9 ms·

Valve’s Gabe Newell: VR could “turn out to be a complete failure”

102 points by shawndumas 10y ago

theparanoid 10y ago
Atwood's essay from 2014 was very prescient https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-road-to-vr/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-road-to-vr/.
- Impossible 10y ago
  Much of what he was talking about in 2014 has come true now. If we see the same rate of progress VR will actually be in a pretty good spot to be successful in 2020. Many of the complaints about VR now are solvable problems, specifically: - It's too bulky or uncomfortable - It's too expensive - There isn't enough good content - There aren't any killer apps - Resolution is too low (and relative optics, screen quality and FOV issues) - Its not wireless All of these problems are actively being worked on. I'd argue that there is core tech missing from the current round of VR headsets that will come later and enable exciting applications. My future concerns with the VR market are consumer perception, which might cause people to reject VR or AR even if a killer device with a killer app comes to market, and the larger existential issue of people will never want to interact with software in 3D space, and something about 2D (or text, or speech\audio) is inherently more convenient or easier to grasp. The former issue can be solved by good marketing, word of mouth, but the later can't. On HN the most commonly mentioned "killer app" for VR is infinite 2D screens, which is one of the most boring and unimaginative thing you can do with VR. AR "killer apps" tend to be equally boring, floating notifications and maps. Occasionally people mention telepresence, but its largely still straightforward applications like live event streaming or teleconferencing. A high quality AR\VR device with the proper infrastructure could essentially give people limited super powers, think time travel, teleportation, conjuring\illusion, being in multiply places at the same time, reality remix, etc.
FeatureRush 10y ago
Compare with this "Valve CEO: 'We're comfortable with the idea that VR will turn out to be a complete failure'" as it was titled on reddit which is much less clickbaity but still cuts off important part of the full quote...
- ghaff 10y ago
  It's not so much that either cuts off the quote. It's a quotable soundbite within the context of a longer discussion about how many VR predictions are overhyped, especially in the short term. Headlines are always "clickbaity" whether they're online or in a dead tree newspaper. They exist to grab your attention and make you read. If I were writing a headline based on this topic, I'd choose something along the same lines. It's not nuanced but it's not misleading either.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    It is misleading, and just because it's the norm doesn't mean it's right. I'll take descriptive over clickbaity every day.
  - randyrand 10y ago
    You're describing the problem.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      I guess I don't see the problem. Articles are not scientific papers. Opinions can differ but "Gabe Newell gives his views on VR" as a headline will be rewritten by approximately every editor on the planet.
      - FeatureRush 10y ago
        Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but for me the quote was all about Valve and was not giving bleak predictions about whole market as the headline implies. Here, for comparison, the way I parse the quote: A) "We're optimistic. We think VR is going great" - overall assessment of the situation, WE think = Valve perspective B) "It's going in a way that's consistent with our expectations," - OUR expectations were realistic and not overhyped, it's going as planned C) "we're also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure." - because A and B we expect VR to do well, but as a company Valve is ready to face the risk of VR being failure D) "Some people have got attention by going out and saying there'll be millions of [VR unit sales] and we're like, wow, I don't think so," - slow initial growth is within Valve's expectation Later some issues with current state of the technology as well lack of killer app are mentioned, but [B] Valve expected VR to be not perfect at the start and [A] it's doing well by their criteria. [C] is for me only about Valve the company being OK if VR fails not about VR actually failing.
Bombthecat 10y ago
The only thing I hear vr is good for is... Stuff :)
- vernie 10y ago
  What stuff?
- simlevesque 10y ago
  You mean porn right ?
timdiggerm 10y ago
It's so nice to hear someone in the industry not be so optimistic about the latest cool new thing.
- badlucklottery 10y ago
  If you watch the interview, Valve is still pretty damn optimistic about it. It's just that they see it as an ongoing experiment so they're okay with this iteration of it failing probably because they haven't bet the farm on it.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  I understand your perspective, but don't agree with the underlying message. Optimism is what encourages people to take risks. Ultimately, all progress depends on those who are hopelessly optimistic - even if they end up failing in their endeavors.
GuiA 10y ago
VR is bulky, expensive, technologically still very rough, and there is currently no content that makes anyone excited to get home to get a few more hours of it every night. These are all issues that can be solved by technology - a lightweight wireless HMD with 8k per eye that requires no other device for full body tracking would tell a much more compelling story, but we are probably many many years away from that. But that doesn't solve the core problems with such a device: it is inherently antisocial (who wants to watch a movie with their boyfriend with the two of you having a HMD strapped to your head, even if it gives you an amazing IMAX like experience?) and would be dangerous to wear anywhere but in the comfort of your couch. This guarantees that there'd never be any consumer use for it beyond hardcore movie/video game enthusiasts. Some interesting niche industrial applications are emerging, and that is likely to continue, but my mom won't buy one like she bought a Nintendo DS. The usual counter argument to this is "well AR solves all of that!" - but then the required technology puts us decades away from any realistic product.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- slantyyz 10y ago
  And there's also the aspect of VR giving some people motion sickness.
- sp332 10y ago
  It's not inherently antisocial. It's just easier to make "experiences" that are passive and singular, so it's going to take a while for developers to adapt more complex interactions. There are early examples though: http://elevr.com/some-rather-different-social-vr-experiments/ http://elevr.com/some-rather-different-social-vr-experiments...
- overgard 10y ago
  The problems with VR can be solved of course, but does VR itself solve any problems? (other than niches like flight simulators). I'm not writing it off just yet, but being myself a huge nerd that could program VR stuff, all I can think is like "ok but what do I use this for?" and I keep drawing a blank.
lazyjones 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that, apart from niche applications like NSFW stuff and 3D work done while sitting, VR will be replaced by advanced AR. Main reason: people bumping into walls, tripping over things...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that, apart from niche applications like NSFW stuff and 3D work done while sitting, VR will be replaced by advanced AR. I'm not sure 3D work done while sittings really a particularly niche application, unless you interpret "work" narrowly (in which case, I just think it's wrong.) And, in any case, advanced AR is many years behind VR and mostly builds on top of it (it requires solving a super of the problems required for successful VR) so VR could be quite successful even if that was true in the long term.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    > I'm not sure 3D work done while sittings really a particularly niche application Makes me wonder if programming could benefit from the 3D screen that a VR headset effectively provides. (And I mean this in a completely neutral way: I really wonder, and need to think about it.)
- stale2002 10y ago
