4 ms·

But just wait ... VR is going to be HUGE!

by zenkat 10y ago

abiox 10y ago
vr has a variety of applications outside of games. assuming people can realize that potential, i think it could be. especially if lower price point stuff evolves like the samsung kit.
NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
Maybe in Colarado or Washington DC
seibelj 10y ago
Before downvoting this commenter, think about how he or she is making a fair observation about technology hype, and the stomach consumers have for consuming entertainment while wearing awkward equipment. It did not work for 3D TV or Google Glass.
- sgift 10y ago
  Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise. Edit: There's also little proof that 3D TV failed because wearing the glasses was awkward. I can only compare it to 3D cinema, which is basically worthless. Avatar is still the only movie I've seen where it worked, for every other one it was just money paid for nothing.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise. They don't have to be similar technologies, just comparable in that they're fads (which lot of us feel, and time will prove -- check back in 5 years).
    - mustacheemperor 10y ago
      There are decades of hard scientific research driving VR towards its current position. Shooting robots with it at home might turn out to be a fad, but dismissing the entire technology outright as a pointless toy is disingenuous. You really, honesty, don't see any market applications for VR? Any scientific applications? You don't think the Navy is going to train pilots with VR?
      - apathy 10y ago
        Sure, there are verticals that get extra value out of it. But flight sims (for example) are actually easier to "get right" with regards to subsonics, etc by constructing a box to put the person in, and immersing them directly. Similarly, telemedicine was a thing 20 years ago and it does work in some cases, just like robotic surgery with the DaVinci system. But most people want to have a doctor diagnose them and then perform whatever procedures might be necessary, and especially the wealthy customers hospitals really want tend to prefer doing that with a human. So most of the value add comes from the surgeon rather than the surgery. (Even in oncology, bedside manner is worth a tremendous amount -- to the tune of 8-figure restricted endowments for colleagues of mine) Speaking as someone who participated in said research, I've seen this cycle before. Maybe it will end differently. But I personally am skeptical. YMMV.
      - wtetzner 10y ago
        I think at some point being able to tour houses for sale online, or even to be able to view designs in VR would be very useful. Imagine if you were buying a fixer upper, and hiring someone to renovate it. It would be pretty cool if you could see their design for the renovation in VR and make sure it feels good before investing in the house and the work.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      The original comment seems to be saying that VR is a fad because it's similar to 3D TV. You're saying that VR is similar to 3D TV because it's also a fad. You may well be correct, but that can't be used to support the original comment, since it would be circular reasoning.
  - apathy 10y ago
    > two completely different technologies Which nonetheless have the common side effect of nausea in a non-negligible fraction of the population... VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. Argue all you wish, but both 3D and VR are now on their 3rd or 4th hype cycle, and the evidence from previous cycles is that people just don't value them enough to justify the cost.
    - sgift 10y ago
      > VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. "Workable", as far as I know basically everyone who used VR then and used it now agrees that there is a big difference due to technological advancements. The argument that people don't pay extra for it is also only relative, because that's a function of the price they have to pay extra. I'm pretty sure if a high-end VR headset would cost 30 Euro many more people would buy it, as I'm sure more people would buy it for the current price point if the tech would be more advanced. To sum it up with an comparison: Your argument reminds me of all the people who said a file hosting service will never be something people want as others had failed before and it is a useless idea. Dropbox proved the opposite. In the end no one knows the future, but at least we now have had a fruitful discussion with arguments for both positions.
      - apathy 10y ago
        True, if the marginal cost is tiny, a lot more doors open. But my recent experience with a VR headset we got my daughter for xmas ... did not knock my socks off. Predictions are difficult when they concern the future. I'm skeptical, but I've certainly been wrong before. We shall see.
    - niftich 10y ago
      VR 20 years ago was hampered by the same reasons that video game and professional graphics were: you couldn't render visually convincing detail in realtime, which greatly limited the "reality" portion of the name. Today, the graphics problem is no longer an issue.
