9 ms·

I Tried VR and It Was Just OK

162 points by cremno 11y ago

coldpie 11y ago
I agree with this article. We bought a Oculus DK2 for work[1]. It functions. It's cool for an hour or two. But no one's touched the DK2 since I wrote that article. There's simply nothing to do with it, and what you can do is better done with a monitor screen. The DK2 is incredibly low resolution. You can easily see the pixels. I was able to get a sense of presence once or twice, when driving down a straight in iRacing, otherwise it was always just a cool 3D effect strapped to my face. [1] https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs/aeikum/2015/5/29/codeweavers-experiments-with-oculus-support-for-mac-and-linux https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs/aeikum/2015/5/29/cod...
- coldpie 11y ago
  (Aside: > Current generation consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PS4 may be fine with (most) games running at 1080p, on the PS4 at least, Ouch, that's gotta burn the XBone team.)
- manuelflara 11y ago
  Well of course there's not much to do with it now (other than develop for it), since no good VR sets have come to market yet (this was a developer kit you're talking about), and no games have shipped for them. It's like saying "yeah I've got a PlayStation5 developer kit the other day.. there's not much to do with it".
- JayHost 11y ago
  I believe the DK2 is something like 3 models behind the Consumer version. On DK2 website they ask users to wait to buy consumer. Best VR for me is Horror/360camera even on Cardboard. It's just another waiting game for more "Apps". It's like buying a ps4 without any new NaughtyDog Titles.
- dwild 11y ago
  > There's simply nothing to do with it, and what you can do is better done with a monitor screen. What content? It's an development kit... except if you intends to develop content for it, for sure you won't find stuff to do with it. It's like saying I hate the android development kit because there's nothing to do with it. We need content for VR, personally I believe this is why the rift is still not released. That's also why they invest that much in game development. > I was able to get a sense of presence once or twice You are unlucky then, the immersion I feel is crazy. Each time I remove my headset, I get the same weird feeling of not being at the right place. > it was always just a cool 3D effect I'm pretty sure some good old gamer said the same when they transitioned from text to graphic, and then again when they moved from 2D to 3D. For sure it's not for everyone, the same way game console aren't for everyone. This is not the revolution that some are saying it is, it won't be the next iPhone, at least it doesn't have to be. It's a new way to play game, a new environment, that's all.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    > You are unlucky then, the immersion I feel is crazy. Each time I remove my headset, I get the same weird feeling of not being at the right place. What games/demos do you play with it? I'd love to experience more compelling software.
kefka 11y ago
That's your opinion. I do demos with a Alienware R18 laptop with a DK2 with demos different depts have made. I bring this oversized desktop in a laptop format to demos, and show them off. I perhaps have 1 or 2 people out of 50+ each time that aren't wowed. And given that I've went through a 1000 people at semi-random, that I think its fair to say that this guy is in the ~3% minority who isn't impressed. All I can say is to give it a shot. Try a roller coaster demo, or play different games in the Rift. It really is crazy awesome. The only bad thing is keyboard input is hard, and still an unsolved problem. I figure when haptic gloves get good, this will be the final answer. Edit: Seriously? -1's over a valid comments from someone who has 4 DK2's and 2 DK1's ? So bashing VR on HN is in vogue now. Got it.
- CosmicShadow 11y ago
  If you aren't a gamer or technology person, it's way more impressive then if you already live in that world. Spending hours on the thing vs a demo is a very different experience as well.
  - kefka 11y ago
    Admittedly true. I do spend a great deal of time on our rifts. I've done some dev work for it, along with using it as my virtual desktop. I didn't think that people would be interested in my personal use case, because I am rather an outlier. Airflow is one concern. I am hot, and stay hot. Along with that, it tends to fog up the lenses and get somewhat sweaty. Demos aren't a concern because condensation doesn't have a chance to form. I also have issues of depth perfection after about 4 hours, which is around lunchtime. This goes away in perhaps 5 minutes, but is still a problem. There is also the screen door effect still in DK2. I've heard the CV1 doesn't have this, but that shall be seen. There is also the mention of input issue. Using keyboard is still hard. I still resort to looking down the nose-hole to see the keyboard (others with Rift will know what I mean). I've been playing around using a wiimote and nunchuck for input along with a sensor bar, and it works well. Sound is also another problem area, but CV1 has builtin speakers. It's to be seen if they're good or not.
    - 11y ago
rwmj 11y ago
As a counterpoint, I used a DK1 and I thought it was brilliant. Can't wait to use a production model. I also showed it to an architect friend of mine and he loved it and wants to use it to walk his clients around unrealized house designs.
- sayangel 11y ago
  hey rwmj! Would love to talk to your architect friend about how we wants to utilize VR for client presentations. email: angel[at]insitevr.com My company, InsiteVR, makes it easy for architects to take their 3D models and deploy a VR walkthrough that they can use for design reviews or client presentations. No coding experience required, just a 3D model. here's a cool example of one of our customers using our software: a cool case study: www.interiorarchitects.com/blog/the-future-of-architectural-renderings-at-ia-is-in-virtual-reality/
howeyc 11y ago
I think this is where the adult industry can act as the "bridge" and can make use of VR as it is today until it is mature enough for gaming. The lack of input/feedback isn't that big of a deal since for adult entertainment your hands need to be free for a more fulfilling experience.
mdemare 11y ago
Jeff compares the DK2 to Quake resolution (640x480), but I think that's quite misleading. Quake looks terrible, to modern eyes, but that has little to do with the resolution, and much more with the low polygon count, low quality textures and the lack of lighting effects. Run Far Cry 4 at 640x480, and it'll look much better.
- codinghorror 11y ago
  I do not think Far Cry 4 would look very good at 640x480. Imagine it full screen on even a modest 20" monitor at that resolution. There are tricks, yes, but big pixels are a fundamental problem until you reach a "good enough" size. Sort of like when the iPhone 4 and retina was released. We are very, very far from retina resolution in VR.
  - lfowles 11y ago
    http://images.cdn.stuff.tv/sites/stuff.tv/files/styles/flexslider_desktop/public/news/FC4_resized.jpg?itok=2ZSfqq8p http://images.cdn.stuff.tv/sites/stuff.tv/files/styles/flexs... Looks significantly better than Quake, even when maximized to fullscreen (except for the JPEG artifacts)! edit: far cry 4 640x480 filetype:png http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/yQq6DDQq-m2a5wamnac6ztznkryv70k98058ede2pzps4a4stz4.png http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/yQq6DDQq-m2a... http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/Z7ptQrAC-m1ns3ad8vr1t7auu05yj2dug80xr7hbsmgln4qqtog.png http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/Z7ptQrAC-m1n... The text isn't great and the last image is hard to look at, but that's probably post processing.
  - dwild 11y ago
    It still look way better than Quake.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
My only disagreement is with the "gloves" idea. I thought we learned from the Wii that motion controls without force feedback is anti-immersion. Imagine "firing" a 12 gauge shotgun and seeing considerable recoil in VR while your hands stay still. Without haptic feedback I'll have to rely on imagination for the full experience, which I thought video games were supposed to skip.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  Maybe they could make it so you have to mimic the recoil motion yourself, with your own hands, to fire your shotgun. You would have to make sure to always turn the safety of your shotgun before putting it away, otherwise if try to quick-draw you will shoot yourself in the foot. edit: grammar
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    "I totally shot him! The game didn't register the motion at all! This sucks. I'm getting the controller."
  - mcdougle 11y ago
    That's anti-immersive, too. When you fire a shotgun in real life, you don't have to do the recoil motion yourself -- you just pull the trigger, and the recoil occurs on its own.
- bobajeff 11y ago
  Yeah, and unfortunately haptic feedback is even farther away in terms of emersion than VR. I imagine we might possibly come close by using a some sort of full body contraption that would somehow stimulate all your nerves. But it would need to be sophisticated enough to emulate muscle movement. But then that's fundamentally incompatible with motion controls. So you'd have to then create something that's able to detect and interpret nerve signals from the brain to such a degree it wouldn't contradict the VR Headset and Haptic Pod version of the world. Otherwise immersion would tank.
- rrss1122 11y ago
mkeblx 11y ago
Jeff is speaking from a position of not having tried the good stuff that delivers a sense of 'presence' in the virtual world. That is the game changer, the thing that is making people believe something special is on the way. When he says "I have experienced modern VR. A lot. I've tried both the Oculus DK1, the Oculus DK2." he's just flatly wrong, he hasn't. Those headsets at not modern VR and using them as the reference for where VR is at is pretty crazy. But you'll get a chance to try to presence-inducing stuff in the next ~6 months with the consumer release of the Vive and Oculus CV1.
- richmarr 11y ago
  > ... delivers a sense of 'presence' in the virtual world I keep re-reading your comment and it keeps getting stuck in my marketing filter. What do you mean by a sense of presence?
  - Ologn 11y ago
    > What do you mean by a sense of presence? A VR simulation where you are on top of a high tower/building, and you are physically unable to take a leap forward because your amygdala won't let you, that is VR presence.
  - kefka 11y ago
    I've interpreted presence as "how much can you fool the brain that you really are there". The screen-door effect is still moderately high in DK2. I've heard the CV1 has much reduced the size of the pixels, so the effect is greatly reduced. Also the refresh also needs to be jacked up further. I'd prefer 120hz or 240hz. That would assist in faster and more seamless head-tracking. I don't think HDMI can handle that much bandwidth though. I could be wrong. Aside) The screendoor effect is the effect of magnifying pixels in a LCD screen so you can see the pixels along with the interstitial black space where the pixels arent. The black space creates black lines like a screen door. Your eyes will then flip on focusing on the image displayed and the screen door, losing the feeling of depth and presence.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
moron4hire 11y ago
