3 ms·
To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic. You could criticize computers in the 90's the same way. Yes, VR "isn't there yet", but it doesn't mea
by rayalez 11y ago
To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic.
You could criticize computers in the 90's the same way. Yes, VR "isn't there yet", but it doesn't mean that it's not fucking amazing.
In my opinion it is an opportunity comparable to the beginning of internet. You can't just criticize resolution and other technical difficulties that will obviously be fixed in the next 2-5 years, and ignore the magnitude of what VR has to offer.
- zamalek 11y ago> To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic. All I am doing is providing an opposing thoughts about VR, because much of the media about VR is overly hyped. Jeff's outlook on the technology is 100% true for him and people who agree with him. Much of the hype around VR is overly positive and unrealistic. > Yes, VR "isn't there yet", but it doesn't mean that it's not fucking amazing. Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's immune to ending in a complete flop. See: "hype." > You can't just criticize resolution and other technical difficulties If nobody criticizes the shortcomings of the technology then those shortcomings suffer from lower prioritization. Positive perspectives on technology (fandom, hype) are nearly worthless and merely drive the hype machine. Negative perspectives drive the technology to a more viable place. Jeff's musings are important milestones that virtually everyone would agree with as critical goals (that currently limit the viability of the technology), if only many weren't completely blinded by hype and zealous fandom. Information such as Jeff's is important for people who want to make informed decisions about forking out $400 for the tech right now. That is why I specifically said: Counterargument