5 ms·

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just

Those are pretty large problems. As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be near you. It's very difficult to share your experience with other people. VR streamers aren't very popular on Twitch. They probably have issues interacting with their audience since they can't easily see Twitch chat I would think. I also question the accessibility of VR. At what severity of physical impairment does VR become unusable? There are just so many problems with VR as a mass-consumer product that don't have anything to do with technology. AR doesn't have many of these problems, because you can still see other people. Google's direction makes sense.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Problems from "one IO device to rule them all" standpoint? Sure. Problems for capturing a huge chunk of the market and being generally useful? Not really. > The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Come on. This way you could say most of gaming is antisocial, because a lot of interesting games (most of them, to me) are single-player experience. There are many people, people with families, for whom playing games (or watching movies for that matter) is about games (and movies), and not about an excuse to be with other people. Also, you can always stream the game to another device for other family member(s) to watch. > Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. I guess it depends on how old they are, but my wife and I divide forces: one of us watches the kid, the other plays, then we switch. > Pets can't really be near you. My pet doesn't mind. It understands that the person standing there in the middle of the room (which is weird behavior) with a box on their head is ignoring it, and making sudden moves. > It's very difficult to share your experience with other people. Experience? Not really. You just stream the game. Interacting with other people while playing, Twitch-like? That's more difficult, so the showbusiness part of the gaming market has a problem, but this doesn't affect people who want to actually play a game. > I also question the accessibility of VR. At what severity of physical impairment does VR become unusable? VR requires sight, and some control over hands; depending on the game, this may expand into total motor control. The requirements for most games is fundamentally the same as for "regular" games you play with mouse+keyboard / gamepad. ---- Working AR will obviously have more total utility than VR, so it's good to pursue it. But VR exists here and now, while AR is still science-fiction (HoloLens beginning to scratch the surface, and no, overlaying stuff over image of the world captured by a camera doesn't count as proper AR). However, VR can be used to simulate, experiment with and prototype future AR applications, so it's weird to just abandon it.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  I've done experiments in completely audio-based "VR" experiences. I think it's possible and could even be a useful form factor for people. It definitely blurs the line between VR and AR, and I default back to my assertion that the big difference between the two is who is providing the context for the experience: the developer (VR) or the user (AR). From a technology standpoint, the Holy Grail device will be able to do both VR or AR selectably and seamlessly. The reason I think so many extant AR apps are just crappy VR apps is because the devices we have aren't able to blend VR and AR, the developers wanted (or were mandated) to use a specific system, and then shoehorned a specific design to the system they had. > no, overlaying stuff over image of the world captured by a camera doesn't count as proper AR News to me. If that is the case, then how is the HoloLens AR? Without utilization of the spatial surface recognition system, conceptually the HoloLens is nothing more than "overlaying stuff on an image of the world". That the world is viewed through plastic rather than routed through silicon doesn't make a difference. Add surface capture to a VR headset with a pass-through camera (which can be done today with off-the-shelf parts, it's just not in a commercial product yet) and I see no difference.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > If that is the case, then how is the HoloLens AR? It doesn't capture the world through the camera and re-render it on the screen.
    - moron4hire 7y ago
      That is an arbitrary distinction that I have never heard anyone in the industry make before.
kolinko 7y ago
As for VR being anti-social - from my experience it's the exact opposite. I've been visiting my friends who have VR, and organised VR mini-parties at my place. The setup goes like this: you show what's in VR on a tv screen, one person plays, and others watch, taking turns. Works extremely well with Beat Saber, FNAF, and some shooters. I also did social painting in VR, where people took turns drawing in Tilt Brush, and others went in to look at it, adding to it their own stuff. Another case I saw is adding VR setup to a bigger party, which works very well with Beat Saber. VR can be just as social as couch-multiplayer on consoles, or Karaoke. If not more. As for pets, it depends on a pet, but with 2-3 dogs I saw there were no issues whatsoever.
- nindalf 7y ago
  There are two kinds of HN comments. The first is like the one GP made - absolutely sure of themselves and staying with certainty that there are intractable problems with something. On closer inspection you find that they have no personal experience but they’re really smart and can imagine the worst consequences of everything well. The second is the one I’m replying to. They have first hand experience and give a more balanced take on the situation. I’m happy that we get to read both kinds of comments.
  - djmips 7y ago
    I'm betting, the people in charge at Google who shut down all these projects were in the first category.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Kiro 7y ago
> Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be near you. I know several parents and dog owners who have bought Oculus Quest after trying it out and they don't seem to have a problem with this. I guess they just close the door or play after bedtime. > They probably have issues interacting with their audience since they can't easily see Twitch chat I would think. All VR Twitch streamers use some kind of plugin that shows the chat either as a floating panel (in Beat Saber) or as a palette you can bring up Tilt Brush style (in VRChat).
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
> As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. I agree. It reminds me of the 3D TV hype. Yes, they exist, and yes, some people use them, but it's still marginal. On an unrelated node, I still can't believe MS killed Kinect. It is fun, it is social, it's safe if you're careful, and you can be very free with your movements if you have enough space. You can both play games and get healthier. I bought most Kinect titles ever released and it kills me there will be no more.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  They did not kill the Kinect hardware, just the console experience.
celticninja 7y ago
I am probably a key demographic for them tech enthusiast, gamer with disposable income to cover these sorts of purchases, but the motion sickness aspect would need to be non-existent for me to spend any money on one of these.
