5 ms·

Well then you can come meet me and about 150 other friends. I pretty much play VR only at this point. Any time I try a typical flat screen 3D game something is

Well then you can come meet me and about 150 other friends. I pretty much play VR only at this point. Any time I try a typical flat screen 3D game something is missing. The frustration of having a camera stick. The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. And of course most of all the feeling of "presence". The Citadel on the horizon in HL2 (old reference sorry) is a pretty picture but nothing more. The volcano in Farpoint is 3 miles high with a 15 mile high plumb of smoke and I feel that as though I was there. It's like a picture of the grand canyon vs actually being at the grand canyon. They aren't comparable and I can't go back to not feeling like "being there". This isn't a "gimmick" like 3D movies where they stick things in your face or throw stuff at you just show off the tech. It's qualitatively different. If there was more content I was interested in I'd spent even more time in VR. Unfortunately there isn't that much AAA VR content and worse for me I can't take horror in VR, it's way to intense, so I probably won't be able to play the new VR Half Life coming out in March. VR today is like an Apple Newton in 1993. Everyone laughed. Heck in 2007 PDAs where just for geeks. Then in 2008 Apple's PDA shipped, the iPhone, and now everyone has a PDA in their pocket to the point that's you'd be considered strange not to have one. It might be a while, it might even be another 15 years but VR will happen. It's just too compelling when it's good.

wpietri 7y ago
I'm glad to hear there are a few people happy with the current stuff. But I'll note that in the 1990s wave of VR there were people who would talk exactly like this. It was amazing; they loved it; the tech and content wasn't there yet, but surely in 10 or 20 years, we'd all be spending all our time immersed. And I'll note that James Cameron, director of Avatar, has essentially the same belief about 3D movies: https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2428530/the-problem-3d-has-had-according-to-james-cameron https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2428530/the-problem-3d-has-... I'm still unconvinced. And I'll note that plenty of people get the feeling of presence from novels, from comic books, from movies, from games. Getting lost in a world isn't a property of technology. It's something humans have been doing since we were telling stories around a campfire. When we want that, that is. As you say, we just as often want distance from our experiences. And quite often we're indifferent to immersion; it's not material to the experience we seek. Movie tickets sales are down 25% since 2000. That might be in part because some people have fancy home theaters that are nearly as good, the at-home 100" screen with 7.1 sound. But I think it's mostly because people are happy watching things on laptops and tablets and phones. They mostly don't want to "be there", however much that horrifies the Martin Scorseses of the world.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Cameron made a great 3D movie that spawned a generation of shitty counterfeit imitations. That article is about how Cameron feels 3D cinema was poisoned by a glut of cheap fake 3D, and he wants real 3D tech to develop so people stop faking it, and he wants a no glasses solution. Is he wrong? People always had TV. Obviously home viewing is winning because it's getting better and it's much cheaper and more convenient.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    I believe he is wrong. Sure, it's possible that Cameron is the only person who can make a good 3D movie. But the explanation that's more consistent with the history of 3D is that he was the person to get in early and ride the novelty wave. Once the novelty wore off, people stopped bothering. It's true that home viewing is winning because it's more convenient. But my point is that it's obviously worse in terms of viewer experience and the technical qualities that VR proponents believe will finally lead to VR success.
tripzilch 7y ago
> The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. but "reaching out" in VR equates to waving around a VR wand in space and pressing buttons on it, I'm not sure what's the difference?
- andybak 7y ago
  Your hands are in the same physical location as the object you're interacting with. It removes one of the planks of artificiality and improves the chance your brain will stop signalling that experience isn't real. I don't entirely agree with OP. I enjoy VR even when it uses the gamepad. If the iteractions have a good "in-game" explanation - no matter how far-fetched - then your brain will stop raising the alarm. So if the game gives a good justification for pushing buttons in-world then that will do the trick.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    > Your hands are in the same physical location as the object you're interacting with. But, they literally aren't. The object is in virtual space, and your hands are interacting with two controllers (wands) that you cannot see and this interaction is then translated to control the virtual space. I suppose, with practice they would become more of an extension of yourself? But that's not what I assume what was meant with "having to press the action button instead of just reaching out and touch the thing". Maybe the VR I tried just had really shitty controllers?
    - andybak 7y ago
      When you're in VR the space that matters to you is mostly the virtual space. If you move a controler and some representation of that controller matches it's position exactly then you feel that is where your hand is. The fact that your hands are invisible is quickly forgotten. (Fake avatar hands can often actually reduce immersion - uncanny valley time...) It's similar to tool use. Tools become an extension of your body and you tend to perceive them as such. Musicians, sportsmen etc are familiar with this feeling.
taloft 7y ago
This reads like someone who has had VR for a limited time. Yes, it’s very impressive at first, and people write posts like these. After a few years, many realize that the resolution is low, the headsets are uncomfortable, and the experiences are limited. It still has a long way to go. I do agree that it can happen, but it needs to be much better, similar to the state of AR,