  Not really. VR has mostly solved the problem of bumping into things.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    Please, go on. I see little evidence of this.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      It is called the chaperon system. It puts up walls that you can see inside the VR system. Then, you just make sure the space you are in is empty. Aka, don't be dumb. Just put the VR system in an open space, and you'll be fine.
nilkn 10y ago
I invested a lot in VR in 2016. I got both a Vive and a Rift (with Touch too when it launched late last year). It was a lot of fun at first. I don't use it at all anymore and am selling all my equipment. Not even the potential of upcoming VR titles is enough to tempt me to keep it. None of my friends even ask to demo any of it. They lost interest faster than they did for Wii Sports years ago. * Image quality is bad. * Hardware requirements are still very high. I have a very high-end machine and VR titles like Raw Data still do not run very well. * The locomotion problem is not being solved. It's been a year. I never adapted to it either. * The headsets are not comfortable. Both of them are painful for me to wear after ~30 minutes. * Rift+Touch tracking is bad and more or less completely broken for many users. * The front-facing configuration championed by Oculus is not enough. You'll instantly want more. * Clearing out space for room-scale is a big pain. I'm looking at new apartments and am facing up to the reality that the Vive is a huge constraint. * It's very anti-social. Honestly my SO does not like it when I use a VR device because it completely shuts her out. * The base equipment is still far too expensive for the quality of the experience. * There's very little worthwhile content. People are still talking about Space Pirate Trainer. That's a little demo that has been available for a year, but it's still considered one of the main titles. * I was most excited about Budget Cuts when I got the Vive. It was heavily hyped months before the Vive was even available for preorder. It's still not out with no announced release date either. That'll be an amazing title for sure, and I will regret not being able to play the finished version whenever it does finally come out. I encourage everyone to try it. It's a ton of fun at first. But think hard about whether you'll stay interested after a few months and whether it's worth the effort of setting up, clearing out space, keeping your gaming machine up-to-date with the latest hardware, etc.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- beachbum8029 10y ago
  Your second to last point seems to be the biggest problem right now, and that's not going to change until requirements have come down to what the average pc gamer can reasonably be expected to have available. No one wants to make games for a platform with such a low adoption rate.
timdeneau 10y ago
Here’s the full (37 min) interview at Valve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpQWSqQFK0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpQWSqQFK0
emeraldd 10y ago
To me, make VR available as the primary "desktop" for a system and you might have a better market. Why buy more monitors when you can just look sideways?
- slantyyz 10y ago
  I would love to see a system like that and I would likely buy one if it costed less than 2k. The only caveat is that the implementation doesn't give me any motion sickness.
  - harpastum 10y ago
    Nearly zero people get motion sickness in VR if there is no locomotion involved. Sitting still, looking side to side at virtual monitors in front of you will feel great for pretty much everyone. In terms of actually having a viable workstation, you'll need to wait until the resolution of these headsets gets high enough for easy text reading, which is 2-3 years out at this point.
    - slantyyz 10y ago
      >> Nearly zero people get motion sickness in VR if there is no locomotion involved. I probably used the wrong term. Substitute `nauseated` in place of `motion sickness`. When you say "locomotion" do you mean the player physically moving, or movement in the virtual space? I get nauseated just watching a first person shooter on a normal monitor. I also tried one of those VR goggles that you stick a phone in and wanted to hurl after about a minute of watching a roller coaster simulation.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      Also, a lot of people are having trouble wearing the current generation of headsets for more than an hour or so. Now imagine an 8-hour workday. So in addition to more pixels, the weight and bulkiness also needs to come down. The HoloLens is going in the right direction there, but weight could still be less.
abandonliberty 10y ago
I suspect we'll see an ipad launch. Tons of sales because it's cool, then people realize they have no idea what do with it.
- slantyyz 10y ago
  >> people realize they have no idea what do with it. People do know what to do with an iPad. I think the iPad's current problem is that the trend towards using larger phones made them less useful as a device between a phone and a laptop.
- harpastum 10y ago
  The iPad was and is one of the most successful electronic products ever. It's growth has absolutely slowed down, and is in a slight contraction right now, but it's still selling over 40 million units per year (from a peak of ~70M per year). To compare, Apple sells about 19M Macs per year. The iPad can only be claimed as a failure compared to investors' expectations, or compared to the iPhone. In the most recent quarter (Q1 2017), Apple sold 13.1 MILLION of them. Over 6 billion dollars of product sold in one quarter sounds pretty great to me.
  - abandonliberty 10y ago
    In spite of explosive sales and growth, hours/day usage of tablets is declining. Significant US Ownership Growth: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-owne... Minutes spent using tablets: https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/03/death-desktop-65-digital-media-consumed-mobile https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/03/death-desktop-65-d... Sure, from a capitalist perspective it was a great product. It created an entire market and earned lots of revenue. However, ownership more than doubled and internet usage stayed flat/declined. We succeeded at making people want something, but it was not something they needed.
dkonofalski 10y ago
I know that everyone wants to dump on Valve because of the HL3 situation, but these kinds of interviews always end up bringing me back around to Valve's side. If there's one thing I really respect about Gabe Newell, it's his Steve Jobs-ian dedication to making sure that he doesn't release something until it's good enough for him. I also happen to think that he's totally right, in this particular case. I probably spent about $5k+ on VR between the Oculus, Vive, my PC hardware, and a few games. I was lucky enough to be able to get in early so I got discounted pricing on a lot of the stuff and made some money back selling old dev kits and whatnot. VR is absolutely not within reach of the average consumer in any kind of palatable way. Sony VR, IMO, is just not compelling for users when you factor in that you have to buy a PS4, the camera, some move controllers (potentially) and all for a pretty cool but ultimately short-lived experience. Until we get some games, apps, and experiences that are repeatable and re-usable, VR is just going to be this niche thing. I can see exactly where Gabe is coming from and, like some other comments have said, I think he's going to be ready to sing the success of VR when there's a very low barrier of entry - wireless HMD, body tracking, prop tracking, and, most of all, when it's comfortable and an actual experience.
no1youknowz 10y ago