- noxToken 10y ago
  3D TV is a gimmick that requires support. If you don't have 3D content, you're paying a premium for a set with unused tech inside. A lot of people also hate 3D, because it's not always done well. It's a garnish. Create a spectacular story with good characters, actors, writing, and plot lines. Then beef it up with 3D to add to the movie going experience. Google Glass is another story. It was awkward, because of both the wear and the bystanders. You wore these pseudo-glasses that acted as an assistant. This would be solved with more people seeing them. The other part is the social stigma. Of course there are slim sunglasses with recording lenses in them. With those, we are blissfully unaware. Glass was unknown. What's that guy doing? Is he taking pictures? Is he recording? There's this whole social space that Glass intrudes upon, and that's in additions to awkwardly speaking to yourself (really the device) for functionality purposes.
- dbbk 10y ago
  I'm extremely sceptical about VR in the home. You just have to look at how 3D went. Consumers don't want friction, they don't want the hassle of having to put something on and off their face. In this respect VR is the same as 3D, except even worse. Sure VR has fantastic experiential applications, just like going to watch an IMAX 3D movie in the cinema is a great experience. But in the living room? I'm not quick to believe the hype.
- shinymark 10y ago
  One counter argument I've considered is industry excitement (I'm a game developer). No one in my network was excited about 3D TVs. No one in my network was excited about the Kinect. Both seem to have failed. Almost everyone in my network is excited about VR. Having the content creators on board is huge.
digi_owl 10y ago
Id say the jury is out on that one. TV is a shared experience, VR is not. Also VR is interactive while TV is largely passive. What can be interesting is the likes of VR chatrooms/lounges.
- abakker 10y ago
  VR doesn't necessarily need to be active. Passive VR might be a great way to start, especially if it can display the content already created for 3d TVs. I think the jury is still out on the best VR control interfaces when you are actually engaged with the content. I'd love to see Passive VR content and active VR content develop side-by-side like Movies and Videogames did.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
I watch videos in VR. It completely blows me away in a way that no other display technology has. I can simulate a theater experience fairly well, ignoring the current low resolution of 1st gen HMD's. Its really an unbelievable experience for cinephiles. My tiny spare room can magically be converted into something close to a full size theater. That's not something to dismiss outright. For regular people, absolutely not, the TV and the couch works so much better as they expect a social experience and a certain level of convenience, but lets not dismiss what's possible here and what the potential market could be. Its also certainly not an either/or proposition here. The same way I have a 55" TV but also have television on tablets, laptops, and phones. Also, VR doesn't need to be "big" to make it, the same way PC gaming doesn't need to be "big" to make it. My mom and grandma will never buy a higher end gaming PC, yet somehow PC gaming survives. Remember, we had endless cynicism about music players[1], phones, and tablets as well. I think the cynical approach as the default in tech makes some sense as there's so much marketing led hype, but with phones and tablets the utility was fairly obvious early on. I believe this is true with VR today. [1] "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
- Raphmedia 10y ago
  > My mom and grandma will never buy a higher end gaming PC, yet somehow PC gaming survives. Every senior I have demoed the Rift to ask me "what does it cost? how can I get one?" The only reason they don't have one is that my answer is "you need a $2000 PC, a $900 headset and $250 controllers". Lower the price and you will see it take off.
Sargos 10y ago
I found the guy that hasn't tried VR yet!
marcosdumay 10y ago
Unlike 3D TV, VR is evolving into cheap hardware. That's a huge difference. But yeah, the judge is still out.
skykooler 10y ago
Can you watch 3D movies on a VR headset?
- thenomad 10y ago
  Yup. Works rather well, I'm told. (I'm big on VR and less so on 3D movies so I've not tried it.)
voppe 10y ago
Apples and oranges. 3D TVs and cinemas serve no new purpose. There is objectively little to no difference between watching a movie in 3D or in 2D, it is literally a gimmick to attract customers. VR, on the other hand, is completely unprecedented. It unlocks a way to interact with virtual environments that simply was not possible before. It has practical uses that we haven't had time to discover yet. Dismissing it as a gimmick and comparing it to 3D movies is shortsighted, in my opinion. One might argue that the technology is not there yet, but that would be comparable to PDAs preceding smartphones.

