3 ms·

>This is the FIRST consumer release! This is the Palm Pilot 1 of VR. Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s and 2000s. This isn't li

>This is the FIRST consumer release! This is the Palm Pilot 1 of VR. Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s and 2000s. This isn't like being on the groundfloor of some new concept, its like a revival of something old. I wish Oculus all the luck in the world, but this technology has failed in the market many times. Yes, maybe more FPS and higher resolutions is what was needed, but I guess we'll see. Some 90's products: http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/a-trip-down-virtual-reality-road-6-systems-of-the-past.html/?a=viewall http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/a-trip-down-virtual-rea... Its funny how there's this "everything old is new again and we all suddenly have amnesia" attitude with VR advocates. They talk about the headsets which are pricey and annoying to use(and no one has solved the motion sickness problem perfectly yet). They talk about the metaverse, yet we've had Second Life for a decade and it didn't revolutionize anything and is largely an online joke. Whether people think the social and economic cost of strapping a tissue size box to your face is worth it, is worthy of being skeptical about. 3D TV's came at a zero premium over regular TV's not too long ago, and no one wanted to wear those dorky glasses. Many people I know, myself included, avoid the 3D showings at theaters because of how gimmicky it is and how those glasses wash out the colors (not a concern with the Rift). >It literally feels like you are piloting a craft in outer space. You have no idea what its like to be in outer space. You're getting this manufactured and fake experience by game devs who also don't know what its like to be in outer space. That's what really bugs me about this platform, how incredibly fake everything is, yet somehow the marketing is all about it being 'real.' I would love a hardnosed simulator with all the tactile feedback and such involved, instead we're just getting Unity3D shovelware with basic 3D tropes like moving starfields and everyone suddenly thinks this is amazing. Its not. Its just a lot of hype from gamers obsessed with fake experiences and general gamer fanboyism, which is almost always unadulterated hype. Remember the Kinect and all the hype behind it? Its now a dead peripheral: http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/5-ways-xbox-one-kinect-failed-microsoft-and-stiffed-early-adopters-1248505 http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/5-ways-xbox... Hell, even the crowd friendly Wii motion controls have been put on the "gimmick" shelf after a, maybe, 2 or 3 year period where everyone was raving it was the future of gaming. >t's all going to be different in 10 years because of VR. According to HN/Reddit/Slashdot we'd have jetpacks, space hotels, 500 year lifespans, cancer cures, and robot servants by now. I'd be very careful with the old "just wait 10 years guys, then you'll see my questionable premise was actually right" trope. Ironically, its an antique.

TulliusCicero 11y ago
> Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s. This isn't like being on the groundfloor of some new concept, its like a revival of something old. A better comparison might be the first iPhone. There were smartphones before the iPhone, but the iPhone is the one we think of today as being the first REAL smartphone.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  I'm really sick of fanboy products always being compared to a iphone. The Kinect was an iphone. The Ouya was an iphone. The Apple Watch was going to be the new iphone. Or other high profile kickstarter turkeys like the mprinter, smarty ring, myIDkey, etc. Gee, maybe we should stop pretending we can all spot the next iphone from this far out?
chipsy 11y ago
In support of your comment, I would point out that gaming has become progressively less interesting for its technical developments over time. The first videogames really were revolutionary, even as they were derided for being crude, inauthentic, or simple transcriptions of games already playable with cards, pen and paper. The improvements from there have made them more accessible and appealing, but the forms and meanings of computer-driven interactivity haven't fundamentally changed - more realistic 3D just isn't as impressive as the first real-time 3D. We already passed the tipping point in terms of cultural impact, and VR is superfluous to that. It'll make its way into the world eventually, but not with the flash and bang that this generation is banking on. Now, if we were talking about neural interfaces, that would be a more interesting discussion.
- HCIdivision17 11y ago
  I think there's a good argument to be made that the sooner we make this tech boring, the better. I want this stuff to be off-the-shelf, got-it-by-default now. When it's fully proliferated and cheap with loads of Stack Overflow-like answers and tutorials for it (like phone accelerometers and motion capture software), the sooner we'll really start developing and digging into the cool stuff. And get the crufty stuff out of the way. But I fundamentally disaggree that it's less interesting. I'm going to assume you're just jaded by the awesome we're constantly surrounded by instead of just taking the easy, boring interpretation. Even 2D animation is advancing where you wouldn't expect (I found the technical work giving the artists better control on The Paperman surprising [0]). New rendering philosophies, networking algorithms, AI/bots, social integration, all of this leads to a refinement that's well worth the effort. It took a long, long time to get from oscilloscopes [1] to the Occulus, and hopefully in a couple generations we'll have even cooler stuff. Expect to see demos and then have to wait a while for the hard, brutal engineering work to make it actually usable [2]. For the Occulus, the real win is getting the feedback loop between a just-good-enough-monitor and the accelerometer down to few enough milliseconds the brain can kinda fall for it. Like a cartoon, but for motion feedback. Expect other companies to say "I can do better" and let the races begin. The Occulus is a big deal, and better stuff is just a little bit away. Don't be jaded! Real cool stuff is in the pipe! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two [2] http://dougengelbart.org/events/1968-demo-highlights.html http://dougengelbart.org/events/1968-demo-highlights.html