As a developer a killer app for this would be telepresence. I envision a time where I can just put on a headset and I'm in the companies virtual coding room. Other developers join in whatever timezone they are in. You could have developers who are in company HQ and remote all over the world. Each developer could be locked into what ambient sound they are in and then can connect to 1 or more people in the room to talk. Want to screen share between 1 or 2 people, then a screen pops up virtually and these people could debug code, diagrams, whatever it may be. When I'm coding, it's on my laptop but simultaneously coding on the VR one as well. I could share that screen and a coder in another country in real-time could collaborate or have a fresh pair of eyes immediately. Imagine being on a viral IRC with coders all over the world, working on an open-source project as if they were right there next to you? When I say this, everyone is connected to the virtual world. Not as a floating orb, but an actual body. They can see your face, emotions, hear your voice. I think it would be a game changer! ------------ Other uses could be 360 degree concerts. Where you can choose whatever vantage you want. The possibilities are endless for VR, it really just takes someone to keep polishing that use-case. It's not going to be a home run for another few iterations at least!
- slantyyz 10y ago
  >> As a developer a killer app for this would be telepresence. This would be pretty cool, and you'd probably be able to lower the videocard requirements as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jayjay71 10y ago
  What resolution is necessary to read standard text with VR? I'd imagine it would start to become usable for this at 4k per eye, and even then I suspect it would be limited.
  - harpastum 10y ago
    4k per eye would definitely be good enough. Text still wouldn't be crisp and clean, but it would be very readable. VR headsets don't distribute pixels evenly across the entire view-space, the lenses concentrate the pixels toward the middle of your vision. So if for example you had a display that took up the center 25% of your vision in VR, it might have 50% of the actual display pixels. 50% of 4k is 1080p. So you'd end up with a display that looks pretty large, but is only 1080p. Not optimal, but definitely usable.
Keyframe 10y ago
Who knows. IMO, VR needs a huge technological advance (or multiple of) and low price in order to start making advances. Content potential is great, technology still isn't and is expensive. It won't replace all media, it has it's own content scheme. People talking about watching movies in VR doesn't make sense. Some will, yeah. Some new types of movies will be there, but VR has it's own thing content-wise. There's this other thing though. Augmented reality. Technology is kind of here and inexpensive. If you have a relatively modern phone you have AR access, maybe not the latest and greatest, but it's there. Yet, I think that one is a complete failure so far. So many false starts! Content is gimmicky at best and it seems people don't care at all about the technology or potential about it. It's commodity now. When AR happens, it's great (see Pokemon Go, Eyetoy, etc.), but it doesn't live for long (see Pokemon Go, Eyetoy, etc.). Where's AR headed?
- bfuller 10y ago
  While I agree VR isn't the be all end all for cinema, I kind of hope you are down playing the medium of VR film. Being present in a scene rather than being forced a perspective has some very cool possibilities. It may turn out to be a novelty, but it may be an important one. I do agree that AR is a huge gimmick that probably won't be solved until VR is firmly established
  - Keyframe 10y ago
    I'm not downplaying VR film at all. I just think it is (will be) its own thing. In fact, it will be a new type of theatrical expression in its own right. Somewhat more akin to theatre, street theatre and probably interactive. It will not supplant film at all, it's a different thing. Camera placement and lens choice is one of THE tools director has at his disposal. For example, well at least to the one school of film (to which I belong to), when you direct a scene, one of the first question you ask is whose scene is it and depending on that you decide on the placement of the camera, height, lens, movement. You can then, due to conflict/drama, in the same scene change the fulcrum point to tip the scene to be someone else's and change the camera angle and lens... all in the same scene. This is one of the examples where, due to directing, camera placement with lens plays a significant and key role in storytelling. With VR, in described manner, you lose that. However, you have other things at your disposal. So, you see, it's not really a film, it's something else. Which is exciting! We're still a long way from there though.
daemonhunter 10y ago
I recently got a PlayStation VR. I was completely thrilled by the possibilities of games like Eve: Valkyrie. So far I find the games awesome save 1 thing: motion sickness. When I got the VR I expected to spend the weekend with the headset on playing Eve... nope. I can only go 30 or so minutes without the motion sickness kicking in. I am trying to build a tolerance up.
- arielweisberg 10y ago
  You might be less motion sick with the Rift on a PC. Consistent high frame rates make a huge difference. Locomotion methods are also a big problem, but Eve is a cockpit game which usually doesn't trigger people.
  - daemonhunter 10y ago
    I find the more I look around the scene vs direction of travel the worse it gets. Have the same issue with Battlezone and Scavengers Odyssey. Driveclub and some of the others haven't caused it yet.
ffn 10y ago
Honestly, having experimented extensively with VR, I highly doubt its best applications will be in gaming. At its core, gaming draws people for at least one of the following reasons: 1. engaging story-line 2. flow-inducing gameplay 3. social involvement 4. sheer boredom while on public transit Because VR is so new, no artist has yet created the "epic" story or "flow" game-play that requires VR. Social with VR is potentially revolutionary, but currently, the multi-camera setup required to full mo-cap yourself properly and the lack of tactile output means social interaction in VR is not quite there yet. And because of the setup required, one can't exactly play VR while in public transit. On the other hand, I do see VR having a lot of work-related applications like 3D modeling and architecture... it's just that no one has written those programs yet.
- drusepth 10y ago
  I really, really, really hope VR doesn't fail if only for the artistic applications of it. I used to play Tilt Brush for hours every day, but don't have the space for the equipment anymore so I just watch people play Tilt Brush on YouTube. IMO, it's a legitimate "next generation" for artists that's still almost entirely undiscovered (and unfortunately out of reach from most).
Animats 10y ago
I've been saying this for about a year, and getting angry replies. The problem is not the clunky headgear, poor resolution, and dangling cables. It's the lack of a killer app for VR. The hardware has been available for years now, yet there's still no killer app. There are FPS games for VR. They're OK. VR gear may just be an optional accessory for hardcore FPS gamers. Virtual worlds? Well, you can connect into High Fidelity right now. Few people do, and it's boring in there anyway. Teleconferencing? Get real. (And yes, fanboys, I've tried the things. I've used an HTC Vibe, a Microsoft HoloLens, and most of the earlier VR gear back to Jaron Lanier's original demo rig. The resolution has improved, and the head tracking is far better. But there's not much compelling to do in there.)
- drewrv 10y ago
  In this same interview, Gabe says Valve is working on three full length titles for VR. Valve has an amazing track record so far, so I'm confident we'll get some killer apps eventually.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Well, IMO, the poor resolution is a real show stopper for me. Nothing breaks immersion like seeing something in the "distance" and being unable to identify it. It's like wearing terrible glasses and gives me a headache (before the VR sickness even kicks in).
- jplur 10y ago
  If you're into digital sculpting/painting the killer apps are already out :)
- esturk 10y ago
  What constitutes as a killer app is debatable, but the very first AAA title VR game (Resident Evil 7) was recently released with great reviews. This is just the beginning.
- Shorel 10y ago
  The killer app is, for me, SimRacing. But I agree with other posters about low resolution being an issue. Also: the Facebook factor. Oculus has been a couple orders of magnitude less interesting since it was acquired by Facebook. I don't give a crap about avatars and VR chat, and I don't think anyone I know does, either.
aresant 10y ago