So his problem is that pre-release, AAA game software for pre-release hardware is nothing more than tech demos. And bloggers. But let's not get too far off topic discussing his own contributions to the "I need to get my voice included, too!" problems with blogging-as-a-career-move. Let's just stick to the tech. It's disappointing to see someone who has such a prominent position in the developer community not just completely misunderstand a new piece of tech, but then go on to use his platform to stand up one part of that burgeoning sector as a straw man against all of it. I agree, the games and other software available right now are underwhelming in a lot of aspects. That's because they are either made by indies who don't have the technical prowess to figure out best workflow for the nascent technology, or by AAA game studios that don't have the creativity necessary to make anything other than adaptations of their current FPS franchises, what all the serious pundents agree is the worst possible UX for VR. That's not too say there aren't great experiences, but they are few and far between right now. Though frankly, so are monodisplay games, after you've burnt out on Call of Duty and World of Warcraft five (or more!) years ago. But if all you see VR as good for is games, man, I just don't know if I can even reach you with words. People keep comparing VR to when smartphones were new. I think that is wrong, because it implies a platform rather than peripheral approach, but even if we accept it, are smartphones just about games? IDK, maybe for some cynical, short sighted view of them they are. I don't think we are anywhere near fully taking the potential of smartphones. But even more, they represent a fairly different (though I wouldn't say fundamentally different) means if computing for users. If you look at the original iPhone like Atwood has for VR, then you're going to come to similar conclusions, "this hardware sucks, the resolution sucks, who would want this? I want Siri now." I mean, the iPhone didn't even have the App Store when it was first released. Everyone was expected to make HTML5 web apps. But VR isn't smartphones. It's upgrading from monochromatic CRTs to full color LCDs and adding a mouse to your computer, before any GUI operating system has been invented. Thinking this is only for games, that it won't evolve (thaaank you, Jeff Atwood, we weren't aware resolution should be improved or that the headsets are heavy), that I don't think I've ever seen anyone come unstuck from such stubbornly old ways of thinking. VR is going to be the thing that keeps the first manned mission to Mars from dying of boredom-induced insanity on the longest single-leg voyage man has ever undertaken. The Mars colonists will use VR to exercise their body and minds. It will allow them to participate in vastly more cultural exchange with Earth than would be feasible without. VR is going to be the thing to save the Rainforest and push people to cleanup any future ecological disasters. We are going to be able to put people in the space, to give then a hook on which to empathize that isn't possible through just TV. Even for mundane things, VR is going to revolutionize content authoring, especially in the 3D space. Editing 3D models with 2D tools is an exercise in learned zen suppression of frustration. I'm working on an IDE in VR, where text isn't just an adaptation of the old dog chow of your Visual Studios or Eclipses or Emacsen of the world. So yeah, it's young. Is it "not ready?" I don't agree. When the first color CRTs were released, we knew they would be better at a higher resolution, but that didn't stop us from using them. I think VR is ready. It's not ideal, but we won't be able to build the ideal unless we get it out, start exercising it. EDIT: okay, to quell the "hype" a bit, things you can do in VR right now that are better than without VR. - Simulator games, i.e. racing and flying, on the DK2. Project Cars and Elite: Dangerous are flipping amazing. I actually don't care for games for VR that much, but I love these games and I can't play them without the headset anymore. Yes, even the "low" resolution of the DK2 is better than playing these games at a "high" resolution on a flat screen. - Architectural visualization with Google Cardboard. Several architecture firms are now using VR to visualize future buildings as well as additions to current buildings. I've heard several anecdotes of plans being fundamentally changed after seeing them in VR vs. just architectural drawings. - Watch films made for VR in Vrse (http://vrse.com/ http://vrse.com/). There aren't very many yet, and some of them are very short, but they are very good and not at all like 3D TV. Things you'll be able to do, very soon - Event space visualization with Google Cardboard. Sites like Social Tables are developing visualizers for their existing event space planning software. - Interactively author GPU shaders in the DK2 https://share.oculus.com/app/shadertoy-vr https://share.oculus.com/app/shadertoy-vr - Play "I Expect You To Die" which has not only been one of the few VR games I've enjoyed, it's one of the only "locked room" games I've enjoyed https://share.oculus.com/app/i-expect-you-to-die https://share.oculus.com/app/i-expect-you-to-die So is VR "not ready yet"? I don't think so. I think it's as ready as any new tech on release day, perhaps even more so, because the developer ecosystem is just so much more open.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
hedgehog 11y ago
The Vive's approach for the controllers works really well and it sounds like it'll be shipping this year. It's strange that he doesn't mention it. I've tried a bunch of the other attempts going back to primitive university lab stuff in the 90s that took up two SGI Octanes, the Vive is the first thing I've seen that seems good enough to build apps on. I think the biggest problem initially is going to be figuring out what the killer app is. In terms of comparisons with the growth curve of mobile VR might look the same but we're much closer to the AMPS brick phone stage not the iPhone.
DDLawson 11y ago
So refreshing to see an article about VR that's sole purpose isn't to build hype for VR! My only experience with VR was trying the Samsung Gear headset in Schipol airport. It was a new, exciting experience for the five minutes I got to try it out. I imagine that Oculus Rift will be a much better experience, seeing as it's not based off a mobile phone but built solely for a VR immersion. Despite how relatively amazing my first VR experience was, I can quite clearly see what the author means about it not 'revolutionising' this and that industry upon release. But I feel the most important aspect is that the technology is in its early infancy and, just like the television/consoles that came before it, will take a lot of time, innovation and behavioural changes to truly break into the general public and make a difference across different industries.
sireat 11y ago
Counterpoint: My friend's architecture office has Occulus, and everyone, clients and architects love it. I asked her if anyone experienced any headaches or seasickness but since there is no action happening just a visual walk through buildings it seems side effects are minimized. So for architecture Occulus fills a nice niche.
- sayangel 11y ago
  hey sireat! I'd love to learn more about how your friend's architecture office is using the Oculus and what their experience has been with is so far. My company, InsiteVR, makes it super simple for architects to get from 3D modeling software to VR without the headache of programming a game engine or setting everything up. And we use the GearVR so it's wireless, nice res, and easy to set up. Shoot me an email at angel[at]insitevr.com - I'd love an introduction to your friend.
  - shiftpgdn 11y ago
    Oh man this is heartbreaking. I've been developing what looks to be an incredibly similar product/workflow to yours, solo, for the last 8 months.
    - sayangel 11y ago
      shiftpgdn we're hiring! shoot me an email angel[at]insitevr.com
- ghaff 11y ago
  This strikes me as a really good use of the technology. As you suggest, it doesn't need to be high frame rate or truly immersive. It just needs to be better than looking at blueprints (which is really hard for untrained people) or, best case, doing a VR walkthrough on a monitor. I wonder if this and AR (e.g. Google Glass) are on a similar trajectory. Lots of hype that near to mid-term--call it over the next 10 years or so--ends up mostly as a relatively niche technology for specific commercial use cases.
- jimbobimbo 11y ago
fippydarkpaw 11y ago
"I've always been the first kid on my block to recommend an awesome, transformative gaming experience, from the Atari 2600 to the Kinect" Kinect was an awesome transformative gaming experience? Really?
timr 11y ago
LOL. I lived through the first VR hype bubble, and it's pretty remarkable how similar this is to my recollection of VR back then -- the only difference is that at the time, the goofy, uncomfortable headset was tethered to a refrigerator-sized SGI machine at the science museum, and there was no hope of getting it at home. Instead, we got the Lawnmower Man on VHS. It sounds like technology has advanced enough that we have finally miniaturized the underwhelming user experience for the home viewer, but we still haven't addressed the bigger problem of coming up with something compelling to do with it. Plus ça change...maybe soon we'll get to see investors salivating over "multimedia experiences" delivered via some futuristic version of CD-ROM!
- redwood 11y ago
  Do I really have to be the one to say it. .. the four (or more) letter word starting with "p"?
  - timr 11y ago
    Heh. That's an area where quality input devices become even more essential, no?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- wpietri 11y ago
  So true! People looking at something and finding it "mindblowing" for short periods says almost nothing about whether a) there is actual value delivered, or b) there's a real business to be built there. I can count at least 5 waves of 3D hype going back to the 1850s. Stereoscopic photos were all the rage for brief periods starting with the 1851 World's Fair in London [1], and we are all familiar with the 3D View Master, which was developed in 1939. There was the anaglyph 3D [2] wave in the 1950s, and as the marketing suggests, the main audience appeal was novelty. [3] Next came, as you say, the VR wave of the 1990s, including predictions of "affordable VR by 1994". [4] We next have this decade's rise and fall of 3D movies, with a related rise and fall of 3D TV. So far, history suggests that this is just another wave of novelty. 3D pictures did not replace pictures. 3D movies and TV did not replace movies and TV. The evidence is equally strong that many otherwise smart people can combine "cool novelty effect" plus "OMG future" and to end up fooling themselves. Sure, it could be different this time. But I suspect that 3D will end up, for at least the 6th time, as being about as appealing as Smell-o-Vision. [5] This is in strong contrast to color and sound, which started out being optional and became mandatory both for movies and computers. Wake me up, I say, when we get to showing movies in "Feel Around". [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wax_%281953_film%29#/media/File:Houseofwax1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wax_%281953_film%29#/... [4] http://i.imgur.com/j73ipNp.jpg http://i.imgur.com/j73ipNp.jpg which is from http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1992&pub=2&id=100 http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1992&pub=2... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjm_zmBoxjw#t=2m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjm_zmBoxjw#t=2m20s [7] and dang, when will we get some hypertext here?
silverlight 11y ago
I'm most excited for VR headsets to replace my desktop monitors. Infinitely sized displays in 360 degrees around me...I think that's where the real future is for these things. And doing that won't require nearly the hardware power that a 3D game does. The main thing holding it back is that the displays in the Oculus are still a little too low-resolution to make text 100% crisp and clear. I fully expect that a couple of years from now, though, I'll be ditching my monitors for a VR headset.
- XorNot 11y ago
  This is the dream for me too. We're a couple k more lines of resolution on cell phone screens to making it happen though.
- exelius 11y ago