- djmips 7y ago
  One thing about the wild west of VR is that even if one single game solves the motion sickness aspect there are dozens more of first time developers who through ignorance or lack of care will create games that cause motion sickness.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    Yeah, I don't know what it's like in Unreal land, but I suspect the learning curve tends to keep the amateurs and those not interested in going the extra mile to create a great experience away. With Unity, there is so little in the way of tools for creating good VR experiences, and many of the default tools and settings are actively bad for VR. Unity's default stuff is so bad for VR and I've replaced so much of it in the last three years that I'm pretty close to having my own game engine. In another year, I could be completely off of Unity and running on just Xamarin.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  For many people (me included), the motion sickness aspect IS non-existent.
dyarosla 7y ago
Definitely the opinion of an outsider because all of these are non-problems. Other commenters have mentioned re: the anti-social / streaming / pets point but I wanted to touch on the outside visibility one. Let me start by saying that I was a big VR skeptic until the Oculus Quest. I too thought that the outside visibility thing would be a base advantage that AR would just have over VR forever-but- surprisingly- the passthrough camera view [0] is more than good enough for several of the interactions/views you'd want to see outside of the device. You can see others, their reactions, and interact, all while having the device on your head. Soon the passthrough will also be triggerable at a moments notice too. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbh5vZaW_Dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbh5vZaW_Dc
unlinked_dll 7y ago
>It is anti-social that's why location based experiences (LBE) is the solution. Different monetization route, it's basically a theme park model (invest in cutting edge tech/high value content) and maximize throughput like a VR "ride." Having gone through a number of the experiences I'd highly recommend them. Better than anything you can get at home, it's a fun outing with your friends, and the content is pretty awesome.
- fragmede 7y ago
  On other other hand, Star Wars Disney Land, with "location based experiences" baked into an app, isn't faring as well as analysts hoped. Outside of my mom, I don't know anyone who wants to pay to follow me around Disneyland just to watch me play with my phone (not that I've asked my mom in years).
- djmips 7y ago
  Like I mentioned in another comment, there's no quality control and testing in the wild west of VR games on Steam so many of them are terrible and cause motion sickness. My hope with LBE is that the experiences will have been thoroughly researched and tested to mitigate the sickness problem at least. The other advantage to the theme park model is that the experiences last under 10 minutes.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    Unfortunately, if the Star Trek experience I saw at Dave & Busters is any indication, the QC is not there. But this has more to do with the economic structure of these companies purchasing these experiences. They sub them out to the lowest bidder, with the budget being too small to do what they want, but no willingness to compromise on the vision. It may not even be the customer's fault, I've seen first hand consultoware managers pushing projects into directions that were not in the client's best interest, but did fit their MBA trained ideas on how to squeeze money out of clients.
- gman83 7y ago
  I could see a revival of video game arcades based around VR, but again the social barriers to communication pose problems here too.
tus88 7y ago
The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv. If people don't want to wear a bit of flimsy cardboard they sure as hell don't want to wear a plastic sarcophagus on their head.
- carrozo 7y ago
  “Plastic sarcophagus” is going to make me chuckle all day, thank you.
- andybak 7y ago
  > The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv No we're not. I never had the slightest interest in 3D TV. VR was compelling enough that it made me change my main focus towards learning interactive 3D.
- realharo 7y ago
  It reminds me more of the early days of touchscreen phone apps. There were a lot of super gimmicky apps (remember the virtual beer app?), games whose sole reason for existence was that they could use the accelerometer (as a crappy steering wheel, etc.). Remember the shake gesture? Granted this is far from a perfect comparison, but my point is that the content and usage patterns of smartphones have evolved, often in a different direction than people imagined 10 years ago. Another example, early YouTube content was also very different from today's YouTube content, etc. If VR is still around 10 years from now, I expect the use cases, UI patterns, etc. will be quite different from the vision that most people have today.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Problems from "one IO device to rule them all" standpoint? Sure. Problems for capturing a huge chunk of the market and being generally useful? Not really. > The lack of any outside visibility is a huge problem for families. It is anti-social. Come on. This way you could say most of gaming is antisocial, because a lot of interesting games (most of them, to me) are single-player experience. There are many people, people with families, for whom playing games (or watching movies for that matter) is about games (and movies), and not about an excuse to be with other people. Also, you can always stream the game to another device for other family member(s) to watch. > Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. I guess it depends on how old they are, but my wife and I divide forces: one of us watches the kid, the other plays, then we switch. > Pets can't really be near you. My pet doesn't mind. It understands that the person standing there in the middle of the room (which is weird behavior) with a box on their head is ignoring it, and making sudden moves. > It's very difficult to share your experience with other people. Experience? Not really. You just stream the game. Interacting with other people while playing, Twitch-like? That's more difficult, so the showbusiness part of the gaming market has a problem, but this doesn't affect people who want to actually play a game. > I also question the accessibility of VR. At what severity of physical impairment does VR become unusable? VR requires sight, and some control over hands; depending on the game, this may expand into total motor control. The requirements for most games is fundamentally the same as for "regular" games you play with mouse+keyboard / gamepad. ---- Working AR will obviously have more total utility than VR, so it's good to pursue it. But VR exists here and now, while AR is still science-fiction (HoloLens beginning to scratch the surface, and no, overlaying stuff over image of the world captured by a camera doesn't count as proper AR). However, VR can be used to simulate, experiment with and prototype future AR applications, so it's weird to just abandon it.