Or, in an alternative universe of content accurate headlines: "Gabe Newell on VR: "We're optimistic. We think VR is going great. It's going in a way that's consistent with our expectations" That's a direct quote from the same story that more accurately reflects his position.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I disagree that's any more accurate. It doesn't capture his other comments about the irrationality of over-optimistic forecasts or his acknowledgment that VR could be a dead-end. I read that (overly long for a headline) quote as VR is going gangbusters--which I don't think really distills his opinion. ADDED: It's also not especially newsworthy that the CEO of a company developing VR says VR is doing great. It is far more newsworthy for him to acknowledge that VR might not succeed.
overgard 10y ago
Here's the thing that worries me about VR despite it being obviously cool. It's: - Inconvenient - Expensive - Doesn't solve a direct need I don't think VR is going to disappear or anything, but I can't think of anything with the above three traits that has been a mainstream success
- drusepth 10y ago
  What direct need do video games solve?
  - overgard 10y ago
    I would argue: a lot of them! Need for the feeling of accomplishment and mastery, need for social interaction, need for learning. VR is undeniably really cool, but, all these needs can be filled without it. I'm not hating on VR, I just am skeptical that wearing a face helmet and ignoring your surroundings is going to be a mainstay in our culture.
6stringmerc 10y ago
As somebody with extensive ties to both Tech and Content Creation spheres, I can tell you right away the killer app for VR is in Episodic Entertainment Experiences. Not games. Not business applications. Not practicing open heart surgery or bomb defusing. No, the intersection of VR and Mass Interest will be something a lot closer to YouTube-Meets-Network-TV-Meets-James-Cameron. "Hardcore Henry" for other genres like Comedy, Drama, Romance...There's a big problem though. The Tech Industry and Content Creation Industry fight each other like petulant, smart-ass, greedy siblings. So it ain't going to happen any time soon. AR will, in the meantime, become extremely compelling through Content Creation Applications. Microsoft is screaming ahead in this realm, with the Surface Pro platform edging into Education and the Surface Desktop likely a contender for studios worldwide in all sorts of areas (Visual, Film, Music). Microsoft, unless their compass is totally out of whack, will eventually have a compelling reason to add AR into a high power workstation.
mtkd 10y ago
the killer app for me on this will be telepresence at music or sport events - without the planning/travel/parking etc. also ability to control volume and possibly even stadium/venue position
andrewclunn 10y ago
The military and other industries that rely on expensive training simulators are where the market for this stuff is at right now. Going for the consumers first is / was a mistake. VR will make it, but it's going to take longer than the "next big thing" crowd anticipated (like most hings do).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The military and other industries that rely on expensive training simulators are where the market for this stuff is at right now. I dunno, I think that consumer sit-and-consume is more viable than most "expensive simulator" applications: VR isn't useful for things where either more-than-audiovisual interaction is important, and it's arguably lower quality than a high-rise little physical mock-up with a flat 2D display for most vehicle, etc., simulators. Now, if we were talking AR, I'd agree that the military and other expensive simulator market is where AR's big initial market is, because AR can layer on top of and enhance the best-available conventional training systems.
WillyOnWheels 10y ago
I really like the bow and arrow demo game included with the Vibe
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
myowncrapulence 10y ago
Your comment got killed for some reason That's because this place is an advertisement space for VC's and the comments are astroturfed so the confirmation bubble doesn't get holes.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are particularly not allowed. If you think you see astroturfing happening, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can take a look—it's a concern we take seriously, but no one is allowed to sling the accusation around as a rhetorical device. Many more HN comments are critical of VCs than defensive of them. I think you might be off by an order of magnitude there. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13662610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13662610 and marked it off-topic.
ihenriksen 10y ago
I've been kind of negative to VR until I worked on the Microsoft HoloLens for some clients, and now I'm convinced that Mixed Reality(MR) is the way of the future and not VR. Sure, the current HoloLens has some disadvantages like a small field-of-view and a high price tag, but I'm sure that these things will be improved in future editions. This video shows someone playing Portal using the HoloLens, which also shows off its spatial awareness capabilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-_4yIE6Cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-_4yIE6Cs
Tloewald 10y ago
Oculus got a lot of traction fro finding a good solution to VR's glaring obvious first order problem — bad, super expensive goggles. But that's kind of like inventing the first reasonably decent facemask and thinking you're ready to live underwater.
65827 10y ago
I preordered an HTC vive and sent it back two weeks later because the experience was so awful. Graphics are terrible, frame rates chug, and the flat lit low polygon textures everywhere look worse than PS1 era graphics. It's just awful, awful, awful. Need to double the resolution in each eye and improve optimization by A MILE to fix those minimum framerates. The experience is just terrible, you kind of need to drink the kool aid to think otherwise. Nice to see Gabe leading the charge for better tech here.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
My prediction is that VR will teach us absolutely critical things about human computer interaction, and that some people will literally live in their headsets, but that a large group of people will almost never use them, and phones will continue to be the dominant computing platform. My reasoning is this: imagine the perfect phone VR viewer. It would be something like a much improved Google Tango. You hold your phone, and it is a true 3d view into virtual reality, the refresh rate is 90hz, and tracking is perfect. It literally just looks and feels like a little window into VR. Like opera glasses. And in fact, if you watch people using VR for the first time, many people try to keep a hand on the headset. I wonder if there is some deep desire there, to maintain separate control of your viewpoint and the line where the virtual and physical intersect. I suspect that in the long term, many people will be happy to watch what's happening in VR from a bit of a distance. And big downside a headset has is transition cost. You can text me a VR link, and I can put down my french fry, pull phone phone out of my pocket, hold it near my face, and look around. With a headset, I need to get it out of my bag, strap it on, adjust it, etc. And that's assuming full mobility. The other consideration is that we've already fairly carefully titrated our interest in realism vs abstraction as a society. People still read books, people still watch cartoons. These are not seen as lesser artistic experiences than a gritty realistic film. They are just different. VR will be the same, some works will be amenable to immersion, but people will still keep writing novels and cartoons and VR will be a niche too, to the extent cartoons are a niche. I think there is also a gap forming between the "anything is possible" crowd and the "no, common sense is real, men are men, dirt is dirt, god is god" movement. Public spaces in VR will look pretty unappealing to the latter. VR will be a godsend to trans people of all stripes, but not everyone wants to transition somewhere.
nogbit 10y ago
Original backer of the rift, sold my the day it arrived, unopened for 3x the purchase price. VR did well for me. VR is clunky and unless its as simple and sleek as wearing eyeglasses it will go nowhere.

