4 ms·

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

by 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?
dsugarman 11y ago
I was previously getting my PhD in VR (I dropped out to start a company) and I can't believe the hype around a HMD, like it's a new revolutionary thing. I do own an Oculus as I love VR and I am a proud UMD alum but generalized VR is so far off, immersion is way too difficult to completely generalize. I do think that there has been enough significant improvements from the first VR hype bubble that there could be a serious specialized VR arcade where the application is very well understood and you can build real immersion into the product. For example a fighting robot MOBA where you can control the haptic feedback and the player's surroundings match the virtual world (cockpit is real compounded with stereoscopic screens for windows)
golergka 11y ago
> we still haven't addressed the bigger problem of coming up with something compelling to do with it For the most of the games that are developed today with first-person view in mind, adding support for VR isn't something that is very hard to add. And these games are already pretty compelling. The only question is convenience. The post mentioned 3d in televisions — but 3d did win in cinemas. I recently wanted to watch Inside Out in 2d (I get dizzy from 3d), and I couldn't it, although it was just released into the theaters. Only in 3d.
- vlunkr 11y ago
  But does VR make existing 3D games better? Better enough to wear the bulky headset? I think that is yet to be seen.
- reitoei 11y ago
  > but 3d did win in cinemas lolwut?
- acous 11y ago
  First person games as they exist today don't transfer well to VR. The issue is the locomotion problem: Moving the player in the virtual world but not the real world causes motion sickness, since they're not getting a matching input to their vestibular system. Oculus' system today is suited more for cockpit games or 3rd person games with gentle camera movement. Valve are also targetting room sized first person experiences, where the user has enough physical space that the play area can be mapped 1:1.
  - j_s 11y ago
    Cockpit simulators have a leg up in this department - not much movement expected in driving / flying / spaceships.
    - intrasight 11y ago
      Not really. In the real world, you still moving and thus feeling acceleration. Problem therefore still exists.

by timr 11y ago

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?

dsugarman 11y ago

I was previously getting my PhD in VR (I dropped out to start a company) and I can't believe the hype around a HMD, like it's a new revolutionary thing. I do own an Oculus as I love VR and I am a proud UMD alum but generalized VR is so far off, immersion is way too difficult to completely generalize. I do think that there has been enough significant improvements from the first VR hype bubble that there could be a serious specialized VR arcade where the application is very well understood and you can build real immersion into the product. For example a fighting robot MOBA where you can control the haptic feedback and the player's surroundings match the virtual world (cockpit is real compounded with stereoscopic screens for windows)

golergka 11y ago

> we still haven't addressed the bigger problem of coming up with something compelling to do with it For the most of the games that are developed today with first-person view in mind, adding support for VR isn't something that is very hard to add. And these games are already pretty compelling. The only question is convenience. The post mentioned 3d in televisions — but 3d did win in cinemas. I recently wanted to watch Inside Out in 2d (I get dizzy from 3d), and I couldn't it, although it was just released into the theaters. Only in 3d.

vlunkr 11y ago
But does VR make existing 3D games better? Better enough to wear the bulky headset? I think that is yet to be seen.
reitoei 11y ago
> but 3d did win in cinemas lolwut?
acous 11y ago
First person games as they exist today don't transfer well to VR. The issue is the locomotion problem: Moving the player in the virtual world but not the real world causes motion sickness, since they're not getting a matching input to their vestibular system. Oculus' system today is suited more for cockpit games or 3rd person games with gentle camera movement. Valve are also targetting room sized first person experiences, where the user has enough physical space that the play area can be mapped 1:1.
- j_s 11y ago
  Cockpit simulators have a leg up in this department - not much movement expected in driving / flying / spaceships.
  - intrasight 11y ago
    Not really. In the real world, you still moving and thus feeling acceleration. Problem therefore still exists.