4 ms·

I don't think hardware is to blame. There are no killer apps that make people justify strapping a box to their face.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
The facebox isn't really the problem, it's the price and the equipment. You need a highish-end PC in addition to the VR rig itself, towers for sensors/ir lights, etc. I think the Quest will probably be a game changer here, being a stand alone self-contained unit at a reasonable price point.
- stonith 8y ago
  I guess you could include it in 'price and equipment' but for me I simply don't have space in my apartment to do any of the interesting things with VR (eg I really enjoyed SuperHot VR), and it doesn't seem much of an improvement if I'm just sitting in my chair with it. Floor space is extremely expensive in almost every big Western city at the moment.
djohnston 8y ago
agreed. it has nothing to do with hardware. all the games i've played on my oculus lose their allure in less than 20 hours.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
village-idiot 8y ago
Honestly, I suspect that few people actually want VR. We see this “revolution” promise in entertainment occasionally. Sometimes it’s real (tv, video games), sometimes it’s not. Anyone here buy a 3D TV? Do they still make them? From what I’ve seen, VR headsets are very hard on the human brain, since they confuse our multiple range sensing systems. Smoother experiences help, but until we find a better way to adjust the focal plane it’s going to be a continuous issue. I personally think they’re overhyped. They demo great, but I have yet to see any usage that would justify spending spending as much one one as I did my TV. Every time I’ve tried one it’s been novel for a few minutes, but afterwards I have had 0 interest in ever owning one.
- kruczek 8y ago
  > VR headsets are very hard on the human brain, since they confuse our multiple range sensing systems. I disagree. They are hard on brains of some humans, mainly due to motion sickness. But that happens only when there is artificial movement involved - when user's movement doesn't match camera movement. And it really depends on the person, some are more susceptible to that, some are less. I also think some resilience to that effect can be trained with practice. Then there's the style of artificial movement provided by software. I've seen several solutions which make it more bearable - generally those involve some degree of physical activity beyond just pressing a button. Adjustment of focal plane seems like a rare problem; it's honestly the first time I hear it mentioned as an issue which is "very hard on the human brain". Usually it's all about motion sickness. > but I have yet to see any usage that would justify spending spending as much one one as I did my TV For me, it's about activity it provides as much as it is about immersion. I wanted to reduce my time sitting idly, and VR lets me do just that without abandoning gaming at all.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    You’re correct about motion, but that’s not my main concern. My main concern is range finding. The human brain uses parallax and eye focus information to figure out where objects are in space. All VR toolkits right now vary parallax for range, but can only produce light that is focused on one plane. This confuses the human brain, because it now has two pieces of information that disagree badly. This is actually why the Air Force abandoned its first attempts at HUD helmets, iirc the post I saw here said that the Air Force had to enforce a 24 ban on driving after using them, because your sense of range and speed would be wildly out of whack after using it. They were also worried about brain damage after excessive use. I’m glad that you like VR gaming, I personally found it to be novel but ultimately uninteresting after a few minutes.

The facebox isn't really the problem, it's the price and the equipment. You need a highish-end PC in addition to the VR rig itself, towers for sensors/ir lights, etc. I think the Quest will probably be a game changer here, being a stand alone self-contained unit at a reasonable price point.

stonith 8y ago
I guess you could include it in 'price and equipment' but for me I simply don't have space in my apartment to do any of the interesting things with VR (eg I really enjoyed SuperHot VR), and it doesn't seem much of an improvement if I'm just sitting in my chair with it. Floor space is extremely expensive in almost every big Western city at the moment.

djohnston 8y ago

agreed. it has nothing to do with hardware. all the games i've played on my oculus lose their allure in less than 20 hours.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

village-idiot 8y ago

Honestly, I suspect that few people actually want VR. We see this “revolution” promise in entertainment occasionally. Sometimes it’s real (tv, video games), sometimes it’s not. Anyone here buy a 3D TV? Do they still make them? From what I’ve seen, VR headsets are very hard on the human brain, since they confuse our multiple range sensing systems. Smoother experiences help, but until we find a better way to adjust the focal plane it’s going to be a continuous issue. I personally think they’re overhyped. They demo great, but I have yet to see any usage that would justify spending spending as much one one as I did my TV. Every time I’ve tried one it’s been novel for a few minutes, but afterwards I have had 0 interest in ever owning one.

kruczek 8y ago
> VR headsets are very hard on the human brain, since they confuse our multiple range sensing systems. I disagree. They are hard on brains of some humans, mainly due to motion sickness. But that happens only when there is artificial movement involved - when user's movement doesn't match camera movement. And it really depends on the person, some are more susceptible to that, some are less. I also think some resilience to that effect can be trained with practice. Then there's the style of artificial movement provided by software. I've seen several solutions which make it more bearable - generally those involve some degree of physical activity beyond just pressing a button. Adjustment of focal plane seems like a rare problem; it's honestly the first time I hear it mentioned as an issue which is "very hard on the human brain". Usually it's all about motion sickness. > but I have yet to see any usage that would justify spending spending as much one one as I did my TV For me, it's about activity it provides as much as it is about immersion. I wanted to reduce my time sitting idly, and VR lets me do just that without abandoning gaming at all.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  You’re correct about motion, but that’s not my main concern. My main concern is range finding. The human brain uses parallax and eye focus information to figure out where objects are in space. All VR toolkits right now vary parallax for range, but can only produce light that is focused on one plane. This confuses the human brain, because it now has two pieces of information that disagree badly. This is actually why the Air Force abandoned its first attempts at HUD helmets, iirc the post I saw here said that the Air Force had to enforce a 24 ban on driving after using them, because your sense of range and speed would be wildly out of whack after using it. They were also worried about brain damage after excessive use. I’m glad that you like VR gaming, I personally found it to be novel but ultimately uninteresting after a few minutes.