102 points by shawndumas 10y ago

Atwood's essay from 2014 was very prescient https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-road-to-vr/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-road-to-vr/.

Impossible 10y ago
Much of what he was talking about in 2014 has come true now. If we see the same rate of progress VR will actually be in a pretty good spot to be successful in 2020. Many of the complaints about VR now are solvable problems, specifically: - It's too bulky or uncomfortable - It's too expensive - There isn't enough good content - There aren't any killer apps - Resolution is too low (and relative optics, screen quality and FOV issues) - Its not wireless All of these problems are actively being worked on. I'd argue that there is core tech missing from the current round of VR headsets that will come later and enable exciting applications. My future concerns with the VR market are consumer perception, which might cause people to reject VR or AR even if a killer device with a killer app comes to market, and the larger existential issue of people will never want to interact with software in 3D space, and something about 2D (or text, or speech\audio) is inherently more convenient or easier to grasp. The former issue can be solved by good marketing, word of mouth, but the later can't. On HN the most commonly mentioned "killer app" for VR is infinite 2D screens, which is one of the most boring and unimaginative thing you can do with VR. AR "killer apps" tend to be equally boring, floating notifications and maps. Occasionally people mention telepresence, but its largely still straightforward applications like live event streaming or teleconferencing. A high quality AR\VR device with the proper infrastructure could essentially give people limited super powers, think time travel, teleportation, conjuring\illusion, being in multiply places at the same time, reality remix, etc.

FeatureRush 10y ago

Compare with this "Valve CEO: 'We're comfortable with the idea that VR will turn out to be a complete failure'" as it was titled on reddit which is much less clickbaity but still cuts off important part of the full quote...

ghaff 10y ago
It's not so much that either cuts off the quote. It's a quotable soundbite within the context of a longer discussion about how many VR predictions are overhyped, especially in the short term. Headlines are always "clickbaity" whether they're online or in a dead tree newspaper. They exist to grab your attention and make you read. If I were writing a headline based on this topic, I'd choose something along the same lines. It's not nuanced but it's not misleading either.
- andrepd 10y ago
  It is misleading, and just because it's the norm doesn't mean it's right. I'll take descriptive over clickbaity every day.
- randyrand 10y ago
  You're describing the problem.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I guess I don't see the problem. Articles are not scientific papers. Opinions can differ but "Gabe Newell gives his views on VR" as a headline will be rewritten by approximately every editor on the planet.
    - FeatureRush 10y ago
      Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but for me the quote was all about Valve and was not giving bleak predictions about whole market as the headline implies. Here, for comparison, the way I parse the quote: A) "We're optimistic. We think VR is going great" - overall assessment of the situation, WE think = Valve perspective B) "It's going in a way that's consistent with our expectations," - OUR expectations were realistic and not overhyped, it's going as planned C) "we're also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure." - because A and B we expect VR to do well, but as a company Valve is ready to face the risk of VR being failure D) "Some people have got attention by going out and saying there'll be millions of [VR unit sales] and we're like, wow, I don't think so," - slow initial growth is within Valve's expectation Later some issues with current state of the technology as well lack of killer app are mentioned, but [B] Valve expected VR to be not perfect at the start and [A] it's doing well by their criteria. [C] is for me only about Valve the company being OK if VR fails not about VR actually failing.

Bombthecat 10y ago

The only thing I hear vr is good for is... Stuff :)

vernie 10y ago
What stuff?
simlevesque 10y ago
You mean porn right ?

timdiggerm 10y ago

It's so nice to hear someone in the industry not be so optimistic about the latest cool new thing.

badlucklottery 10y ago
If you watch the interview, Valve is still pretty damn optimistic about it. It's just that they see it as an ongoing experiment so they're okay with this iteration of it failing probably because they haven't bet the farm on it.
enraged_camel 10y ago
I understand your perspective, but don't agree with the underlying message. Optimism is what encourages people to take risks. Ultimately, all progress depends on those who are hopelessly optimistic - even if they end up failing in their endeavors.

GuiA 10y ago

VR is bulky, expensive, technologically still very rough, and there is currently no content that makes anyone excited to get home to get a few more hours of it every night. These are all issues that can be solved by technology - a lightweight wireless HMD with 8k per eye that requires no other device for full body tracking would tell a much more compelling story, but we are probably many many years away from that. But that doesn't solve the core problems with such a device: it is inherently antisocial (who wants to watch a movie with their boyfriend with the two of you having a HMD strapped to your head, even if it gives you an amazing IMAX like experience?) and would be dangerous to wear anywhere but in the comfort of your couch. This guarantees that there'd never be any consumer use for it beyond hardcore movie/video game enthusiasts. Some interesting niche industrial applications are emerging, and that is likely to continue, but my mom won't buy one like she bought a Nintendo DS. The usual counter argument to this is "well AR solves all of that!" - but then the required technology puts us decades away from any realistic product.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
slantyyz 10y ago
And there's also the aspect of VR giving some people motion sickness.
sp332 10y ago
It's not inherently antisocial. It's just easier to make "experiences" that are passive and singular, so it's going to take a while for developers to adapt more complex interactions. There are early examples though: http://elevr.com/some-rather-different-social-vr-experiments/ http://elevr.com/some-rather-different-social-vr-experiments...
overgard 10y ago
The problems with VR can be solved of course, but does VR itself solve any problems? (other than niches like flight simulators). I'm not writing it off just yet, but being myself a huge nerd that could program VR stuff, all I can think is like "ok but what do I use this for?" and I keep drawing a blank.

lazyjones 10y ago

I'm pretty sure that, apart from niche applications like NSFW stuff and 3D work done while sitting, VR will be replaced by advanced AR. Main reason: people bumping into walls, tripping over things...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I'm pretty sure that, apart from niche applications like NSFW stuff and 3D work done while sitting, VR will be replaced by advanced AR. I'm not sure 3D work done while sittings really a particularly niche application, unless you interpret "work" narrowly (in which case, I just think it's wrong.) And, in any case, advanced AR is many years behind VR and mostly builds on top of it (it requires solving a super of the problems required for successful VR) so VR could be quite successful even if that was true in the long term.
- majewsky 10y ago
  > I'm not sure 3D work done while sittings really a particularly niche application Makes me wonder if programming could benefit from the 3D screen that a VR headset effectively provides. (And I mean this in a completely neutral way: I really wonder, and need to think about it.)
stale2002 10y ago
Not really. VR has mostly solved the problem of bumping into things.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Please, go on. I see little evidence of this.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    It is called the chaperon system. It puts up walls that you can see inside the VR system. Then, you just make sure the space you are in is empty. Aka, don't be dumb. Just put the VR system in an open space, and you'll be fine.

