• 
  Incorrect orientation (Stand points away from user).
• 
  Correct orientation (Stand points to user).

--Mbrickn (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I found a archived document describing the proper setup of the system here --Mbrickn (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The stand is so often put backwards on systems that it has almost become standard. It doesn't really impede use of the console in any way, but it is incorrect according to Nintendo. If it's wanted, I can take some photographs of one of my Virtual Boys with the stand in the correct orientation to replace the photographs which are in the article showing the stand in the incorrect orientation. Typhlosionator (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That is interesting how many pictures online are in the incorrect orientation. I agree the Wikipedia pictures should represent the official orientation as seen in the Nintendo manual. ShadyCrack (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

First Stereo 3D video game console?

Does anyone have reference to support "it was marketed as the first console capable of displaying stereoscopic "3D" graphics."? I couldn't find any Nintendo marketing that suggested this claim. Sega Master System 3-D active shutter glasses and Famicom 3D System in 1987 preceded the Virtual Boy so seems like an odd claim to have made. ShadyCrack (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)