moron4hire 7y ago
I've done experiments in completely audio-based "VR" experiences. I think it's possible and could even be a useful form factor for people. It definitely blurs the line between VR and AR, and I default back to my assertion that the big difference between the two is who is providing the context for the experience: the developer (VR) or the user (AR). From a technology standpoint, the Holy Grail device will be able to do both VR or AR selectably and seamlessly. The reason I think so many extant AR apps are just crappy VR apps is because the devices we have aren't able to blend VR and AR, the developers wanted (or were mandated) to use a specific system, and then shoehorned a specific design to the system they had. > no, overlaying stuff over image of the world captured by a camera doesn't count as proper AR News to me. If that is the case, then how is the HoloLens AR? Without utilization of the spatial surface recognition system, conceptually the HoloLens is nothing more than "overlaying stuff on an image of the world". That the world is viewed through plastic rather than routed through silicon doesn't make a difference. Add surface capture to a VR headset with a pass-through camera (which can be done today with off-the-shelf parts, it's just not in a commercial product yet) and I see no difference.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > If that is the case, then how is the HoloLens AR? It doesn't capture the world through the camera and re-render it on the screen.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    That is an arbitrary distinction that I have never heard anyone in the industry make before.

kolinko 7y ago

As for VR being anti-social - from my experience it's the exact opposite. I've been visiting my friends who have VR, and organised VR mini-parties at my place. The setup goes like this: you show what's in VR on a tv screen, one person plays, and others watch, taking turns. Works extremely well with Beat Saber, FNAF, and some shooters. I also did social painting in VR, where people took turns drawing in Tilt Brush, and others went in to look at it, adding to it their own stuff. Another case I saw is adding VR setup to a bigger party, which works very well with Beat Saber. VR can be just as social as couch-multiplayer on consoles, or Karaoke. If not more. As for pets, it depends on a pet, but with 2-3 dogs I saw there were no issues whatsoever.

nindalf 7y ago
There are two kinds of HN comments. The first is like the one GP made - absolutely sure of themselves and staying with certainty that there are intractable problems with something. On closer inspection you find that they have no personal experience but they’re really smart and can imagine the worst consequences of everything well. The second is the one I’m replying to. They have first hand experience and give a more balanced take on the situation. I’m happy that we get to read both kinds of comments.
- djmips 7y ago
  I'm betting, the people in charge at Google who shut down all these projects were in the first category.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Kiro 7y ago

> Small kids can't be near you while you are using VR. Pets can't really be near you. I know several parents and dog owners who have bought Oculus Quest after trying it out and they don't seem to have a problem with this. I guess they just close the door or play after bedtime. > They probably have issues interacting with their audience since they can't easily see Twitch chat I would think. All VR Twitch streamers use some kind of plugin that shows the chat either as a floating panel (in Beat Saber) or as a palette you can bring up Tilt Brush style (in VRChat).