nilkn 10y ago

I invested a lot in VR in 2016. I got both a Vive and a Rift (with Touch too when it launched late last year). It was a lot of fun at first. I don't use it at all anymore and am selling all my equipment. Not even the potential of upcoming VR titles is enough to tempt me to keep it. None of my friends even ask to demo any of it. They lost interest faster than they did for Wii Sports years ago. * Image quality is bad. * Hardware requirements are still very high. I have a very high-end machine and VR titles like Raw Data still do not run very well. * The locomotion problem is not being solved. It's been a year. I never adapted to it either. * The headsets are not comfortable. Both of them are painful for me to wear after ~30 minutes. * Rift+Touch tracking is bad and more or less completely broken for many users. * The front-facing configuration championed by Oculus is not enough. You'll instantly want more. * Clearing out space for room-scale is a big pain. I'm looking at new apartments and am facing up to the reality that the Vive is a huge constraint. * It's very anti-social. Honestly my SO does not like it when I use a VR device because it completely shuts her out. * The base equipment is still far too expensive for the quality of the experience. * There's very little worthwhile content. People are still talking about Space Pirate Trainer. That's a little demo that has been available for a year, but it's still considered one of the main titles. * I was most excited about Budget Cuts when I got the Vive. It was heavily hyped months before the Vive was even available for preorder. It's still not out with no announced release date either. That'll be an amazing title for sure, and I will regret not being able to play the finished version whenever it does finally come out. I encourage everyone to try it. It's a ton of fun at first. But think hard about whether you'll stay interested after a few months and whether it's worth the effort of setting up, clearing out space, keeping your gaming machine up-to-date with the latest hardware, etc.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
beachbum8029 10y ago
Your second to last point seems to be the biggest problem right now, and that's not going to change until requirements have come down to what the average pc gamer can reasonably be expected to have available. No one wants to make games for a platform with such a low adoption rate.

timdeneau 10y ago

Here’s the full (37 min) interview at Valve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpQWSqQFK0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpQWSqQFK0

emeraldd 10y ago

To me, make VR available as the primary "desktop" for a system and you might have a better market. Why buy more monitors when you can just look sideways?

slantyyz 10y ago
I would love to see a system like that and I would likely buy one if it costed less than 2k. The only caveat is that the implementation doesn't give me any motion sickness.
- harpastum 10y ago
  Nearly zero people get motion sickness in VR if there is no locomotion involved. Sitting still, looking side to side at virtual monitors in front of you will feel great for pretty much everyone. In terms of actually having a viable workstation, you'll need to wait until the resolution of these headsets gets high enough for easy text reading, which is 2-3 years out at this point.
  - slantyyz 10y ago
    >> Nearly zero people get motion sickness in VR if there is no locomotion involved. I probably used the wrong term. Substitute `nauseated` in place of `motion sickness`. When you say "locomotion" do you mean the player physically moving, or movement in the virtual space? I get nauseated just watching a first person shooter on a normal monitor. I also tried one of those VR goggles that you stick a phone in and wanted to hurl after about a minute of watching a roller coaster simulation.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    Also, a lot of people are having trouble wearing the current generation of headsets for more than an hour or so. Now imagine an 8-hour workday. So in addition to more pixels, the weight and bulkiness also needs to come down. The HoloLens is going in the right direction there, but weight could still be less.

abandonliberty 10y ago

I suspect we'll see an ipad launch. Tons of sales because it's cool, then people realize they have no idea what do with it.

slantyyz 10y ago
>> people realize they have no idea what do with it. People do know what to do with an iPad. I think the iPad's current problem is that the trend towards using larger phones made them less useful as a device between a phone and a laptop.
harpastum 10y ago
The iPad was and is one of the most successful electronic products ever. It's growth has absolutely slowed down, and is in a slight contraction right now, but it's still selling over 40 million units per year (from a peak of ~70M per year). To compare, Apple sells about 19M Macs per year. The iPad can only be claimed as a failure compared to investors' expectations, or compared to the iPhone. In the most recent quarter (Q1 2017), Apple sold 13.1 MILLION of them. Over 6 billion dollars of product sold in one quarter sounds pretty great to me.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  In spite of explosive sales and growth, hours/day usage of tablets is declining. Significant US Ownership Growth: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-owne... Minutes spent using tablets: https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/03/death-desktop-65-digital-media-consumed-mobile https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/03/death-desktop-65-d... Sure, from a capitalist perspective it was a great product. It created an entire market and earned lots of revenue. However, ownership more than doubled and internet usage stayed flat/declined. We succeeded at making people want something, but it was not something they needed.

dkonofalski 10y ago

I know that everyone wants to dump on Valve because of the HL3 situation, but these kinds of interviews always end up bringing me back around to Valve's side. If there's one thing I really respect about Gabe Newell, it's his Steve Jobs-ian dedication to making sure that he doesn't release something until it's good enough for him. I also happen to think that he's totally right, in this particular case. I probably spent about $5k+ on VR between the Oculus, Vive, my PC hardware, and a few games. I was lucky enough to be able to get in early so I got discounted pricing on a lot of the stuff and made some money back selling old dev kits and whatnot. VR is absolutely not within reach of the average consumer in any kind of palatable way. Sony VR, IMO, is just not compelling for users when you factor in that you have to buy a PS4, the camera, some move controllers (potentially) and all for a pretty cool but ultimately short-lived experience. Until we get some games, apps, and experiences that are repeatable and re-usable, VR is just going to be this niche thing. I can see exactly where Gabe is coming from and, like some other comments have said, I think he's going to be ready to sing the success of VR when there's a very low barrier of entry - wireless HMD, body tracking, prop tracking, and, most of all, when it's comfortable and an actual experience.

no1youknowz 10y ago

As a developer a killer app for this would be telepresence. I envision a time where I can just put on a headset and I'm in the companies virtual coding room. Other developers join in whatever timezone they are in. You could have developers who are in company HQ and remote all over the world. Each developer could be locked into what ambient sound they are in and then can connect to 1 or more people in the room to talk. Want to screen share between 1 or 2 people, then a screen pops up virtually and these people could debug code, diagrams, whatever it may be. When I'm coding, it's on my laptop but simultaneously coding on the VR one as well. I could share that screen and a coder in another country in real-time could collaborate or have a fresh pair of eyes immediately. Imagine being on a viral IRC with coders all over the world, working on an open-source project as if they were right there next to you? When I say this, everyone is connected to the virtual world. Not as a floating orb, but an actual body. They can see your face, emotions, hear your voice. I think it would be a game changer! ------------ Other uses could be 360 degree concerts. Where you can choose whatever vantage you want. The possibilities are endless for VR, it really just takes someone to keep polishing that use-case. It's not going to be a home run for another few iterations at least!

