5 ms·

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

by 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.
- GuiA 10y ago
  > all I can think is like "ok but what do I use this for?" and I keep drawing a blank. If you spend a lot of time thinking about this question and can come up with a few compelling answers, there might be a lot of money in it for you :)
- meheleventyone 10y ago
  Social for my money. VR even with just the hands and head tracked provides a really strong sense of another person's presence for multi-user apps.
harpastum 10y ago
VR is inherently antisocial in the same way that the internet and websites are. There is a small amount of value to local social interactions (watching youtube together, playing VR game while friends watch what you're seeing on the TV). The enormous social benefit is remote. You can have a social interaction with any of the BILLIONS of people throughout the world that are connected via the internet. You can connect with friends and relatives that live thousands of miles away. I'm not going to be in VR 24 hours a day, but if I can hang out with a friend twice a week that lives in England, how is that anything but "social"?
- atomicUpdate 10y ago
  > VR is inherently antisocial in the same way that the internet and websites are. I don't agree with this. It's much easier to be aware of your surroundings when you're just looking at a monitor versus having a full helmet strapped onto your head; you can't even notice someone walking into the room, let alone acknowledge them. > The enormous social benefit is remote. [...] You can connect with friends and relatives that live thousands of miles away. I don't agree with this either. A video call is much more interactive, since you can actually see their face to read their reactions to things or even show them what you're currently doing. With VR, at best all you get is a rough interpretation of them presented as an avatar in a virtual environment. You'll never get a video of their face, since it's covered by the gear, nor can you quickly pan around to show your surroundings, new car/baby, etc.
ipsum2 10y ago
> But that doesn't solve the core problems with such a device: it is inherently antisocial Have you tried VR before? I've played paintball and gone on quests with people all over the world with my Vive. VR is the complete opposite of anti-social.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sevensor 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. Not only that, we had "VR" (with shutter goggles) 20 years ago that you could have said exactly the same thing about, and exactly the same thing happened. The hype train failed to stop at reality station, jumped the tracks, rolled down an embankment, and burst into flames. VR lived on in niche applications. Just like it's going to this time.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Yup, I bought my first 3d gaming setup in the early 90s. The sega master system. It took 20 years just to get back there, maybe we can at least get another good port of Zaxxon.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> 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. It doesn't need to be that fancy. Current resolution with perfect positional tracking on a mobile device with 2hr battery life, finger tracking, and photogrammetric passthrough could tell 90% of the "compelling story" your 8k device is for. And you could definitely make experiences in it worth a $400 price point. We could be as little as 2-3 years from a device like that? At at a premium price point at least. Remember that people had no problem staring at 320x240 screens, as long as you didn't make them jump around in a pukey way.

by GuiA 10y ago

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.

GuiA 10y ago
> all I can think is like "ok but what do I use this for?" and I keep drawing a blank. If you spend a lot of time thinking about this question and can come up with a few compelling answers, there might be a lot of money in it for you :)
meheleventyone 10y ago
Social for my money. VR even with just the hands and head tracked provides a really strong sense of another person's presence for multi-user apps.

harpastum 10y ago

VR is inherently antisocial in the same way that the internet and websites are. There is a small amount of value to local social interactions (watching youtube together, playing VR game while friends watch what you're seeing on the TV). The enormous social benefit is remote. You can have a social interaction with any of the BILLIONS of people throughout the world that are connected via the internet. You can connect with friends and relatives that live thousands of miles away. I'm not going to be in VR 24 hours a day, but if I can hang out with a friend twice a week that lives in England, how is that anything but "social"?

atomicUpdate 10y ago
> VR is inherently antisocial in the same way that the internet and websites are. I don't agree with this. It's much easier to be aware of your surroundings when you're just looking at a monitor versus having a full helmet strapped onto your head; you can't even notice someone walking into the room, let alone acknowledge them. > The enormous social benefit is remote. [...] You can connect with friends and relatives that live thousands of miles away. I don't agree with this either. A video call is much more interactive, since you can actually see their face to read their reactions to things or even show them what you're currently doing. With VR, at best all you get is a rough interpretation of them presented as an avatar in a virtual environment. You'll never get a video of their face, since it's covered by the gear, nor can you quickly pan around to show your surroundings, new car/baby, etc.

ipsum2 10y ago

> But that doesn't solve the core problems with such a device: it is inherently antisocial Have you tried VR before? I've played paintball and gone on quests with people all over the world with my Vive. VR is the complete opposite of anti-social.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sevensor 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. Not only that, we had "VR" (with shutter goggles) 20 years ago that you could have said exactly the same thing about, and exactly the same thing happened. The hype train failed to stop at reality station, jumped the tracks, rolled down an embankment, and burst into flames. VR lived on in niche applications. Just like it's going to this time.

Neliquat 10y ago
Yup, I bought my first 3d gaming setup in the early 90s. The sega master system. It took 20 years just to get back there, maybe we can at least get another good port of Zaxxon.

erikpukinskis 10y ago

> 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. It doesn't need to be that fancy. Current resolution with perfect positional tracking on a mobile device with 2hr battery life, finger tracking, and photogrammetric passthrough could tell 90% of the "compelling story" your 8k device is for. And you could definitely make experiences in it worth a $400 price point. We could be as little as 2-3 years from a device like that? At at a premium price point at least. Remember that people had no problem staring at 320x240 screens, as long as you didn't make them jump around in a pukey way.