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

> As an outsider it seems that the people bullish on VR think consumers, with respect to these problems you mentioned, will just get over it because of how compelling VR is. It seems obvious to me that they will not get over it. I agree. It reminds me of the 3D TV hype. Yes, they exist, and yes, some people use them, but it's still marginal. On an unrelated node, I still can't believe MS killed Kinect. It is fun, it is social, it's safe if you're careful, and you can be very free with your movements if you have enough space. You can both play games and get healthier. I bought most Kinect titles ever released and it kills me there will be no more.

moron4hire 7y ago
They did not kill the Kinect hardware, just the console experience.

celticninja 7y ago

I am probably a key demographic for them tech enthusiast, gamer with disposable income to cover these sorts of purchases, but the motion sickness aspect would need to be non-existent for me to spend any money on one of these.

djmips 7y ago
One thing about the wild west of VR is that even if one single game solves the motion sickness aspect there are dozens more of first time developers who through ignorance or lack of care will create games that cause motion sickness.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  Yeah, I don't know what it's like in Unreal land, but I suspect the learning curve tends to keep the amateurs and those not interested in going the extra mile to create a great experience away. With Unity, there is so little in the way of tools for creating good VR experiences, and many of the default tools and settings are actively bad for VR. Unity's default stuff is so bad for VR and I've replaced so much of it in the last three years that I'm pretty close to having my own game engine. In another year, I could be completely off of Unity and running on just Xamarin.
mrguyorama 7y ago
For many people (me included), the motion sickness aspect IS non-existent.

dyarosla 7y ago

Definitely the opinion of an outsider because all of these are non-problems. Other commenters have mentioned re: the anti-social / streaming / pets point but I wanted to touch on the outside visibility one. Let me start by saying that I was a big VR skeptic until the Oculus Quest. I too thought that the outside visibility thing would be a base advantage that AR would just have over VR forever-but- surprisingly- the passthrough camera view [0] is more than good enough for several of the interactions/views you'd want to see outside of the device. You can see others, their reactions, and interact, all while having the device on your head. Soon the passthrough will also be triggerable at a moments notice too. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbh5vZaW_Dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbh5vZaW_Dc

unlinked_dll 7y ago

>It is anti-social that's why location based experiences (LBE) is the solution. Different monetization route, it's basically a theme park model (invest in cutting edge tech/high value content) and maximize throughput like a VR "ride." Having gone through a number of the experiences I'd highly recommend them. Better than anything you can get at home, it's a fun outing with your friends, and the content is pretty awesome.

fragmede 7y ago
On other other hand, Star Wars Disney Land, with "location based experiences" baked into an app, isn't faring as well as analysts hoped. Outside of my mom, I don't know anyone who wants to pay to follow me around Disneyland just to watch me play with my phone (not that I've asked my mom in years).
djmips 7y ago
Like I mentioned in another comment, there's no quality control and testing in the wild west of VR games on Steam so many of them are terrible and cause motion sickness. My hope with LBE is that the experiences will have been thoroughly researched and tested to mitigate the sickness problem at least. The other advantage to the theme park model is that the experiences last under 10 minutes.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  Unfortunately, if the Star Trek experience I saw at Dave & Busters is any indication, the QC is not there. But this has more to do with the economic structure of these companies purchasing these experiences. They sub them out to the lowest bidder, with the budget being too small to do what they want, but no willingness to compromise on the vision. It may not even be the customer's fault, I've seen first hand consultoware managers pushing projects into directions that were not in the client's best interest, but did fit their MBA trained ideas on how to squeeze money out of clients.
gman83 7y ago
I could see a revival of video game arcades based around VR, but again the social barriers to communication pose problems here too.

tus88 7y ago

The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv. If people don't want to wear a bit of flimsy cardboard they sure as hell don't want to wear a plastic sarcophagus on their head.

carrozo 7y ago
“Plastic sarcophagus” is going to make me chuckle all day, thank you.
andybak 7y ago
> The people bullish on VR are the same crowd who were bullish on 3D tv No we're not. I never had the slightest interest in 3D TV. VR was compelling enough that it made me change my main focus towards learning interactive 3D.
realharo 7y ago
It reminds me more of the early days of touchscreen phone apps. There were a lot of super gimmicky apps (remember the virtual beer app?), games whose sole reason for existence was that they could use the accelerometer (as a crappy steering wheel, etc.). Remember the shake gesture? Granted this is far from a perfect comparison, but my point is that the content and usage patterns of smartphones have evolved, often in a different direction than people imagined 10 years ago. Another example, early YouTube content was also very different from today's YouTube content, etc. If VR is still around 10 years from now, I expect the use cases, UI patterns, etc. will be quite different from the vision that most people have today.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]