6 ms·

Maybe you don’t spend much time watching TV with family, but VR would never work for us. TV may be an escape, but we like to escape together.

coldtea 8y ago
That wouldn't be the real problem, since multiple people could "escape together" in the same VR world.
- cheschire 8y ago
  How would I turn to my wife and make a comment, and how would whatever your answer is going to be actually be any better than AR?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    I'm not seeing much prospects in VR myself, but can answer those questions trivially. >How would I turn to my wife and make a comment You just turn your head/gaze to your wife's avatar in 3D space and make a comment to her... >how would whatever your answer is going to be actually be any better than AR? If we're talking "escaping together" you could be inside some virtual world (e.g. a virtual game of thrones 3D environment) watching events or playing together. AR would just add some extra figures and/or annotations on top of the real world, but it wont be as immersive.
    - zapzupnz 8y ago
      > You could be inside some virtual world watching events or playing together And not being able to enjoy your friend/partner's reaction, facial expression, or simply what they're doing. That mutual participation is half the fun. No, looking at an avatar mimicking your partner's movements doesn't count.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Sounds like you've never played a multiplayer video game before. Sure, sound alone is not even half the emotional communications bandwidth, but people can work around those limitations. We already do in text, and in video calls, and it mostly works. With VR, you get to also have low-bandwidth body language, like movements of the head and limbs (and nothing is stopping the tech to slowly incorporate more and more cues). VR ain't gonna be a perfect simulacrum of the real world, but it doesn't have to be. It only needs to be good enough to let people express themselves somehow, and people will figure out the rest.
        djur 8y ago
        But right now people who interact with their own partners/housemates in MMOs, chat, etc. when in close proximity to each other are a tiny minority (although probably a heavily overrepresented one at HN). I don't see why that would change with VR. You also can't conveniently eat, drink, or go to the bathroom while using VR, and those are very common things for people to do in the midst of a period of social interaction. Imagine in how many households any given night the following happens in a group of friends or a family: people are watching TV or a movie, someone gets up, maybe goes to relieve themselves, stops by the kitchen to grab a snack or a can of pop, asks if anyone else wants anything, grabs what was asked for, comes back, hands over the item, sits down, and resumes watching. Because TV and movies tend to be designed to be comprehensible with partial attention, that person very well have kept track of what was happening. Maybe they have to ask "who's that guy?" This kind of thing might happen multiple times a night. This doesn't have to be a planned or organized event -- it's a totally casual domestic interaction. VR as it currently exists, and as far as can be reasonably predicted based on our understanding of the technology, is something that requires a great deal of physical and mental focus. That will necessarily limit its reach, unless it manages to fundamentally rewrite human society. (And I don't think I, for one, am eager to see what that new society would look like.) I think there's a lot of interesting opportunities for VR technology. But should I live another 4-5 decades I doubt that I will live to see VR attain anything close to the social pervasiveness of video games, much less TV.
      - coldtea 8y ago
  - gkoberger 8y ago
    I think you're looking at it wrong. It'd be like asking why you need an iPhone/facetime/texting when your wife is right next to you. Rather, think of the hundreds of people who AREN'T right next to you: out of town parents, friends, your wife when she's on vacation, etc. It won't replace everything, but'd be nice to play a game with a friend on the opposite coast, collaborate on a project with a remote coworker, or have a conversation with a relative far away.
    - thecatspaw 8y ago
      Because the iphone can show you cool stuff. Vr can not only show you avatar, but it could also let you be part of it
  - gamma-male 8y ago
    You probably need to have that experience to understand it.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  Please describe the VR equivalent of what I did last night, I legitimately can’t picture it: For 2-3 hours, me and two other people sat cuddled on a couch, alternating in a pretty free flow way between speaking with each other, speaking about the show we were watching, and just watching the content passively — based partly on small tactile, visual, or auditory invitations to shift attention. VR seems to propose completely removing that dynamic and human contact, that free flowing interaction, with distance and barely more than passive consumption of content. Because I can picture the AR equivalent, and that situation is the bulk of my TV time. So for me, I just can’t see what VR is offering outside of a few really limited times I want to be deeply in a fake world, alone.
  - quakenul 8y ago
    VR does not have to compete with anything resembling a perfect life or a perfect moment (although I am sure it can and it will). Think of it as a drug, a tool for the sick and the unhappy. Betting against VR feels like betting against drugs. I do not see any future where it will not be absolutely massive.
    - FakeComments 8y ago
      My point is that VR treats some rare condition while AR is like viagra: betting on VR over AR seems to seriously misunderstand human wants, and betting on sickness/isolation over healthy interactions. VR just isn’t that useful, even by your tacit admission you can’t think of how it directly competes in a situation where it’s obvious how AR would fit in.
      - davidivadavid 8y ago
        I'm not sure VR "seriously misunderstands human wants." Collaborative immersive entertainment with unlimited creative potential is a pretty common human want. It's not the only one. No one claimed VR was a cure all, especially not in its current form. But it's still directionally very sensible.
      - quakenul 8y ago
gamma-male 8y ago
Who says you can't do it with family? Just need a headset for everyone.

