3 ms·

Anyone know what the hurdles are for broad VR adoption? This announcement seems to be saying it's 1) untethered and 2) $200 price point. Those will probably in

by vm 9y ago

Anyone know what the hurdles are for broad VR adoption? This announcement seems to be saying it's 1) untethered and 2) $200 price point. Those will probably increase the current market size but I just haven't seen anyone (anecdotally) clamoring for VR. Curious if anyone has a view on other bottlenecks.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yashksagar 9y ago
I believe there's still concerns around long-term usage, like the eyes/brain mismatch to focusing on something that's 'virtually' a few meters away, but in reality is in front of your face, which can cause nausea.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Being in the industry (AR actually not VR) and talking with customers and the average person almost weekly, the #1 barrier to HMDs: "I don't want to put something on my face"
- mdorazio 9y ago
  I agree. It's the same major factor that killed "3D" TVs - no one wants to put on special equipment just to watch a movie/play a game. I personally don't think headset-based VR will ever see mass market adoption in the same way that AR/MR will.
sago 9y ago
A killer 'app'. Some experience that can only be delivered on VR that is totally compelling to mainstream consumers. That could drive the entire segment, I think. I don't think its games. At least, it's not obvious how to turn existing kinds of games into VR experiences, and make them mind blowing. In my experience, VR games are not currently very good games, and are relatively lacklustre as tourist experiences. So what? I wish I knew. But I just don't think there is a compelling reason for most people, even most passionate gamers, at the moment. Which, as a fan, pains me to say.
- criddell 9y ago
  Do you think mainstream acceptance is inevitable, or do you think it could end up being like 3d is today? By that, I mean 3d has some hardcore fans and many of us seek it out occasionally, but it isn't part of my typical day. AR is more interesting, especially if it can get to contact lens size.
  - sago 9y ago
    > Do you think mainstream acceptance is inevitable No. But that's not to say I don't think it will happen. And if / when it does happen, it will appear to have been inevitable (things tend to feel that way in hindsight)! > do you think it could end up being like 3d is today 3D is a good analogy. Like 3D, unless there are some unique and only VR experiences, it will be a nerdy way of consuming content that is adequate (or even higher fidelity) on regular kit. Lowering the price / making the form factor more convenient, can't hurt. But I'm not convinced that what the problem is at the moment. When we talked to non-VR consumers (it's been a couple of years, but intuitively I can't imagine much has changed), the response was more "why would I want to put that thing on my head?", rather than "does it have to have a wire?" Price was a big turnoff, admittedly, but I fear a drop in price alone will simply mean it ends up in the 'barely used gaming peripheral' cupboard with your light gun, your dance mat and your steering wheel. I would be very surprised if its success comes purely from being a peripheral used by gamers.
- nilkn 9y ago
  I recently picked up an Acer Predator X34 34" ultrawide 21:9 1440p monitor. And I have to say playing games on it is a lot more enjoyable to me than playing VR games on the Rift with Touch. Even playing simple 2D games like Stardew Valley is a great pleasure on this monitor. And modern AAA titles are a sight to behold. VR technology is incredibly impressive, but a lot of problems that VR fans insist are easily solvable keep resisting nearly all efforts at overcoming them. Locomotion continues to be a huge problem that severely limits VR games. The third-person style of Lucky's Tale didn't catch on as it made too many folks feel just a little bit too wonky, if not completely motion sick. This means that on some level games like The Witcher 3 just can't be done in VR, and that's a tremendous hit to the medium. I do think there's a future in VR gaming, but the current Vive and Rift will never be the vehicle of delivery. The price needs to go down and the convenience factor needs to go way up. I do think Oculus is going in the right direction with untethered headsets.
cardigan 9y ago
VR systems today are not used regularly by most people who own them, including even most people I know developing VR full time. Price point and being untethered doesn't change that. I'd guess the biggest hurdles are physical discomfort with long term use, and that there isn't yet very compelling VR software.
criddell 9y ago
That depends a little on what you mean by broad. To me, it feels like the hype around VR is starting to wane. Right now, the hurdles are price, form factor, and motion sickness. I think last two problems are why broad adoption may never come. I'm one of the people that can't wear them. The first ones I tried were in 1992 (the pterodactyl game) and after a couple of minutes, I was ready to barf.
- heliumcraft 9y ago
  Wait you only tried on in 1992? I tried VR in the 90s as well and did get dizzy after 20 minutes or so. I have a Vive now and The experiences are completely different, worlds apart.
  - criddell 9y ago
    If I'm not moving through the surroundings, I last longer, but if my point of view is moving, I feel ill, even on modern headsets.
kaisen99 9y ago
I would say form factor + input controllers + availability. Current headsets require way too much setup. High end headsets are tethered to beefy PC's that require a painful setup process(for most). The low end headsets require certain android smartphones(not every smartphone works with Oculus Gear or Daydream for instance and nothing works with Apple except Cardboard) and are also cumbersome to pair with controllers and place in the headset properly. A standalone cheap headset is a step in the right direction, however something like Santa Cruz with 6DOF is when I believe more mainstream adoption will start occurring. Right now the most widely available headset is still Google Cardboard. Input is making progress, but I continue to think using your hands would be the best option rather than any controller.
megy 9y ago
The fact that almost no one wants it?

