15 ms·

Yeah, and unlike gaming VR, I think mobile VR has the potential to truly catch on and spread. It's cheap (80$ vs. 600$+), it's easy to use (no wires or crazy ri

by Ph0X 10y ago

Yeah, and unlike gaming VR, I think mobile VR has the potential to truly catch on and spread. It's cheap (80$ vs. 600$+), it's easy to use (no wires or crazy rig needed), and you can use it anywhere (lay on the bed, use outside).

1_2__3 10y ago
Well, no. As of today it's $685 + $80. In the future if you either already have the phone or if the magical "partners who have signed up" start delivering Daydream-capable phones then it's only $80. And I'm not trying to be pedantic - if this was, say, supported on many phones then I'd agree with you. But your argument is essentially that a product only useable on an itty bitty tiny fraction (well, okay, today nobody) of the cell phone market is going to push VR into the home. That seems highly unlikely to me.
- jiaweihli 10y ago
  Other manufacturers are likely all scrambling to catch the VR train so they aren't left behind. I expect all top-end phones to support VR within the next 2 years, if not 1 year. So within that time the cost will fall down to $80.
- markatkinson 10y ago
  So I am currently working on a game for Daydream VR. I jumped at the opportunity as soon as they made the announcement and bought a 6P to help with the dev and testing. I agree with the commenter that mentioned Daydream is more likely to spike mass market interest than say Vive. I lurk on the Unreal Engine forums quite a bit and participated in a few game jams and if there is something I have noticed it is that Vive and Oculus are currently reserved for serious VR enthusiasts and marketing stunts (pretty obvious I suppose). The barriers to entry and use are just still too high. Cost of VR hardware makes it a no no for most, and having to prop sensors up around your lounge and hang cables from your roof can make things very unsexy very quickly. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that there is a hell of a lot of hype about VR at the moment, and not just in the enthusiast circles. So if someone can lower that barrier to entry to a reasonable level where your semi-early adopters can partake and start showing off their gear at work and with friends then I think it is likely to see success. I don't think there will be any shortage of content creation, and I also don't think the argument about available phones is too valid. The current race that is underway with phone creators to develop the next best phone paired with the obsession of people to own the best phone will make sure a lot of people are walking around with VR ready phones in no time. I hope this wasn't completely incoherent, but this conversation also reminds me of this : https://xkcd.com/1497/ https://xkcd.com/1497/
- Ph0X 10y ago
  Yes, you're right, but this is a phone that thousands of people will get either way, regardless of the VR, just for the phone itself. No one will ever buy a 600-800$ VR headset for anything else than using it in VR. And that's the ONLY thing it will be used for. The phone will be used every single day of your life for doing everything, from messaging people, watching videos, browsing the web, playing games, etc. If you want this to be a fair comparison, then also include the 1000$+ gaming rig you'd need for the VR headset to work.
- gfodor 10y ago
  Why do you care what is possible (literally) today? Clearly this is meant to steer the direction of the entire android ecosystem in a direction where many android phones will be VR capable. It will (potentially) have massive effects on the actual capabilities of the phones people have in their pockets once they roll over to new ones in the coming years, than had it not been done. To your point about price, the thinking is obviously that the differential cost to go from a non-VR user to a VR user if you are purchasing a cell phone in 2017-2018 will be tens of dollars. Unless daydream capable phones are significantly more expensive (and those additional costs are not going anywhere other than for the VR capabilities), then the price of the headset will be the effective cost to a consumer to be able to gain access to VR. The reason GearVR exists is because your average android phone cannot perform well enough to provide a good VR experience. It requires specific engineering that would not otherwise be done for the common day to day smartphone use cases. Daydream is meant to be a holistic solution to that problem. I guess it sounds to me like you're disappointed that nobody can wave a magic wand and make current android devices VR capable, but sadly enough it does require better sensors, thermal characteristics, and general graphics performance than what any off the shelf android phone can do today. There are a lot of ways google could have executed on the idea "how do we try to make mobile VR take off" that would have had major problems. The way they've actually done it to me seems the best of all possible worlds. You can question if mobile VR is a viable avenue to mass market adoption of VR, but if you assume that's a goal worth persuing, then critique daydream from there. For me, it certainly seems to me, based on raw numbers alone, to have the highest potential. But even if it turns out to be a poor concept, I can't imagine a better way to execute on trying to prove if it is than what they've done here.