  More likely you'll end up with something like the Hololens. It won't replace your monitor, rather augment it. AR is the stop-gap between what we have now and true VR. Truly immersive VR is going to require some sort of neural control interface, and we're at least 20 years off from that being a productized mass-market device. VR headsets are hella disorienting. I can't imagine any manufacturer recommending more than an hour of continuous usage. I just don't see any benefit to trying to work on a VR headset: I continuously have to refer to items in the physical world (my cell phone, written notes, etc) while working. Being immersed in VR would simply be too disorienting. Now, I don't doubt that it'll happen eventually. But the time horizon is closer to 15-20 years IMO; VR is still very much in its infancy. Things like this are an art and a science; we're doing pretty well with the science part but we need to figure out the art, and that takes iteration and above all, time.
- kabouseng 11y ago
  And that would really be getting in the zone while coding, as long as I can keep HN out of that world...
jonstokes 11y ago
This article is pure distillation of everything that's wrong with VR -- not the tech, but the people who are thinking about it and trying to build it. Specifically youngish white male gamer nerds. I want to write about this more at length -- maybe I'll put something on my blog or on Medium or something -- but I also tried VR, and the most interesting aspect of the experience was just how clueless all of the gamer types at the gaming company office I went to were about what other people out there in the world would want from the experience. Here is what I mean. The most impressive and important part of the otherwise crappy VR demo I sat through was a crudely rendered virtual media room with a big screen TV, where I was placed on a virtual couch to watch some movie clips. Why did this rock my world? It rocked my world because I happen to know that it would cost me $40K at least to add a media room on to my house, and if I could buy $5K worth of VR gear for my wife and I and get pretty much the same effect, then that would be a major win for us (and a loss for Austin's contractors and architects). In other words, gaming is the /least/ interesting thing about VR. VR has the potential to disrupt the architecture and building trades. In the real world, people like to have access to spaces that they can do various non-gaming things in, and they have historically been willing to pay quite a bit of money to have those spaces built. VR will drive the cost of adding those spaces to one's home/office/trailer/pad/etc. down towards zero. I tried explaining this to the crowd of young white male gamer nerds gathered around the pizza station after the demo, and they sort of chuckled at this boring old guy rambling about building contractors (I'm pretty sure none of them owned a house) and went back to wracking their brains about what, to them, is the single most important thing in the world: how are we going to make a frigging GAME with this? I know these guys, because prior to my wife + 3 kids + house I was one of them: a young white male gamer nerd. But at this point I've been around the block enough to recognize that the number of people interested in blasting virtual aliens or orcs is a few orders of magnitude lower than the number of people who want to just hang out on the deck of a mega-yacht at sundown, or have coffee once again in an exact replica of a Parisian cafe that they used to frequent in the 60's, or retreat from their kids and life into a virtual media room and watch Game of Thrones on a virtual big-screen TV. Note that I'm not slamming Jeff Atwood, who for all I know owns a house and who thinks about many things other than leveling up and collecting loot. I'm just saying that he has thoroughly missed the point of VR, and in a super common and troubling way. I'm not an SJW by any stretch, but VR needs women, and black people, and old people, and in fact it will get them because the market will demand it. That's because VR isn't the next Atari 2600 or Kinect -- it's the next TV, and the next Internet. Are today's Internet addicts hooked on MUDs or MOOs? No, they aren't. And tomorrow's VR junkies won't give a rip about games.
saturdaysaint 11y ago
A lot of his complaints seem to be imposed by constraints on current consumer spending - basically, surely people won't be bothered to buy a VR rig if they have a current gen console or spend more than they would on a tablet. I disagree. So much of consumer electronics (TVs/phones/tablets) has become cheap enough that I think the usual demographics with disposable income won't mind making a splash if Oculus is truly offering a new experience. I've almost been disappointed by going to Best Buy in recent years and not even seeing anything especially cool/desirable there. This generation also doesn't place a lot of value on traditional aspirational purchases (eg you'll see a lot of well to do yuppies in Priuses or Subarus rather than the BMW that was a rite of passage in previous generations) - if anything, I think this may lead people to massively underestimate how much millennials will spend on novel/innovative big ticket items.
austenallred 11y ago
It says something that we're writing blog posts about, "This early version of tech didn't absolutely blow my mind" I mean, this is still early-iPod-days of this tech. You could look at it, especially after hearing hype about the iPod, and say something like, "No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame." http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip... Anecdotally, I've found that looking at anything from a perspective of, "People are raving about this, does it live up to the hype?" always makes me respect the thing less. That doesn't make it less transformative. It just means you didn't like it as much in the beginning. The criticisms are warranted, but that doesn't sway what the future of VR looks like for me.
- theschwa 11y ago
  Not only is this based on "early versions of the tech", but no one has even released a consumer product yet. These are are all developer prototypes. Even the Samsung Gear VR is still an "innovator edition".
  - platz 11y ago
    from the article: "The technology to do it is there, battle tested, and completely mature. I know because I saw Captain EO at Epcot Center in 3D way back in 1985, and it was amazing thirty years ago!"
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I mean, this is still early-iPod-days of this tech. Well, people have been touting VR since the early nineties. When is this "late version" gonna come out?
  - fixermark 11y ago
    Now that we have sub-one-dollar accelerometer circuits with enough accuracy and reliability to embed into commercial gaming controllers coupled with the existence of enough processing power to render DOOM-level graphics at the 60FPS necessary to minimize the number of people who get physically ill in the headset, the "late version" is actually very close. It has always been a hardware challenge, and we are actually likely to be right on the cusp of meeting the challenge this time. It's an exciting time to be alive.
rrss1122 11y ago
Seems contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Even the cheap google cardboard, which ticks all his requirements except 4K (and probably will have that in the next year), is mindblowing, both to me and friends and family I've shown it to. I didn't even show them games running on cardboard, just videos shot using Google's special 360 cameras. The technical challenges around VR are not that deep, hard, and fascinating. At this point, it's only a matter of prices coming down.
- beeboop 11y ago
  Even with a 4k phone screen there would be a lot of room for improvement as the Oculus user sees it.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Seems contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Seems he gave about 2000 words of the concrete reasons he doesn't like it. Heck, he event gave CONCRETE suggestions of things that need improvement. So, no, this is the very opposite of "contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian". >is mindblowing, both to me and friends and family I've shown it to Gimmicks can be mindblowing too. Have you used it for extented periods of time? Would you? And, since there are always outliers, would others bother? Some people were also totally in love with their Google Glass BS, and we know how that turned out in the market.
  - kamaal 11y ago
    For some one who is not into gaming, the experience(no matter how horrible to the expert gamer) will seem like the first time some one would have seen Television, used a telephone or used a desktop computer. Its a new thing which the ordinary person hasn't used before, and they will be super thrilled to even get a chance to use it. Heck even the tech crowd was excited about this around 2 years back, how do you expect the ordinary public to not be excited about it? Yeah, there are problems to solve. And once the overall trend moves towards VR, there will be a good enough incentive to bring down prices and have more focussed engineering towards these problems. Beyond all that, Gaming looks like a very small area of application for this kind of a technology.
iblaine 11y ago
How is this article news? Everyone knows that VR is still a work in progress. Another article pointing out the current flaws is not bring anything to the table.
sayangel 11y ago
i'd be interested to hear what Jeff thinks about the GearVR. Most people brush it off as just another phone holder with lenses, but I'd say it's the most compelling VR headset available on the market. It has a lot of what he requests from a VR headset: wireless, better display than DK2, and doesnt require a gaming rig. It's virtually plug and play and I think that's why people love it. MobileVR is what will and should be people's first taste. I've spoken with a lot of architects who love cardboard because it sets such low expectations but blows people away when they put it on. The DK2 is a bit underwhelming as you're strapped into some gaming rig so you're expecting some cutting edge graphics and end up with what something that looks like N64 VR. One thing that was neglected in this post is the emotional response that VR, even in it's current state, can evoke. I was sold on the Rift after trying some of the early horror titles. They were graphically very basic, but every corner had me sweating and the jump scares had me looking away. You could argue a 2D monitor has the same effect but when you're in VR and try to look away only to find you don't see your living room or anything familiar everything changes. And the social experiences like Convrge or Altspace are also something to be excited about. I was at first quite skeptical of things like this, but the subtle head movements that are incorporated into the avatars are enough to give one a sense of "meatspace" social cues. I once found myself talking to someone in Convrge and was awkwardly nodding and avoiding eye contact when I realized this was just an avatar. It's simple but powerful.
bane 11y ago
I'm really interested in good VR, but then I start to really think about it: How long do I really want to play a game with a headset strapped to my face? I'm going to need better input devices soon. That's more $$$ I have a pretty high-end system right now, capable of playing pretty much any top-end game at full settings at 60FPS, and it doesn't meet the specs facebook/oculus wants, so to use it my purchase-price goes up by 4 figures. I buy it, and a year later an even betterer headset comes out. I'm going to need to have a dedicated space for it, I have too many beer bottles and other things on my desk to be blindly moving around with motion controls. I'm really concerned also about the marketing and messaging coming from facebook/oculus. I really don't want to be part of a facebook branded and owned cyberspace. And the marketing story (we're shipping with an Xbox One controller!) is not what I want to hear from a supposedly 2 billion dollar company. They've already so much as said they're going to nickle and dime buyers with new controllers later anyway.
legohead 11y ago