coldtea 8y ago

That wouldn't be the real problem, since multiple people could "escape together" in the same VR world.

cheschire 8y ago
How would I turn to my wife and make a comment, and how would whatever your answer is going to be actually be any better than AR?
- coldtea 8y ago
  I'm not seeing much prospects in VR myself, but can answer those questions trivially. >How would I turn to my wife and make a comment You just turn your head/gaze to your wife's avatar in 3D space and make a comment to her... >how would whatever your answer is going to be actually be any better than AR? If we're talking "escaping together" you could be inside some virtual world (e.g. a virtual game of thrones 3D environment) watching events or playing together. AR would just add some extra figures and/or annotations on top of the real world, but it wont be as immersive.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    > You could be inside some virtual world watching events or playing together And not being able to enjoy your friend/partner's reaction, facial expression, or simply what they're doing. That mutual participation is half the fun. No, looking at an avatar mimicking your partner's movements doesn't count.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Sounds like you've never played a multiplayer video game before. Sure, sound alone is not even half the emotional communications bandwidth, but people can work around those limitations. We already do in text, and in video calls, and it mostly works. With VR, you get to also have low-bandwidth body language, like movements of the head and limbs (and nothing is stopping the tech to slowly incorporate more and more cues). VR ain't gonna be a perfect simulacrum of the real world, but it doesn't have to be. It only needs to be good enough to let people express themselves somehow, and people will figure out the rest.
      - djur 8y ago
        But right now people who interact with their own partners/housemates in MMOs, chat, etc. when in close proximity to each other are a tiny minority (although probably a heavily overrepresented one at HN). I don't see why that would change with VR. You also can't conveniently eat, drink, or go to the bathroom while using VR, and those are very common things for people to do in the midst of a period of social interaction. Imagine in how many households any given night the following happens in a group of friends or a family: people are watching TV or a movie, someone gets up, maybe goes to relieve themselves, stops by the kitchen to grab a snack or a can of pop, asks if anyone else wants anything, grabs what was asked for, comes back, hands over the item, sits down, and resumes watching. Because TV and movies tend to be designed to be comprehensible with partial attention, that person very well have kept track of what was happening. Maybe they have to ask "who's that guy?" This kind of thing might happen multiple times a night. This doesn't have to be a planned or organized event -- it's a totally casual domestic interaction. VR as it currently exists, and as far as can be reasonably predicted based on our understanding of the technology, is something that requires a great deal of physical and mental focus. That will necessarily limit its reach, unless it manages to fundamentally rewrite human society. (And I don't think I, for one, am eager to see what that new society would look like.) I think there's a lot of interesting opportunities for VR technology. But should I live another 4-5 decades I doubt that I will live to see VR attain anything close to the social pervasiveness of video games, much less TV.
    - coldtea 8y ago
- gkoberger 8y ago
  I think you're looking at it wrong. It'd be like asking why you need an iPhone/facetime/texting when your wife is right next to you. Rather, think of the hundreds of people who AREN'T right next to you: out of town parents, friends, your wife when she's on vacation, etc. It won't replace everything, but'd be nice to play a game with a friend on the opposite coast, collaborate on a project with a remote coworker, or have a conversation with a relative far away.
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    Because the iphone can show you cool stuff. Vr can not only show you avatar, but it could also let you be part of it
- gamma-male 8y ago
  You probably need to have that experience to understand it.
FakeComments 8y ago
Please describe the VR equivalent of what I did last night, I legitimately can’t picture it: For 2-3 hours, me and two other people sat cuddled on a couch, alternating in a pretty free flow way between speaking with each other, speaking about the show we were watching, and just watching the content passively — based partly on small tactile, visual, or auditory invitations to shift attention. VR seems to propose completely removing that dynamic and human contact, that free flowing interaction, with distance and barely more than passive consumption of content. Because I can picture the AR equivalent, and that situation is the bulk of my TV time. So for me, I just can’t see what VR is offering outside of a few really limited times I want to be deeply in a fake world, alone.
- quakenul 8y ago
  VR does not have to compete with anything resembling a perfect life or a perfect moment (although I am sure it can and it will). Think of it as a drug, a tool for the sick and the unhappy. Betting against VR feels like betting against drugs. I do not see any future where it will not be absolutely massive.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    My point is that VR treats some rare condition while AR is like viagra: betting on VR over AR seems to seriously misunderstand human wants, and betting on sickness/isolation over healthy interactions. VR just isn’t that useful, even by your tacit admission you can’t think of how it directly competes in a situation where it’s obvious how AR would fit in.
    - davidivadavid 8y ago
      I'm not sure VR "seriously misunderstands human wants." Collaborative immersive entertainment with unlimited creative potential is a pretty common human want. It's not the only one. No one claimed VR was a cure all, especially not in its current form. But it's still directionally very sensible.
    - quakenul 8y ago

gamma-male 8y ago

Who says you can't do it with family? Just need a headset for everyone.