by Ph0X 10y ago

1_2__3 10y ago

Well, no. As of today it's $685 + $80. In the future if you either already have the phone or if the magical "partners who have signed up" start delivering Daydream-capable phones then it's only $80. And I'm not trying to be pedantic - if this was, say, supported on many phones then I'd agree with you. But your argument is essentially that a product only useable on an itty bitty tiny fraction (well, okay, today nobody) of the cell phone market is going to push VR into the home. That seems highly unlikely to me.

jiaweihli 10y ago
Other manufacturers are likely all scrambling to catch the VR train so they aren't left behind. I expect all top-end phones to support VR within the next 2 years, if not 1 year. So within that time the cost will fall down to $80.
markatkinson 10y ago
So I am currently working on a game for Daydream VR. I jumped at the opportunity as soon as they made the announcement and bought a 6P to help with the dev and testing. I agree with the commenter that mentioned Daydream is more likely to spike mass market interest than say Vive. I lurk on the Unreal Engine forums quite a bit and participated in a few game jams and if there is something I have noticed it is that Vive and Oculus are currently reserved for serious VR enthusiasts and marketing stunts (pretty obvious I suppose). The barriers to entry and use are just still too high. Cost of VR hardware makes it a no no for most, and having to prop sensors up around your lounge and hang cables from your roof can make things very unsexy very quickly. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that there is a hell of a lot of hype about VR at the moment, and not just in the enthusiast circles. So if someone can lower that barrier to entry to a reasonable level where your semi-early adopters can partake and start showing off their gear at work and with friends then I think it is likely to see success. I don't think there will be any shortage of content creation, and I also don't think the argument about available phones is too valid. The current race that is underway with phone creators to develop the next best phone paired with the obsession of people to own the best phone will make sure a lot of people are walking around with VR ready phones in no time. I hope this wasn't completely incoherent, but this conversation also reminds me of this : https://xkcd.com/1497/ https://xkcd.com/1497/
Ph0X 10y ago
Yes, you're right, but this is a phone that thousands of people will get either way, regardless of the VR, just for the phone itself. No one will ever buy a 600-800$ VR headset for anything else than using it in VR. And that's the ONLY thing it will be used for. The phone will be used every single day of your life for doing everything, from messaging people, watching videos, browsing the web, playing games, etc. If you want this to be a fair comparison, then also include the 1000$+ gaming rig you'd need for the VR headset to work.
gfodor 10y ago
Why do you care what is possible (literally) today? Clearly this is meant to steer the direction of the entire android ecosystem in a direction where many android phones will be VR capable. It will (potentially) have massive effects on the actual capabilities of the phones people have in their pockets once they roll over to new ones in the coming years, than had it not been done. To your point about price, the thinking is obviously that the differential cost to go from a non-VR user to a VR user if you are purchasing a cell phone in 2017-2018 will be tens of dollars. Unless daydream capable phones are significantly more expensive (and those additional costs are not going anywhere other than for the VR capabilities), then the price of the headset will be the effective cost to a consumer to be able to gain access to VR. The reason GearVR exists is because your average android phone cannot perform well enough to provide a good VR experience. It requires specific engineering that would not otherwise be done for the common day to day smartphone use cases. Daydream is meant to be a holistic solution to that problem. I guess it sounds to me like you're disappointed that nobody can wave a magic wand and make current android devices VR capable, but sadly enough it does require better sensors, thermal characteristics, and general graphics performance than what any off the shelf android phone can do today. There are a lot of ways google could have executed on the idea "how do we try to make mobile VR take off" that would have had major problems. The way they've actually done it to me seems the best of all possible worlds. You can question if mobile VR is a viable avenue to mass market adoption of VR, but if you assume that's a goal worth persuing, then critique daydream from there. For me, it certainly seems to me, based on raw numbers alone, to have the highest potential. But even if it turns out to be a poor concept, I can't imagine a better way to execute on trying to prove if it is than what they've done here.