I went to E3 for the sole purpose of trying out VR (Oculus). First time I tried out DK1, I was incredibly disappointed. The resolution made the experience worthless. I went to E3 another time, again for Oculus, and they had a whole booth set up this time with DK2. It was also disappointing. Better resolution, but still not good enough, and like Atwood says, the controls are terrible. I was trying it out on a AAA game, too. When I started seeing articles spouting how unbelievable VR was, I just assumed they were using some new model that fixed all these problems.. but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just hype, too. It could also be that these journalists simply aren't gamers, and seeing snazzy 3d graphics up in their face for the first time is enough to blow them away.
gexla 11y ago
I was swayed by his points enough that my level of excitement for buying one of these things has taken a big hit. On the other hand, the industry hasn't had much of a chance to get running yet. Maybe the hardware issues will prevent this from happening anytime soon. But I'm not surprised that you would get bored working with device which only has demo content available for it. I took a look at a list of some of the highest gaming budgets. I would think an effort of the scale of a game on this list could create something which would provide a good counter argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_g...
scld 11y ago
DK1 and DK2 are light years behind the newest revision of VR tech. Try both of them back to back and see for yourself. Night and day.
- kefka 11y ago
  They are both pretty far back. They are also only $350. I have access to IUPUI's CAVE, as well as other VR equipment. The expensive equipment is really good, but on part with ~$20k and up. And it's not portable. And it requires applications developed for the CAVE system. I can haul the laptop in a bag and the rift in its box. Fast, good, or cheap. Rift picked Fast and cheap. Can't say I blame them. It does well for me and my groups.
curiousjorge 11y ago
I'd say for VR it's definitely an improvement. Resolutions will get better. More power will get cheaper. I think we realize that to have immersion we absolutely need accessories. Haptic bodysuits and gloves. Simulate tacticle sensations and feedbacks digitally. Firing a shotgun resulting in your arms moving back as if you just fired a shotgun. Next we can have some sort of stationary hamster ball where you could move about in complete freedom suspended in air. It would rotate to give you an illusion of gravity. The haptic bodysuit would give you the feeling that you are standing on the ground or in a race car or a spaceship. Why stop there? Nanomachine solution you would drink and allow you to eat food in your VR and taste it. The possibilities are endless but so are the unique challenges each of these necessary component of VR. OR there was a way to fire some sort of lucid dream world but controlled by a software. You would know you are dreaming but you would be completely caught up in that VR world generated with the help of your own brain. Everything feels real, but what if people neglect their own bodies, wanting to be in the world as long as possible.
prbuckley 11y ago
This article makes some fair points but the authors opinion is tainted by recency bias. A new technology doesn't need to be as good or better then recent technology it just needs to be different and unique in some way. Gamers and gaming has a really high bar of expectations. I agree that generation 1 of consumer VR won't meet existing AAA game title experiance but it doesnt have to garner mass market appeal. This is like expecting the first mobile phones to be as polished as the iPhone, or early versions of online video to be as good as highdef tvs for mass market appeal. Clearly that wasnt the case, people found value in these early versions of technology even though they were not as good as alternative options because they added some additional element that was unique. For mobile phones if was mobility, for online video it was easy sharing and watch on demand. What will be the key value consumers derive from VR? That remains to be answered but there is something unique and different enough about VR that makes it promising.
pixie_ 11y ago
DK2 isn't that good - ghosting, no positional tracking, screen door effect, etc.. CV1 really is amazing though. I've tried it. I wonder what the author would think.
hyperion2010 11y ago
This article is very much spot on. I think the true value of VR is the ability to provide new ways of playing in virtual spaces, but those ways of playing need to be compelling, they need to have good gameplay, like anything else. The 'gameplay' for watching a movie in VR is going to be absolute shit, because the viewer inherently has zero agency. The experience must be interactive and it must give the player a sense of agency (re: why hands are critical), otherwise the cost of putting on the headset will be too high for most people. Similarly, VR won't replace other experiences that have good gameplay and give players a sense of agency. Alien Isolation is an absolutely amazing game because the level of quality for the writing, pacing, level design, sound design, voice acting, control scheme, gameplay mechanics etc. are all in the 99th percentile for games and more importantly all of those parts complement eachother. Producing something like that is HARD regardless of the medium. For every Alien Isolation there are going to be a pile of shit games that you really don't want to play. I think most of the VR guys admit that bad games in VR are going to be exceptionally bad, but I haven't heard anyone articulate quite so clearly Jeff's concerns that the experiences will just be boring. Watching Conway's game of life run: boring. Setting up and _playing_ with a fully interactive Conway's game of life: wait is it already 2am?!
fsloth 11y ago
A description I read about galaxy vr is the only application that made sense in the current VR space from consumer point of view - the optics can create a friggin huge 2D screen to view in 3D space. I haven't tested it though. I'm not so sure gaming is the numero uno application. There are a shiteload of places I would like to experience but really cannot access. Oceanic trenches, top of Everest, experiencing a volcanic erruption from near by. Sports fans would probably appreciate a POV right above the playing field (images from drone cams). Games sound really boring to me - compared to the real world vistas I could experience. Yeah, middle aged geezer, blah blah blah.
realcoolguy 11y ago
Today's VR still isn't there. Yesterday's VR didn't go anywhere. However as someone who has only used the Devkit1 of the Rift I can really see this is the future of SOME entertainment. It is going to be amazing, eventually. Games in 5-8 years made for VR are going to be mindblowingly immersive. Then again we're still going to have non-VR games. I think it's important to understand that this tech is really only useful in certain contexts. Horror games (for VR) are going to be painful, adrenaline pumping, sweat inducing, monstrosities. Huge possibilities exist for experiencing other perspectives in VR, too numerous to even count. Even basic things like experiencing what it's like to be taller/shorter will have an unexpectedly large impact on immersion. VR is basically the DDR dancepad of the future. It's just an unusual interface device to increase immersion, but it's going to (eventually) be incredible. I'm very excited for the future of VR and non-VR alike.
norea-armozel 11y ago
I feel that VR hardware may be good enough to sell to early adopters, but my fear is that the software and products like 'SL 2.0 (Project Sansar)' won't be good enough to give early adopters a reason to buy the hardware. It's all a chicken/egg situation. If there's no good product out there to justify the price tag, no matter how small, then why buy the thing? With products like the iPod and the early smart phones there were compelling reasons to buy them (convenience is a common factor for both). But what's the compelling reason for VR other than novelty? Will it make it easier for game designers and story makers (think Pixar or anyone in the film industry tbh) to convey previously impossible stories? I'm not so sure VR gives creators a new tool in that regards, so I'm going to wait out this cycle of VR to see what happens. Buying the Rift to play Elite Dangerous in VR mode doesn't really excite me and I'm a long time user of virtual worlds like Second Life (going on 11 years on January 2016).
nazgulnarsil 11y ago
the hype is about the trendline, not the current experiences. The DK1 was a quantum leap over previous efforts. DK2 was so far beyond DK1 it was a completely different experience. Vive is apparently as far beyond DK2 as DK2 was beyond DK1, though I haven't tried it. Ignoring this in favor of "lol DK2 isn't that great" is shortsighted.
intrasight 11y ago
People fall into two camps: Camp 1: "Anyone that doesn't understand what a seminal change this is needs to take a history lesson" Camp 2: "Anyone that doesn't understand that this is mostly hype needs to take a history lesson" I'm gonna stake an opinion here and put myself solidly in Camp 1. I think this is going to be as impactful as the transition from radio/audio to tv/screen. Radio didn't go away, but it is a much diminished medium. Compare your own daily radio time vs. screen time. The same shift will now occur, and we'll see similar ratio with daily screen time vs VR/AR time. Go backward in time to 1945 and ask a teenager if they'd rather watch TV or listen to the radio. Ask the same question of today's teens with regard to VR. The human brain craves high-fidelity stimulation. A flat screen is just no match. TV was "just OK" when first introduced to consumers. The picture was lousy, the tech was complex, the cost was high. No doubt that is all true of VR today. It won't be true for long.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Playing DA here, but a lot of what you said could be said about 3D movies, which were a total flop for 15-20 years and even today face a lot of backlash and hatred. While I have high hopes/beliefs in VR, I do fall under the "3D movies suck, I wish they'd stop making them. It's a failed technology and gives me headaches." camp. So I can see where Camp 2 is coming from when they hate on AR/VR technologies.
  - tlb 11y ago
    What surprised me even more than not especially liking 3D movies, was actively disliking high-frame-rate movies.
    - intrasight 11y ago
      High frame rate movies will be fine once they get people who understand the psychophysics involved.
  - intrasight 11y ago
    But follow my logic. Put a 13 year old in front of a TV with a collection of 2D and 3D movies - and see which ones she chooses to watch. My whole point is that the 13 year old's get to decide in the long run. Your "3D movies suck" sentiment is perhaps an adults opinion (one that I share), and perhaps also an opinion expressed about movie theaters - which is not the same as personal tech choices.
pkroll 11y ago
I find the Oculus Rift DK2 with Vorpx (one of several competing pieces of software to play older or not-designed-for-VR games using the Rift) actually kind of spectacular. Elder Scrolls Online works well with it, and the game is an entirely different kind of experience when you're "actually" there. Atwood might be entirely correct about it being far from mainstream, but did anyone think the first consumer VR headsets from Oculus and Valve were going to hit the big time? I assume they'll do well enough to get to the next generation, and that content will improve over time. If you look at videos of people trying the available demos, they're already feeling it... but everything custom made is short, as no major game works directly with VR. FWIW, the DK2 screen looks a lot better to my eyes with a screen protector on it: it just barely blurs the pixels so there's much less screen door effect than there is out of the box. I've not had the chance to try the newer, higher-res and framerate headsets.

