3 ms·

Maybe I have a blind spot, where an I wrong? (Vague "this'll change everything" statements don't count)

by bane 11y ago

adventured 11y ago
> despite not being new or revolutionary, real solid use-cases for the technology hasn't really been found outside of "better stereoscopic presentation and head tracking for games" That's an interestingly alternative way to say: VR presents a radically different, superior experience of immersion which no other current technology offers. Not to mention it's still in the first inning of development and is accelerating rapidly. You might as well be in 1952, claiming there has been no other use found for the transistor, other than radios.
- kybernetikos 11y ago
  > VR presents a radically different, superior experience of immersion which no other current technology offers Well VR covers and has covered for many years a huge number of different technologies. I used a CAVE system decades ago, and I'd still call that VR. If there were some technology that provided a superior experience of immersion, we'd call that VR too, so that statement is pretty close to contentless. Whether or not a 'superior experience of immersion' is something that is worth paying significant chunks of money and the inconvenience that go with all hardware you need is the real question, and I tend towards suspecting that for the normal consumer with the hardware where it is at the moment the answer is still no. I still enjoy breaking the VIVE and the Oculus out on occasion, particularly to show people who haven't tried VR before, but neither of them have a huge chance of becoming something that I'll use frequently.
- bane 11y ago
  so I'm basically filing your response under the "Vague "this'll change everything" statements don't count" clause. The Oculus, Vive etc. are merely the new kids on the block in a neighborhood that's been around for decades. > Not to mention it's still in the first inning of development and is accelerating rapidly. No, VR has literally been around for decades. I've used probably a dozen different systems over the years, some great, some terrible...at this point I feel like the hype machine is preying on either the young who don't remember or the uninformed who simply don't know. VR systems builders have some very hard problems to solve beyond head tracking and game-style hand controls to become immersive. There's probably 20 years alone researching haptic feedback systems and none of the ones I've used were all that great and had very large performance cost and capability trade-offs. Solving all of these problems means that all of the issues I highlighted in my grandparent post simply magnify.
IshKebab 11y ago
a) VR isn't the new or revolutionary thing. Reasonably priced high field of view VR is. It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention. I think it was probably explained in Oculus's original Kickstarter video if you want to know more. b) How are games not a real use-case? How many use-cases do you want? c) Such as? d) There is no "do it right". There are alternatives with trade-offs. Besides the Vive does allow you to move around. If you are talking about having a huge 2D treadmill, get real. f) How much was the first PC? The first mobile phone? It will get cheaper, but expecting the first of a new category of products to be cheap is idiotic. It's still cheaper than the first iPhone was (the real cost; not the up-front cost). g) You don't have to buy all of them, obviously. That's like saying nobody will buy a PS4 or Xbox One because it costs too much to buy them both. I mean, that's a pretty damn stupid argument. I'm guessing you haven't tried any of the modern VR systems.
- bane 11y ago
  So you ranted a bit here and keep referring to this as new or a new category. In what way is this not just a normal iteration on what's been around for decades? The question was why aren't some folks excited about the current Gen of vr, your kind of breathless reply is basically it. It's not revolutionary is just a neat advancement that fixes some problems but doesnt fix lots of the ones we already know about and were good reasons for the lack of adoption the first 20 times around.
moron4hire 11y ago
The fact that you think the modern hardware, which is easily two orders of magnitude better at 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower price than the hardware of the 90s to which you are referring when you make statements like "not being new or revolutionary" means you either don't know anything about VR 20 years ago or don't know anything about VR today. The fact that you're calling $1000 to $2000 "expensive" also means you know nothing about 90s era VR or modern era consumers. The fact that you keep harping on "no compelling use cases", when games are a clearly a legitimate use case, how completely different things like racing games feel in VR versus on a TV (I can't play racing games on a TV anymore) means you know nothing about modern VR. There are already people using even Google Cardboard-class devices to do medical visualizations and planning surgeries that they are claiming would have been too difficult without it. Companies like AltspaceVR are already proving that 3D chat can now be done correctly and it's better and more personal than Skype. I know of several architecture firms that have jumped on this, are developing tools in-house to visualize new designs for clients, with stories that it has helped the client rethink bad design decisions. I know of real estate agents who are hopping on this to show off their stock of dwelling units. This is all right now. What more do you want to prove that there are at least some compelling use cases, and why do you assume that, once the devices are in hand, we wouldn't be able to figure out more? Games like Tilt Brush and Fantastic Contraption are proving that there is a compelling CAD use case that could be developed further into more productive tasks. Have you ever done any 3D modelling? It's ridiculously hard. It's almost as hard as "individually position 1 million vertices" sounds. The sorts of things people are whipping up in these games I can't even imagine trying to build in a tool like Blender or Maya on a PC work station in any amount of time approaching under 6 months. "Oh, but how many people really need to do 3D modelling?" I don't know, how many people really needed to do email on the go? IF you make it accessible and available, people will figure out their own use cases. I still challenge you to prove you actually know anything about VR other than having read about it in TIME every once in a while. I thought HN was supposed to be a board of cutting edge technology enthusiasts, startup visionaries, early adopters, etc. There is a hell of a lot of lack of imagination here.
- bane 11y ago
  Goodness you make me feel old. Especially when none of your use cases represent anything new or revolutionary. This current round of vr tech is nothing more than the glorious output of continuous iteration and technological progress. Literally every one of the things you mention had been true for decades. It's making a longer sword not inventing firearms.

