5 ms·

Personally, I feel the exact opposite. I don't see VR providing a whole lot outside the area of entertainment. How often do you want to be completely removed f

Personally, I feel the exact opposite. I don't see VR providing a whole lot outside the area of entertainment. How often do you want to be completely removed from the physical world on a regular basis. Even when you do want immersion a good story or a game with good mechanics is far more important in entertainment than the medium it's delivered though. This is the reason people still read books, why retro video games are still played, and why 3D continually fails. A high tech medium, doesn't improve bad entertainment, but great entertainment can be delivered though a low tech medium. I'm not saying VR has no value, but I don't see it being some giant revolution. On the flip side, AR doesn't provide immersion, but rather enhances the world around you. AR allows pretty much any information you get from your phone or computer currently to be instantly hands free and always available. If I told you I had a pill that allowed you to remember 20% more than you currently do, I can't think of many industries that wouldn't be improved by giving that to every employee. Once headsets become light enough and cheap enough, that's what AR provides. Instant access to relevant information without diverting focus. VR seems to me like an extension of 3D technology, AR seems like an extension of the smartphone.

azinman2 7y ago
If you have to read something, then your focus most certainly will be diverted, even if it’s relevant to what you were looking at or thinking about. There in lies the problem — if information pops up that’s relevant to our conversation, you’re still getting pulled out of the moment in an asymmetric way. That has negative consequences to human interaction. Plus don’t forget — popping up the right information at the right time is an extraordinarily hard problem to solve.
- superfrank 7y ago
  > if information pops up that’s relevant to our conversation, you’re still getting pulled out of the moment in an asymmetric way. I agree with you there, but I'd argue it's less distracting than trying to pull something not readily available from memory. Sure having to read something is distracting for a second, but it's far less distracting that trying to remember something that's just on the tip of your tongue, or having to pull out your phone. > popping up the right information at the right time is an extraordinarily hard problem to solve. It is for a generic solution, but I feel like custom built solutions will be what really revolutionizes the work place. If I'm a UPS driver, I can have a custom UPS app that allows me to look into my truck and instantly see the package id of each box overlaid on the box. That's not a hard problem to solve with the proper AR tools and it instantly provides value.
thecupisblue 7y ago
I'd love it. If I could go to a space where I'm immersed in code, data, paint or sound and could interact with it to create, I'd be all sold on VR. It would provide me with a whole new medium to transfer my thoughts in. But AR? What can I get with it that I can't with a phone? The information speed is near instant to what I need as a human. And what can I get with it that won't be ads?
- superfrank 7y ago
  > If I could go to a space where I'm immersed in code, data, paint or sound and could interact with it to create, I'd be all sold on VR. I'm not saying that wouldn't be cool, but using coding as an example, how much more immersed are you going to be coding in VR as opposed to going into a quite room where no one will disturb you with multiple monitors. The extra immersion is cool, but I don't being slightly more immersed in the way VR provides will lead to any sort of technological revolution. > But AR? What can I get with it that I can't with a phone? It's not about getting new information, it's about not needing the phone to provide that information. Think about a surgeon having the parts of heart overlaid on the body while doing surgery. Think about firefighters having the blueprints of the building they are entering in front of their eyes. The value of AR isn't providing new information, it provides an alternative to relying on memory for that information.
  - jackbrookes 7y ago
    > The extra immersion is cool, but I don't being slightly more immersed in the way VR provides will lead to any sort of technological revolution. Well, having access to as many monitors of any size you want without taking up any space in your home or office is a good enough reason for many.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > If I could go to a space where I'm immersed in code, data, paint or sound and could interact with it You can code in VR, but it's crap. VR is great, but trying to use VR as a replacement for classic computers isn't the right way. It's an entirely new paradigm. Take Tilt Brush VR for example - you're creating virtual 3D art which can only be viewed in a headset and that's how I'd view content creation in VR. No, right now VR's best market is games and storytelling, that's what will really push the technology forward and eventually make the business cases a possibility as the tech becomes viable.
greggman2 7y ago
> and why 3D continually fails I must be mis-understanding what you mean by 3D continually fails. 3D titles are the majoriy of the 140billion game business. Titles like Fortnite, Minecraft, League of Legends, Call of Duty, to name a few billion dollar titles are all 3D. I don't know if there is a single billion dollar 2D title. Maybe the top 3 mobile games?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  I think you're mixing up 3D like you get with stereoscopic glasses and the freedom to move in 3D (versus, say, 2D Donkey Kong or Pac Man). Fortnite, Minecraft, Call of Duty etc. are (largely) presented on two dimensional screens
  - greggman2 7y ago
    In the particular sentence I was refering to the context seemed to be retro 2D games vs 3D games (from Doom to Forenite). It was not 3D games on 2D screens vs 3D games in VR or at least that's how I took it. Even if it was about 3D on 2D screens vs 3D in VR, VR wins in almost every case (except market share, haha). Put a non-gamer in a well designed 6DOF VR game with hand controllers and they'll pick it up immediately because instead of having to learn how to control the camera they just look, and instead of having to learn which of the 8 buttons to press on their Xbox/PS4 controller to do anything they just reach out and touch stuff. Anacdata: My mother (77) and my step father (82) have both never played a video game in their lives. I'm not sure my mom has even played Pong or PacMac or Tetris but I brought a Oculus Rift home 2 years ago to show them and they were both enamored and wanted to know how much and where they could buy one. I advised them not to do it since it would likely be used for 2-3 days and then not touched (not enough content) but still, it was neat to see them pick it up easily. Of course there are poorly designed VR experiences. The ones that use less controller buttons and more in world UIs arguably work best.
- SimbaOnSteroids 7y ago
  Generally when people refer to 3D they mean each eye receiving different images as opposed to 3D models being shown on a 2D screen.
miketuritzin 7y ago
What about a headset (or glasses, contacts, whatever) that can provide anything from AR-style world annotations to a full VR experience, or anything in between? I agree that AR is something you'd use all the time, like a smartphone, but I do think the distinction between AR and VR is a bit artificial and due to what is technologically possible right now. There are many current VR experiences that would port surprisingly easily to AR (e.g., Tilt Brush, Oculus Medium, table tennis games, etc.) if there were AR hardware that was currently good enough.