162 points by cremno 11y ago

I agree with this article. We bought a Oculus DK2 for work[1]. It functions. It's cool for an hour or two. But no one's touched the DK2 since I wrote that article. There's simply nothing to do with it, and what you can do is better done with a monitor screen. The DK2 is incredibly low resolution. You can easily see the pixels. I was able to get a sense of presence once or twice, when driving down a straight in iRacing, otherwise it was always just a cool 3D effect strapped to my face. [1] https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs/aeikum/2015/5/29/codeweavers-experiments-with-oculus-support-for-mac-and-linux https://www.codeweavers.com/about/blogs/aeikum/2015/5/29/cod...

coldpie 11y ago
(Aside: > Current generation consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PS4 may be fine with (most) games running at 1080p, on the PS4 at least, Ouch, that's gotta burn the XBone team.)
manuelflara 11y ago
Well of course there's not much to do with it now (other than develop for it), since no good VR sets have come to market yet (this was a developer kit you're talking about), and no games have shipped for them. It's like saying "yeah I've got a PlayStation5 developer kit the other day.. there's not much to do with it".
JayHost 11y ago
I believe the DK2 is something like 3 models behind the Consumer version. On DK2 website they ask users to wait to buy consumer. Best VR for me is Horror/360camera even on Cardboard. It's just another waiting game for more "Apps". It's like buying a ps4 without any new NaughtyDog Titles.
dwild 11y ago
> There's simply nothing to do with it, and what you can do is better done with a monitor screen. What content? It's an development kit... except if you intends to develop content for it, for sure you won't find stuff to do with it. It's like saying I hate the android development kit because there's nothing to do with it. We need content for VR, personally I believe this is why the rift is still not released. That's also why they invest that much in game development. > I was able to get a sense of presence once or twice You are unlucky then, the immersion I feel is crazy. Each time I remove my headset, I get the same weird feeling of not being at the right place. > it was always just a cool 3D effect I'm pretty sure some good old gamer said the same when they transitioned from text to graphic, and then again when they moved from 2D to 3D. For sure it's not for everyone, the same way game console aren't for everyone. This is not the revolution that some are saying it is, it won't be the next iPhone, at least it doesn't have to be. It's a new way to play game, a new environment, that's all.
- coldpie 11y ago
  > You are unlucky then, the immersion I feel is crazy. Each time I remove my headset, I get the same weird feeling of not being at the right place. What games/demos do you play with it? I'd love to experience more compelling software.

kefka 11y ago

That's your opinion. I do demos with a Alienware R18 laptop with a DK2 with demos different depts have made. I bring this oversized desktop in a laptop format to demos, and show them off. I perhaps have 1 or 2 people out of 50+ each time that aren't wowed. And given that I've went through a 1000 people at semi-random, that I think its fair to say that this guy is in the ~3% minority who isn't impressed. All I can say is to give it a shot. Try a roller coaster demo, or play different games in the Rift. It really is crazy awesome. The only bad thing is keyboard input is hard, and still an unsolved problem. I figure when haptic gloves get good, this will be the final answer. Edit: Seriously? -1's over a valid comments from someone who has 4 DK2's and 2 DK1's ? So bashing VR on HN is in vogue now. Got it.

CosmicShadow 11y ago
If you aren't a gamer or technology person, it's way more impressive then if you already live in that world. Spending hours on the thing vs a demo is a very different experience as well.
- kefka 11y ago
  Admittedly true. I do spend a great deal of time on our rifts. I've done some dev work for it, along with using it as my virtual desktop. I didn't think that people would be interested in my personal use case, because I am rather an outlier. Airflow is one concern. I am hot, and stay hot. Along with that, it tends to fog up the lenses and get somewhat sweaty. Demos aren't a concern because condensation doesn't have a chance to form. I also have issues of depth perfection after about 4 hours, which is around lunchtime. This goes away in perhaps 5 minutes, but is still a problem. There is also the screen door effect still in DK2. I've heard the CV1 doesn't have this, but that shall be seen. There is also the mention of input issue. Using keyboard is still hard. I still resort to looking down the nose-hole to see the keyboard (others with Rift will know what I mean). I've been playing around using a wiimote and nunchuck for input along with a sensor bar, and it works well. Sound is also another problem area, but CV1 has builtin speakers. It's to be seen if they're good or not.
  - 11y ago

rwmj 11y ago

As a counterpoint, I used a DK1 and I thought it was brilliant. Can't wait to use a production model. I also showed it to an architect friend of mine and he loved it and wants to use it to walk his clients around unrealized house designs.

sayangel 11y ago
hey rwmj! Would love to talk to your architect friend about how we wants to utilize VR for client presentations. email: angel[at]insitevr.com My company, InsiteVR, makes it easy for architects to take their 3D models and deploy a VR walkthrough that they can use for design reviews or client presentations. No coding experience required, just a 3D model. here's a cool example of one of our customers using our software: a cool case study: www.interiorarchitects.com/blog/the-future-of-architectural-renderings-at-ia-is-in-virtual-reality/

howeyc 11y ago

I think this is where the adult industry can act as the "bridge" and can make use of VR as it is today until it is mature enough for gaming. The lack of input/feedback isn't that big of a deal since for adult entertainment your hands need to be free for a more fulfilling experience.

mdemare 11y ago

Jeff compares the DK2 to Quake resolution (640x480), but I think that's quite misleading. Quake looks terrible, to modern eyes, but that has little to do with the resolution, and much more with the low polygon count, low quality textures and the lack of lighting effects. Run Far Cry 4 at 640x480, and it'll look much better.

codinghorror 11y ago
I do not think Far Cry 4 would look very good at 640x480. Imagine it full screen on even a modest 20" monitor at that resolution. There are tricks, yes, but big pixels are a fundamental problem until you reach a "good enough" size. Sort of like when the iPhone 4 and retina was released. We are very, very far from retina resolution in VR.
- lfowles 11y ago
  http://images.cdn.stuff.tv/sites/stuff.tv/files/styles/flexslider_desktop/public/news/FC4_resized.jpg?itok=2ZSfqq8p http://images.cdn.stuff.tv/sites/stuff.tv/files/styles/flexs... Looks significantly better than Quake, even when maximized to fullscreen (except for the JPEG artifacts)! edit: far cry 4 640x480 filetype:png http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/yQq6DDQq-m2a5wamnac6ztznkryv70k98058ede2pzps4a4stz4.png http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/yQq6DDQq-m2a... http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/Z7ptQrAC-m1ns3ad8vr1t7auu05yj2dug80xr7hbsmgln4qqtog.png http://www.picmygame.com/wp-content/uploads/ktz/Z7ptQrAC-m1n... The text isn't great and the last image is hard to look at, but that's probably post processing.
- dwild 11y ago
  It still look way better than Quake.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

My only disagreement is with the "gloves" idea. I thought we learned from the Wii that motion controls without force feedback is anti-immersion. Imagine "firing" a 12 gauge shotgun and seeing considerable recoil in VR while your hands stay still. Without haptic feedback I'll have to rely on imagination for the full experience, which I thought video games were supposed to skip.

saint_fiasco 11y ago
Maybe they could make it so you have to mimic the recoil motion yourself, with your own hands, to fire your shotgun. You would have to make sure to always turn the safety of your shotgun before putting it away, otherwise if try to quick-draw you will shoot yourself in the foot. edit: grammar
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  "I totally shot him! The game didn't register the motion at all! This sucks. I'm getting the controller."
- mcdougle 11y ago
  That's anti-immersive, too. When you fire a shotgun in real life, you don't have to do the recoil motion yourself -- you just pull the trigger, and the recoil occurs on its own.
bobajeff 11y ago
Yeah, and unfortunately haptic feedback is even farther away in terms of emersion than VR. I imagine we might possibly come close by using a some sort of full body contraption that would somehow stimulate all your nerves. But it would need to be sophisticated enough to emulate muscle movement. But then that's fundamentally incompatible with motion controls. So you'd have to then create something that's able to detect and interpret nerve signals from the brain to such a degree it wouldn't contradict the VR Headset and Haptic Pod version of the world. Otherwise immersion would tank.
rrss1122 11y ago

mkeblx 11y ago

Jeff is speaking from a position of not having tried the good stuff that delivers a sense of 'presence' in the virtual world. That is the game changer, the thing that is making people believe something special is on the way. When he says "I have experienced modern VR. A lot. I've tried both the Oculus DK1, the Oculus DK2." he's just flatly wrong, he hasn't. Those headsets at not modern VR and using them as the reference for where VR is at is pretty crazy. But you'll get a chance to try to presence-inducing stuff in the next ~6 months with the consumer release of the Vive and Oculus CV1.