Maybe I have a blind spot, where an I wrong? (Vague "this'll change everything" statements don't count)

by bane 11y ago

Maybe I have a blind spot, where an I wrong? (Vague "this'll change everything" statements don't count)

> despite not being new or revolutionary, real solid use-cases for the technology hasn't really been found outside of "better stereoscopic presentation and head tracking for games" That's an interestingly alternative way to say: VR presents a radically different, superior experience of immersion which no other current technology offers. Not to mention it's still in the first inning of development and is accelerating rapidly. You might as well be in 1952, claiming there has been no other use found for the transistor, other than radios.

kybernetikos 11y ago
> VR presents a radically different, superior experience of immersion which no other current technology offers Well VR covers and has covered for many years a huge number of different technologies. I used a CAVE system decades ago, and I'd still call that VR. If there were some technology that provided a superior experience of immersion, we'd call that VR too, so that statement is pretty close to contentless. Whether or not a 'superior experience of immersion' is something that is worth paying significant chunks of money and the inconvenience that go with all hardware you need is the real question, and I tend towards suspecting that for the normal consumer with the hardware where it is at the moment the answer is still no. I still enjoy breaking the VIVE and the Oculus out on occasion, particularly to show people who haven't tried VR before, but neither of them have a huge chance of becoming something that I'll use frequently.
bane 11y ago
so I'm basically filing your response under the "Vague "this'll change everything" statements don't count" clause. The Oculus, Vive etc. are merely the new kids on the block in a neighborhood that's been around for decades. > Not to mention it's still in the first inning of development and is accelerating rapidly. No, VR has literally been around for decades. I've used probably a dozen different systems over the years, some great, some terrible...at this point I feel like the hype machine is preying on either the young who don't remember or the uninformed who simply don't know. VR systems builders have some very hard problems to solve beyond head tracking and game-style hand controls to become immersive. There's probably 20 years alone researching haptic feedback systems and none of the ones I've used were all that great and had very large performance cost and capability trade-offs. Solving all of these problems means that all of the issues I highlighted in my grandparent post simply magnify.

IshKebab 11y ago

a) VR isn't the new or revolutionary thing. Reasonably priced high field of view VR is. It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention. I think it was probably explained in Oculus's original Kickstarter video if you want to know more. b) How are games not a real use-case? How many use-cases do you want? c) Such as? d) There is no "do it right". There are alternatives with trade-offs. Besides the Vive does allow you to move around. If you are talking about having a huge 2D treadmill, get real. f) How much was the first PC? The first mobile phone? It will get cheaper, but expecting the first of a new category of products to be cheap is idiotic. It's still cheaper than the first iPhone was (the real cost; not the up-front cost). g) You don't have to buy all of them, obviously. That's like saying nobody will buy a PS4 or Xbox One because it costs too much to buy them both. I mean, that's a pretty damn stupid argument. I'm guessing you haven't tried any of the modern VR systems.

bane 11y ago
So you ranted a bit here and keep referring to this as new or a new category. In what way is this not just a normal iteration on what's been around for decades? The question was why aren't some folks excited about the current Gen of vr, your kind of breathless reply is basically it. It's not revolutionary is just a neat advancement that fixes some problems but doesnt fix lots of the ones we already know about and were good reasons for the lack of adoption the first 20 times around.

moron4hire 11y ago

The fact that you think the modern hardware, which is easily two orders of magnitude better at 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower price than the hardware of the 90s to which you are referring when you make statements like "not being new or revolutionary" means you either don't know anything about VR 20 years ago or don't know anything about VR today. The fact that you're calling $1000 to $2000 "expensive" also means you know nothing about 90s era VR or modern era consumers. The fact that you keep harping on "no compelling use cases", when games are a clearly a legitimate use case, how completely different things like racing games feel in VR versus on a TV (I can't play racing games on a TV anymore) means you know nothing about modern VR. There are already people using even Google Cardboard-class devices to do medical visualizations and planning surgeries that they are claiming would have been too difficult without it. Companies like AltspaceVR are already proving that 3D chat can now be done correctly and it's better and more personal than Skype. I know of several architecture firms that have jumped on this, are developing tools in-house to visualize new designs for clients, with stories that it has helped the client rethink bad design decisions. I know of real estate agents who are hopping on this to show off their stock of dwelling units. This is all right now. What more do you want to prove that there are at least some compelling use cases, and why do you assume that, once the devices are in hand, we wouldn't be able to figure out more? Games like Tilt Brush and Fantastic Contraption are proving that there is a compelling CAD use case that could be developed further into more productive tasks. Have you ever done any 3D modelling? It's ridiculously hard. It's almost as hard as "individually position 1 million vertices" sounds. The sorts of things people are whipping up in these games I can't even imagine trying to build in a tool like Blender or Maya on a PC work station in any amount of time approaching under 6 months. "Oh, but how many people really need to do 3D modelling?" I don't know, how many people really needed to do email on the go? IF you make it accessible and available, people will figure out their own use cases. I still challenge you to prove you actually know anything about VR other than having read about it in TIME every once in a while. I thought HN was supposed to be a board of cutting edge technology enthusiasts, startup visionaries, early adopters, etc. There is a hell of a lot of lack of imagination here.

bane 11y ago
Goodness you make me feel old. Especially when none of your use cases represent anything new or revolutionary. This current round of vr tech is nothing more than the glorious output of continuous iteration and technological progress. Literally every one of the things you mention had been true for decades. It's making a longer sword not inventing firearms.