But just wait ... VR is going to be HUGE!

by zenkat 10y ago

But just wait ... VR is going to be HUGE!

abiox 10y ago

vr has a variety of applications outside of games. assuming people can realize that potential, i think it could be. especially if lower price point stuff evolves like the samsung kit.

NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago

Maybe in Colarado or Washington DC

seibelj 10y ago

Before downvoting this commenter, think about how he or she is making a fair observation about technology hype, and the stomach consumers have for consuming entertainment while wearing awkward equipment. It did not work for 3D TV or Google Glass.

sgift 10y ago
Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise. Edit: There's also little proof that 3D TV failed because wearing the glasses was awkward. I can only compare it to 3D cinema, which is basically worthless. Avatar is still the only movie I've seen where it worked, for every other one it was just money paid for nothing.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise. They don't have to be similar technologies, just comparable in that they're fads (which lot of us feel, and time will prove -- check back in 5 years).
  - mustacheemperor 10y ago
    There are decades of hard scientific research driving VR towards its current position. Shooting robots with it at home might turn out to be a fad, but dismissing the entire technology outright as a pointless toy is disingenuous. You really, honesty, don't see any market applications for VR? Any scientific applications? You don't think the Navy is going to train pilots with VR?
    - apathy 10y ago
      Sure, there are verticals that get extra value out of it. But flight sims (for example) are actually easier to "get right" with regards to subsonics, etc by constructing a box to put the person in, and immersing them directly. Similarly, telemedicine was a thing 20 years ago and it does work in some cases, just like robotic surgery with the DaVinci system. But most people want to have a doctor diagnose them and then perform whatever procedures might be necessary, and especially the wealthy customers hospitals really want tend to prefer doing that with a human. So most of the value add comes from the surgeon rather than the surgery. (Even in oncology, bedside manner is worth a tremendous amount -- to the tune of 8-figure restricted endowments for colleagues of mine) Speaking as someone who participated in said research, I've seen this cycle before. Maybe it will end differently. But I personally am skeptical. YMMV.
    - wtetzner 10y ago
      I think at some point being able to tour houses for sale online, or even to be able to view designs in VR would be very useful. Imagine if you were buying a fixer upper, and hiring someone to renovate it. It would be pretty cool if you could see their design for the renovation in VR and make sure it feels good before investing in the house and the work.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The original comment seems to be saying that VR is a fad because it's similar to 3D TV. You're saying that VR is similar to 3D TV because it's also a fad. You may well be correct, but that can't be used to support the original comment, since it would be circular reasoning.
- apathy 10y ago
  > two completely different technologies Which nonetheless have the common side effect of nausea in a non-negligible fraction of the population... VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. Argue all you wish, but both 3D and VR are now on their 3rd or 4th hype cycle, and the evidence from previous cycles is that people just don't value them enough to justify the cost.
  - sgift 10y ago
    > VR was workable 20 years ago; I was working on it at that time. Thing is, it only provides a tangible benefit for certain use cases, and most people don't derive enough value from those use cases to pay extra for it. "Workable", as far as I know basically everyone who used VR then and used it now agrees that there is a big difference due to technological advancements. The argument that people don't pay extra for it is also only relative, because that's a function of the price they have to pay extra. I'm pretty sure if a high-end VR headset would cost 30 Euro many more people would buy it, as I'm sure more people would buy it for the current price point if the tech would be more advanced. To sum it up with an comparison: Your argument reminds me of all the people who said a file hosting service will never be something people want as others had failed before and it is a useless idea. Dropbox proved the opposite. In the end no one knows the future, but at least we now have had a fruitful discussion with arguments for both positions.
    - apathy 10y ago
      True, if the marginal cost is tiny, a lot more doors open. But my recent experience with a VR headset we got my daughter for xmas ... did not knock my socks off. Predictions are difficult when they concern the future. I'm skeptical, but I've certainly been wrong before. We shall see.
  - niftich 10y ago
    VR 20 years ago was hampered by the same reasons that video game and professional graphics were: you couldn't render visually convincing detail in realtime, which greatly limited the "reality" portion of the name. Today, the graphics problem is no longer an issue.
noxToken 10y ago
3D TV is a gimmick that requires support. If you don't have 3D content, you're paying a premium for a set with unused tech inside. A lot of people also hate 3D, because it's not always done well. It's a garnish. Create a spectacular story with good characters, actors, writing, and plot lines. Then beef it up with 3D to add to the movie going experience. Google Glass is another story. It was awkward, because of both the wear and the bystanders. You wore these pseudo-glasses that acted as an assistant. This would be solved with more people seeing them. The other part is the social stigma. Of course there are slim sunglasses with recording lenses in them. With those, we are blissfully unaware. Glass was unknown. What's that guy doing? Is he taking pictures? Is he recording? There's this whole social space that Glass intrudes upon, and that's in additions to awkwardly speaking to yourself (really the device) for functionality purposes.
dbbk 10y ago
I'm extremely sceptical about VR in the home. You just have to look at how 3D went. Consumers don't want friction, they don't want the hassle of having to put something on and off their face. In this respect VR is the same as 3D, except even worse. Sure VR has fantastic experiential applications, just like going to watch an IMAX 3D movie in the cinema is a great experience. But in the living room? I'm not quick to believe the hype.
shinymark 10y ago
One counter argument I've considered is industry excitement (I'm a game developer). No one in my network was excited about 3D TVs. No one in my network was excited about the Kinect. Both seem to have failed. Almost everyone in my network is excited about VR. Having the content creators on board is huge.