richmarr 11y ago
> ... delivers a sense of 'presence' in the virtual world I keep re-reading your comment and it keeps getting stuck in my marketing filter. What do you mean by a sense of presence?
- Ologn 11y ago
  > What do you mean by a sense of presence? A VR simulation where you are on top of a high tower/building, and you are physically unable to take a leap forward because your amygdala won't let you, that is VR presence.
- kefka 11y ago
  I've interpreted presence as "how much can you fool the brain that you really are there". The screen-door effect is still moderately high in DK2. I've heard the CV1 has much reduced the size of the pixels, so the effect is greatly reduced. Also the refresh also needs to be jacked up further. I'd prefer 120hz or 240hz. That would assist in faster and more seamless head-tracking. I don't think HDMI can handle that much bandwidth though. I could be wrong. Aside) The screendoor effect is the effect of magnifying pixels in a LCD screen so you can see the pixels along with the interstitial black space where the pixels arent. The black space creates black lines like a screen door. Your eyes will then flip on focusing on the image displayed and the screen door, losing the feeling of depth and presence.
  - jacquesm 11y ago

moron4hire 11y ago

So his problem is that pre-release, AAA game software for pre-release hardware is nothing more than tech demos. And bloggers. But let's not get too far off topic discussing his own contributions to the "I need to get my voice included, too!" problems with blogging-as-a-career-move. Let's just stick to the tech. It's disappointing to see someone who has such a prominent position in the developer community not just completely misunderstand a new piece of tech, but then go on to use his platform to stand up one part of that burgeoning sector as a straw man against all of it. I agree, the games and other software available right now are underwhelming in a lot of aspects. That's because they are either made by indies who don't have the technical prowess to figure out best workflow for the nascent technology, or by AAA game studios that don't have the creativity necessary to make anything other than adaptations of their current FPS franchises, what all the serious pundents agree is the worst possible UX for VR. That's not too say there aren't great experiences, but they are few and far between right now. Though frankly, so are monodisplay games, after you've burnt out on Call of Duty and World of Warcraft five (or more!) years ago. But if all you see VR as good for is games, man, I just don't know if I can even reach you with words. People keep comparing VR to when smartphones were new. I think that is wrong, because it implies a platform rather than peripheral approach, but even if we accept it, are smartphones just about games? IDK, maybe for some cynical, short sighted view of them they are. I don't think we are anywhere near fully taking the potential of smartphones. But even more, they represent a fairly different (though I wouldn't say fundamentally different) means if computing for users. If you look at the original iPhone like Atwood has for VR, then you're going to come to similar conclusions, "this hardware sucks, the resolution sucks, who would want this? I want Siri now." I mean, the iPhone didn't even have the App Store when it was first released. Everyone was expected to make HTML5 web apps. But VR isn't smartphones. It's upgrading from monochromatic CRTs to full color LCDs and adding a mouse to your computer, before any GUI operating system has been invented. Thinking this is only for games, that it won't evolve (thaaank you, Jeff Atwood, we weren't aware resolution should be improved or that the headsets are heavy), that I don't think I've ever seen anyone come unstuck from such stubbornly old ways of thinking. VR is going to be the thing that keeps the first manned mission to Mars from dying of boredom-induced insanity on the longest single-leg voyage man has ever undertaken. The Mars colonists will use VR to exercise their body and minds. It will allow them to participate in vastly more cultural exchange with Earth than would be feasible without. VR is going to be the thing to save the Rainforest and push people to cleanup any future ecological disasters. We are going to be able to put people in the space, to give then a hook on which to empathize that isn't possible through just TV. Even for mundane things, VR is going to revolutionize content authoring, especially in the 3D space. Editing 3D models with 2D tools is an exercise in learned zen suppression of frustration. I'm working on an IDE in VR, where text isn't just an adaptation of the old dog chow of your Visual Studios or Eclipses or Emacsen of the world. So yeah, it's young. Is it "not ready?" I don't agree. When the first color CRTs were released, we knew they would be better at a higher resolution, but that didn't stop us from using them. I think VR is ready. It's not ideal, but we won't be able to build the ideal unless we get it out, start exercising it. EDIT: okay, to quell the "hype" a bit, things you can do in VR right now that are better than without VR. - Simulator games, i.e. racing and flying, on the DK2. Project Cars and Elite: Dangerous are flipping amazing. I actually don't care for games for VR that much, but I love these games and I can't play them without the headset anymore. Yes, even the "low" resolution of the DK2 is better than playing these games at a "high" resolution on a flat screen. - Architectural visualization with Google Cardboard. Several architecture firms are now using VR to visualize future buildings as well as additions to current buildings. I've heard several anecdotes of plans being fundamentally changed after seeing them in VR vs. just architectural drawings. - Watch films made for VR in Vrse (http://vrse.com/ http://vrse.com/). There aren't very many yet, and some of them are very short, but they are very good and not at all like 3D TV. Things you'll be able to do, very soon - Event space visualization with Google Cardboard. Sites like Social Tables are developing visualizers for their existing event space planning software. - Interactively author GPU shaders in the DK2 https://share.oculus.com/app/shadertoy-vr https://share.oculus.com/app/shadertoy-vr - Play "I Expect You To Die" which has not only been one of the few VR games I've enjoyed, it's one of the only "locked room" games I've enjoyed https://share.oculus.com/app/i-expect-you-to-die https://share.oculus.com/app/i-expect-you-to-die So is VR "not ready yet"? I don't think so. I think it's as ready as any new tech on release day, perhaps even more so, because the developer ecosystem is just so much more open.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

hedgehog 11y ago

The Vive's approach for the controllers works really well and it sounds like it'll be shipping this year. It's strange that he doesn't mention it. I've tried a bunch of the other attempts going back to primitive university lab stuff in the 90s that took up two SGI Octanes, the Vive is the first thing I've seen that seems good enough to build apps on. I think the biggest problem initially is going to be figuring out what the killer app is. In terms of comparisons with the growth curve of mobile VR might look the same but we're much closer to the AMPS brick phone stage not the iPhone.

DDLawson 11y ago

So refreshing to see an article about VR that's sole purpose isn't to build hype for VR! My only experience with VR was trying the Samsung Gear headset in Schipol airport. It was a new, exciting experience for the five minutes I got to try it out. I imagine that Oculus Rift will be a much better experience, seeing as it's not based off a mobile phone but built solely for a VR immersion. Despite how relatively amazing my first VR experience was, I can quite clearly see what the author means about it not 'revolutionising' this and that industry upon release. But I feel the most important aspect is that the technology is in its early infancy and, just like the television/consoles that came before it, will take a lot of time, innovation and behavioural changes to truly break into the general public and make a difference across different industries.

sireat 11y ago

Counterpoint: My friend's architecture office has Occulus, and everyone, clients and architects love it. I asked her if anyone experienced any headaches or seasickness but since there is no action happening just a visual walk through buildings it seems side effects are minimized. So for architecture Occulus fills a nice niche.

sayangel 11y ago
hey sireat! I'd love to learn more about how your friend's architecture office is using the Oculus and what their experience has been with is so far. My company, InsiteVR, makes it super simple for architects to get from 3D modeling software to VR without the headache of programming a game engine or setting everything up. And we use the GearVR so it's wireless, nice res, and easy to set up. Shoot me an email at angel[at]insitevr.com - I'd love an introduction to your friend.
- shiftpgdn 11y ago
  Oh man this is heartbreaking. I've been developing what looks to be an incredibly similar product/workflow to yours, solo, for the last 8 months.
  - sayangel 11y ago
    shiftpgdn we're hiring! shoot me an email angel[at]insitevr.com
ghaff 11y ago
This strikes me as a really good use of the technology. As you suggest, it doesn't need to be high frame rate or truly immersive. It just needs to be better than looking at blueprints (which is really hard for untrained people) or, best case, doing a VR walkthrough on a monitor. I wonder if this and AR (e.g. Google Glass) are on a similar trajectory. Lots of hype that near to mid-term--call it over the next 10 years or so--ends up mostly as a relatively niche technology for specific commercial use cases.
jimbobimbo 11y ago

fippydarkpaw 11y ago

"I've always been the first kid on my block to recommend an awesome, transformative gaming experience, from the Atari 2600 to the Kinect" Kinect was an awesome transformative gaming experience? Really?

timr 11y ago

LOL. I lived through the first VR hype bubble, and it's pretty remarkable how similar this is to my recollection of VR back then -- the only difference is that at the time, the goofy, uncomfortable headset was tethered to a refrigerator-sized SGI machine at the science museum, and there was no hope of getting it at home. Instead, we got the Lawnmower Man on VHS. It sounds like technology has advanced enough that we have finally miniaturized the underwhelming user experience for the home viewer, but we still haven't addressed the bigger problem of coming up with something compelling to do with it. Plus ça change...maybe soon we'll get to see investors salivating over "multimedia experiences" delivered via some futuristic version of CD-ROM!

redwood 11y ago
Do I really have to be the one to say it. .. the four (or more) letter word starting with "p"?
- timr 11y ago
  Heh. That's an area where quality input devices become even more essential, no?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
wpietri 11y ago
So true! People looking at something and finding it "mindblowing" for short periods says almost nothing about whether a) there is actual value delivered, or b) there's a real business to be built there. I can count at least 5 waves of 3D hype going back to the 1850s. Stereoscopic photos were all the rage for brief periods starting with the 1851 World's Fair in London [1], and we are all familiar with the 3D View Master, which was developed in 1939. There was the anaglyph 3D [2] wave in the 1950s, and as the marketing suggests, the main audience appeal was novelty. [3] Next came, as you say, the VR wave of the 1990s, including predictions of "affordable VR by 1994". [4] We next have this decade's rise and fall of 3D movies, with a related rise and fall of 3D TV. So far, history suggests that this is just another wave of novelty. 3D pictures did not replace pictures. 3D movies and TV did not replace movies and TV. The evidence is equally strong that many otherwise smart people can combine "cool novelty effect" plus "OMG future" and to end up fooling themselves. Sure, it could be different this time. But I suspect that 3D will end up, for at least the 6th time, as being about as appealing as Smell-o-Vision. [5] This is in strong contrast to color and sound, which started out being optional and became mandatory both for movies and computers. Wake me up, I say, when we get to showing movies in "Feel Around". [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wax_%281953_film%29#/media/File:Houseofwax1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wax_%281953_film%29#/... [4] http://i.imgur.com/j73ipNp.jpg http://i.imgur.com/j73ipNp.jpg which is from http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1992&pub=2&id=100 http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1992&pub=2... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjm_zmBoxjw#t=2m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjm_zmBoxjw#t=2m20s [7] and dang, when will we get some hypertext here?

silverlight 11y ago

I'm most excited for VR headsets to replace my desktop monitors. Infinitely sized displays in 360 degrees around me...I think that's where the real future is for these things. And doing that won't require nearly the hardware power that a 3D game does. The main thing holding it back is that the displays in the Oculus are still a little too low-resolution to make text 100% crisp and clear. I fully expect that a couple of years from now, though, I'll be ditching my monitors for a VR headset.