TulliusCicero 11y ago

> Actually, there were multiple VR technologies released in the 90s. This isn't like being on the groundfloor of some new concept, its like a revival of something old. A better comparison might be the first iPhone. There were smartphones before the iPhone, but the iPhone is the one we think of today as being the first REAL smartphone.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
I'm really sick of fanboy products always being compared to a iphone. The Kinect was an iphone. The Ouya was an iphone. The Apple Watch was going to be the new iphone. Or other high profile kickstarter turkeys like the mprinter, smarty ring, myIDkey, etc. Gee, maybe we should stop pretending we can all spot the next iphone from this far out?

chipsy 11y ago

In support of your comment, I would point out that gaming has become progressively less interesting for its technical developments over time. The first videogames really were revolutionary, even as they were derided for being crude, inauthentic, or simple transcriptions of games already playable with cards, pen and paper. The improvements from there have made them more accessible and appealing, but the forms and meanings of computer-driven interactivity haven't fundamentally changed - more realistic 3D just isn't as impressive as the first real-time 3D. We already passed the tipping point in terms of cultural impact, and VR is superfluous to that. It'll make its way into the world eventually, but not with the flash and bang that this generation is banking on. Now, if we were talking about neural interfaces, that would be a more interesting discussion.

HCIdivision17 11y ago
I think there's a good argument to be made that the sooner we make this tech boring, the better. I want this stuff to be off-the-shelf, got-it-by-default now. When it's fully proliferated and cheap with loads of Stack Overflow-like answers and tutorials for it (like phone accelerometers and motion capture software), the sooner we'll really start developing and digging into the cool stuff. And get the crufty stuff out of the way. But I fundamentally disaggree that it's less interesting. I'm going to assume you're just jaded by the awesome we're constantly surrounded by instead of just taking the easy, boring interpretation. Even 2D animation is advancing where you wouldn't expect (I found the technical work giving the artists better control on The Paperman surprising [0]). New rendering philosophies, networking algorithms, AI/bots, social integration, all of this leads to a refinement that's well worth the effort. It took a long, long time to get from oscilloscopes [1] to the Occulus, and hopefully in a couple generations we'll have even cooler stuff. Expect to see demos and then have to wait a while for the hard, brutal engineering work to make it actually usable [2]. For the Occulus, the real win is getting the feedback loop between a just-good-enough-monitor and the accelerometer down to few enough milliseconds the brain can kinda fall for it. Like a cartoon, but for motion feedback. Expect other companies to say "I can do better" and let the races begin. The Occulus is a big deal, and better stuff is just a little bit away. Don't be jaded! Real cool stuff is in the pipe! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two [2] http://dougengelbart.org/events/1968-demo-highlights.html http://dougengelbart.org/events/1968-demo-highlights.html