slantyyz 10y ago
>> As a developer a killer app for this would be telepresence. This would be pretty cool, and you'd probably be able to lower the videocard requirements as well.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jayjay71 10y ago
What resolution is necessary to read standard text with VR? I'd imagine it would start to become usable for this at 4k per eye, and even then I suspect it would be limited.
- harpastum 10y ago
  4k per eye would definitely be good enough. Text still wouldn't be crisp and clean, but it would be very readable. VR headsets don't distribute pixels evenly across the entire view-space, the lenses concentrate the pixels toward the middle of your vision. So if for example you had a display that took up the center 25% of your vision in VR, it might have 50% of the actual display pixels. 50% of 4k is 1080p. So you'd end up with a display that looks pretty large, but is only 1080p. Not optimal, but definitely usable.

Keyframe 10y ago

Who knows. IMO, VR needs a huge technological advance (or multiple of) and low price in order to start making advances. Content potential is great, technology still isn't and is expensive. It won't replace all media, it has it's own content scheme. People talking about watching movies in VR doesn't make sense. Some will, yeah. Some new types of movies will be there, but VR has it's own thing content-wise. There's this other thing though. Augmented reality. Technology is kind of here and inexpensive. If you have a relatively modern phone you have AR access, maybe not the latest and greatest, but it's there. Yet, I think that one is a complete failure so far. So many false starts! Content is gimmicky at best and it seems people don't care at all about the technology or potential about it. It's commodity now. When AR happens, it's great (see Pokemon Go, Eyetoy, etc.), but it doesn't live for long (see Pokemon Go, Eyetoy, etc.). Where's AR headed?

bfuller 10y ago
While I agree VR isn't the be all end all for cinema, I kind of hope you are down playing the medium of VR film. Being present in a scene rather than being forced a perspective has some very cool possibilities. It may turn out to be a novelty, but it may be an important one. I do agree that AR is a huge gimmick that probably won't be solved until VR is firmly established
- Keyframe 10y ago
  I'm not downplaying VR film at all. I just think it is (will be) its own thing. In fact, it will be a new type of theatrical expression in its own right. Somewhat more akin to theatre, street theatre and probably interactive. It will not supplant film at all, it's a different thing. Camera placement and lens choice is one of THE tools director has at his disposal. For example, well at least to the one school of film (to which I belong to), when you direct a scene, one of the first question you ask is whose scene is it and depending on that you decide on the placement of the camera, height, lens, movement. You can then, due to conflict/drama, in the same scene change the fulcrum point to tip the scene to be someone else's and change the camera angle and lens... all in the same scene. This is one of the examples where, due to directing, camera placement with lens plays a significant and key role in storytelling. With VR, in described manner, you lose that. However, you have other things at your disposal. So, you see, it's not really a film, it's something else. Which is exciting! We're still a long way from there though.

daemonhunter 10y ago

I recently got a PlayStation VR. I was completely thrilled by the possibilities of games like Eve: Valkyrie. So far I find the games awesome save 1 thing: motion sickness. When I got the VR I expected to spend the weekend with the headset on playing Eve... nope. I can only go 30 or so minutes without the motion sickness kicking in. I am trying to build a tolerance up.

arielweisberg 10y ago
You might be less motion sick with the Rift on a PC. Consistent high frame rates make a huge difference. Locomotion methods are also a big problem, but Eve is a cockpit game which usually doesn't trigger people.
- daemonhunter 10y ago
  I find the more I look around the scene vs direction of travel the worse it gets. Have the same issue with Battlezone and Scavengers Odyssey. Driveclub and some of the others haven't caused it yet.

ffn 10y ago

Honestly, having experimented extensively with VR, I highly doubt its best applications will be in gaming. At its core, gaming draws people for at least one of the following reasons: 1. engaging story-line 2. flow-inducing gameplay 3. social involvement 4. sheer boredom while on public transit Because VR is so new, no artist has yet created the "epic" story or "flow" game-play that requires VR. Social with VR is potentially revolutionary, but currently, the multi-camera setup required to full mo-cap yourself properly and the lack of tactile output means social interaction in VR is not quite there yet. And because of the setup required, one can't exactly play VR while in public transit. On the other hand, I do see VR having a lot of work-related applications like 3D modeling and architecture... it's just that no one has written those programs yet.

drusepth 10y ago
I really, really, really hope VR doesn't fail if only for the artistic applications of it. I used to play Tilt Brush for hours every day, but don't have the space for the equipment anymore so I just watch people play Tilt Brush on YouTube. IMO, it's a legitimate "next generation" for artists that's still almost entirely undiscovered (and unfortunately out of reach from most).

Animats 10y ago

I've been saying this for about a year, and getting angry replies. The problem is not the clunky headgear, poor resolution, and dangling cables. It's the lack of a killer app for VR. The hardware has been available for years now, yet there's still no killer app. There are FPS games for VR. They're OK. VR gear may just be an optional accessory for hardcore FPS gamers. Virtual worlds? Well, you can connect into High Fidelity right now. Few people do, and it's boring in there anyway. Teleconferencing? Get real. (And yes, fanboys, I've tried the things. I've used an HTC Vibe, a Microsoft HoloLens, and most of the earlier VR gear back to Jaron Lanier's original demo rig. The resolution has improved, and the head tracking is far better. But there's not much compelling to do in there.)

drewrv 10y ago
In this same interview, Gabe says Valve is working on three full length titles for VR. Valve has an amazing track record so far, so I'm confident we'll get some killer apps eventually.
falcolas 10y ago
Well, IMO, the poor resolution is a real show stopper for me. Nothing breaks immersion like seeing something in the "distance" and being unable to identify it. It's like wearing terrible glasses and gives me a headache (before the VR sickness even kicks in).
jplur 10y ago
If you're into digital sculpting/painting the killer apps are already out :)
esturk 10y ago
What constitutes as a killer app is debatable, but the very first AAA title VR game (Resident Evil 7) was recently released with great reviews. This is just the beginning.
Shorel 10y ago
The killer app is, for me, SimRacing. But I agree with other posters about low resolution being an issue. Also: the Facebook factor. Oculus has been a couple orders of magnitude less interesting since it was acquired by Facebook. I don't give a crap about avatars and VR chat, and I don't think anyone I know does, either.