XorNot 11y ago
This is the dream for me too. We're a couple k more lines of resolution on cell phone screens to making it happen though.
exelius 11y ago
More likely you'll end up with something like the Hololens. It won't replace your monitor, rather augment it. AR is the stop-gap between what we have now and true VR. Truly immersive VR is going to require some sort of neural control interface, and we're at least 20 years off from that being a productized mass-market device. VR headsets are hella disorienting. I can't imagine any manufacturer recommending more than an hour of continuous usage. I just don't see any benefit to trying to work on a VR headset: I continuously have to refer to items in the physical world (my cell phone, written notes, etc) while working. Being immersed in VR would simply be too disorienting. Now, I don't doubt that it'll happen eventually. But the time horizon is closer to 15-20 years IMO; VR is still very much in its infancy. Things like this are an art and a science; we're doing pretty well with the science part but we need to figure out the art, and that takes iteration and above all, time.
kabouseng 11y ago
And that would really be getting in the zone while coding, as long as I can keep HN out of that world...

jonstokes 11y ago

This article is pure distillation of everything that's wrong with VR -- not the tech, but the people who are thinking about it and trying to build it. Specifically youngish white male gamer nerds. I want to write about this more at length -- maybe I'll put something on my blog or on Medium or something -- but I also tried VR, and the most interesting aspect of the experience was just how clueless all of the gamer types at the gaming company office I went to were about what other people out there in the world would want from the experience. Here is what I mean. The most impressive and important part of the otherwise crappy VR demo I sat through was a crudely rendered virtual media room with a big screen TV, where I was placed on a virtual couch to watch some movie clips. Why did this rock my world? It rocked my world because I happen to know that it would cost me $40K at least to add a media room on to my house, and if I could buy $5K worth of VR gear for my wife and I and get pretty much the same effect, then that would be a major win for us (and a loss for Austin's contractors and architects). In other words, gaming is the /least/ interesting thing about VR. VR has the potential to disrupt the architecture and building trades. In the real world, people like to have access to spaces that they can do various non-gaming things in, and they have historically been willing to pay quite a bit of money to have those spaces built. VR will drive the cost of adding those spaces to one's home/office/trailer/pad/etc. down towards zero. I tried explaining this to the crowd of young white male gamer nerds gathered around the pizza station after the demo, and they sort of chuckled at this boring old guy rambling about building contractors (I'm pretty sure none of them owned a house) and went back to wracking their brains about what, to them, is the single most important thing in the world: how are we going to make a frigging GAME with this? I know these guys, because prior to my wife + 3 kids + house I was one of them: a young white male gamer nerd. But at this point I've been around the block enough to recognize that the number of people interested in blasting virtual aliens or orcs is a few orders of magnitude lower than the number of people who want to just hang out on the deck of a mega-yacht at sundown, or have coffee once again in an exact replica of a Parisian cafe that they used to frequent in the 60's, or retreat from their kids and life into a virtual media room and watch Game of Thrones on a virtual big-screen TV. Note that I'm not slamming Jeff Atwood, who for all I know owns a house and who thinks about many things other than leveling up and collecting loot. I'm just saying that he has thoroughly missed the point of VR, and in a super common and troubling way. I'm not an SJW by any stretch, but VR needs women, and black people, and old people, and in fact it will get them because the market will demand it. That's because VR isn't the next Atari 2600 or Kinect -- it's the next TV, and the next Internet. Are today's Internet addicts hooked on MUDs or MOOs? No, they aren't. And tomorrow's VR junkies won't give a rip about games.

saturdaysaint 11y ago

A lot of his complaints seem to be imposed by constraints on current consumer spending - basically, surely people won't be bothered to buy a VR rig if they have a current gen console or spend more than they would on a tablet. I disagree. So much of consumer electronics (TVs/phones/tablets) has become cheap enough that I think the usual demographics with disposable income won't mind making a splash if Oculus is truly offering a new experience. I've almost been disappointed by going to Best Buy in recent years and not even seeing anything especially cool/desirable there. This generation also doesn't place a lot of value on traditional aspirational purchases (eg you'll see a lot of well to do yuppies in Priuses or Subarus rather than the BMW that was a rite of passage in previous generations) - if anything, I think this may lead people to massively underestimate how much millennials will spend on novel/innovative big ticket items.

austenallred 11y ago

It says something that we're writing blog posts about, "This early version of tech didn't absolutely blow my mind" I mean, this is still early-iPod-days of this tech. You could look at it, especially after hearing hype about the iPod, and say something like, "No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame." http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip... Anecdotally, I've found that looking at anything from a perspective of, "People are raving about this, does it live up to the hype?" always makes me respect the thing less. That doesn't make it less transformative. It just means you didn't like it as much in the beginning. The criticisms are warranted, but that doesn't sway what the future of VR looks like for me.

theschwa 11y ago
Not only is this based on "early versions of the tech", but no one has even released a consumer product yet. These are are all developer prototypes. Even the Samsung Gear VR is still an "innovator edition".
- platz 11y ago
  from the article: "The technology to do it is there, battle tested, and completely mature. I know because I saw Captain EO at Epcot Center in 3D way back in 1985, and it was amazing thirty years ago!"
coldtea 11y ago
>I mean, this is still early-iPod-days of this tech. Well, people have been touting VR since the early nineties. When is this "late version" gonna come out?
- fixermark 11y ago
  Now that we have sub-one-dollar accelerometer circuits with enough accuracy and reliability to embed into commercial gaming controllers coupled with the existence of enough processing power to render DOOM-level graphics at the 60FPS necessary to minimize the number of people who get physically ill in the headset, the "late version" is actually very close. It has always been a hardware challenge, and we are actually likely to be right on the cusp of meeting the challenge this time. It's an exciting time to be alive.

rrss1122 11y ago

Seems contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Even the cheap google cardboard, which ticks all his requirements except 4K (and probably will have that in the next year), is mindblowing, both to me and friends and family I've shown it to. I didn't even show them games running on cardboard, just videos shot using Google's special 360 cameras. The technical challenges around VR are not that deep, hard, and fascinating. At this point, it's only a matter of prices coming down.

beeboop 11y ago
Even with a 4k phone screen there would be a lot of room for improvement as the Oculus user sees it.
coldtea 11y ago
>Seems contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Seems he gave about 2000 words of the concrete reasons he doesn't like it. Heck, he event gave CONCRETE suggestions of things that need improvement. So, no, this is the very opposite of "contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian". >is mindblowing, both to me and friends and family I've shown it to Gimmicks can be mindblowing too. Have you used it for extented periods of time? Would you? And, since there are always outliers, would others bother? Some people were also totally in love with their Google Glass BS, and we know how that turned out in the market.
- kamaal 11y ago
  For some one who is not into gaming, the experience(no matter how horrible to the expert gamer) will seem like the first time some one would have seen Television, used a telephone or used a desktop computer. Its a new thing which the ordinary person hasn't used before, and they will be super thrilled to even get a chance to use it. Heck even the tech crowd was excited about this around 2 years back, how do you expect the ordinary public to not be excited about it? Yeah, there are problems to solve. And once the overall trend moves towards VR, there will be a good enough incentive to bring down prices and have more focussed engineering towards these problems. Beyond all that, Gaming looks like a very small area of application for this kind of a technology.

iblaine 11y ago

How is this article news? Everyone knows that VR is still a work in progress. Another article pointing out the current flaws is not bring anything to the table.

sayangel 11y ago

i'd be interested to hear what Jeff thinks about the GearVR. Most people brush it off as just another phone holder with lenses, but I'd say it's the most compelling VR headset available on the market. It has a lot of what he requests from a VR headset: wireless, better display than DK2, and doesnt require a gaming rig. It's virtually plug and play and I think that's why people love it. MobileVR is what will and should be people's first taste. I've spoken with a lot of architects who love cardboard because it sets such low expectations but blows people away when they put it on. The DK2 is a bit underwhelming as you're strapped into some gaming rig so you're expecting some cutting edge graphics and end up with what something that looks like N64 VR. One thing that was neglected in this post is the emotional response that VR, even in it's current state, can evoke. I was sold on the Rift after trying some of the early horror titles. They were graphically very basic, but every corner had me sweating and the jump scares had me looking away. You could argue a 2D monitor has the same effect but when you're in VR and try to look away only to find you don't see your living room or anything familiar everything changes. And the social experiences like Convrge or Altspace are also something to be excited about. I was at first quite skeptical of things like this, but the subtle head movements that are incorporated into the avatars are enough to give one a sense of "meatspace" social cues. I once found myself talking to someone in Convrge and was awkwardly nodding and avoiding eye contact when I realized this was just an avatar. It's simple but powerful.

bane 11y ago

I'm really interested in good VR, but then I start to really think about it: How long do I really want to play a game with a headset strapped to my face? I'm going to need better input devices soon. That's more $$$ I have a pretty high-end system right now, capable of playing pretty much any top-end game at full settings at 60FPS, and it doesn't meet the specs facebook/oculus wants, so to use it my purchase-price goes up by 4 figures. I buy it, and a year later an even betterer headset comes out. I'm going to need to have a dedicated space for it, I have too many beer bottles and other things on my desk to be blindly moving around with motion controls. I'm really concerned also about the marketing and messaging coming from facebook/oculus. I really don't want to be part of a facebook branded and owned cyberspace. And the marketing story (we're shipping with an Xbox One controller!) is not what I want to hear from a supposedly 2 billion dollar company. They've already so much as said they're going to nickle and dime buyers with new controllers later anyway.