by vm 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

yashksagar 9y ago

I believe there's still concerns around long-term usage, like the eyes/brain mismatch to focusing on something that's 'virtually' a few meters away, but in reality is in front of your face, which can cause nausea.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Being in the industry (AR actually not VR) and talking with customers and the average person almost weekly, the #1 barrier to HMDs: "I don't want to put something on my face"

mdorazio 9y ago
I agree. It's the same major factor that killed "3D" TVs - no one wants to put on special equipment just to watch a movie/play a game. I personally don't think headset-based VR will ever see mass market adoption in the same way that AR/MR will.

sago 9y ago

A killer 'app'. Some experience that can only be delivered on VR that is totally compelling to mainstream consumers. That could drive the entire segment, I think. I don't think its games. At least, it's not obvious how to turn existing kinds of games into VR experiences, and make them mind blowing. In my experience, VR games are not currently very good games, and are relatively lacklustre as tourist experiences. So what? I wish I knew. But I just don't think there is a compelling reason for most people, even most passionate gamers, at the moment. Which, as a fan, pains me to say.

criddell 9y ago
Do you think mainstream acceptance is inevitable, or do you think it could end up being like 3d is today? By that, I mean 3d has some hardcore fans and many of us seek it out occasionally, but it isn't part of my typical day. AR is more interesting, especially if it can get to contact lens size.
- sago 9y ago
  > Do you think mainstream acceptance is inevitable No. But that's not to say I don't think it will happen. And if / when it does happen, it will appear to have been inevitable (things tend to feel that way in hindsight)! > do you think it could end up being like 3d is today 3D is a good analogy. Like 3D, unless there are some unique and only VR experiences, it will be a nerdy way of consuming content that is adequate (or even higher fidelity) on regular kit. Lowering the price / making the form factor more convenient, can't hurt. But I'm not convinced that what the problem is at the moment. When we talked to non-VR consumers (it's been a couple of years, but intuitively I can't imagine much has changed), the response was more "why would I want to put that thing on my head?", rather than "does it have to have a wire?" Price was a big turnoff, admittedly, but I fear a drop in price alone will simply mean it ends up in the 'barely used gaming peripheral' cupboard with your light gun, your dance mat and your steering wheel. I would be very surprised if its success comes purely from being a peripheral used by gamers.
nilkn 9y ago
I recently picked up an Acer Predator X34 34" ultrawide 21:9 1440p monitor. And I have to say playing games on it is a lot more enjoyable to me than playing VR games on the Rift with Touch. Even playing simple 2D games like Stardew Valley is a great pleasure on this monitor. And modern AAA titles are a sight to behold. VR technology is incredibly impressive, but a lot of problems that VR fans insist are easily solvable keep resisting nearly all efforts at overcoming them. Locomotion continues to be a huge problem that severely limits VR games. The third-person style of Lucky's Tale didn't catch on as it made too many folks feel just a little bit too wonky, if not completely motion sick. This means that on some level games like The Witcher 3 just can't be done in VR, and that's a tremendous hit to the medium. I do think there's a future in VR gaming, but the current Vive and Rift will never be the vehicle of delivery. The price needs to go down and the convenience factor needs to go way up. I do think Oculus is going in the right direction with untethered headsets.

cardigan 9y ago

VR systems today are not used regularly by most people who own them, including even most people I know developing VR full time. Price point and being untethered doesn't change that. I'd guess the biggest hurdles are physical discomfort with long term use, and that there isn't yet very compelling VR software.

criddell 9y ago

That depends a little on what you mean by broad. To me, it feels like the hype around VR is starting to wane. Right now, the hurdles are price, form factor, and motion sickness. I think last two problems are why broad adoption may never come. I'm one of the people that can't wear them. The first ones I tried were in 1992 (the pterodactyl game) and after a couple of minutes, I was ready to barf.

heliumcraft 9y ago
Wait you only tried on in 1992? I tried VR in the 90s as well and did get dizzy after 20 minutes or so. I have a Vive now and The experiences are completely different, worlds apart.
- criddell 9y ago
  If I'm not moving through the surroundings, I last longer, but if my point of view is moving, I feel ill, even on modern headsets.

kaisen99 9y ago

I would say form factor + input controllers + availability. Current headsets require way too much setup. High end headsets are tethered to beefy PC's that require a painful setup process(for most). The low end headsets require certain android smartphones(not every smartphone works with Oculus Gear or Daydream for instance and nothing works with Apple except Cardboard) and are also cumbersome to pair with controllers and place in the headset properly. A standalone cheap headset is a step in the right direction, however something like Santa Cruz with 6DOF is when I believe more mainstream adoption will start occurring. Right now the most widely available headset is still Google Cardboard. Input is making progress, but I continue to think using your hands would be the best option rather than any controller.

megy 9y ago

The fact that almost no one wants it?