azinman2 7y ago

If you have to read something, then your focus most certainly will be diverted, even if it’s relevant to what you were looking at or thinking about. There in lies the problem — if information pops up that’s relevant to our conversation, you’re still getting pulled out of the moment in an asymmetric way. That has negative consequences to human interaction. Plus don’t forget — popping up the right information at the right time is an extraordinarily hard problem to solve.

superfrank 7y ago
> if information pops up that’s relevant to our conversation, you’re still getting pulled out of the moment in an asymmetric way. I agree with you there, but I'd argue it's less distracting than trying to pull something not readily available from memory. Sure having to read something is distracting for a second, but it's far less distracting that trying to remember something that's just on the tip of your tongue, or having to pull out your phone. > popping up the right information at the right time is an extraordinarily hard problem to solve. It is for a generic solution, but I feel like custom built solutions will be what really revolutionizes the work place. If I'm a UPS driver, I can have a custom UPS app that allows me to look into my truck and instantly see the package id of each box overlaid on the box. That's not a hard problem to solve with the proper AR tools and it instantly provides value.

thecupisblue 7y ago

I'd love it. If I could go to a space where I'm immersed in code, data, paint or sound and could interact with it to create, I'd be all sold on VR. It would provide me with a whole new medium to transfer my thoughts in. But AR? What can I get with it that I can't with a phone? The information speed is near instant to what I need as a human. And what can I get with it that won't be ads?

superfrank 7y ago
> If I could go to a space where I'm immersed in code, data, paint or sound and could interact with it to create, I'd be all sold on VR. I'm not saying that wouldn't be cool, but using coding as an example, how much more immersed are you going to be coding in VR as opposed to going into a quite room where no one will disturb you with multiple monitors. The extra immersion is cool, but I don't being slightly more immersed in the way VR provides will lead to any sort of technological revolution. > But AR? What can I get with it that I can't with a phone? It's not about getting new information, it's about not needing the phone to provide that information. Think about a surgeon having the parts of heart overlaid on the body while doing surgery. Think about firefighters having the blueprints of the building they are entering in front of their eyes. The value of AR isn't providing new information, it provides an alternative to relying on memory for that information.
- jackbrookes 7y ago
  > The extra immersion is cool, but I don't being slightly more immersed in the way VR provides will lead to any sort of technological revolution. Well, having access to as many monitors of any size you want without taking up any space in your home or office is a good enough reason for many.
cameronbrown 7y ago
> If I could go to a space where I'm immersed in code, data, paint or sound and could interact with it You can code in VR, but it's crap. VR is great, but trying to use VR as a replacement for classic computers isn't the right way. It's an entirely new paradigm. Take Tilt Brush VR for example - you're creating virtual 3D art which can only be viewed in a headset and that's how I'd view content creation in VR. No, right now VR's best market is games and storytelling, that's what will really push the technology forward and eventually make the business cases a possibility as the tech becomes viable.

greggman2 7y ago

> and why 3D continually fails I must be mis-understanding what you mean by 3D continually fails. 3D titles are the majoriy of the 140billion game business. Titles like Fortnite, Minecraft, League of Legends, Call of Duty, to name a few billion dollar titles are all 3D. I don't know if there is a single billion dollar 2D title. Maybe the top 3 mobile games?

ceejayoz 7y ago
I think you're mixing up 3D like you get with stereoscopic glasses and the freedom to move in 3D (versus, say, 2D Donkey Kong or Pac Man). Fortnite, Minecraft, Call of Duty etc. are (largely) presented on two dimensional screens
- greggman2 7y ago
  In the particular sentence I was refering to the context seemed to be retro 2D games vs 3D games (from Doom to Forenite). It was not 3D games on 2D screens vs 3D games in VR or at least that's how I took it. Even if it was about 3D on 2D screens vs 3D in VR, VR wins in almost every case (except market share, haha). Put a non-gamer in a well designed 6DOF VR game with hand controllers and they'll pick it up immediately because instead of having to learn how to control the camera they just look, and instead of having to learn which of the 8 buttons to press on their Xbox/PS4 controller to do anything they just reach out and touch stuff. Anacdata: My mother (77) and my step father (82) have both never played a video game in their lives. I'm not sure my mom has even played Pong or PacMac or Tetris but I brought a Oculus Rift home 2 years ago to show them and they were both enamored and wanted to know how much and where they could buy one. I advised them not to do it since it would likely be used for 2-3 days and then not touched (not enough content) but still, it was neat to see them pick it up easily. Of course there are poorly designed VR experiences. The ones that use less controller buttons and more in world UIs arguably work best.
SimbaOnSteroids 7y ago
Generally when people refer to 3D they mean each eye receiving different images as opposed to 3D models being shown on a 2D screen.

miketuritzin 7y ago

What about a headset (or glasses, contacts, whatever) that can provide anything from AR-style world annotations to a full VR experience, or anything in between? I agree that AR is something you'd use all the time, like a smartphone, but I do think the distinction between AR and VR is a bit artificial and due to what is technologically possible right now. There are many current VR experiences that would port surprisingly easily to AR (e.g., Tilt Brush, Oculus Medium, table tennis games, etc.) if there were AR hardware that was currently good enough.