legohead 11y ago

I went to E3 for the sole purpose of trying out VR (Oculus). First time I tried out DK1, I was incredibly disappointed. The resolution made the experience worthless. I went to E3 another time, again for Oculus, and they had a whole booth set up this time with DK2. It was also disappointing. Better resolution, but still not good enough, and like Atwood says, the controls are terrible. I was trying it out on a AAA game, too. When I started seeing articles spouting how unbelievable VR was, I just assumed they were using some new model that fixed all these problems.. but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just hype, too. It could also be that these journalists simply aren't gamers, and seeing snazzy 3d graphics up in their face for the first time is enough to blow them away.

gexla 11y ago

I was swayed by his points enough that my level of excitement for buying one of these things has taken a big hit. On the other hand, the industry hasn't had much of a chance to get running yet. Maybe the hardware issues will prevent this from happening anytime soon. But I'm not surprised that you would get bored working with device which only has demo content available for it. I took a look at a list of some of the highest gaming budgets. I would think an effort of the scale of a game on this list could create something which would provide a good counter argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_g...

scld 11y ago

DK1 and DK2 are light years behind the newest revision of VR tech. Try both of them back to back and see for yourself. Night and day.

kefka 11y ago
They are both pretty far back. They are also only $350. I have access to IUPUI's CAVE, as well as other VR equipment. The expensive equipment is really good, but on part with ~$20k and up. And it's not portable. And it requires applications developed for the CAVE system. I can haul the laptop in a bag and the rift in its box. Fast, good, or cheap. Rift picked Fast and cheap. Can't say I blame them. It does well for me and my groups.

curiousjorge 11y ago

I'd say for VR it's definitely an improvement. Resolutions will get better. More power will get cheaper. I think we realize that to have immersion we absolutely need accessories. Haptic bodysuits and gloves. Simulate tacticle sensations and feedbacks digitally. Firing a shotgun resulting in your arms moving back as if you just fired a shotgun. Next we can have some sort of stationary hamster ball where you could move about in complete freedom suspended in air. It would rotate to give you an illusion of gravity. The haptic bodysuit would give you the feeling that you are standing on the ground or in a race car or a spaceship. Why stop there? Nanomachine solution you would drink and allow you to eat food in your VR and taste it. The possibilities are endless but so are the unique challenges each of these necessary component of VR. OR there was a way to fire some sort of lucid dream world but controlled by a software. You would know you are dreaming but you would be completely caught up in that VR world generated with the help of your own brain. Everything feels real, but what if people neglect their own bodies, wanting to be in the world as long as possible.

prbuckley 11y ago

This article makes some fair points but the authors opinion is tainted by recency bias. A new technology doesn't need to be as good or better then recent technology it just needs to be different and unique in some way. Gamers and gaming has a really high bar of expectations. I agree that generation 1 of consumer VR won't meet existing AAA game title experiance but it doesnt have to garner mass market appeal. This is like expecting the first mobile phones to be as polished as the iPhone, or early versions of online video to be as good as highdef tvs for mass market appeal. Clearly that wasnt the case, people found value in these early versions of technology even though they were not as good as alternative options because they added some additional element that was unique. For mobile phones if was mobility, for online video it was easy sharing and watch on demand. What will be the key value consumers derive from VR? That remains to be answered but there is something unique and different enough about VR that makes it promising.

pixie_ 11y ago

DK2 isn't that good - ghosting, no positional tracking, screen door effect, etc.. CV1 really is amazing though. I've tried it. I wonder what the author would think.

hyperion2010 11y ago

This article is very much spot on. I think the true value of VR is the ability to provide new ways of playing in virtual spaces, but those ways of playing need to be compelling, they need to have good gameplay, like anything else. The 'gameplay' for watching a movie in VR is going to be absolute shit, because the viewer inherently has zero agency. The experience must be interactive and it must give the player a sense of agency (re: why hands are critical), otherwise the cost of putting on the headset will be too high for most people. Similarly, VR won't replace other experiences that have good gameplay and give players a sense of agency. Alien Isolation is an absolutely amazing game because the level of quality for the writing, pacing, level design, sound design, voice acting, control scheme, gameplay mechanics etc. are all in the 99th percentile for games and more importantly all of those parts complement eachother. Producing something like that is HARD regardless of the medium. For every Alien Isolation there are going to be a pile of shit games that you really don't want to play. I think most of the VR guys admit that bad games in VR are going to be exceptionally bad, but I haven't heard anyone articulate quite so clearly Jeff's concerns that the experiences will just be boring. Watching Conway's game of life run: boring. Setting up and _playing_ with a fully interactive Conway's game of life: wait is it already 2am?!

fsloth 11y ago

A description I read about galaxy vr is the only application that made sense in the current VR space from consumer point of view - the optics can create a friggin huge 2D screen to view in 3D space. I haven't tested it though. I'm not so sure gaming is the numero uno application. There are a shiteload of places I would like to experience but really cannot access. Oceanic trenches, top of Everest, experiencing a volcanic erruption from near by. Sports fans would probably appreciate a POV right above the playing field (images from drone cams). Games sound really boring to me - compared to the real world vistas I could experience. Yeah, middle aged geezer, blah blah blah.

realcoolguy 11y ago

Today's VR still isn't there. Yesterday's VR didn't go anywhere. However as someone who has only used the Devkit1 of the Rift I can really see this is the future of SOME entertainment. It is going to be amazing, eventually. Games in 5-8 years made for VR are going to be mindblowingly immersive. Then again we're still going to have non-VR games. I think it's important to understand that this tech is really only useful in certain contexts. Horror games (for VR) are going to be painful, adrenaline pumping, sweat inducing, monstrosities. Huge possibilities exist for experiencing other perspectives in VR, too numerous to even count. Even basic things like experiencing what it's like to be taller/shorter will have an unexpectedly large impact on immersion. VR is basically the DDR dancepad of the future. It's just an unusual interface device to increase immersion, but it's going to (eventually) be incredible. I'm very excited for the future of VR and non-VR alike.

norea-armozel 11y ago

I feel that VR hardware may be good enough to sell to early adopters, but my fear is that the software and products like 'SL 2.0 (Project Sansar)' won't be good enough to give early adopters a reason to buy the hardware. It's all a chicken/egg situation. If there's no good product out there to justify the price tag, no matter how small, then why buy the thing? With products like the iPod and the early smart phones there were compelling reasons to buy them (convenience is a common factor for both). But what's the compelling reason for VR other than novelty? Will it make it easier for game designers and story makers (think Pixar or anyone in the film industry tbh) to convey previously impossible stories? I'm not so sure VR gives creators a new tool in that regards, so I'm going to wait out this cycle of VR to see what happens. Buying the Rift to play Elite Dangerous in VR mode doesn't really excite me and I'm a long time user of virtual worlds like Second Life (going on 11 years on January 2016).

nazgulnarsil 11y ago

the hype is about the trendline, not the current experiences. The DK1 was a quantum leap over previous efforts. DK2 was so far beyond DK1 it was a completely different experience. Vive is apparently as far beyond DK2 as DK2 was beyond DK1, though I haven't tried it. Ignoring this in favor of "lol DK2 isn't that great" is shortsighted.

intrasight 11y ago

People fall into two camps: Camp 1: "Anyone that doesn't understand what a seminal change this is needs to take a history lesson" Camp 2: "Anyone that doesn't understand that this is mostly hype needs to take a history lesson" I'm gonna stake an opinion here and put myself solidly in Camp 1. I think this is going to be as impactful as the transition from radio/audio to tv/screen. Radio didn't go away, but it is a much diminished medium. Compare your own daily radio time vs. screen time. The same shift will now occur, and we'll see similar ratio with daily screen time vs VR/AR time. Go backward in time to 1945 and ask a teenager if they'd rather watch TV or listen to the radio. Ask the same question of today's teens with regard to VR. The human brain craves high-fidelity stimulation. A flat screen is just no match. TV was "just OK" when first introduced to consumers. The picture was lousy, the tech was complex, the cost was high. No doubt that is all true of VR today. It won't be true for long.

Nadya 11y ago
Playing DA here, but a lot of what you said could be said about 3D movies, which were a total flop for 15-20 years and even today face a lot of backlash and hatred. While I have high hopes/beliefs in VR, I do fall under the "3D movies suck, I wish they'd stop making them. It's a failed technology and gives me headaches." camp. So I can see where Camp 2 is coming from when they hate on AR/VR technologies.
- tlb 11y ago
  What surprised me even more than not especially liking 3D movies, was actively disliking high-frame-rate movies.
  - intrasight 11y ago
    High frame rate movies will be fine once they get people who understand the psychophysics involved.
- intrasight 11y ago
  But follow my logic. Put a 13 year old in front of a TV with a collection of 2D and 3D movies - and see which ones she chooses to watch. My whole point is that the 13 year old's get to decide in the long run. Your "3D movies suck" sentiment is perhaps an adults opinion (one that I share), and perhaps also an opinion expressed about movie theaters - which is not the same as personal tech choices.

pkroll 11y ago

I find the Oculus Rift DK2 with Vorpx (one of several competing pieces of software to play older or not-designed-for-VR games using the Rift) actually kind of spectacular. Elder Scrolls Online works well with it, and the game is an entirely different kind of experience when you're "actually" there. Atwood might be entirely correct about it being far from mainstream, but did anyone think the first consumer VR headsets from Oculus and Valve were going to hit the big time? I assume they'll do well enough to get to the next generation, and that content will improve over time. If you look at videos of people trying the available demos, they're already feeling it... but everything custom made is short, as no major game works directly with VR. FWIW, the DK2 screen looks a lot better to my eyes with a screen protector on it: it just barely blurs the pixels so there's much less screen door effect than there is out of the box. I've not had the chance to try the newer, higher-res and framerate headsets.