wpietri 7y ago

I'm glad to hear there are a few people happy with the current stuff. But I'll note that in the 1990s wave of VR there were people who would talk exactly like this. It was amazing; they loved it; the tech and content wasn't there yet, but surely in 10 or 20 years, we'd all be spending all our time immersed. And I'll note that James Cameron, director of Avatar, has essentially the same belief about 3D movies: https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2428530/the-problem-3d-has-had-according-to-james-cameron https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2428530/the-problem-3d-has-... I'm still unconvinced. And I'll note that plenty of people get the feeling of presence from novels, from comic books, from movies, from games. Getting lost in a world isn't a property of technology. It's something humans have been doing since we were telling stories around a campfire. When we want that, that is. As you say, we just as often want distance from our experiences. And quite often we're indifferent to immersion; it's not material to the experience we seek. Movie tickets sales are down 25% since 2000. That might be in part because some people have fancy home theaters that are nearly as good, the at-home 100" screen with 7.1 sound. But I think it's mostly because people are happy watching things on laptops and tablets and phones. They mostly don't want to "be there", however much that horrifies the Martin Scorseses of the world.

lonelappde 7y ago
Cameron made a great 3D movie that spawned a generation of shitty counterfeit imitations. That article is about how Cameron feels 3D cinema was poisoned by a glut of cheap fake 3D, and he wants real 3D tech to develop so people stop faking it, and he wants a no glasses solution. Is he wrong? People always had TV. Obviously home viewing is winning because it's getting better and it's much cheaper and more convenient.
- wpietri 7y ago
  I believe he is wrong. Sure, it's possible that Cameron is the only person who can make a good 3D movie. But the explanation that's more consistent with the history of 3D is that he was the person to get in early and ride the novelty wave. Once the novelty wore off, people stopped bothering. It's true that home viewing is winning because it's more convenient. But my point is that it's obviously worse in terms of viewer experience and the technical qualities that VR proponents believe will finally lead to VR success.

tripzilch 7y ago

> The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. but "reaching out" in VR equates to waving around a VR wand in space and pressing buttons on it, I'm not sure what's the difference?

andybak 7y ago
Your hands are in the same physical location as the object you're interacting with. It removes one of the planks of artificiality and improves the chance your brain will stop signalling that experience isn't real. I don't entirely agree with OP. I enjoy VR even when it uses the gamepad. If the iteractions have a good "in-game" explanation - no matter how far-fetched - then your brain will stop raising the alarm. So if the game gives a good justification for pushing buttons in-world then that will do the trick.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  > Your hands are in the same physical location as the object you're interacting with. But, they literally aren't. The object is in virtual space, and your hands are interacting with two controllers (wands) that you cannot see and this interaction is then translated to control the virtual space. I suppose, with practice they would become more of an extension of yourself? But that's not what I assume what was meant with "having to press the action button instead of just reaching out and touch the thing". Maybe the VR I tried just had really shitty controllers?
  - andybak 7y ago
    When you're in VR the space that matters to you is mostly the virtual space. If you move a controler and some representation of that controller matches it's position exactly then you feel that is where your hand is. The fact that your hands are invisible is quickly forgotten. (Fake avatar hands can often actually reduce immersion - uncanny valley time...) It's similar to tool use. Tools become an extension of your body and you tend to perceive them as such. Musicians, sportsmen etc are familiar with this feeling.

taloft 7y ago

This reads like someone who has had VR for a limited time. Yes, it’s very impressive at first, and people write posts like these. After a few years, many realize that the resolution is low, the headsets are uncomfortable, and the experiences are limited. It still has a long way to go. I do agree that it can happen, but it needs to be much better, similar to the state of AR,