aresant 10y ago

Or, in an alternative universe of content accurate headlines: "Gabe Newell on VR: "We're optimistic. We think VR is going great. It's going in a way that's consistent with our expectations" That's a direct quote from the same story that more accurately reflects his position.

ghaff 10y ago
I disagree that's any more accurate. It doesn't capture his other comments about the irrationality of over-optimistic forecasts or his acknowledgment that VR could be a dead-end. I read that (overly long for a headline) quote as VR is going gangbusters--which I don't think really distills his opinion. ADDED: It's also not especially newsworthy that the CEO of a company developing VR says VR is doing great. It is far more newsworthy for him to acknowledge that VR might not succeed.

overgard 10y ago

Here's the thing that worries me about VR despite it being obviously cool. It's: - Inconvenient - Expensive - Doesn't solve a direct need I don't think VR is going to disappear or anything, but I can't think of anything with the above three traits that has been a mainstream success

drusepth 10y ago
What direct need do video games solve?
- overgard 10y ago
  I would argue: a lot of them! Need for the feeling of accomplishment and mastery, need for social interaction, need for learning. VR is undeniably really cool, but, all these needs can be filled without it. I'm not hating on VR, I just am skeptical that wearing a face helmet and ignoring your surroundings is going to be a mainstay in our culture.

6stringmerc 10y ago

As somebody with extensive ties to both Tech and Content Creation spheres, I can tell you right away the killer app for VR is in Episodic Entertainment Experiences. Not games. Not business applications. Not practicing open heart surgery or bomb defusing. No, the intersection of VR and Mass Interest will be something a lot closer to YouTube-Meets-Network-TV-Meets-James-Cameron. "Hardcore Henry" for other genres like Comedy, Drama, Romance...There's a big problem though. The Tech Industry and Content Creation Industry fight each other like petulant, smart-ass, greedy siblings. So it ain't going to happen any time soon. AR will, in the meantime, become extremely compelling through Content Creation Applications. Microsoft is screaming ahead in this realm, with the Surface Pro platform edging into Education and the Surface Desktop likely a contender for studios worldwide in all sorts of areas (Visual, Film, Music). Microsoft, unless their compass is totally out of whack, will eventually have a compelling reason to add AR into a high power workstation.

mtkd 10y ago

the killer app for me on this will be telepresence at music or sport events - without the planning/travel/parking etc. also ability to control volume and possibly even stadium/venue position

andrewclunn 10y ago

The military and other industries that rely on expensive training simulators are where the market for this stuff is at right now. Going for the consumers first is / was a mistake. VR will make it, but it's going to take longer than the "next big thing" crowd anticipated (like most hings do).

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The military and other industries that rely on expensive training simulators are where the market for this stuff is at right now. I dunno, I think that consumer sit-and-consume is more viable than most "expensive simulator" applications: VR isn't useful for things where either more-than-audiovisual interaction is important, and it's arguably lower quality than a high-rise little physical mock-up with a flat 2D display for most vehicle, etc., simulators. Now, if we were talking AR, I'd agree that the military and other expensive simulator market is where AR's big initial market is, because AR can layer on top of and enhance the best-available conventional training systems.

WillyOnWheels 10y ago

I really like the bow and arrow demo game included with the Vibe

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

myowncrapulence 10y ago

Your comment got killed for some reason That's because this place is an advertisement space for VC's and the comments are astroturfed so the confirmation bubble doesn't get holes.

dang 10y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are particularly not allowed. If you think you see astroturfing happening, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can take a look—it's a concern we take seriously, but no one is allowed to sling the accusation around as a rhetorical device. Many more HN comments are critical of VCs than defensive of them. I think you might be off by an order of magnitude there. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13662610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13662610 and marked it off-topic.

ihenriksen 10y ago

I've been kind of negative to VR until I worked on the Microsoft HoloLens for some clients, and now I'm convinced that Mixed Reality(MR) is the way of the future and not VR. Sure, the current HoloLens has some disadvantages like a small field-of-view and a high price tag, but I'm sure that these things will be improved in future editions. This video shows someone playing Portal using the HoloLens, which also shows off its spatial awareness capabilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-_4yIE6Cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-_4yIE6Cs

Tloewald 10y ago

Oculus got a lot of traction fro finding a good solution to VR's glaring obvious first order problem — bad, super expensive goggles. But that's kind of like inventing the first reasonably decent facemask and thinking you're ready to live underwater.

65827 10y ago

I preordered an HTC vive and sent it back two weeks later because the experience was so awful. Graphics are terrible, frame rates chug, and the flat lit low polygon textures everywhere look worse than PS1 era graphics. It's just awful, awful, awful. Need to double the resolution in each eye and improve optimization by A MILE to fix those minimum framerates. The experience is just terrible, you kind of need to drink the kool aid to think otherwise. Nice to see Gabe leading the charge for better tech here.

erikpukinskis 10y ago

My prediction is that VR will teach us absolutely critical things about human computer interaction, and that some people will literally live in their headsets, but that a large group of people will almost never use them, and phones will continue to be the dominant computing platform. My reasoning is this: imagine the perfect phone VR viewer. It would be something like a much improved Google Tango. You hold your phone, and it is a true 3d view into virtual reality, the refresh rate is 90hz, and tracking is perfect. It literally just looks and feels like a little window into VR. Like opera glasses. And in fact, if you watch people using VR for the first time, many people try to keep a hand on the headset. I wonder if there is some deep desire there, to maintain separate control of your viewpoint and the line where the virtual and physical intersect. I suspect that in the long term, many people will be happy to watch what's happening in VR from a bit of a distance. And big downside a headset has is transition cost. You can text me a VR link, and I can put down my french fry, pull phone phone out of my pocket, hold it near my face, and look around. With a headset, I need to get it out of my bag, strap it on, adjust it, etc. And that's assuming full mobility. The other consideration is that we've already fairly carefully titrated our interest in realism vs abstraction as a society. People still read books, people still watch cartoons. These are not seen as lesser artistic experiences than a gritty realistic film. They are just different. VR will be the same, some works will be amenable to immersion, but people will still keep writing novels and cartoons and VR will be a niche too, to the extent cartoons are a niche. I think there is also a gap forming between the "anything is possible" crowd and the "no, common sense is real, men are men, dirt is dirt, god is god" movement. Public spaces in VR will look pretty unappealing to the latter. VR will be a godsend to trans people of all stripes, but not everyone wants to transition somewhere.

nogbit 10y ago

Original backer of the rift, sold my the day it arrived, unopened for 3x the purchase price. VR did well for me. VR is clunky and unless its as simple and sleek as wearing eyeglasses it will go nowhere.