digi_owl 10y ago

Id say the jury is out on that one. TV is a shared experience, VR is not. Also VR is interactive while TV is largely passive. What can be interesting is the likes of VR chatrooms/lounges.

abakker 10y ago
VR doesn't necessarily need to be active. Passive VR might be a great way to start, especially if it can display the content already created for 3d TVs. I think the jury is still out on the best VR control interfaces when you are actually engaged with the content. I'd love to see Passive VR content and active VR content develop side-by-side like Movies and Videogames did.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

I watch videos in VR. It completely blows me away in a way that no other display technology has. I can simulate a theater experience fairly well, ignoring the current low resolution of 1st gen HMD's. Its really an unbelievable experience for cinephiles. My tiny spare room can magically be converted into something close to a full size theater. That's not something to dismiss outright. For regular people, absolutely not, the TV and the couch works so much better as they expect a social experience and a certain level of convenience, but lets not dismiss what's possible here and what the potential market could be. Its also certainly not an either/or proposition here. The same way I have a 55" TV but also have television on tablets, laptops, and phones. Also, VR doesn't need to be "big" to make it, the same way PC gaming doesn't need to be "big" to make it. My mom and grandma will never buy a higher end gaming PC, yet somehow PC gaming survives. Remember, we had endless cynicism about music players[1], phones, and tablets as well. I think the cynical approach as the default in tech makes some sense as there's so much marketing led hype, but with phones and tablets the utility was fairly obvious early on. I believe this is true with VR today. [1] "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

Raphmedia 10y ago
> My mom and grandma will never buy a higher end gaming PC, yet somehow PC gaming survives. Every senior I have demoed the Rift to ask me "what does it cost? how can I get one?" The only reason they don't have one is that my answer is "you need a $2000 PC, a $900 headset and $250 controllers". Lower the price and you will see it take off.

Sargos 10y ago

I found the guy that hasn't tried VR yet!

marcosdumay 10y ago

Unlike 3D TV, VR is evolving into cheap hardware. That's a huge difference. But yeah, the judge is still out.

skykooler 10y ago

Can you watch 3D movies on a VR headset?

thenomad 10y ago
Yup. Works rather well, I'm told. (I'm big on VR and less so on 3D movies so I've not tried it.)

voppe 10y ago

Apples and oranges. 3D TVs and cinemas serve no new purpose. There is objectively little to no difference between watching a movie in 3D or in 2D, it is literally a gimmick to attract customers. VR, on the other hand, is completely unprecedented. It unlocks a way to interact with virtual environments that simply was not possible before. It has practical uses that we haven't had time to discover yet. Dismissing it as a gimmick and comparing it to 3D movies is shortsighted, in my opinion. One might argue that the technology is not there yet, but that would be comparable to PDAs preceding smartphones.